|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 27, 2005 8:47:49 GMT -4
Apollo 17 "wire"For the record, the link provided by Margamatix www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rmdoes indeed claim that there are wires holding up the astronauts, and shows a scene of the Apollo 17 flag and an antenna reflecting the sunlight with a similar flare at the top. This is, of course, "a wire," as far as the hoax-promoters are concerned. However, close examination of the Spacecraft Films DVDs, disc 2, "EVA 1," "First Television," with the image filling a TV screen, reveals some interesting points. First of all the film continuously shows the astronauts from 0:8:35 until 0:14:56, a total of 6 minutes 21 seconds, both out beyond the flag and very close to the TV camera on the rover. Never at any time during their different activities is there evidence of wires holding them up. Their antennas can be seen regularly when they are side-on to the TV camera, sometimes dark, sometimes light, and sometimes brightly reflecting the sun. At 0:10:56 the image changes to a darker one, with the lunar surface going from medium grey to dark brown. It changes back again at 0:16:02. From the booklet that comes with the DVDs, I guess that this is a changeover from videotape to kinescope or vice versa. It's not unusual and happens at other times during the flag-raising and, for one instance of a few, between 1:02:36 and 1:04:36 during the ALSEP deployment. During these darker phases, the overall image quality is much lower and there is a type of audio tape print-through, when dialogue can be heard faintly four or five seconds before it actually occurs. Additionally, and of importance regarding "wires," there are many artefacts that appear briefly on the screen -- colour banding, random white spots, dark spots and sometimes a number of white spots that can all be seen at once. Most of these last for one to three frames. The particular flash in Margamatix's link occurs at 12 minutes 10 seconds during "First Television." In fact, there are two flashes from the antenna, both lasting for three frames. Neither of these two flashes are responsible for the flash at the top of the screen, which lasts for two frames and begins four frames after the beginning of the second antenna flash, just as it fades completely away.About one second later another similar flash can be seen at the bottom of the screen and also lasts for two frames. It is unrelated to anything happening on screen, so I believe that the flash at the top of the screen is just another random artefact and just coincidentally occurs above the antenna, but is not in any way evidence of a wire. If it was, it should also have occurred during the first antenna flash. <Fixed times to show that they are mm:ss, not hh:mm>
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 26, 2005 23:21:55 GMT -4
...you can quite clearly see that the astronaut is suspended on a wire. Then show us the "clear" wire. And please don't pick out another Aulis piece of video that shows the sun glinting off the antenna on top of someone's PLSS and try to tell us, "See there's the wire!" And don't assume that because some pixels in the TV camera freak out because of the reflected sun that that's also evidence of "the wire." We've heard it all before and it's all been thoroughly debunked. Margamatix, you do have to use your brains to get along on this board. Coming up with wild, illogical, unsupported claims (as Aulis does) just won't do. You have to produce evidence, not uneducated guesswork. Do you even understand what Jay has carefully explained above about your logical fallacies? If he (or anyone) can show that you have committed such a grave error, your argument has no value whatsoever and can be dismissed out of hand. You have to rethink it. Look up logical fallacies on the internet -- having some understanding of them helps you think critically and argue accurately. I have to wonder why you even bother with Aulis. David Percy doesn't even know that to estimate the height of the sun in a particular photo, a true right-angled triangle must be visible. That is, the camera must be perpendicular to the shadow. He even tries to tell us that shadows from the sun should be parallel. He seems to have not heard of vanishing points, and in his book "Dark Moon" on page 22 he has two pictures of trees casting shadows with the captions "parallel shadows." The biggest joke of all is that if you carefully lay straightedges along the shadows you find that they merge near the top of the adjacent photo. His own shadows are far from parallel. On the same page, this experienced photographer says, "it is simply not possible to have variations in shadow direction on flat terrain... within any one picture, if that photograph is genuine." The guy is talking nonsense, which you would know if you understood perspective or were an experienced photographer. Why trust him? <Fixed typo> |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 19, 2005 9:37:30 GMT -4
