|
Post by chrlz on Jan 22, 2012 0:17:09 GMT -4
Allow me to provide a full, comprehensive rebuttal of all the points you have comprehensively researched & thoughtfully raised, fttoia.
-
There you go - I covered every one. Job done.
And.. welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 22, 2012 0:13:27 GMT -4
;D There seems to be some common attributes to the 'hardy' hoax believers.
One of the saddest of these traits, is that it appears they have never actually gone outside.. - or if they have, their eyes are kept tightly shut - or if their eyes are open, they don't actually use them to *observe* things around them, like perspective - or if they do, they can't actually remember or understand what they are seeing.
I'd rather think they are just trolling for the s&g's - because to actually live life like that is too depressing for me to contemplate...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 16, 2012 8:45:14 GMT -4
And constant deliberate changing of the subject, along with a complete refusal to address comprehensively refuted earlier claims, also noted.
Just a reminder to folks unused to these tactics - try not to allow playdor to simply move on to new topics when he has not addressed and/or conceded previous claims.
It is the modus operandi of choice for those who would mislead.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 14, 2012 9:00:55 GMT -4
I was going to leave it at that, but on seeing this I've got to ask...
Playdor, which individual analysed the film and showed you the blurred people on that single frame from which you claimed to be able to measure their 'velocity'?
Or did you come up with that yourself?
If the former, in what way did you ascertain or verify that individual's qualifications and lack of bias? Please cite the information (or accept that it is a meaningless claim).
If the latter, how have you verified your conclusions by analysing other film frames in a similar way? In other words, from other film sequences unrelated to the JFK event. Please show the analyses - I'd like to see your approach and process.
Hint - If I was you I'd drop that one and apologise for my error, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 14, 2012 1:47:24 GMT -4
in one frame man goes from movement to still. Look at the rear light of the car. It is quite obvious that it is the camera that is moving in that first frame and not the men, since there is hardly any blur on the car (which definitely is moving) at all, whereas in the second the car is blurred but the men are not, suggesting the camera is not moving in the same way. When the frames include still and moving objects and in one frame the moving object is not showing motion blur but the static objects are, that clearly shows the camera is moving. I just wandered over to see what the fuss is about here, and stumbled/tripped over those images from playdor. Jason is exactly right, and this is such a basic and obvious observation that either: a - this is a troll b - the person presenting it is completely out of their depth and has no knowledge whatsoever of how movies 'work', let alone the ability to analyse them meaningfully This is a fundamental and glaring 'error', not just a film v. digital issue.For that reason I shall not bother engaging further, other than to suggest to playdor that you might want to study the topic in advance before trying to sound knowledgable, lest it be suggested "you don't have the hows, you don't know film". It's not just film... Unless, of course, it is actually option a...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 13, 2012 20:48:49 GMT -4
But the rover tracks are visible in many LRO pictures with that same resolution. I think it has more to do with the illumination angle and the angle with which LRO is viewing the scene (not always straight down). Already I've noticed many Apollo artifacts that are very prominent in some LRO pictures and completely invisible in others. And of course the same applies to many natural features like craters, which become almost invisible at high sun angles when there are no shadows to reveal their topography. Very true, and I admit my post was rather dismissive (it's hard not to be when Jarrah's deliberate bulldung is in question..). Jarrah and his ilk always like to try to reduce their claims down to ludicrously simplistic one liners (that are usually incorrect in their own right anyway!). Whether or not a rover (or astronaut) track is visible depends on a myriad of issues, eg: - the actual resolution of the camera (which may not be the same as the theoretical one) - the angle of the lighting relative to the track & topography - the length and nature of the track and the angle with which it aligns with the camera sensor array - whether the track has a different texture relative to the surrounding regolith and if that affects the resolvability - whether the creation of the track uncovered regolith of a different colour/reflectiveness For anyone like Jarrah, it is easy to see these effects in action here on Earth. Use Google Earth to examine some beaches and parks in your area (remembering of course that much of GE imagery is of significantly higher resolution than the LRO is capable of) and then look at areas that you *know* would have tracks of various types at the time they were photographed. How many are visible .. and why?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 12, 2012 16:35:15 GMT -4
