|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 26, 2009 20:10:23 GMT -4
Okay. I missed BertL's joke. Just shoot me. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 26, 2009 20:07:52 GMT -4
My hypothesis: The Apollo images were taken using a camera lens with 5-leaf iris. I can confirm that the Zeiss Biogon lens has a five-leaf iris. Correct! You win the prize presented by Athena behind door #2. Care to risk your prize and go for the lightning round and explain exactly why the Biogon lens creates perfectly round disks around the sun whenever the sun is within the frame? :-)
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 26, 2009 19:58:38 GMT -4
More importantly, in that photo of Armstrong you can see both the stress and the relief in his face that things were "so far, so good." They still weren't safely off of the moon -- yet. And this stress still shows in Armstrong's face.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 26, 2009 19:54:29 GMT -4
Thank you for your feedback. Here my reply: Distance to the crest (conservatively estimated to 50 m):The distance to the border of the ridge (at the end of the shadow) is estimated for picture 5928 as follows: Length of the shadow of the LM: 17m (knowledge of height of LM and sun angle, see paper in www.apollophotos.ch)... Did you know that the landings were timed with relation to sun angle over the horizon? Apollo 11 was timed to land and conduct the EVA when the Sun was approximately 10-11 degrees above the horizon. That puts the LM shadow length at closer to 33-36m, not the 17m you suggest. The sun at the time of the Apollo 11 EVA was at a true altitude of 14.78 degrees. The height of the LM, excluding its rendezvous antenna and allowing for half depression of the footpads into the soil, is 20 feet. Thus the length of the LM's shadow, assuming level terrain, should be 75.8 feet or 23.1 meters. My analysis of the visor reflection in photo AS11-40-5903 as well as other Apollo 11 photos proves that the terrain a bit west of the LM does indeed suddenly slope upward. Been too busy to do a full analysis of the terrain slope, but my rough guess is that the terrain west of the LM slopes upward by about 5 degrees. :-)
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 24, 2009 0:23:27 GMT -4
Pshk, this only shows that They™ faked it really, really well. Apart from forgetting those stars in the sky of course. Oh really? I've been doing astrophotography for over 20 years and have yet to get stars to record on ASA 1000 film with exposure times of 1/60 second or shorter and a 50mm camera lens set to an aperture of F/5.6 or slower. And somehow the slower ASA 160 Ektachrome film used by the astronauts using the 60mm Biogon lens which had a maximum aperture of F/5.6 plus shutter speeds of 1/125 second and shorter should record stars?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 24, 2009 0:06:45 GMT -4
We had an Apollo astronaut named Whitey?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 23, 2009 23:59:08 GMT -4
I have had fun enhancing the Apollo 11 window pans of the entire western horizon. It is amazing what details are hidden in the photographs once they are strongly enhanced. Virtually every single boulder out to the distant horizon has a distinctly bluish hue compared to the surrounding terrain. Moreover, there are both more and larger boulders towards the northwest compared to the southwest. Those boulders towards the northwest are much smaller versions of the boulder field which Armstrong had to fly over and subsequently drift left (south) to get to the edge of the boulder field. The boulder field seems to more or less surround West crater in the latest LRO photo, but with a scattering of boulders towards Little West crater.
Towards the southwest, there are two distinct and fairly close ridge lines, plus one extremely distant ridge line towards the south-southwest which is close to a low mountain ridge on the south-southwest horizon.
Straight west there is a close yet low and fairly wide ridge. Further west there is a low but more distant ridge which sweeps towards the northwest. Beyond that, there is another more distant but low ridge which also sweeps from the west towards the northwest. To the west and close to the LM, the terrain appears to slope upward by roughly 5 degrees. The upward slope certainly is less than 10 degrees.
I forgot to mention that there are several craters in the window pans which match up with the latest LRO Apollo 11 landing site photograph.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 23, 2009 22:49:46 GMT -4
Something similar can be said for the "clean" LM footpads. In images of EVA training, the set crew put rocks & dust in the footpads ( photo). In vacuum, material did not billow, so the pads generally stayed clean on landing. Even more can be said for the fact that for every LM the footpad photos show trace amounts of dust which collected here and there in crevasses of the metallized Mylar foil covering the top half of the footpads closest to the descent engine.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 11, 2009 1:16:43 GMT -4
Besides, 2001: A Space Odyssey is riddled with technical mistakes and blue screen jitter in composited images. As many have mentioned, the technology to pull off a landing hoax just didn't exist at the time -- no matter how much money the hoax believers believe was thrown into creating a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 11, 2009 1:04:13 GMT -4
Its fun adding more nails to Jarrah's coffin. ;D How many nails can one drive into a few planks of wood before compromising their structural integrity? I fully intend to find out. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 9, 2009 12:30:02 GMT -4
I played with that image, deconvolved it and then further enhanced it, and then compared it to Apollo 11 EVA photos. It is best viewed by clicking the full screen button: Its fun adding more nails to Jarrah's coffin. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 8, 2009 22:26:01 GMT -4
I know that this is an older thread, but fairly recently I had a lot of fun debunking Jack White's claim that "The Flag Flew Too Soon":
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 8, 2009 11:43:42 GMT -4
I just checked the page. The caption for figure 13 still hasn't been updated.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 8, 2009 11:38:51 GMT -4
My latest video comparing LRO's latest image of the Apollo 11 landing site with Armstrong's EVA photos. I deconvolved and enhanced the LRO photo to bring out hidden details which I then compare to a few of the EVA photographs:
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Oct 3, 2009 12:33:22 GMT -4
Exactly. Anyone with any experience in surface physics will tell you about the problems of the science and removing contamination. Surface physicists work in ultra high-vacuum, spending all there time baking their chambers to get rid of unwanted species. Water is their biggest enemy as it sticks to pretty much everything. I would assume that when the moon rocks were originally analyzed, they would have been very concerned about water, not only primary contamination, but any secondary contamination from the testing method they were using. If I am correct, the NASA scientists who tested the Apollo rocks found water, but dismissed the results as contamination [BBC this morning]. Is this correct? Of course, the animals at ZooTube have gone mad. They say this is the final nail in Apollo's coffin, as the original rock analysis said there was no water. Of course, they work on the assumption that the water found recently is uniformly distributed, and I have yet to see evidence of this.[/quote]
Well said. You can bake and dry nitrogen purge a test chamber for days and still not get rid of all the water contamination in it.
|
|