|
Post by rodin on Aug 11, 2010 3:23:42 GMT -4
Good morning. I see many posts and thanks to for making the thread so active. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity. ;D
If I were designing a gravity-reducing ring it would work on a counterbalancing principle ie an astronaut would be connected by a pulley to a weight 5/6 of his own. This would simulate sixth gravity but would also have the inherent problem of friction. This friction would tend to dampen movements.
I do not think for a minute Apollo would use a rig with manual operator
I agree that it is the centre of gravity that must follow a parabola over the time when the astronaut is off the ground, and also that you cannot tell exactly where he leaves the ground, and also the bending of knees destroys the precision of any measurement during take-off especially
I am also aware that parallax may distort the parabolic curve significantly, but not to the extent of makong the up-time different from the down-time. All parallax can do is flatten the curve away from a true parabola.
I have re-done my analysis on a NASA clip which member Truegroup kindly prepared, freezing successive frames for a second. This enabled me to capture all frames of the jump.
Without more ado I will present my more refined analysis for your delictation...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 16:43:36 GMT -4
It is GOOD ENOUGH to prove a point. Give me your best quality film and I will settle this using a frame editor and multiple body sample points. I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why I went on BAUT and here - to see what counter arguments could be raised. I'll be back Not what I was getting at. You are using flawed data. How do you account for the results when a video has been mangled through the web let alone, for example, mpeg compression. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpgI'll be back
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 16:08:28 GMT -4
Is this clip better than the YouTube one? www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpgThe description says, "For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 MB MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.” Now that's what I call a true scientist. many thanks We do God's work here
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 16:05:12 GMT -4
If I may ask again, what is your take on the quality of information you have used? You base a lot on it, do you understand it? It is GOOD ENOUGH to prove a point. Give me your best quality film and I will settle this using a frame editor and multiple body sample points. I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why I went on BAUT and here - to see what counter arguments could be raised. I'll be back
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:38:16 GMT -4
Oh, goody. Someone else who expects us to provide them the material to do the analysis they claim they've already done. Who was it said - by their works ye shall know them? Are you going to play hide and seek with the url or just cough it up for examination? Are you for truth or what? In any case I maintain the you tube is good enouigh because the discrepancy is so HUGE Ok enough for now I'll be back
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:36:40 GMT -4
I want to ask how you have taken into account compression and its attendant issues and the issues with filming and transmission. Plus....the MB team loaded him up with correct weight for the airplane diving test, but for the jump sequences all they did was take weight off of him to match the astronaut's 60lbs. I don't think he had a fully functional and properly weighted PLSS. Why could that be significant?...... because the astronaut is pushing 300lbs of mass up, Adam is not. I think that could make a difference in the direction change at the top of the jump? no
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:35:58 GMT -4
Moon rocks (well no you already know that Von Braun went moon rock collecting in Antarctica) No. This has been debunked already. www.clavius.org/envrocks.htmlnot to my satisfaction. but we digress
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:35:11 GMT -4
you need to use original footage. Youtube clips are worthless for any timing, goodness only knows what path they have taken from the original. You are using the feet, bad choice there. Also is this film footage or TV footage? That makes a huge difference to possible accuracy. Give me the access to the best footage of the incident in question you have and I am sure I will merely re-inforce my case
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:31:48 GMT -4
now on this thread I intend to provide proof of a hoax. Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. That's like saying some stories are true that never happened ;D Apollo as whole cannot be both but it is possible for indvidual pieces of evidence to be false without invalidating Apollo. If this one piece of video were anomalous but all the others were consistent with being taken on the moon, and you add the rocks, and the telemetry, and the retroreflectors wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Apollo is perfectly real but someone tampered with that piece of footage? It's even possible for pieces of evidence to be fake and real. there's a famous picture of Aldrin I believe with a big chunk of black sky behind him. HB's seized on the fact that the antenna on his backpack can't be seen as proof that picture was faked, and they're right. When the picture was taken the upper edge ran practically across the top of Aldrin. Some picture editor didn't like the look of that so added the black sky to give it better balance for publication, creating