|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 27, 2005 18:15:39 GMT -4
The same 'stars' with similar brightnesses are sometimes repeated on different photos, and all of them appear at similar heights from the surface. I'm having trouble finding an example of this. Can you point me towards the correct images? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 27, 2005 5:14:23 GMT -4
Welcome to the board, Piper! Thank you very much for listing the photo IDs for the pictures you referenced. That makes things a lot easier. When I look at the whole roll, I can see multiple images of the same patch of sky. The white dots that appear in one image are not in others. All things being equal, this alone would rule out stars. PhantomWolf has pointed out the crux of the matter: To get the stars to appear on film, you'd need the aperture wide open and an exposure time of several seconds. The astronauts were shooting f5.6 to f11 at 1/250th of a second.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 24, 2005 14:52:38 GMT -4
This is a neat feature or perception. If we were looking at a real checkerboard with a coffee can on it casting a shadow like this, we could tell that square B is the same color (or shade of gray in this case) as the other light squares even though its intensity is different due to being in the shadow of the can. Likewise, we can see a white wall as uniformly white even though the lighting varies across its surface. It is tempting to think that our visual systems compensate for the shadow by "lightening up" the shadowed region so that it looks as if it were normally illuminated. But what is really fascinating is that you can also see square B as being a light square in shadow. So, you can see square B as being the same shade as the other light squares, but you can also see it as being different from them, as being a light square in shadow. For example, a light blue car at night is still perceived as light blue, not dark blue.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 28, 2005 20:01:58 GMT -4
Is there really any question why Margamatix is here? He's looking to make himself feel better about himself at another's expense. Well, he's not here any more. I don't count this as a victory. Sts60's comment says it all.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 23, 2006 19:48:00 GMT -4
I'm back but not much time to post. I'm handling a huge legal case. What have you been charged with?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 23, 2005 5:38:58 GMT -4
this isthe first time I hear that small rocks , on close up look bigger. It's more general than that: Without a reference object of a know size (such as a man or a house) at the same distance, it is often hard to tell whether a rock is small and close up, or large and far away. Finding the scale is difficult. You know this. You yourself said (in your comments about Baalbek): The same principle applies to the rocks, mountains and craters on the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 22, 2005 21:51:35 GMT -4
It's notoriously difficult to establish size and range in a photo based on the appearance of rocks. Rocks have a fractal nature, especially those not of Earth origin. This means big rocks seen from a distance and little rocks seen close up will look essentially the same in photographs. This very principle was used by the Weta Workshop when making the "Lord of the Rings" movies. On miniature sets such as Helm's Deep they used ordinary rocks as set dressings. On film, without an actual-size reference point, they looked like huge boulders and cliff faces.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 22, 2005 22:10:04 GMT -4
It's not just a matter of dumping billions of dollars into a bank account and letting the agency do whatever it wants with the funds.
Personally, I think that would be a better way to do things, but far be it for any legislature to reduce the amount of power they wield... Not to thread-hijack, or anything.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 17, 2005 17:09:24 GMT -4
Sorry to threadjack but I have to ask. In the movie Contact, the Senator grills her about the signal being a fake and she doesn't really respond. How is this handled in the book? Wouldn't she just make the same statements that you just made? I've read the book but I don't remember this being addressed. The scene may have been created only for the movie. You are correct. They did not address it in the book. In the movie, the Snearing Villain TM first interrupts her when she starts to say it's impossible, then he makes such a bizzarre accusation that her head explodes. At least, that's how I remember it. [Edited to add: I don't believe the filmmakers understood why such a hoax would be impossible, no matter how much money was available]
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 17, 2005 14:40:49 GMT -4
5. How they obtained pictures of the far side of the moon consistent with those subsequently obtained with unmanned probes. #5 is really weak. Apollos 4 & 6 had cameras on them that took some pretty nice photos of the Earth. Presumably they could do a similar job in Lunar orbit. I think that the behavior of dust, as seen in the video record, is a far stronger argument for authenticity.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 17, 2005 14:37:33 GMT -4
Hi Matt! Welcome to the board. Excellent first post. A couple of notes: As I understand orbital mechanics (and please correct me if I'm wrong so I don't sound like an idiot in the future), you couldn't put a satellite into orbit at any altitude save that of the Moon itself in order to match the Moon's orbital rate around the Earth and thus have the fake transmissions appear to orginate from the Moon itself. The satellite would have to be in orbit around the Moon. If you tried to place a satellite in a lower (read: cheaper to hoax) orbit to fool the clueless ones down below, you would not be able to place it into an orbit that could match the Moon's orbital rate where the orbit could be maintained. The only viable orbit for faking transmissions from the Moon is the Moon's orbit. No other will work. This is exactly right. This is incorrect. The same principles from the first part of your argument apply. If your satellite transmitting fake alien messages at the Earth is orbiting the Sun, or on a solar escape trajectory, it still has orbital motion and therefore moves against the background stars. Even if you had it moving directly away from the Sun (which would take a helluva lot of thrust), the Earth revolves around the Sun and the parallax would be readily apparent. The only way to damp out these motions would be to... (wait for it) ...have transmitter in a different star system!
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 18, 2005 19:45:14 GMT -4
It was the World Science Fiction Convention, which was held in Los Angeles that year. SF cons are a blast. The panels aren't limited to just SF weiters & editors. They include scientists, historians futurists and the occasional astronaut.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 18, 2005 17:07:47 GMT -4
When I attended LACon in '96, Aldrin stepped up to the podium, held up a "Buzz Lightyear" doll and announced, "My name is Buzz Aldrin. I come in peace!"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 17, 2005 14:10:43 GMT -4
I seem to recall hearing somewhere that Invincible had actually roached a prop shaft bearing. This slowed her down quite a bit, reducing her ability to evade submarines. This was a closely guarded secret at the time. The British were very worried about Argentina's german-built submarines.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 16, 2005 14:21:49 GMT -4
Last note: Love Me Do was a Beatles song originally, I think. Psst! bertls: That was the joke - that and John Bonham was actually the drummer for Led Zeppelin. Remember, he was making an analogy for the ignorance of Hoax Believers. Actually, my teenage niece and her school friends are into 60s rock.
|
|