|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 25, 2006 7:40:55 GMT -4
Does this include the footage of Buzz punching BS?yeap .. its in there .. that and BS running after most of the astronauts with his bible asking them to swear on it that they went to the moon .. i love Armstong's line .. "knowing you mister sibrel this is probably a fake bible" my question after seeing "something funny" and "astronauts" is this .. what kind of religious agenda does BS have ? in "something funny" hes makes points about the tower of babel and the arrogance of man in the face of god (or something like that) .. and in "astronauts" he runs around with a bible .. i smell a religious conspiracy .....
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 21, 2006 12:10:12 GMT -4
i'm sure its been discussed before but ..
i just watched the first 10 minutes of astronauts gone wild by our friend bart sibel .. and all i can say is that it made me sick to my stomach to see the way this ahole is going after the astraunauts. these guys had more guts than anyone i can think of and were pionners in space exploration ... but still only human and with the passage of time we often forget details and little things .. (do you remember this conversation from 30 years ago .. probably not) nonsense and total lack of respect .. if anything .. for the fact that they are old men
if i had been buzz aldrin i would have done exactly the same and decked him for the count .. its what he deserved !
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 19, 2006 11:43:48 GMT -4
thats the unfortunate downside of having a society with freedom of speech .. even crazy nutters get a voice .. i think the best thing is to not give them attention and never ever buy their crap books .. it's what theyre in it for .. attention and a quick buck on the imagination of the public
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 16, 2006 12:31:46 GMT -4
Did he say anything? Why not invite him over here?
i sent him the explaination .. if he's gonna be bothered to actually read it and understand even the basics of it is another story ..
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 16, 2006 8:31:20 GMT -4
If you haven't checked out clavius.org yet, go have a ball. There is some fascinating stuff there and it's pretty entertaining to say the least. ive read alot of it already ! amazing and very informative !
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 16, 2006 8:21:27 GMT -4
the whole argument my friend was making semmed too basic anyways .. it literally was "they used x ammount of fuel to leave earth so they should have used 1/6 of x on the moon" ... not considering any other factors, the first one being that the object being lifted is no longer a massive rocket full of fuel .. but JayUtah explained it in great detail !
another useless agument in the bullsh*t bin !
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 15, 2006 16:01:17 GMT -4
amazing .. i actually understand rocket science now .. ok well maybe not all of it .. but i now have a much batter grasp of it !
thank you very much !!
i hate running out of arguments in a discussion simply because im not completely knowledgable about this stuff .. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 15, 2006 12:40:17 GMT -4
thanks guys .. ill get back to you on finding that dubious equasion
keep up the good work !!
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 15, 2006 12:06:09 GMT -4
first i would like to state that i am not a conspiracy nutter i beleive in science and proof and i think man walked on the moon
i had a discussion recently with a "no-mooner" and the only point that made him beleive in the "we never walked on the moon" stuff is that he saw some math equasion proving that it is impossible that the lander could have acheived orbit with the ammount of fuel it had and weight .. supposedly the numbers just didnt work
i am not a mathematician or a physicist .. but if someone could please explain to me the basics of that and i can pass that along it would be greatly appreciated
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 18, 2006 23:13:36 GMT -4
This is probably old news, but there are others not too impressed with Loose Change... finally ! debunk the f**kers ! i wonder how many people who lost family on 9-11 like loose change .....
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 20, 2006 16:31:11 GMT -4
The positions of the stars are no different on the Moon than they are on Earth.if i can add to your comment there .. that reminded me of a video i saw a while back www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i6B7HzijSoits old but it gives a pretty good idea of how far you would have to go to have a change of perspective on the stars .. the moon just isnt far enough to make a difference
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jun 20, 2006 14:49:34 GMT -4
One i heard ..
the conversation kinda went like this
"in no pictures can we see stars .. thats suspicious" "well thats because of the camera settings, exposure time etc" .. (i explained it better than that) "why not set it to see stars and point the camera upwards then..." "they didnt go up there to take pictures of stars .. we can do it from here" "i would have .. it would have proven i was up there .." " ...... so how's the kids ?"
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jul 23, 2006 11:24:13 GMT -4
What if they were to shoot the astronauts in a partial vacuum supported on Peter Pan style stage flying gear. They shoot it on film very fast perhaps 200 frames per second. They then take each frame and use a graphic artist to draw out or in what ever they like. Then play this on a screen at what ever speed (frame per second that looks like they are in low g) and shoot it with a low resolution TV camera.
Hey presto a giant leap for animation!
one thing i can say about that is that in 1969 the technology to have a graphic artist remove wires from a few hours of video wasnt as easy as it is today .. even moreso if the footage is shot a higher frame rate since it ends up being more frames to edit ... 1 hour at 24 frames a second is 86400 frames .. thats a heck of alot of images to edit by hand .. multyply that by whatever framerate you want a by the number of total hours of video shot on the moon ... i dont see it happening. even today with the best artists and computer software it would be a daunting task
but lets say for arguments sake that it was shot at double normal speed of 48 frames per second (im not sure a what framerate the tv cameras on the moon were shooting but lets say 24 for now..) .. the camera shutter end up going much faster and the motion blur is greatly reduced. a bit like those high speed photography shots of water droplets. everything becomes very sharp and the high speed trickery is apparent.
... and theres no such thing as a partial vaccum movie studio
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jul 5, 2006 12:42:02 GMT -4
it would be totally possible today to acheive all of the lunar landing visual aspects in great detail .I disagree, or at least I disagree that you could fake Apollo with any realistic amount of resources.i totally agree with you on the fact that the ammount of material that would have to be faked is impossible to do .. or the fact of having the material and footprints there .. i was merely stating that with today's CGI, well applied with good technical research and a great ammount of time given to the artists, we could reproduce the visual aspects of the landings in a reasonable ammount of images or sequences .. like for a documentary or tv series .. the ammount of material produced by the actual apollo landing is staggering and could not be reproduced with perfection on every image and sequence .. its just too much CGI is always about time versus the ammount of money involved .. if you have a week to do a hard shot i will not look as good as if you had a month .. but a month is gonna cost way more this is a little off topic though .. i apologise for that !
|
|
|
Post by mndwrp on Jul 5, 2006 10:35:07 GMT -4
(It might be possible with today's CGI to reproduce the dust motion.)I can confirm that .. it is quite possible and fairly easy to do (i work on CGI for movie special effects) but what happens on most productions like From the Earth to the Moon is that it becomes too expensive to have cgi dust added in all shots and most people viewing the show wont tell the difference anyway .. so doing these effects live on set is a way to save a bit of cash .. it would be totally possible today to acheive all of the lunar landing visual aspects in great detail .. however CGI artists tend to cost alot of money (the good ones) and it would take alot of time to succesfully acheive the effetcs but its definitely possible .. TODAY ... not in 1969 .. just my 2 cents on that ..
|
|