|
Post by blackstar on Aug 4, 2009 13:05:52 GMT -4
Presenting both sides of the argument is a fine thing when one is talking about political matters where argument is often all there is, or the evidence is just a matter interpreting statistics. In cases where you have a mass of physical evidence on one side that keeps growing(the LRO images most recently), and vague speculation and a few photo anomalies on the other, then you have no excuse not to draw a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 2, 2009 17:17:57 GMT -4
The fundamental problem with the whole deliberate fire theory is that even if one were to accept that someone on the Apollo 1 crew had become a 'problem' why choose a method of eliminating them that exposed all manner of mistakes and failings at NASA, that in fact jeopardized the program? Why not stage a car accident or training flight crash? I guess if you are crazy enough to believe the hoax theory you are crazy enough to believe any notion however far fetched. The description of this video just seems to support that theory
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 2, 2009 16:01:11 GMT -4
May I make a suggestion for a practical experiment you can conduct? Download some hi resolution piece of video from the internet, Mythbusters or Warehouse 13 seem appropriate but any high quality file would do, convert it to a MOV and see if you can recreate the same sort of anomalies. Now Johnsmith I know what you're going to say; why should I do all the work? The answer is that you are suggesting these anomalies are more than video artefacts. If you won't offer up an alternate theory then you have a duty to at least demonstrate that the prevailing theory is inadequate. If on the other hand you say this is beyond your expertise then how can your 'analysis' be given any weight? I'm sure you'll find plenty of software and tips on the web with a quick search, and the forum will be here when you've done it. The uncertainty in detecting the location of an accelerating object increases with the attained velocity. Especially during the final frames of the free fall, the 59.94 discrete readings per second of even and odd RGB fields would display the objects at random locations around the [g t^2]/2 curve. The effect of slowdown is apparently within almost the same order of magnitude, thus making it difficult to resolve video artifacts from eventual frame drop. That is why instead to deal with the magnitude of the eventual anomalies, I would prefer to test whether there is a deterministic repeatable pattern of location deviations around the vertical [g t^2]/2 curve or horizontal [v t] linear displacements in sets of consecutive frames in the entire video. My proposal was failrly simple, create another piece of video in a simliar manner to the original and see if you obtain the same artefacts in terms of frame rate anomalies etc, instead you seem to prefer an ever more minute examination of the low grade video you started with instead of investigating whether the perceived anomalies are adeqately explained by the process of video compression. The fact is that you seem only interested in pursuing tests or methodologies which might exaggerate the anomalies while ignoring those that would show them to be simply video artefacts. That in itself would tend to point to a clear conclusion, that you have in fact already decided what the anomalies mean and are simply avoiding stating it clearly.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 2, 2009 12:31:49 GMT -4
May I make a suggestion for a practical experiment you can conduct? Download some hi resolution piece of video from the internet, Mythbusters or Warehouse 13 seem appropriate but any high quality file would do, convert it to a MOV and see if you can recreate the same sort of anomalies. Now Johnsmith I know what you're going to say; why should I do all the work? The answer is that you are suggesting these anomalies are more than video artefacts. If you won't offer up an alternate theory then you have a duty to at least demonstrate that the prevailing theory is inadequate. If on the other hand you say this is beyond your expertise then how can your 'analysis' be given any weight? I'm sure you'll find plenty of software and tips on the web with a quick search, and the forum will be here when you've done it.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 2, 2009 8:13:10 GMT -4
One, yes I would say your math is based on unreliable video, because, well, it is.Once again, this is your assumption, I assume otherwise. Two, the last of my math is about six pages back now,And I agreed with you that the difference is just in a few frames, didn't I? not forgetting the work everyone else has done with math and analyzing the video,Please kindly remind me where it is if I eventually missed it. you still seem to have a problem with checking the raw data before you make a statement don't you? You really need to work on that.The typical concluding debating statement to undermine someone's efforts. Usually I raise a question or discuss a possibility rather than making any statement. You see you were implying I hadn't done any maths, then in this post you admit I have and yet you call my point about your failure to check the material in effect a debating trick. You could just have admitted it was an error, that you just plain forgot. To avoid this descending into a slanging match a couple of practical questions: Have you made any effort yet to obtain the original source material as was suggested many pages ago? Have you worked out any alternate hypothesis that could be put to the same level of scrutiny as you have put the video?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 1, 2009 23:10:39 GMT -4
Two things: One, yes I would say your math is based on unreliable video, because, well, it is. Two, the last of my math is about six pages back now, not forgetting the work everyone else has done with math and analyzing the video, you still seem to have a problem with checking the raw data before you make a statement don't you? You really need to work on that.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 1, 2009 20:11:47 GMT -4
Of course, the purpose of this forum is to debunk hoax theories. I am like a black sheep here trying to raise some questions. But you are great opponents indeed, I have to admit. So now we're opponents? Thing is with raising questions is why bother when you don't want to hear the answers? You've received answers to which your only response has been ever longer slabs of maths that show nothing new and questions asked of you have largely gone unanswered. You're current attitude seesm at odd with the unconvinced seeker after truth you were portraying yourself as earlier.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 1, 2009 18:01:26 GMT -4