I no longer have the technical books I did when a professional photographer, but I think the term that applies here is "halation." Here's one link that illustrates it (page down to "Anti-halation") : www.sapiensman.com/photo/Photographic%20tems.htmFilms of the 60s and 70s most likely didn't have anti-halation layers that are as good as modern ones, and there's also a possibility that transparency film may have behaved differently to negative film. Generally, halo diffusion isn't particularly noticeable, but in the lunar surface photos it is the size of the fiducials' stems, one-tenth of a millimetre, that make it noticeable. Light only has to produce halo diffusion extending one-fortieth to one-twentieth of a millimetre from both sides of a fiducial stem to produce a noticeable effect. Edited to add: This site shows how to produce the effect yourself: www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 6:19:08 GMT -4
The picture is taken on the side of Mount Hadley Delta and the astronauts at times had trouble keeping the rover in one spot due to the slope, so they sometimes parked it with the uphill wheels in a crater. Doing this had the added bonus of making life easier for Ed Fendall when he panned the TV camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 5:29:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 6:04:32 GMT -4
I wonder if any of our hoax-believers are knowledgeable enough to point out the bible in this picture (AS15-88-11901) and tell us how it got there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 4:26:01 GMT -4
Earth Orbit: Jack White's claims latest claims on the Aulis website have been thoroughly debunked at the Education Forum by experts from both here and the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=6e3ee05ea943355884420c570d0a0f54&showforum=209Look at all of the first four pages -- Jack White started posting in late January 2005. Should you spend a few hours there, studying every post in minute detail, you should be able to hear the sound of a mind slamming shut. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 16, 2005 4:12:17 GMT -4
Videos or DVDs that include the TV transmission of the Apollo 16 lunar module liftoff show the bottoms of the panels getting blasted up by the exhaust from the ascent engine, part of which is deflected upwards by the descent stage. They stay up for a few seconds then come partly down again, probably due to the acceleration of the ascent stage.
Back in November I picked up a DVD which included a good-quality full version of the movie "Apollo 16: Nothing So Hidden...", along with two other documentaries, for only NZ$7.00. The liftoff is shown at 24 minutes 6 seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 9, 2005 21:58:03 GMT -4
The pole of the object matches the mast of the S-band antenna. Would anyone else like to bet that Turbonium will flatly deny this?  Perhaps he'll claim that it's the stamen of a lily. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 9, 2005 8:28:36 GMT -4
Yes, that 's true. But if you look at your frames 7 and 8 from the top they are examples such as I posted which show movement of the object without movement from the camera, nor lens rotation. You haven't properly read the posts above and made the effort required to understand them. No-one mentioned lens roatation, only rotation of camera flares, which doesn't require the lens to rotate. Most of what you're talking about are just artifacts in your own images (not in the subject), combined with your painfully-obvious ignorance of of the technicalities involved. There are REAL image experts trying to help you here, but you don't even understand what they are telling you. You see a static background -- the experts see lens flares, and show them to you. You see a "bare arm", the experts see a folded antenna, and take great pains to show its similarity to your "arm." You see "movement of the object without movement from the camera" -- the experts see the opposite and explain it to you. And you still don't seem to get it. The white area on the left of frames 7 and 8 is a lens flare -- nothing to do with the object. So how do you explain that the object is moving and not the camera? Take just one instance of what I say above: Do you fully understand the use of the tricolour filter in the TV cameras (post Apollo 11) and how it produced a colour image? If you don't then you can't understand the posts here. You may indeed think it is disparaging, but in my opinion you are doing the same as Richard Hoagland -- fiddling with images, looking at individual pixels and, with your lack of knowledge, seeing crystal castles. Rorschaching. This is nothing new to many of us here. We've even had to do some reverse-rorschaching, turning track lights into ink blots: www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=313510#313510Nor is your behaviour anything new. Just the same old tedious "same old" that we've seen over and over and over from hoax-believers. Makes us wonder if you're just jerking chains. Fixed typos |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 7, 2005 23:30:50 GMT -4
