|
Post by turbonium on Jun 22, 2008 1:21:37 GMT -4
Notice the aperture change. You're such a great photo analyst, you figure out what happens following an aperture change. The "Earth" is much larger in the bottom right frame - even before the aperture change....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 22, 2008 1:15:10 GMT -4
Three consecutive stills, in which time the "Earth" vanishes, while the window frame remains in the same position. [Emphasis mine] This is an outright lie which you crudely attempt to conceal by stacking the frames side-by-side: Even in your nagware-encoded GIF it is plainly obvious that the window is jerking around throughout the entire clip. Then there is an extremely insignificant change in position, if you want to nitpick. And that becomes much more apparent after cropping the first frame, as in this sequence...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2008 1:55:24 GMT -4
Several people mentioned camera rotation in some form or another, and a couple people even demonstrated the technique with videos. But who cares? The point is that you left it out of your analysis and it is your analysis and subsequent conclusions that are being critiqued. By failing to recognize the important role that camera rotation plays in the observed effect, your conclusions do not hold up. As I see it, panning and rotation were not being presented as one and the same, throughout much of this discussion . But I agree that it's not relevant as to who said this, or who meant that, etc. So to move along... Turbonium, do you concede that camera movement in some combination of translation and rotation could produce the effect we see in the Apollo 11 video? It can't be ruled out as possible, but I find it extremely improbable. This sequence is a good example... Three consecutive stills, in which time the "Earth" vanishes, while the window frame remains in the same position. Note how quickly the "Earth" vanishes in the second window, in the clip below (sorry for the flying agifs)... If you claim this effect was achieved entirely by camera movement (panning, etc.) then I'd like to know how, exactly. A bulky, hand-held video camera, being jerked around to and fro by a floating astronaut inside a very cramped capsule. Yet for a fraction of a second, he simultaneously moves and pans (or tilts/or rotates) the camera, while the window frame, etc. remains in the exact same position throughout. He achieved this effect twice. The "Earth" vanishes a little slower from the first window, and there is a slight change in position of the window frame during the sequence. There is another problem. In the clip, notice how large the "Earth" has become, when they show the first window again. The stills below show the "Earth" in the first window, then in the second window, and once again back in the first window.... It's not due to zooming the camera, so why is the "Earth" so large in the third still?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 4:12:40 GMT -4
Oh, please turbonium. For a start, Jay does indeed talk about camera rotation in the very quote you cite. Read it again, and look up the definition of "pan" . Definition of panning... Panning Technique for photographing a moving subject. While the shutter is open, the camera is swung following the moving subject.en.mimi.hu/photography/panning.html Now, point out exactly where Jay talks about camera rotation in that quote... Secondly, the other posters didn't "ignore" the panning element - they simply didn't mention it specifically. Nice try. "Moving the camera" in no way implies that only lateral motion is involved. I didn't say that. Thirdly, is the irony of your post picking over everyone's comments and highlighting supposed inconsistencies appearing on the very same page as a discussion of how this is a common and erroneous strategy of some HBs completely lost on you? There is an endless supply of irony, but I find the vast majority of it is in your camp. Are you ever going to get around to answering sts60's questions? If I don't have to waste so much of my time dealing with this sort of nonsense, I'll be more than happy to address the relevant issues exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 3:53:32 GMT -4
This is obviously a trolling exercise, it's too stupid to be anything else! I suspect you're right. Turbonium's claims defy logic, I can't imagine anyone believing that what he says makes more sense than actually going to the Moon. As I showed in my last post, there was only one person who mentioned camera rotation for several days. Everyone else claimed it was camera movement, or panning/camera movement. But nobody wants to admit to that fact. Turbonium - the resident "CT", was the only one who "ignored" this "critical factor". And that means it's a "trolling exercise"? Sad. This is no way to carry on a mature, rational discussion/debate. This sort of nonsense makes it virtually impossible. It's a shame, because there are people here who are sincere, and simply want to discuss the issues in an honest and mature fashion.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 15, 2008 3:05:09 GMT -4
