|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 15:10:29 GMT -4
Isn't the guy also quoting the weight of the LEM on Earth, not in 1/6th g? Hence the force applied by the LEM to the surface material is decidedly less than he is implying. Yes, and he's also leaving out the weight of the astronauts' spacesuits. Also surely the LEM with its engine firing was practically at zero velocity vertically at the moment when it touched down? I mean there was actually a significant force acting against the pull of gravity. An astronaut bunny hopping/loping may have come down with greater pressure even under 1/6th g.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 14:54:21 GMT -4
I don't agree, sorry. I find the CT's to be based on and perpetuated on ignorance. There is nothing blatantly obvious about man going to the moon, when you stare at the rear of the coin. And these peeps feed on it. Look at these actually proposed theories: How can you not admit that even JW has interesting facts. Hey, the guy did some research and that it was people feed off of - how it is presented! One percent fact mixed with 99 percent misinformation. That is not film making. You know, we've dealt with these people a long time. Ignorance only holds up as an explanation for so long. You think no one's told Jarrah White (no, he doesn't have interesting facts; that requires having facts) that he's wrong? He gets told all the time. However, we're all paid NASA disinformation agents (really; we do get accused of that), so we're just perpetrating the lie. And the HB's arguments are entirely in the negative, they pick at oddities in the photgraphs to prove they were faked, they don't offer evidence of where or when they were faked. They say moon rocks were 'made in ovens' but they never publish a schematic of those ovens, or even a description of the process. They sneer about 'film sets' but how many of them are out scouring Nevada for some piece of left behind detritus. If they believe what they are saying then the HB's are incredibly lazy, if they don't, well you know what that makes them...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 14:35:16 GMT -4
Isn't the guy also quoting the weight of the LEM on Earth, not in 1/6th g? Hence the force applied by the LEM to the surface material is decidedly less than he is implying.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 21, 2009 14:23:03 GMT -4
Great song! I wonder how JW got the funds to license this? I know exactly how much this costs to license and I'm pretty sure he did not pay it. Gotta' love those film makers that rip off artists. Shame, shame, shame, shame. Well then someone could report him to the one group more stubborn, belligerent, and relentlessly stupid than the HB's; I refer of course to the RIAA...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 17:47:12 GMT -4
Just wanted to say how much I loved seeing these images and Rodionh's work in providing a reference. Just wondering how much better the images will be in naked eye terms when the LRO reaches it final orbit? I've read figures for the resolution but I'm just trying to picture it, something close to Rodionh's third image maybe? Pretty much, yep, that's about the right size for the LEM. Excellent, it won't shut up the hardcore but it might help those who are just confused by all the HB spin.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 17:30:49 GMT -4
Dear grief. Those guys were a damn site braver than I am. Well I was gving him one free pass, and trying to point him towards the marvellous new invention that is Google.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:52:24 GMT -4
Quick google search for 'apollo CSM construction' got me this page: history.nasa.gov/SP-4209/p93.htmand if you search for 'apollo CSM cutaway' you will find there are a lot of cutaway images at the same site.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:46:00 GMT -4
Fair enough. I did get them over the net. Only in some areas? Some of black looks a shade grayer. Yeah defintely sounds like artefacts. JPEG compression will do this, nice clean black lines will magically acquire grey fuzzy edges. You can do it yourself in Photoshop, just open a blank image, draw some black lines, save as a JPEG and then open in a pictures viewer. Your neat lines will have spread out and become fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:35:24 GMT -4
Just wanted to say how much I loved seeing these images and Rodionh's work in providing a reference. Just wondering how much better the images will be in naked eye terms when the LRO reaches it final orbit? I've read figures for the resolution but I'm just trying to picture it, something close to Rodionh's third image maybe?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:20:25 GMT -4
I'm just waiting for the first HB to come up with the old chestnut 'If space is a vacuum then how could the rocket fly without anything to push against?'
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:12:42 GMT -4
QUOTE JayUtah: You say you're a DP. Many of us are photographers and can speak at an informed level about your specific concerns. I haven't taken a real close look at very many. Some of the ones I looked at, after researching these guys like JW, and after reading some of the explanations on these forums and other places, the reasons given by people like you are mainly correct, in my opinion. But I did get a few and blew them up in photoshop and really had a serious look in the black areas. I didn't care about the footprints or the subject matter, and I found it curious that you could see where someone intentially pixled over the black areas. The square pixles are very clear to see. Was wondering why this was done? Do you know what I'm talking about? If you got those pictures off the net its most likely artefacts of the conversion process involved in converting the original material to a compatible format. You can see this for yourself if you load a hi res image into a paint program and convert it into a JPEG, especially if you choose to compress it to a high degree. I do 3D rendering and and when I'm prepping pictures for uploading I have to convert to JPEGS and sometime blocks of pixels appear that were never in the original image.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 16:01:38 GMT -4
Big problem is that mainstream media reports on what the HB's believe without bothering to offer up any rebuttal. Case in point listening to BBC Radio 1, their news program marks the anniversary by mentioning there are people who don't believe in the landings, trots out a couple of soundbite interviews that cover the usual, waving flag, shadows, and then swiftly moves on. They even mentioned the video that shows the gantry crashing behind an astronaut but hadn't bothered to discover that this was a spoof!
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 20, 2009 14:55:06 GMT -4
Guess this is turning into a newbie thread as I've also just signed up today. I doubt they could have prepared photos in advance as there were still question marks about the precise surface conditions for the landing. Also they didn't have high resolution images of the intended landing site, and Armstrong diverted anyway, so making the images match would have been impossible.
I can think of an explanation actually. From your earlier post it seems your uncle was invloved to some degree with the space program and visited the training facility. Suppose however his ambitions went beyond simply being around the edges, suppose he had hopes of being one of those going on the flights, and then had those hopes dashed? Is it possible that might have created a certain bitterness that caused him to turn photographs simply taken to record the training into something else? Please don't think I am saying this to be cruel, obviously I never knew your uncle but as a general notion it struck me as plausible but I'll understand if you tell me where I can shove it.
|
|