|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 21:54:46 GMT -4
I didn't review the whole vid, but I started cracking up when "She's A Good Girl" started playing.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 21:52:21 GMT -4
To Jarrah,
Ask some serious questions and get some replies and feedback. Better yet Jarrah, give me some photo IDs which you would like me to look at and independently process compared to the Kipp photo versions. I have refrained from posting all over your YouTube page since comments mean nothing compared to actual photo evidence. Seriously, lets have some real fun in presenting both sides of the arguments of hoax versus real for specific photos. I am game.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 21:45:19 GMT -4
Oh. I thought they stopped after 6. He he. That is what they would have us "believe". I kid, I kid. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 17:51:09 GMT -4
Google has done a good job with Google Moon. Its definitely worth checking out. The Apollo 11 landing site, for example, has a 3D CAD model of the LM, all the panorama and other specific points marked. The big things lacking are positioning the LM with the correct tilt, the slopes for the terrain, and the inability to set the date and time for a given year, month and day as in July 21, 1969. Another missing feature is that there are no shadows cast by the 3D objects. When you change the time, all that happens is that the illumination upon the 3D LM changes as if the LM were on the rotating Earth surface instead of on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 12:53:42 GMT -4
I've been playing around with Google Moon. Not sure, but I think that they have the flag turned too much relative to the sun direction (east).
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 7, 2009 1:08:31 GMT -4
Does anyone know the slope of the terrain upon which the Apollo 11 LM landed? I haven't had any luck searching for the exact slope and bearing at which the LM came to rest. In any event, I know that the terrain underneath the LM wasn't level and that the terrain towards the west had to slope up. The reason I bring this up is that some HB's use the shadow lengths to "prove" that the sun couldn't have been at the real altitude of 14.8 degrees above the horizon when the EVA photos were taken. Yet there is a wealth of information to be gleaned from examining the scenery reflected off of Aldrin's visor. I've added a fully labeled photo of the visor reflection, and I was hoping that ya'all would check it out along with my comments regarding the labeled photo. Again, my new web page is at: www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 20:24:04 GMT -4
^^ I guess Joe had a bigger brigadier than the Brigadier. Hmm...looks like the Brits are behind a lot more stuff than I knew about. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 20:16:16 GMT -4
...its probably an Aussie accent that you hear most of the time... No, Jarrah White's aussie voice is easy to spot. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 15:40:52 GMT -4
Jarrah probably believes that Jay is some sort of secret government agent.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 15:38:53 GMT -4
I have no problem distinguishing various British Isles accents from Australian or Kiwi accents. Yet I guess that I am one of the few Americans who doesn't place any more trust in what a person says simply because they speak with a foreign accent.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 3:23:05 GMT -4
Well, I have been having fun searching out more moon landing hoax sites. Why is it that the vast majority of hoax sites and videos I come across all have speakers and narrators who have strong British accents? It it because there is some sort of "conspiracy" mental gene defect which is pervasive amongst those of Anglo-Saxon descent? Seriously, I really am trying to ask a serious question here.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 6, 2009 2:20:52 GMT -4
Pfft. I looked at the photo in question. The PLSS shadow is clearly visible on the ground on the back of the astronaut. Apparently Jack missed that obvious feature in the photo. I guess that he also doesn't have any concept of the wave nature of light or all electromagnetic radiation for that matter. The astronaut visors are far from optically perfectly smooth surfaces. The visor surfaces were vacuum coated with a gold film. Said visor surfaces and gold film was repeatedly cleaned with cloths before the actual Apollo missions. The result is countless microscopic scratches upon the visor surfaces which aren't readily visible to the eye yet do become obvious under intense light sources. Grab any one of your camera lenses, hold it up, and look through it. If you have taken care of your camera lenses, then you won't see any scratches or any internal dust particles. Now, take the same camera lens and look through it at a desk lamp in an otherwise dark room. Even better, step outside at night and shine a flashlight into your camera lens and look down into your camera lens. You won't be happy with what you see under these extremely contrasty lighting conditions. And yet that same camera lens looks just fine when you look through it in a normally lit room or when looking through it at the daytime sky.