Not if there is simultaneous rotation of the camera. You are ignoring the critical factor of camera rotation. By assuming translation only, your analysis of the video is incomplete and flawed. Along with everyone else here (save one) who ignored camera rotation, you mean? Perhaps you (and some others) need to be reminded of that fact... Umm... how about this: the astronaut moved a little bit to one side and that caused his view of the Earth to be obstructed. Couldn't the fact that the CSM/LM Stack was performing PTC maneuvers during this stage of the mission also explain why the Earth appears to move out of the window? Yeah, I thought of that too and almost mentioned it but it looked to me like right before the Earth is obscured the camera moves. It could be either (or a combination of both) of those explanations, or something totally different. But the point is that is took us little time to think of two logical explanations for Turbonium's "mystery". But yes, the camera does definitely move or "jerk" to one side a bit, changing its perspective on the window, which would also change what was seen by the camera through the window. Edit to add: Here is a quicktime clip (2.65mb) I just shot of a street light outside my kitchen window. The edge of the window remains much more constant in the frame than the CM window edge above, which according to you means a constant camera angle. Yet the street light disappears behind it. The light didn't move. My house didn't move. Explain how I did this. On the contrary, the camera very clearly jerks as the earth disappears behind the window frame. Perhaps it's also explained by simply moving the camera to the right and at the same time rotating it (the front of the lens) to the left. Hell, I've done that hundreds of times. It has the effect of moving a background object out of frame to the right. Try it sometime -- you don't even need a camera. Any tube-like object or your hands cupped around your eyes will do the trick. The camera clearly moves to the right but also pans commensurately leftward in order to keep the window frame in roughly the same position in the frame. The evidence for this is the change in aspect in the window frame, measured by the angle between the right-side bezel edge and the lower bezel edge; and the change in aspect and relative position of the reflected item as reckoned relative to the window frame. These shifts cannot occur without a change in camera position. The simultaneous pan makes the movement less readily apparent upon only casual inspection. Parallax effects are highly sensitive to small camera motion, and there is plenty of quantifiable evidence of the camera motion. What do you mean, "consistent camera angle"? I don't want to sound negative, but the window edge gives us a frame of reference to verify that the camera angle is not consistent at all. Did you and I use a different window edge, or something? Something very interesting is the reflections quite visible in two of the three images. What is being reflected there? The window acts as a mirror, and there's quite some change in perspective of that reflection. Just the change of perspective expected from a camera moving slightly to the right while panning to the left. OK I have successfully recreated the disappearing earth by using my kitchen window and a house wall lamp about 20m away (roughly where infinity on a lens corresponds to). I'll post sometime when I get around to it. TV basics 101 if you ask me hence no dash to show the blatantly obvious. Minus a bit of hand held shake the edge of the window stays in the same position. The movement is because the camera is moving, not the Earth. ...address the numerous instances where your assertion that the camera didn't move was shown to be erroneous. The "moving" Earth has been addressed; your claim that the camera does not move has been met with evidence to the contrary which, to my observation, you have not accounted for. So you simply ignore the analytical evidence? You asked us for our input, and now you're just selectively sidestepping it. I can look at the video containing the frames you provided and see very clear evidence of a change in camera position. ___________________________________________________ Up to this point, there was only one brief mention of camera rotation, in a post by kiwi. Everyone else who had posted on this issue ignored it, although phantomwolf then claimed two others had also mentioned it... The better argument is that pointed out previously by Jay, Dwight, and Kiwi, that as the astronaut moved, he rotated and panned the camera to try and keep the window in appropimately the same position thus causing a change in angle and the distant Earth to be obsured by the window frame. Then data cable - who had made no mention of camera rotation previously - suddenly added it to his argument.... But as to the particulars of the camera movement, are you claiming that the camera must only have translated? That it could not have rotated as well? So that leads to my next post...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 12, 2008 0:45:30 GMT -4
So you simply ignore the analytical evidence? You asked us for our input, and now you're just selectively sidestepping it. I can look at the video containing the frames you provided and see very clear evidence of a change in camera position. In the GET 30:28 telecast, I see very clear evidence - in both windows - of a stationary camera while the "Earth" moves... First window: In the first case, the camera would have to be moved to the right, in order to block our view of the "Earth". So the right edge of the window would appear further to the left in the 12-frame sequence. But that is clearly not what we see. The right edge of the window even appears slightly more to the right in the frame sequence, if anything. The only camera movement is slightly downward, which is why we see the bottom edge of the window gradually appear during the sequence. Second window: In the second case, the camera would have to be moved downward in order to block out the "Earth". But again, the position of the window edge remains the same throughout the 3-frame sequence. For each case, there is no change in the position of the surrounding area (ie: window frame) which could account for the "Earth" moving out of view. But this is the clincher. Just one second after the "Earth" disappears from view, to the right (second window), it re-appears...in the first window, which is to the left side of the second window.... A fake "Earth" is clearly being moved around, from one window to the other, via a projection from outside of the "capsule".