a picture that was both real and faked. I will tell you what a court would do. It would look at the proof (lets say) that a chunk of what the public were told was footage from the Moon was actually filmed on Earth. If the proof stood up they would ask why was this faked? I am not sure but what if this was broadcast in real time (or Lunar delay time)? Well the court would want to know how, why did this happen. Who knew about it. etc. Perhaps right now peeps are working out their fall-back positions Now the defence HAS to answer these questions before we can proceed. of course the preferred route were I say defending this position would be to do what politicians are trained to do - change the subject. I would ask but what about the proof we DID go there like telemetry Doppler shifts and time delays Russia's acquiescence The radar ranging reflectors on the Moon Moon rocks (well no you already know that Von Braun went moon rock collecting in Antarctica) Oh - and the motion of objects obviously in a vacuum Well I have answers even to those that will surprise you. But right now NASA is in the dock and I am the prosecution witness
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:15:01 GMT -4
Are you all with me so far? You make a decent point there. Just use successive frames. Some will be clearer than others. You can determine to within about a click I would say The legs are straight at the apex. Obviously bent at launch but as the astronaut leaves the ground they are straight. Once 'in flight' parabolic motion begins. I will however at some stage get the best quality footage available ad do a frame by frame analysis measuring the height nit just of the feet but also other points, discarding rogue points - and plots. I do not expect to contradict this initial study - merely refine it To determine the apex. as you can see the middle annotated image in each case is highest from the ground Here is similar analysis done on the downside i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/ApolloJump2.png?t=1281361225While the control subject just about makes the ground inside ESD, the astronaut takes much longer to descend. This is a GROSS discrepancy that can only be explained by a gross incorrect assignment of start apex and end of jump, or wires. I think my work is too accurate even in this initial analysis to allow for the former
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:39:15 GMT -4
Do bear in mind that lots of members here also belong to BAUT. The amateur dramatics are unnecessary if your analysis is sound. OK I will cool it down. You are correct about the amateur part at least ;D Now then before we get to the downside is there a flaw in my analysis so far?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:26:17 GMT -4
Sorry but all I see at the link is a composite of images with numbers and arrows. No analysis is present. yes well it would be nicer if i could upload the actual image. But here is what it shows. I have taken screenshots from the OP video, cropped the relevant bits I (feet and timecode) and checked to see where the jumps started and peaked. The you tuber has done a good job of aligning start and apex I think as my RED ARROW analysis shows. Superimposed on every frame is a graphic I did of the starting level of the right foot in each case. Note this is locked onto a floor element in the control video (gym setup) With me now? Start time is 72, Apex is at 90 (or 91 I made it) Are you all with me so far?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:19:57 GMT -4
Because If they faked film footage it proves 1) Fakery was used to create Apollo illusion by NASA & co 2) This fakery has been covered up by all and sundry - including your forum - diligently. The logical implications of that are staggering if you are all proven liars. You will be asked to produce IRREFUTIBLE EVIDENCE you actually went to the Moon. Now, what about MY proof? So far do you disgaree or agree with my analysis of the footage? I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. If you are stating that if one is Fake then all come into question, the why wouldn't the opposite be true as well?? In other words, are you also suggesting, "If one is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the rest are validated" ?? YES - as you say - if you can prove Apollo beyond a shadow of doubt resistance is futile. But your proof has to floor me, just as mine has to floor you now on this thread I intend to provide proof of a hoax. Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. That's like saying some stories are true that never happened ;D
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 13:35:19 GMT -4
You are being disingenuous and you know it. A Mod should pull you up for that. I'm the one and only mod here, and I'll tell you that I think Gillianren's point is completely valid. Let's pretend Apollo 11's TV footage was faked. How does that in any way invalidate the footage from the other missions? Because If they faked film footage it proves 1) Fakery was used to create Apollo illusion by NASA & co 2) This fakery has been covered up by all and sundry - including your forum - diligently. The logical implications of that are staggering if you are all proven liars. You will be asked to produce IRREFUTIBLE EVIDENCE you actually went to the Moon. Now, what about MY proof? So far do you disgaree or agree with my analysis of the footage?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 13:22:25 GMT -4
So we agree Apollo footage of astronaut jumping height v time must be parabola? Not necessarily. It depends specifically on what you are attempting to analyze. You are correct. As pointed out @ BAUT strictly speaking it is the C of G that moves parabolic
|
|