The point is that all of the microscopic imperfections and dust particles which you did see under extremely the harsh and contrasty lighting conditions apply to any surface which behaves as a first surface mirror. The gold tinted visors, when reflecting surrounding images, behave as first surface mirrors. Now, here is the real rub. It has been well known for nearly three centuries that lenses (which transmit light through them to form a focus) merely need to have surfaces which are polished to 1/2 wave accuracy in order to produce a nearly perfect image. Yet at the same time it has been well known that any surface which creates a reflected image (first surface mirrors) must be polished to an accuracy of 1/8 wave. Thus mirrors require 4X better polishing tolerance. This fact, aside from the problem of coating glass mirrors with an adequately smooth and even layer of chemically applied silver, is why, until the late 1920's, astronomical refractor (lens) telescopes held sway over astronomical reflector (mirror) telescopes.
Now, as mentioned, the astronaut visors were nowhere close to accepted 1/2 wave lens optical quality. Why? First, even in 1969 dollars, producing a visor with 1/2 wave accurate surface curvatures as well as being consistent in thickness to 1/2 wave tolerance as well, would have easily cost at least $1,000,000 per visor and would have taken at least 5 years to produce -- assuming that the technology existed at the time -- which it didn't. Second, the human eye under dimmer daylight conditions has a pupil diameter of around 3mm. Thus, for the visors to produce acceptable visually sharp and undistorted views, the essentially zero optical power visor surface curvatures and smoothness would only need to be accurate to 5 waves over a range of 3mm. So, in other words, the visors serving as accurate optically reflecting surfaces is both absurd and impossible. Yet on the other hand they do perform a barely acceptable job of reflecting the surrounding scenes off of their more or less spherical surfaces.
In other words, think of the visor surfaces as being quite "bumpy" on small scales across the visor surfaces. This is why the reflected image quality off of the visor surfaces rapidly deteriorates the more you view off-axis in the visor from from the visor's central visor reflection.
Well, that is the long and the short of it. And then on top of all of this you have to throw in the effects of the wave nature of light when you consider the interactions and phase cancellations which are present along the edges of extremely bright and dark illumination boundaries. Plus all of those microscopic cleaning scratches add up to create an unholy optical mess anywhere around extremely bright visor reflections. The inherent lack of true optical reflection qualities of the visor gold plated surfaces greatly exacerbate these phase interaction effects to create a bloody mess for off-axis visor reflections.
Altogether, these are the reasons why it is impossible to determine the phase of the Earth when trying to examine the Earth's extreme off-axis reflection in Aldrin's visor within the famous "Man On The Moon" photo AS11-40-5903 as an example.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 5, 2009 12:18:31 GMT -4
What is even scarier is that there are far worse types of people who live among us. There are many things which are far worse than death.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 5, 2009 12:02:37 GMT -4
It is an interesting notion that the feather decelerated very slightly just before it hit the moon's surface. So I will throw this idea out there for ya'all to consider...
Does the moon itself have a positive or negative electrical charge due to the constant bombardment by hard radiation? Do the astronauts bunny hopping across the moon's surface and kicking up some dust end up accumulating a static charge on the outside of their fabric space suits? Wouldn't some of that charge get transferred to the feather when it was held out and dropped? Could this explain why the feather's acceleration rate slowed very slightly just before it hit the moon's surface?
Just for grins, how about somebody estimating the mass and surface area of the feather and then doing the math to see how much static charge would be needed to produce the possibly observed very slight deceleration of the falling feather as it neared the moon's surface.
Anyway, I figure that any difference most likely is due to the other stuff already mentioned in this thread such as the poor video quality, et cetera.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 4, 2009 14:18:10 GMT -4
^^ Neat. I didn't know that.
|
|