Snag is the only one who seems to believe there is an anomaly is you Johnsmith, you began by using an incorrect value for the drop, failing to verify it against the data available, a cardinal error and it hasn't gotten any better in the following pages. You have rejected every explanation that explains the footage in terms of recording techniques. and now here you are with the tired old theory of 'they slowed the film down'. I feel either your ego simply won't let you admit that you made an error in your initial assumptions or you you already had a firm belief in what the film showed and no intention of actually considering any contradictory evidence.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 31, 2009 19:56:21 GMT -4
Technology is making it easier for the HB's as well. Twenty years ago they would have had to jump through hoops to explain away images like the LRO pictures; now they just utter the magic word 'Photoshop!' and go back to banging on about shadows and 'C' rocks. By the time another manned mission gets to the moon and sends back video in full HD glory the HB's will simpy declare 'CGI!' and get on with reminding everyone about that 'deadly sea of radiation'.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 31, 2009 15:24:53 GMT -4
In fact the best reason for putting men in space is illustrated by one of the things that HB's keeping harping on about, the difference in the success rate between the Apollo missions and Mars probes. More than one Apollo mission(and Gemini and Mercury) was saved by human intervention. Many of those Mars missions could have been saved by a man on the spot, even if just to remotely pilot the probe to its target.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 31, 2009 15:07:47 GMT -4
If you take a deep breath you can probably dive down for a couple of minutes no problem ... I venture to suggest that most people might need help getting back to the surface if they tried this. Hey since this analogy might be offered to HB's I figured I wouldn't make it too complicated...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 18:12:52 GMT -4
The assumption that the frame count is reliable is my " tentative explanation for an observation." I have the opportunity to consider the case from multiple points of view, because I am undecided. You are asking me to provide hypotheses as to what lies behind the numbers, that is another story. I'd rather not do that because I'll be asked do I have a proof and no discussion whatsoever would take place (like my previous post about heavy "feather" and 72 fps). But this is a hoax theory forum, according to my understanding it means that theoretical alternatives could be considered to a certain extent without ignoring them due to lack of experimental evidence. The assumption is just that, an assumption until its put in the context of a working hypothesis that can be tested, it explains nothing in and of itself. Yes theoretical alternatives can be discussed without evidence, that's what would make them theoretical BUT people are entitled to introduce evidence to support or disprove them, and you as the person disputing the default hypothesis do bear the burden of demonstrating that the hypotheses you suggest are valid as a basis for discussion, not just random ideas thrown out without any coherence. As I tried to point out earlier no real experiment is going to be a perfect fit for a particular theoretical model. You need to have all the hypotheses available and judge which one best fits the available data, not simply continually dispute the sole working hypothesis because there is an imperfect data fit. So please present the alternate hypotheses you consider credible and we can go from there. I feel you have been asked to do this quite politely many times so really it is time to move this thread to another level or move onto another topic.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 17:03:54 GMT -4
My hypothesis is that the 80 Mb MOV video is reliable in terms of frame count and anyone could test it by comparing it with the original footage which is a future work for me. I am far from questioning the reliability of the original footage at this point, this is another hypothesis to be tested. No sorry, that's still not a hypothesis, that's simply an experiment to test your as yet unrevealed hypothesis. The majority of people here seem to agree the best hypothesis is that this is an experiment carried out on the moon and any anomalies are simply the product of video recording and later compression for the internet. Simply saying that there are anomalies in the video isn't enough, you need to provide one or more alternatives that can be tested against this primary hypothesis. So please, lay out the details of the alternative hypothesis that you wish to evaluate against the evidence and then we can have a meaningful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 16:43:25 GMT -4
Johnsmith you still aren't answering the questions that have been put to you and you still seem to think that longer and longer pages of math will mask the fact that you are still exceeding the limitations of the available data. To reiterate my earlier point; you are not going to get a perfect fit to that line! Agreed. That is why I use Min-Max intervals and hypotheses to test different aspects of this video. But I have no intention to provide all the math for each hypothesis. I am just giving the essence of my thought for a given hypothesis. Also, when mentioning about the circumstances surrounding the video, I do not exclude the hypothesis that it has been shot on the Moon. All I am saying at this point is that there are discrepancies in the video. You seem to misunderstand the meaning of hypothesis, here's a concise definition I found: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.You have proposed no hypothesis for these perceived anomalies that anyone could test, you have simply elected to exclude the hypothesis proposed by others that the 'anomalies' are accounted for by the poor quality of the source material you persist in using. Put forth your working hypothesis and let it be tested.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 16:22:02 GMT -4
The laser reflectors the Apollo missions left behind. The moon rock that is older than any rock to be found on Earth. The moonbase they built to observe the aliens. Wait, pretend you didn't read that last one...
|
|