|
Post by stutefish on Aug 13, 2009 13:03:01 GMT -4
Just food for thought... It seems that the hammer head hit the ground first and the shaft followed it with some delay as the vane touched the ground before the shaft. There are two main alternatives: 1) either the astronaut released the feather with an initial rotational momentum, but this is usually accompanied by also providing an initial vertical velocity v0_y to the feather speeding it down faster than the hammer? or 2) there is some drag due to the presence of atmosphere where a heavy feather is falling down? By what process did you select these two alternatives as the "main" alternatives? And regarding the first alternative you propose, by what method did you determine that releasing the feather would impart additional vertical velocity to it? Regarding the second alternative, how do you account for the fact that this is a short segment of a much longer piece of footage, and that the complete footage shows many clear indications that there is no atmosphere present at the time of the drop? Please note that you have proposed these two specific alternatives. Common courtesy requires that you now discuss all the technical details and implications of these two alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Aug 11, 2009 12:59:57 GMT -4
I have to say, I'm intrigued by the whole "maybe if I just keep picking away at this one thread, I'll be able to unravel the whole sweater" approach.
johnsmith, please let us know when you encounter a scene that actually was simulated with the "slow down technique".
(Also, any technical details about this "slow down technique", including its capabilities and limitations, would be fascinating. Do you know any of these details?)
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 31, 2009 17:10:36 GMT -4
Nope, the hardcore deniers will continue to deny regardless of the evidence presented. Ain't that the truth, ain't that the truth... Luckily for us, johnsmith isn't a hardcore denier... just a hardcore finder of anomalies in low-quality video.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 31, 2009 15:03:11 GMT -4
... theoretical alternatives could be considered to a certain extent without ignoring them due to lack of experimental evidence. I'm curious, johnsmith: What theoretical alternatives would you like us to consider? Do you have any evidence to support them? Besides the observation of the free fall, below are some more observations that keep me undecided. Undecided about what? It is convenient to classify oneself as HDisB and from an elevated position demand definite answers from whoever 'threatens' the status quo. Good thing that's not what we're doing here. We don't care about the status quo. We demand answers from everybody. We demand answers from NASA, too. The thing about NASA is, it's provided lots of answers. Literally tons of answers. And the more we study NASA's answers, the further we analyze the details of NASA's claims and evidence, the better and better they look. You seem to think that because all you've done is spent a few days fiddling around with a single, low-quality video clip, that's all we've done as well. In fact we've done a lot more. We've done a lot more to investigate NASA's claims. And we've done a lot more to investigate the claims of hoax theorists. You call it "demanding answers". We call it "asking you to catch up". Really? As far as I can tell, you're not actually questioning anything. Just finding more and more anomalies in a low-quality video clip that we all expect to have anomalies. When are you going to present us with some unexpected anomalies, that actually raise questions about the Apollo Project? Or do you mean to say that you question everything except the Apollo Project? Because aside from one little slip-up early in this thread, that's what it looks like. Which discussions? The only thing you're discussing here are anomalies in a low-quality video clip. And as far as I can tell, you have no intention of ever ending this discussion. As to visiting the Moon sites again, if visiting and examining those sites the first time didn't end the "discussions",what makes you think a return visit will make any difference? And oh, what I wouldn't give, right now, for BAUT's rules about giving direct answers to direct questions in a timely manner, on penalty of suspension and banning.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 30, 2009 18:28:50 GMT -4
But this is a hoax theory forum, according to my understanding it means that theoretical alternatives could be considered to a certain extent without ignoring them due to lack of experimental evidence. Your understanding is incorrect. The purpose of this forum is for hoax theorists to present the experimental and observational evidence that supports their theory, and discuss that evidence with people from a variety of backgrounds (including several who are experts in the relevant subjects). If your theoretical alternative doesn't have any supporting evidence, then it quite properly does not merit any consideration, on this board or any other. If you're looking for a board where people like to consider theoretical alternatives that lack supporting evidence, just for fun, may I recommend AboveTopSecret.com or Godlike Productions? Agreed. It is a boring story about hammer and feather on the Moon instead. No. No it isn't. The story of the hammer and feather on the Moon is a wonderful, inspiring, and exciting story--not least because it's a true story. But the story you're working on here--the fourteen-page-and-counting Tale of Low Quality Footage Is Low Quality Footage--is boring and inane. Even the fact that it's true doesn't really improve it much.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 30, 2009 14:26:45 GMT -4
Of course, I knew that the said height is unreal, but mentioning about it is a good beginning for a story to unfold. It might make a better beginning if you ever actually managed to move past it and unfold this alleged "story". Twelve pages in, and we're still at the beginning? You don't seem to be much of a storyteller, johnsmith.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 29, 2009 18:05:12 GMT -4
I share my observations on the basis of the 80 Mb MOV video.When you work with data of questionable provenance and quality, you bear the burden to prove your findings are applicable to the original data and not artifacts of the way in which you obtained the data. Frame count in convenience Apollo video downloads is not a reliable measure of elapsed time. I do not believe anything at this point, I am still undecided.What is the question about which you are undecided? Jay, I've decided that I have no clue what the past forty or so posts are about. Is it just me? It's not just you. Well, I think I have a pretty good clue what the posts are about... I just have no idea how johnsmith expects to get there from here.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2009 23:04:06 GMT -4
Why? What useful information will I learn, if I view this image? Well, I do not have an intention to state that my observations are useful. I am trying to study this case without drawing definite conclusions, it is interesting for me from analytical point of view. For example, in the corrected image one can see a red arrow in frame 28 pointing to the first location the hammer head is detected after passing through the highly illuminated middle part of the free-fall path. It seems that this vertical position does not fit well with the assumptions of 33, 34, 35 or 36 frames. Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss this kind of analysis on a video footage analysis discussion board, rather than an Apollo hoax claims discussion board? Why this thread, here, in this forum? It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know about the Apollo Program. You've been very careful not to introduce any claims about the Apollo program. You've been very prompt about backing off of any appearance of introducing such claims. You even admit that this particular footage is not particularly useful in determining anything concrete about the Apollo program. So why, of all the forums in all the Internet, do you bring it up here? (Why not in the "Reality of Apollo" subforum, here on this board, for example?)
