|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 6:10:45 GMT -4
For reply 288. The copy from davide Icke forum. You are still hanging in there. Its like watching a bloke trying to hammer a 1 pint jelly into an egg cup. Carry on. Why SHOULD arm movements be drastically slower on the Moon than on Earth?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 6:09:14 GMT -4
24 FPS was not cited as a possible frame rate until the doubles argument was already underwayFrame-rate conversion was mentioned almost immediately. I thought 24 FPS was rejected in favour of 30 FPS having been the standard used. The 24/30 conversion suggestion came later once it became apparent that video > video transfer was the only way those horizontal flashes could have appeared differently in two successive similar images (other than falsely inserting frames). That is my recollection. Maybe I overlooked a post somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 5:55:41 GMT -4
I have seen what was broadcast live at the time.So anything that comes over your television in 1969 is "an original?" Was your television set really that good? My grandparents' TV set had a much higher resolution than the Apollo footage as evidenced by the definition in other terrestrial programs broadcast at the time. However you seem determined to press on this issue of my misuse of the term 'original'. I should have used the word that means 'a copy of an original made in a much higher resolution that was present in the original therefore essentially as clear as an original'.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 18, 2010 5:44:03 GMT -4
I have read all new responses. Rather than reply to every one I will try to answer all the points raised together, in 2 or 3 posts May I draw your attention to this post www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059159819&postcount=495From this thread arose the impetus to make a study of the jump in the first place. That post explains the provenance of the idea, and states my present position.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:41:18 GMT -4
"Could have been"? That's your evidence? Where did I use the word evidence? I said answers.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:30:34 GMT -4
I moved my post to this more appropriate thread. No rocks from Antarctica were identified as lunar meteorites until 1982. Are you saying that Von Braun could somehow identify them more than ten years before anyone else could? Well now - how do we know that some meteorites in Antarctica come from the Moon. Is it because they match the Moon Rocks? Without the Moon Rocks as comparison could we tell if these meteorites were indeed Lunar?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:25:10 GMT -4
Please take Moon rock questions onto the other thread now
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:22:42 GMT -4
BTW I did not choose the title, How can I provide evidence of Moon Rock fakery? For a start I am never going to get a sample, Perhaps I can however suggest a credible method for how it could have been done
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:17:51 GMT -4
Well I have been baited into this thread. I will not be able to reply as intensively as I ahve on other threads here and elsewhere due to time constraints but I will do my best Quote: During the local summer of 1966/67, von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management.[53] The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_BraunThat could have been a cover story Antarctica is where to look for Moon Rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. Quote: Astronauts collected hundreds of pounds of moon rocks during the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s, but lunar meteorites are important because they give scientists samples from other parts of the moon, Cohen said www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/Now it is true that meteorites have surfaces that melted due to friction with the atmosphere. But inside these meteorites structure may be unchanged I think in the same way astronauts survive a return to Earth intact. Looks that way in the image. That would then present the problem of recreating a credible surface. How to do this? I am not privy to that information. I think I can anticipate the first challenge
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:11:01 GMT -4
Are you asking me to peer review myself? It would be a good place to start. No, it was pros who understand that you're misrepresenting things. And the thing is, you're not posting in order to find out weaknesses in arguments. You're posting in a claim that there aren't any and we're in the wrong. Your arrogance is palpable. And yet you're wrong a lot. I guess if it wasn't pros lost the Apollo footage it must have been amateurs?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 18:08:58 GMT -4
I do think 'Moon Rocks' could possibly have been knocked up on Earth. I find the Von Braun Antarctic expedition very suspicious. But I am not going to get into a debate about how it was done at this point. Right, you've just added another set of impossible things with the statement 'could have been knocked up on Earth' but you don't want to discuss it, I can see why since you would have to explain the 'zap pits', and the internal structures that could only have formed in 1/6th gravity to name just two but please do go on with your hopeless defense of your ludicrous video 'analysis'. I would have to find out what the 'Zap pats' are first. Von Braun goes to Antarctica couple years before Apollo 11 but well into the Lunar program. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_BraunThat could have been a cover story Antarctica is where to look for Moon Rocks that have fallen to Earth as meteorites. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/Now it is true that meteorites have surfaces that melted due to friction with the atmosphere. But inside these meteorites structure may be unchanged I think in the same way astronauts survive a return to Earth intact. Looks that way in the image. That would then present the problem of recreating a credible surface. How to do this? I am not privy to that information.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 17:37:26 GMT -4
I did not claim I got the originals from NASA. I said the originals were poor. However I did think BertL was providing images downloadable from a NASA site. Oh, ya think? I've stated this at least four times and gave you the link the same amount of times. Whenever something in my post is underlined it's a link (at least, on DIF; here links are coloured orange). It is a bit frustrating that you do not seem to follow most of the links I provide. On DIF you explained the source was the MPEG available from the NASA website and also how you prepared the images in the ZIP file you kindly provided.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 17:17:09 GMT -4
I said the originals were poor.What makes you think you've seen "the originals?" >>> I have seen what was broadcast live at the time. Were not the original tapes lost? However I did think BertL was providing images downloadable from a NASA site.What makes you think those are "the originals?" >>> he posted on how he obtained them and carefully converted them maintaining integrity I do understand how frame rate conversion from 24 to 30 FPS would indeed mean that 4 images would produce 5 and hence every 5th image would be a duplicate imageAnd do you further understand that this is common knowledge among thousands of video engineers and analysts and even well-informed laymen, and that you tried to make a big mountain of controversy over it? >>> 24 FPS was not cited as a possible frame rate until the doubles argument was already underway Can you explain why anyone should take your analysis seriously when you're so woefully underinformed? >>> Are you asking me to peer review myself? I will withhold any retractions until I have re-done the jump slice procedure.Just a suggestion: the pros withhold their conclusions until they've first demonstrated having done a correct analysis. >>> Just a FYI - I am not a pro as you call it. I reserve the right to post in order to find out weaknesses in arguments. Was it pros who misplaced or erased priceless historic footage? I do however think that the 50% time difference found was based on incorrect frame identification.Is that a retraction? >>> If course what else could it be? Now lets see if image posting works now
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 15:38:37 GMT -4
Is it not customary for posters to start their OWN threads? Not necessarily. You have made claims that you refuse to support. Either support them or withdraw them, please. I do think 'Moon Rocks' could possibly have been knocked up on Earth. I find the Von Braun Antarctic expedition very suspicious. But I am not going to get into a debate about how it was done at this point.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 16, 2010 15:33:54 GMT -4
I saw the damn thing 'live' on TV and I don't recall the original images being anything other than poor.That has absolutely nothing to do with whether you obtained "the originals" from NASA. You did not. Do not claim that you did. Video does not have frames it has fields...False; it has both. ...can introduce the horizontal glitches surely?No. Clearly you don't understand the notion of frame-rate conversions. It easily and conclusively answers your question of why every fifth frame is duplicated. Yes, you do have a lot of homework to do. In the meantime it would be wise to retract a lot of what you've claimed. Anyway I have some more catching up to do reading posts here. [/quote] I did not claim I got the originals from NASA. I said the originals were poor. However I did think BertL was providing images downloadable from a NASA site. I do understand how frame rate conversion from 24 to 30 FPS would indeed mean that 4 images would produce 5 and hence every 5th image would be a duplicate image I will withhold any retractions until I have re-done the jump slice procedure. I do however think that the 50% time difference found was based on incorrect frame identification.
|
|