kiwi have you looked at the video segment I linked earlier? It also, imo, moves like an arm...... Yes, and bringing to bear my experience as a photographer since 1968 and my knowledge of Apollo , I certainly don't see a bare arm. Nor do I see the object moving like an arm. I see a stationary object and the effects of a moving camera, and the object looks most like the folded antenna. But your mind is made up, so we mustn't bother you with the facts, right? Next time, please don't mimic the usual hoax-believer's fault and instead have the good sense to start a new thread when you start a new subject. This thread was about what the Apollo 11 astronauts were doing during a telecast. I submitted useful information about this (the transcripts of the first two telecasts) and asked questions about which parts BS had used in his video, but everyone got sidetracked into your rorschaching, which should have been in another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 7, 2005 3:47:14 GMT -4
Remember that the TV camera exposure was set for viewing in the shadows; when it looked at the antenna roll, the sunlit side was very overexposed. This would wash-out the color, and make it appear white (whereas the side that is only lit by reflection would show its ruddy color. The transition would show intermediate shades, i.e. the "flesh tones"). Excellent point, Countzero, but I'm a little scared that it could be lost on Turbonium. Because he seemed to not understand the very simple point we photographers understand -- that because of the massive differences in exposures required, it is impossible to have stars and anything sunlit showing in the same photo -- he may also not understand that overexposure would lighten the antenna. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 4, 2005 8:53:50 GMT -4
...the arm image appears just as the camera pans in the very direction we see the antenna... I haven't viewed the video, but could the panning have affected the apparent dimensions of the object because of the use of the tri-colour wheel to produce a colour image? |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 3, 2005 5:30:05 GMT -4
...we lack the ability to describe fuzzy images well. In order to describe an abstract or unfamiliar shape to someone else, we must it relate it to something that the listener understands or recognises. We use terms similar to "like" or "a bit like" to help in our describing. I don't at all see a "bare arm" in the pictures. Certainly, the object has features that vaguely resemble those of an arm, but the proportions look wrong to me, and "looks like" doesn't mean the same as "is." Finally, Mr Occam forces me to settle for the folded antenna, which the shape looks more like than anything else. A very common hoax-believer argument is "Looks like x, therefore must be x." That's Harald's rorschaching. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 30, 2005 11:08:05 GMT -4
kiwi I'm not ignoring your info - the fact is that it was phantomwolf who brought that subject over here from another forum where I was posting.. It was not my intention of discussing the stars issue here in the first place - so please don't get antsy about it if I forgot to post back about the stars. I do appreciate the effort you are putting in to answer my questions, so don't feel it's a waste of your time. OK? Thanks. Good points. If I sounded a little harsh it's because it looked like things were shaping up the way sts60 later described: Just be aware that many, many such "anomalous" bits have been waved by some pretty obnoxious HBers, who went on and on about how one odd-looking shadow conclusively proved Apollo to be a fake, only to be thoroughly dismantled by some of the resident experts here.
You have been quite civil so far, I hasten to add, and welcome to the board. It's just that a lot of the people we've seen have made up for their complete lack of relevant knowledge with an enormous amount of arrogance, and have been impervious to all attempts at educating them. If the latter sounds kind of snooty, consider that a number of regulars here have put a great deal of time into understanding the Apollo record, and into reconstructing scenarios in some detail. Also, some are engineers, electronics wizards, or thoroughly competent photographers.So this time I decided to be a killjoy early on and try to stop things turning out the way they so often have for us regulars. Glad to see you don't appear to be in the same league as some of the dopes we've had the misfortune to deal with. As I said here: "Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators." And just to prove I'm not a joyless curmudgeon, see Apollo Astronauts - Joking Around. |
|