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2009 17:48:09 GMT -4
This is more like a "Catch-22" situation, one cannot state anything with certainty until having the opportunity to examine the original footage. Also, the said footage remains out of reach. Where's the catch? Why can't we simply acknowledge that the footage doesn't support any strong claims, and move on? What's wrong with that? A catch-22 is a situation with no "right" solution. In such a situation, all the options result in failure. One way this hammer-feather footage situation could be a catch-22 is if you were compelled to reach a conclusion based on this footage, but were unable to reach a conclusion based on this footage. Is that what you are implying, johnsmith? Are you somehow compelled to reach a conclusion based on this footage?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2009 17:07:56 GMT -4
Frames 17&18 appear to have the same timecode as well. Thanks, Drewid, for pointing that out. Actually, the time codes are different. My bad, it was an oversight by my side, please view the corrected image at img139.imageshack.us/img139/1044/frames.jpg. Why? What useful information will I learn, if I view this image?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 28, 2009 13:30:33 GMT -4
Full size: img195.imageshack.us/img195/5173/framesd.jpgI count 33 frames (equivalent to 0.99 m) excluding the frame repetition (see frame 22b). In the two frames preceding frame 1, the astronaut is still holding the hammer and slightly moving it in the attempt to release it. Frame 22b is not an exact replica of frame 22 as the background intensity pattern slightly changes (this becomes noticeable after enlarging the view to 800%). This is a typical case when a frame is being scanned twice. It seems that the person(s) who prepared the MOV file scanned the NTSC tape in 50-frame strips where the last frame of the preceding strip coincides with the first frame of the next strip (scanned one more time). The frame rate is not 10 (or 9.99) color frames per second, it is 29.97 color frames per second obtained from 59.94 color (R, G, or B) fields per second (I already explained this in detail). Whenever a color field (R, G, or B) is being received, it is immediately being used, so that the progression of the bright hammer head on dark background is immediately noticeable in such frames. The data rate of the original NTSC signal and the MOV file are the same, so no pulldown tricks are needed to produce the video. The frame count is quite reliable actually. Edited to resize the posted image.So what? Seriously, so what?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 27, 2009 13:41:06 GMT -4
Another discrepancy can be observed in the 80 Mb MOV file when counting backwards 11 and 12 frames from the first frame when the hammer head is clearly seen impacting the ground. The said frames are identical as the image freezes for two frames. But we already know that this footage is unreliable and glitchy. We quite rightly expect to see discrepancies all over the place. How is it interesting to point them out? And why do it in a subforum intended to propose and discuss Apollo Hoax theories?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 23, 2009 17:07:28 GMT -4
That a HB loves the uncertainty as it can be twisted to fit their argument. If it was easily measured then it would not crop up, it would be avoided. In that case, I would surely appreciate it if johnsmith would stop flailing about on the uncertainty, and get along with presenting his argument. I mean, I think we can all agree, as of Page 1 of this thread, that the video is uncertain. So what? johnsmith, to what interesting and useful result do you expect from this 8-page discussion of the uncertainty of this video footage--an uncertainty that most of us were already well aware of before the thread even began?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 23, 2009 13:40:32 GMT -4
So... the frame rate is unreliable, the video quality is unreliable, and the altitude of the drop is "approximate".
What, exactly, should we expect to learn from this video footage? Anything useful at all?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jul 20, 2009 18:36:30 GMT -4
I haven't taken a real close look at very many. Some of the ones I looked at, after researching these guys like JW, and after reading some of the explainations on these forums and other places, the reasons given by people like you are mainly correct, in my opinion. But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially pixled over the black areas. The square pixles are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? JPEG artifacts, perhaps? Can you tell us what specific images you blew up in this fashion?
|
|