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 11, 2008 4:33:30 GMT -4
OK, it's been a while since I've seen that footage, but isn't it obvious that they're in zero gravity? How do you explain that if they're filming it on Earth? "2001: A Space Odyssey" has the same zero gravity effects, and it was released in 1968. It was just as convincing of an effect one year later, with Apollo 11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 11, 2008 4:24:02 GMT -4
The "moving" Earth has been addressed; your claim that the camera does not move has been met with evidence to the contrary which, to my observation, you have not accounted for. This issue is far from resolved. I'm still waiting for the video clip which is claimed to have duplicated the effect. And I'll soon be presenting another example of the moving "Earth" in the second window. With the CM in the nose-down position, it is possible for an object in space to be visible from two different windows if the viewer changes position within the cabin. On the first page of this thread, you and PW argued that there was just one window used to film the Earth. So are you now saying that the Earth was filmed through two windows, instead of one? There's another problem... Neil Armstrong tells Houston "We only have one window with a view of the Earth, and it's filled up with the TV camera" So why does he say that? We know it's not true.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 10, 2008 2:07:43 GMT -4
Yes, your link does give a minimalistic definition of the PTC, however the roll rate is incorrect. The actual roll rate was .3 degrees per second, or 3 rotations per hour. There are a few other more descriptive and accurate resources available that you can easily look through, that explain the maneuver: I assumed a NASA page titled: "SPACE EDUCATORS' HANDBOOK PASSIVE THERMAL CONTROL HOME PAGE" ..would have been an accurate source. Oh well... Can someone address the 3 windows and moving "Earth"?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 10, 2008 1:20:10 GMT -4
It is possible that the GET 30:28 telecast was sent with the PTC roll stopped, in order to facilitate orienting the high-gain antenna array. However, stopping PTC does not involve changing the spacecraft orientation from its nose-down attitude. Do you nevertheless concede that a spacecraft need not point its nose in the direction of travel? I'm fine with that. But the three different windows with a view of "Earth", and the moving "Earth" - those are my main problems.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 10, 2008 1:07:12 GMT -4
There is another serious problem - there are three windows with a view of "Earth". Two different windows have a view of the "Earth" in this TV transmission... Just like the "Earth" vanishes from view in the first window, only ~ 40 seconds later, we again see the "Earth" being moved around outside the "capsule" through a second window. And a third window (the 9" round window) with a view of the "Earth" is in the subsequent footage... A fake "Earth", being projected outside a capsule that's still here, on the real Earth. I can see no other explanation for it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 10, 2008 0:04:32 GMT -4
Considering that you spent your last posts whining about having to answer fifteen people's questions, it would seem prudent that you at least try and answer them when you do get around to posting. Especially since nearly everybody is asking the same thing. I was simply clarifying my situation, so it wouldn't continue to be misinterpreted as trolling, etc. If you think I was "whining", then you've got it totally wrong. As for the questions... (1) angular size and (2) spacecraft orientation. Angular size - from my calcs, the Earth could be seen through a 9" diam. window from 130,000 miles away. It's still possible to view Earth from a position several feet away from the window, if the viewer/window/Earth are in proper alignment. Not a certainty, but nonetheless possible - so I'm willing to concede on this point Spacecraft orientation - I'm not willing to concede on this point, as I see problems with it. sts60 (and Czero) contend that "PTC roll is performed with the longitudinal axis basically perpendicular to the Earth." According to NASA... The Apollo Lunar Module and Command and Service Modules had a PTC of one revolution per minute.er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/barbeque.htm If the capsule was rotating at 1 rpm, then they wouldn't have been able to film the Earth through the same window for more than 10-20 seconds at a time. But in the 30:28 GET TV transmission, we see the Earth being filmed through the same window for more than 2 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 8, 2008 2:16:36 GMT -4
Which explains my overwhelming urge to actually do nothing regarding uploading the video. Maybe its the hypnotic motion of that lamp disappearing and reappearing with no logical explanation as the kitchen window is in the same spot. Don't worry, I'll respond to your video. Btw, what happened to the post with the first clip?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 7, 2008 7:41:44 GMT -4
Turb's is just attempting to make up for, or rather, cover up his lack of knowledge and understanding of what he is seeing by dredging up these long-debunked hoax claims. He has no proof of a hoax or conspiracy. Never has... Never will... All he does is repeat his same tired opinions which are not based on anything even resembling hard evidence, logic or fact, or make up incredibly obtuse stories to explain what he thinks he's seeing - anyone else remember the "That's not a crater, its a tortoise shell on the Moon!" discussion that took place a while back on UM. That's an example of how he works. No proof... no logic... and no ability to admit when he's got something wrong. He's trolling, pure and simple. And when he is unable to bring forth a challenge to the answers given to the "questions" he poses, he displays typical hoax proponent behavior by dodging the questions, ignoring the proof presented to him, abandoning the thread and changing topics. For all the flapping and hand waving he does, the guy must have an incredibly developed pair of arms, in direct opposition to the development of his obviously lacking mental abilities. Cz If all you can do is spout infantile comments, then find someone and somewhere else to direct it at. Because I'm really sick and tired of you following me around everywhere I post, like an obsessed deviant, just so you can flame me. Maybe you should find a forum where you can find others fixated on posting the same type of crap you do day after day.
|
|