|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:49:29 GMT -4
You like to change the subject, don't you? That video is available to anyone from NASA's site, how do you know that a non-NASA person didn't edit the clip and put the time stamp on it? What's your source for those videos? I got them off my DIF thread from TG I don't know how the timestamp got there that's why I am looking for a plausible explanation
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:42:36 GMT -4
So you don't even know what they're called, but you know they're fake? hey lighten up Lunar Ranging Retro Reflector or should it be LRRLLR or LRLLRR (injecting Laser Light into the proceedings) maybe even LLLRRR I know nothing. I am arguing a case because I think it is VERY SUSPICIOUS nothing has soft landed on the Moon for 3 decades Now about that time stamp...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:40:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:38:38 GMT -4
Ah yes I remember reading something about that. Well hows about we compare the results of the mark one models, the mark two models, and then across both groups using the expected efficiency increase as a conversion factor 'Mark one and mark two'? Have you actually bothered to read up on the LRRR's or are you still expecting everyone else to do the legwork for you? Astronomers all over the world have used the retroreflectors, how about you do some work and explain why we should call into their results into question, and provide evidence to back up those explanations. The LRRR's, the video, the rocks, are all thoroughly investigated, fully substantiated evidence of the Apollo landings. If you believe you can show that any of them were falsified then it is time to do so. Not speculate or fantasize but show actual evidence to back up your claims. If you can't do so then please tell us why anyone should entertain the same old HB nonsense being trotted out for the 100th time with promises of proof that never materializes? Well how about another long runner while I look into this? Here's my CT explanation for the LRRRRRRRR (or however many Rs it has). The Moon reflects laser signal anyway. LASER reflection intensity would be a criterion for landing site selection
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 18:33:39 GMT -4
How can it keep them in view the whole time? It can't. That's my point Of course it can't. So what? Seriously Rodin, you need to actually LOOK at the footage before you presume to draw any conclusions about it. it's all available free online in poor, compressed quality, or on DVD from Spacecraft Films. Because off screen wires can be attached and removed - simples
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 17:55:03 GMT -4
I also suspect the astronauts will barely leave the ground and at double speed the entire Apollo 11 footage will look natural. First, what "looks natural" is a somewhat subjective thing. I suspect you'll decide it looks like what ever you need it to to support your preconceptions. Second, why double speed? How did you arrive at that ratio? But maybe you people can prove me wrong. No, I think you should try to prove yourself right. I will try to prove the hoax hypothesis is valid, if I eventually fail so be it. Double speed as opposed to 2.45 speed you mean? Actually I would prefer to view A11 @ 2.45.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 17:50:43 GMT -4
My question is about the return signal intensities from different sites. They all use similar cube array.s ergo they should all be returning a similar % of sent photons. Are they? This is a crucial question You do realize that not all three LRRRs were the same size, don't you? Ah yes I remember reading something about that. Well hows about we compare the results of the mark one models, the mark two models, and then across both groups using the expected efficiency increase as a conversion factor
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 17:47:04 GMT -4
[Well now fancy that. And during these 360 degree rotations the astronauts are presumably off camera? Here we go again. 'Presumably'. Rodin, why don't you go and LOOK at the footage? Before you do, perhaps you could think about this: how could a 360 degree pan have the astronauts off camera the whole time when they are not the ones making the camera move? How can it keep them in view the whole time? It can't. That's my point
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 16:49:03 GMT -4
As I have a decent connection this evening a couple of images. Usinf Bertl's image sequence minus the doubles I have re-done the jump analysis to a higher precision by taking a thinner image slice (thus reducing aspect ratio distortion) The blue curve tracking a marker on the edge of the back pack was inverted and superimposed on a parabola. The ascent matches extremely well, the descent however is only 80% of expected after the same elapsed time. Other points were also plotted coded by colour.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 16:34:28 GMT -4