He claims for instance that no wheel tracks are visible in a specific photograph like they should. I looked it up and the picture itself was with 55 centimeters / pixel...no wonder the tracks wasn't there... Which is an example of why we don't bother visiting his drivel and giving him any more hits. Every denial claim he makes is exactly the same as that one - easily disproved. All his videos prove is that he *deliberately misleads*. On numerous occasions when indisputable proof has been presented to him, he continues to promote the lies. He cannot use the excuse of being a lousy researcher. Jarrah White is the lowest of the low.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 11, 2012 6:28:42 GMT -4
Awesome! I've always felt spoilt by the comprehensive Apollo galleries - it's nice to see the precursors get some attention..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 7, 2012 19:32:41 GMT -4
Just go down and rent it or buy it from your local dvd store - it's pretty easy to find. It's very much worth seeing and is a quality production. Bit of a pity that shy Neil didn't participate, but great viewing anyway - some great footage that I hadn't seen before. Mike Collins is a highlight.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 7, 2012 7:03:49 GMT -4
Let me get this straight. Jarrah White, intrepid researcher, didn't figure out that was a film splice...? Yes. Ok.. (tries to keep straight face..) It shouldn't have taken much research - if I'm not mistaken, the camera had "a 3-inch (76-mm) focal length, f/4.5 lens. The format is 4½ x 4½ inches on 5-inch-wide film". Without going into the technical details, that's a camera that will have a quite limited depth of field. In other words, anything up close in its field of view would be significantly blurred. Yet the sticky tape is sharp!! Anyone with knowledge about film and scanning should immediately recognise that the sticky tape was rendered very sharply because it was exactly at the film plane when it was scanned. Either that, or the sticky tape was enormous (miles wide?) and very distant in the original image, or that camera and lens broke all the laws of optics.. Jarrah went for the latter options... Oops. To be fair, I guess those unfamiliar with film (young whippersnappers!) might not immediately realise that when you see scanned film images, you are seeing the sum total of two completely separate images - the one that the camera took and captured on film, and then the one that the scanner took of the film, including added dust, scratches, c-shaped hairs, anything on/in the scanner optics/glass/cover, sticky tape from splices, etc... You woulda thought that after the C-rock embarrassment, they mighta learnt. Unless, of course, they are deliberately misleading people, but oh no, Jarrah would never do that...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 4, 2012 16:58:42 GMT -4
Unless it comes with its own vacuum chamber, rather than just being vacuum packed, its usage would be very limited, eg photographic stuff..
Much of its behavior (eg taking footprints, clumping, trajectory when disturbed, etc) was determined by being in a vacuum and in 1/6 g, not to mention the other 'moon-only' characteristics..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 4, 2012 16:57:46 GMT -4
...will have so much data that finding anomalies is, statistically, almost guaranteed. And of course the less you (or your targeted audience) know, the more 'anomalies' you will find. I'm yet to find *any* anomaly... (not trying to be immodest, it's just that as I investigate new claims, I quickly discover how little the claimant knows..) (A special hi to Patrick1000/DrTea/fattydash and (or?) Jarrah White.)
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 3, 2012 7:41:20 GMT -4
Heh. I truly love these places where the basic physics of the universe shows up in unexpected -- even counter-intuitive -- ways right in the middle of something you interact with daily. ;D By the way, I apologise for not noticing your italicised text and thereby spending most of that lengthy post answering something you didn't ask...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 3, 2012 6:09:18 GMT -4
Yes, but as I mentioned above, that approach will bite you in other ways - a very small aperture brings on other issues like diffraction losses which will manifest in loss of sharpness. Also, the smaller the camera the smaller the sensor. Smaller sensors have lower resolution, less dynamic range and higher noise levels, especially when used at higher sensitivities (higher iso settings). To get anything near the images created by a Hasselblad loaded with medium format film and shot in sunlight in an environment with no atmosphere, you need: - a Hasselblad loaded with medium format film and shot in sunlight in .. Aha! Can you explain in more detail? This seems to make an intuitive sense but I'd like to hear more. Would help me understand why those few films that have tried to accurately produce the look of the Apollo landscape were forced to use very intense light sources. Not quite sure what you wanted explained - maybe ka9q has covered it..? But you've asked me about photography (fool!) so I will answer in great detail anyway! If it's about the lighting and how the film records it.. Back in the good ole days, when we had films like Ektachrome, Kodachrome (transparency or 'positive' films) and Kodacolor (print or 'negative' film), us photography nuts had to very quickly learn about the limitations and best applications of the different types of film. I just picked 3 types above, because those three probably are the best examples to show the *huge* differences in the way they would record any given scene. Things like the size and quality (texture) of the film grain (K'color - large and clumpy, E'chrome small and restrained, K'chrome - virtually non-existent), and the subtle differences in colours (Kchrome - neutral, realistic, long lasting, sometimes slightly reddish skintones, E'chrome - a bit bluish/pinkish, K'color - very good yellows and skintones), and most importantly their latitude and dynamic range. To cut it pretty short, Kodachrome and Ektachrome were both pretty sensitive to correct exposure (limited dynamic range or the ability to record very dark and very light tones in the same scene) and were also *bad* films for overexposure (hence the terribly washed out and 'bloomed' images with the sun in them). Kodacolor has a wider dynamic range and handles overexposure better (so might have been a more suitable film for Apollo in some ways - but it had other problems and I am already digressing..!). But anyway, a photographer from this era (puts hand up!) will be able to pick most images by their 'look', and tell you that it was originally shot on Ekta/Kchrome/whatever. That is MUCH more difficult nowadays, with digital cameras now producing much more neutral (boring?) images. (There's a whole new set of problems with digital though, so now we can pick what size the sensor is..) Anyway.. When you use a film like Ektachrome in anything other than bright lighting, its wheels fall off. Noisy shadows, color goes off, etc. So it really *needed* the Sun - artificial lighting just isn't the same. It's all about quantity of photons! Contrarily, Ekta doesn't handle overexposure well, and anything that exceeds its linear range rapidly gets blown to hell - white, washed out, bloomed, irrecoverably burnt-out areas. Very characteristic - if those images had been shot on Kodachrome or Kodacolor they would have been noticably different (not necessarily better!). Then you have the basic problems of trying to duplicate the lighting on the Moon. You have an intensely bright, very distant and small light source. That means the light rays are almost perfectly parallel - so tiny (yet measurable) penumbra will exist, and there will be single shadows only (except as follows..). And of course not only are there no competing light sources (except the very obvious ones of the astronaut's space suits, the LM, the equipment, any relevant rocks or hills), there is also the huge upwardly reflecting source of the ground, and the heiligenschein effect. All of these factors are obvious or detectable to greater or lesser degrees in the Apollo photography record. To duplicate that lighting effectively would be pretty much impossible for anything but the most simple posed scene, let alone for hundreds of overlapping scenes across a huge area, some of which is also being filmed by other cameras... And if you are trying to duplicate this stuff using lesser light sources there are other telltales if the camera is shot at either low shutter speeds (eg movement blur or lack thereof) or very wide apertures (different bokeh and depth of field) that will catch you out - you simply can't win. Does that help? If not feel free to try to rein me down to the bit you are most interested in..! Yes and no... It really depends on the lens design. Yes, as a rule, a larger (better light gathering) lens will have more CA (and other design problems) than a smaller one, all things being equal (which they never are..!). However, larger lenses are easier to machine accurately - tiny lenses are often not so good simply because they are not precise enough in either grinding or alignment.. But you are right on the money about the more elements, the more flare - that was a bit of a problem with the Hasselblads, made much worse by those horrid reseau plates, which in my highly opionated hindsight and given our current knowledge of photogrammetry, were a crappy idea, I reckon. (I'd be interested to hear Jay's take on that..) Finally, the larger the 'format' of the camera, the shallower the depth of field appears to be - little digitals have very wide depth of field, while large format cameras have much shallower d-o-f. Very useful if you wish to isolate your subject artistically, not very useful if you are shooting macros... Well, that's sorta right - there's a great coverage of the diffraction topic here: Cambridge in Colour - DiffractionFor 35mm format, diffraction used to become an issue at around f16/f22, medium format a bit higher. For compact digital cameras, with their often tiny lenses and small sensors, it can kick in at f8 or even f5.6/4!! That's why you rarely see these cameras offering smaller apertures.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 2, 2012 16:56:23 GMT -4
Another way to look at the depth of field problem with scale models is to realize that your camera's focal length, image size and working wavelength aren't being scaled down along with the model's dimensions. If you could make a tiny working ultraviolet camera you could avoid the problem. A more practical workaround is to use a very small f-stop on the lens. This in turn requires a fast sensor and/or intense lighting and/or long exposure times. Yes, but as I mentioned above, that approach will bite you in other ways - a very small aperture brings on other issues like diffraction losses which will manifest in loss of sharpness. Also, the smaller the camera the smaller the sensor. Smaller sensors have lower resolution, less dynamic range and higher noise levels, especially when used at higher sensitivities (higher iso settings). To get anything near the images created by a Hasselblad loaded with medium format film and shot in sunlight in an environment with no atmosphere, you need: - a Hasselblad loaded with medium format film and shot in sunlight in .. Having said that, I understand Tsialkovsky will be back any moment now, with some samples of his faked images...
|
|