|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 21:18:21 GMT -4
I too can't wait to see the super high res LRO pictures!
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 21:06:15 GMT -4
This is a remarkable photo, but it is amazing to me that someone would look at this damage to the LM panels and come up with the conclusion that this is a model. What's the connection? Apparently it is some sort of connection for HB's to use, but on the other hand why in the world would NASA use such photos if they were faking the mission? After all, the ascent stage of the LM never returned to Earth for examination, so why use a "damaged" LM upper ascent stage model for a hoax? There is nothing that makes any kind of sense on several levels. Neat photo though. Mariocro, welcome to the forum! Its nice to have you aboard. How are things in Croatia? Smaller countries like yours in the region have some unbelievably beautiful architecture. That is one thing which, well, pretty much anywhere but the USA, has compared to the USA.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 11:45:30 GMT -4
Throw on top of that that if any of the astronauts had brought back a space germ and got sick and died, then I'm sure that the remaining two astronauts knew that the recovery ship probably would have been nuked. Even if one or all of the astronauts got sick but recovered, they probably would have been kept in isolation for at least a few more months just to "be sure" that they were okay and that the rest of the world was safe. All three of them had a lot of time to think about stuff like that while they were quarantined.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 11:36:09 GMT -4
Filling the feather shaft with lead definitely wouldn't be enough to get the feather to fall in air with a rate of acceleration which is really close to that of the hammer. Not only that, the feather is going to rotate and tumble by some amount due to its turbulent interaction with air, and most likely would not fall quite straight down.
The above thread is interesting stuff, but before any in depth frame by frame analysis was done, the first thing which should have been done is to find a way to make a feather (lead filled, all metallic, et cetera) fall in air as if it was in a vacuum. I would love to see the results if anybody manages to achieve that virtually impossible feat.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 12, 2009 1:54:50 GMT -4
^^ Ka9q, that is positively brilliant logical deduction which leads to your very interesting hypotheses. It also occured to me, after reading your remarks, that dust could indeed get trapped between the film and the Reseau plate or between layers of film as the film got tightly wound around the take-up spool. I too had wondered why I mostly see blue dots and very few blue streaks. One possibility is that cosmic rays entered through the lens since the film magazines were beefed up with thicker metal. That also would help to explain why we see mostly dots. The problem with this idea is that we should see other color combination dots from time to time too since cosmic rays can be fickle about what they finally end up interacting with. Your dust and/or static discharge hypotheses seem to make the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 11, 2009 14:30:51 GMT -4
So, basically, the astronauts were either in quarantine or living in very confined spaces for well over a month. I guess that would have me climbing the walls.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 11, 2009 11:15:47 GMT -4
DCT compression is not invertible. It is possible to mitigate the visual effects of DCT compression, but that process does not recover the original data. Thanks for the info Jay. Well, that sucks. I guess I need to contact NASA and see if I can download TIFFs.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 10, 2009 20:08:03 GMT -4
Yet JPEG uses specific algorithms to create the JPEG blocks within any JPEG image. Theoretically those algorithms could be reversed to reproduce the content of the original scanned blocks, minus brightness or contrast extremes which the algorithm "may" initially decide to clip. I dunno since I don't know how the JPEG algorithm works.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 10, 2009 20:05:11 GMT -4
...If they built working hardware, then a Moon landing was possible. If they built a fake, they would know. Either they would have to know to build it, or they would realise something wasn't right about the specs and the supposed purpose of the hardware. Darned good point. Those engineers spent tons of time calculating and making sure that every component under their jurisdiction met all requirements. Why? Because they knew that if "their" components failed and caused the death of astronauts, then their future careers just got the Axe from God since the blame would have come directly back to them. After all, do you really think that their supervisors would be willing to take the blame or be the scapegoats? Of course not. Human beings scatter like roaches whenever they are threatened. Politicians do this even better!
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 10, 2009 19:59:24 GMT -4
Always leave hypotheses on the table until they are proven to be incorrect. Any hypothesis is worth its weight in gold until it is proven to be entirely wrong. If the hypothesis isn't proven entirely wrong, then it remains on the table.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 18:08:51 GMT -4
Alrighty. A mighty huge thanks to drewid pointing me to this thread and the software. I am downloading it now so that I can play with it and hopefully set up a recreation of the reflected view in Aldrin's visor from image AS11-40-5903 since that is the one photo which I have really sunk my teeth into at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 17:49:22 GMT -4
This thread might be useful for shadows and such, though I don't know how accurate the terrain is. Thanks for the link to that cool thread. I am checking it out...
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 17:48:13 GMT -4
I saw the bit where the astronaut was being helped up and it did look weird but weird in an 'unearthly' sort of way, not a 'guy on wires' sort of way. Yeah, thats what I noticed too. It looks obvious that the fallen astronaut was having trouble figuring out where his center of mass was. Remember, weight is 6 times less on the moon, but inertia remains unchanged since inertia is a property related to mass rather than to weight.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 17:45:17 GMT -4
Oh, on a follow-up, I have yet to come across true de-jpeg software which actually tries to reverse the JPEG encoding algorithms in order to do a really good job of restoring the original de-JPEGed block information. Anyone have any ideas? Currently I am using Topaz Labs DE-JPEG.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 8, 2009 17:42:16 GMT -4
...Are there any non-JPEG Apollo mission images on the net such as TIFF format, or (better still) FITS? These would emlinate the JPEG compression effects on the images. Thats what I want to know too! I would love to download and process TIFF format raw scans of the films. I bet Kipp Teague had access to TIFF format raw scans. How do we get access to the TIFF format raw scans? Anyone have a clue? Anyway, only recently did I learn that the ISD raw film scans which I am using actually are scans made from "contact printing" negatives made from the original Ektachrome slides. So now I have to consider one new possibility which might explain why nearly all of the "cosmic ray strikes" which I see in the images usually are colored a fairly deep blue. Lets see...You sandwich the original film against unexposed film to create a contact negative. Obviously a sheet of glass is overlaid atop the sandwich to keep the films flat. Then obviously the potential occurs for dust particles to create pinholes in the emulsion due to the weight of the overlying glass. Since blue light is shorter in wavelength, it will more easily penetrate through the pinholes, causing blue colored spot defects which are small and sharp and which could be interpreted as being cosmic ray strikes. Well, what do you all think of this hypothesis?
|
|