Do all the Apollo reflector sights return similar polarised photon counts or is there a divergence in intensity of the return signal?You're not even asking a credible question. Start with the Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report. There is an entire chapter on the ranging experiments. There is a bibliography for the chapter that will let you investigate the prior art. Further, looking for subsequent publications by the Apollo 11 LRRR principal investigators will let you know just how this science works and how far it has been taken. When you can demonstrate proficiency with the basic underlying science, then you can expect to be listened to. My question is about the return signal intensities from different sites. They all use similar cube array.s ergo they should all be returning a similar % of sent photons. Are they? This is a crucial question
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 16:29:06 GMT -4
So I checked, the jump is 20mins and 23 secs into the first footage from the TV camera after it had been placed on the rover. During that 20 mins the camera gives at least three 360 degree rotations, clearly shows mountains that are kilometres away and also has both Young and Duke standing right in front of the camera, within 1-2m or even closer, so any rig would be very obvious, especially when he drops down to try and get the bottom part of the flag pole, and spins about as he loses his footing. After the jumps and Duke's salutes there is another 360 followed by looking up at the top of the LM arounbd the 23-25min mark, a shot that would have shown any rig about the crew as they were working directly below where the camera looks up. We also see Duke carry the ALSEP packages to the top of the ridge which looks like it probably 50m or more away before the footage ends 35 mins after it started. You get to see Duke load the a camera and take it off right after too, right in front of the TV camera. Well now fancy that. And during these 360 degree rotations the astronauts are presumably off camera?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 16:24:42 GMT -4
Yes it is. The Apollo 11 footage alone is over three hours long, and even though the camera barely moves for most of it you can see that it would never fit inside a 100 foot wide vacuum chamber, that the gravity is lower than on Earth, that the shadows (as well as being impossible with any lighting rig contained within a 100-foot chamber) move too slowly to be caused by sunlight outdoors on Earth, and that there is indeed a vacuum there. In other words, it can't be filmed outdoors, nor can it be filmed in any existing vacuum chamber, but equally it can't be shot in an atmosphere. I cant wait to see rodins response on that!! 5 bucks says he moves onto something else. The blast crater perchance? I would like to view the entire Apollo 11 footage at double speed. Is this possible? I suspect only half speed playback was used on long sequences not wires. I also suspect the astronauts will barely leave the ground and that at double speed the entire Apollo 11 footage will look natural. But maybe you people can prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 29, 2010 16:08:28 GMT -4
I thought people (including Rodin) might be interested in the "Rodin's Cold War fakery evidence" thread I started in the Other Conspiracy Theories section of Apollohoax. hah I accept the challenge
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 24, 2010 8:59:03 GMT -4
G'day all. I am on a very poor connection right now and also on the move so I will be brief.
I will try respond to all outstanding points asap but for 2 weeks I am travelling with family and friends
First off - I re-iterate - there is no reason why one method (say wires or vacuum chamber) would be the only one employed. In fact I would think the wider shots likely were outside, or at very lest a large set ' atmospheric pressure. I agree that HB-ers have tended to be selective in what they choose to analyse and that contiguous viewing is required to place shots in context. I have yet to do this properly. However I would have expected if this was a deal breaker someone conversant with the entire mission footage would have posted the relevant section where say a vacuum requirement and a must-be more than 100 foot wide set were on the same shot.
Now as to the Apollo reflectors - there are a number of ways this could be rigged. One is simply to fake the data. However there is perhaps a more ingenious way to do it and for that I would like to ask a question of the board. Do all the Apollo reflector sights return similar polarised photon counts or is there a divergence in intensity of the return signal?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 19, 2010 13:52:26 GMT -4
The chamber was built before Apollo mission to Moon. I thought all you NASA buffs would know about it??? I should have provided the link though. Of course we've known about it. Wild unsubstantiated speculation that the vacuum chamber could have, somehow, must've been used to fake the moon landings has been around for quite sometime. And I can most assuredly say that I've known about the Space Power Facility long before you because I grew up five miles from the thing and my father worked at the Plum Brook Station where it is located. I also noticed that you you didn't comment on the fact that my father and everyone I know that worked out there thinks all you hoax believing types are smoking something if you believe the Space Power Facility was used to stage the moon landings. You know this is the first time I have come across the term 'space power facility'
|
|