|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 15, 2009 3:44:13 GMT -4
And therein lies the classic contradiction ... NASA had so much advanced (secret) technology and so many highly intelligent people that they were able to build a hoax that has fooled the world and scientific community for over four decades, but also had so much stupidity that ridiculous giveaways (like the C rock) are all over the place. You can download for yourself a completely raw scan of one of the contact print negatives made from the original AS16_AS16-107-17446 photo taken on the moon which does not show the "C" at all. The "C" is a piece of lint or possibly a metal shaving which is partially folded on top of itself along the upper half of the letter "C". I now have this photo on my web page. See my signature for the link. You won't like my web page since I work with the raw scans and then proceed to debunk some of the HB claims.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 14, 2009 16:26:44 GMT -4
Woops. I just fixed the distance for Station 3. I accidentally used the image scale associated with the Station 5 inset rather than the image scale for the main drawing. I calculate that Station 3 was approximately 17 meters away from the center of the LM or around 11.5 meters away from the north side of the LM as you mentioned.
Your list of the brightest stars is correct. I merely listed the brightest stars which were above yet very low to the horizon when Apollo 11 landed on the moon since those would be the candidates to try to find in any of the AP11 lunar surface photos.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 14, 2009 16:20:44 GMT -4
Food for thought, one more observation... I mentioned earlier that I like the shadows in the video. Now, let us compare two shadow angles, one in the video determined by the crotch of the astronaut and another one in AS15-88-11890HR.jpg (see the added red arrows) ... The angles seem different, aren't they? Amazing. You have absolutely no concept of perspective or how the vantage point from which a photo is taken relative to the altitude and position angle of the sun affects how shadows should appear in photos
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 23:26:12 GMT -4
Why do they need to wait for a favorable sun angles? Can't they just use the big pentagonal fill-lights from the Apollo missions? Oh, wait. Wrong thread. They probably planned to use those fill lights, but the bulb manufacturer went out of business a couple of decades ago. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 23:23:44 GMT -4
"Stars" staying in a video or CCD camera staying in the same position when zoomed would have to be hot or defective pixels in the CCD or video tube's array.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 20:38:48 GMT -4
Ginnie, you are correct that those are not stars in that photo sequence. I wrote a spreadsheet program to calculate the angles between all "stars" which I found in those images. None of them could be correlated with any real stars in the visible sky at the Apollo 11 landing site for the given date and time. I even tried aligning and blinking the images to see if there were any real yet extremely faint star images which did match up. That was a "no-go" (as I expected) since the exposure time was just too short and since the 60mm Biogon lense's maximum aperture is just a mere F/5.6 compared to a "fast" lens of F/1 to F/2.
Neat to see that you thought along the same lines as I did though!
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:34:31 GMT -4
That makes sense since a lunar day is 1 month. I guess the LRO photos are being shot at a specific sun altitude?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:33:06 GMT -4
I am really excited. Depending on sun altitude above the lunar surface, even small experiments should be visible as bright single or double pixel specks.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:31:46 GMT -4
I'm willing to bet that the astronauts really did have suicide pills, but at the same time I can understand why NASA would never, ever publicly admit this.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:28:13 GMT -4
All those billions of dollars and they couldn't re-use a model LM from a previous fake moon shot? Of course not! We all "know" that each LM model got crushed by a bulldozer and then was compacted and recycled as soon as the "mission" was over in order to turn all of that aluminum into beer cans. Yep, Anheuser-Busch was in on the conspiracy too since everyone involved drank lots of beer. A friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of mine's dad swears that this is what happened!
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:21:35 GMT -4
He he. I know what he meant. LM, CM, REM, LEM, AM, PM, BDSM are just a few other similar acronyms. Hmm...this forum needs a "sticky" thread which lists all of the acronyms commonly used here on the forum. Pardon me if we already have such a list.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:17:30 GMT -4
...It's my understanding that the reseau plates were only on the lunar surface cameras; is that true? We could look to see if the blue dots and streaks are more common on images taken with reseau plates. The Zeiss 60mm Biogon lens was made commercially available sometime after the beginning of the Apollo missions. The lens included the built-in reseau plate. I guess we need to ask some photographers who regularly used this lens if their films had scratches and pinholes due to dust.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 18:13:47 GMT -4
greenmagoos also has a poor understanding of gravity and physics behind it. he claims that an object should fall down at the same speed it went up. this makes no sense because the speed of a falling object is determined by gravitational acceleration. It makes complete sense. Why? Because an object tossed upwards immediately begins to decelerate due to gravitational acceleration. After all, what the heck do you think slows down the upward movement of a baseball (or a 5 pound barbell for that matter) when you toss it upwards?
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 13, 2009 17:14:24 GMT -4
Johnsmith,
Like I said, first figure out if you can make a feather fall as fast as a hammer, when not surrounded by a vacuum, and without beginning to tumble due to interaction with the surrounding air as it falls. The feather doesn't even have to be a real feather. It just has to look real and have the same shape even it was made of spray painted lead.
Until then, you are just claiming that the sky is green when everybody else tells you that it is blue.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 21:23:29 GMT -4
Definitely. We haven't even begun to see just how good the LRO photos will become.
|
|