|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 16:06:53 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!
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 15:24:47 GMT -4
I am undecided about the circumstances the scene has been shot. A further study of the original footage is needed, but for me there are substantial discrepancies in the 80 Mb MOV file to further analyze it. Analyze the original footage? Yes maybe we could learn more. Analyze the MOV file? How? To what end? If you're 'uncertain about the circumstances' then you are implying this wasn't shot on the moon, in which case you would need extraordinary proof far beyond a questionable measurement of a few frames of poor quality video. I wonder if in your school days you were ever in a science class and the teacher showed everyone some beautiful graph showing the nice clear relationship between two physical properties or forces? Then you were given a copy and told to go do some experiments and plot your results against the graph. Now unless you were some sort of superman I bet your values scattered either side of the line, some were probably way off. Did this disprove the relationship? No it simply demonstrated the limitations of experiments conducted in the messy, complicated, real world. You sir are seeking a perfect fit to that line and it just isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 30, 2009 13:33:54 GMT -4
.
Okay just one more time; assuming 36 =100%(and that's a BIG assumption) 32/36*100= 88.88888 recurring or call it 89% for the sake of sanity. Does anyone apart from Johnsmith believe that given the source material an 11% difference represents a meaningful anomaly? or even a reasonable definition of 'far'?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 29, 2009 18:54:00 GMT -4
This all started with Johnsmith making a mistake, he read a drop height figure of 1.6 metres and took it as gospel without double-checking it against the video. When he looked at the video he ignored the problems of web conversion and came up with a 'maximum possible' drop time that was way to short for this height. Thing was that when people estimated by logic and measurement that the actual height was 1.2-1.3 metres and also explained why the video quality was too low for useful time estimates instead of just throwing in his hand Johnsmith just kept going and here we are. I think most people would just drop this but I'm afraid that if they do Johnsmith will pop up somewhere else and claim that his brilliant analysis silenced the 'Apollogists'.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 29, 2009 16:00:43 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 29, 2009 14:29:03 GMT -4
I believe he was referring to missions to Mars or beyond where radiation exposure would be measured in months or years rather than a couple of weeks. It's akin to swimming underwater on Earth. If you take a deep breath you can probably dive down for a couple of minutes no problem, if you want to be down there for a couple of hours you are going to need special equipment; traveling to the moon was the space equivalent of the deep breath.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 28, 2009 19:10:45 GMT -4
Why? What useful information will I learn, if I view this image? Well, I do not have an intention to state that my observations are useful. I am trying to study this case without drawing definite conclusions, it is interesting for me from analytical point of view. The point of studying and analysing something is surely to come to a conclusion, otherwise you just go round and round for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 28, 2009 16:04:33 GMT -4
I did mean to put a smiley at the end of my last comment. I was just pointing out that far from covering up any hint of extraterrestrial life or civilization they found NASA would be shouting it from the rooftops.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 28, 2009 15:52:23 GMT -4
I think it was the Mars Climate Orbiter that suffered the unit conversion error, Beagle just slammed into Mars somewhere. And of course it goes without saying that even with Apollo behind them NASA still made spectacular and tragic errors with their manned flight program. Also roughly at the same time as Gemini the Soviets, whom the HB's always cite as being technologically asuperior to the US, had some serious issues with their program, try this site for an overview: www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040503/shadows.shtml
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 28, 2009 13:53:34 GMT -4
So far the only thing Johnsmith has mentioned as an alternate theory was one comment about different gravitational strength but he hasn't seen fit to expand on that. OK, if the case is to be addressed from multiple points of view, let us also explore the theoretical alternative of performing this experiment in the air on Earth with a heavy metal "falcon feather." The question to be answered would be: what is the frame rate that would allow one to just slow down the rate without the need of pulldown for rate readjustment. The following equation is to be solved: same vertical distance = [gEarth x (same number of frames/y)^2]/2 = [gMoon x (same number of frames/29.97)^2]/2 Then: y = sqrt(9.8/1.63) x 29.97 = 73.48 frames/s. This value is even very close to the currently promoted 72p progressive scan format (72 = 3 x 24). Forgive me if I'm being dense but what does that actually prove practically? Do you have an original piece of footage running at this framerate? Do you believe that this was what actually happened? Or are you just desperately trying to avoid the fact that all your analysis was simply pointless given the video quality and the 'anomalies' are just artefacts of the video process?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 16:49:38 GMT -4
I always wondered why when the whole 'Face on Mars' controversy was raging NASA didn't just say "Gee you're right it is a face, what we need is $100 billion to mount a manned mission to investigate and protect all our jobs for the next 15 years..."
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 16:34:26 GMT -4
I'd put money on someone, somewhere, believing that. Actually I meant he could have blackmailed 'them' into saving him but rereading what I wrote I realize it works either way, what have I done???
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 14:07:46 GMT -4
Yes, I especially love how Nixon, the most spectacularly failed conspiracist in history - a man who couldn't even keep a couple of tapes out of the hands of the press despite theoretically having the entire Secret Service at his disposal, is supposed to have not only successfully managed to keep the largest conspiracy in history an absolute secret but also completely failed to expose it himself despite unlimited opportunity and motivation, such as, say, in the middle of Watergate... Indeed, hard to imagine Nixon not at least threatening to blow the secret, and surely the people who 'faked the moon landing' could have fixed a few audio tapes and a couple of nosey journalists to keep him quiet?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 27, 2009 14:03:52 GMT -4
Another discrepancy can be observed in the 80 Mb MOV file when counting backwards 11 and 12 frames from the first frame when the hammer head is clearly seen impacting the ground. The said frames are identical as the image freezes for two frames. But we already know that this footage is unreliable and glitchy. We quite rightly expect to see discrepancies all over the place. How is it interesting to point them out? And why do it in a subforum intended to propose and discuss Apollo Hoax theories? The limited quality of the footage and the potential problems in converting to a web format have been pointed out since page one and yet still he keeps going. So far the only thing Johnsmith has mentioned as an alternate theory was one comment about different gravitational strength but he hasn't seen fit to expand on that.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 26, 2009 14:30:30 GMT -4
Many things wrong with this statement but being simply pedantic surely at the latest the USA took the lead after Apollo 8? Unless the USSR put men in orbit around the moon and I've just never heard of it?
|
|