|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 22, 2009 11:34:02 GMT -4
The problem remains that you are questioning the validity of Apollo evidence in a forum where that activity signals that you're proposing a hoax theory. Please explicitly state what you have concluded on the basis of your findings, so that there will be no further misunderstanding of your intent. Maybe he is suggesting that Isaac Newton was wrong about gravity? Besides that and doubting Apollo I can't see any point in questioning the video.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 13:28:52 GMT -4
I am neutral and do not have a preference.
My findings are insufficient to draw a conclusion right now.
This thread could follow to a harmless explanation of the peculiarities of video conversion from 20 frames per second to 29.97 frames per second.
But it also could eventually become more inclined towards a hoax theory depending on the interpretation of current and future findings.
I am undecided at this point as there are contradicting pieces of the story I am trying to analyze without prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 13:41:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 13:54:24 GMT -4
I am neutral and do not have a preference.Then your thread is in the wrong forum. My findings are insufficient to draw a conclusion right now.Then out of curiousity, why did you mention the possibility that the video could be fraudulent, among all other possible explanations? Why did you demand that no one else could speculate? But it also could eventually become more inclined towards a hoax theory depending on the interpretation of current and future findings.Do you realize that it takes far more to prove a hoax than just the supposed failure of bits of evidence to match your expectations? I am undecided at this point as there are contradicting pieces of the story I am trying to analyze without prejudice.Do you really think you're arguing without prejudice?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 13:55:09 GMT -4
At least three centimeters...Please show how you analyzed these photos to compute a 3 cm value.
|
|
|
Post by inconceivable on Jul 22, 2009 14:00:26 GMT -4
This poses a question. Did they really mess around with film speed?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 14:05:39 GMT -4
This poses a question. Did they really mess around with film speed? That's for johnsmith to find out and eliminate. Yes, when going from custom video to standard U.S. video to film to web, or any combination of those, frame-rate becomes an issue.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 14:36:44 GMT -4
JayUtah, what about you? You are constantly posing questions from the position of either a blind believer or an all-knowing entity. There is no slightest doubt at all in your mind concerning what really happened four decades ago? And, for the record, so far I am not arguing with anybody. I plainly share some observations and calculations trying to initiate a dialogue, that's all. Also, by questioning every sentence I write, please do not expect that I have the free time to respond.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 22, 2009 14:42:49 GMT -4
This poses a question. Did they really mess around with film speed? That's for johnsmith to find out and eliminate. Yes, when going from custom video to standard U.S. video to film to web, or any combination of those, frame-rate becomes an issue. Yep. That's why I asked about the original frame rate of the camera. Lots of codecs play fast and loose with that sort of thing and standards conversion can be a real headache.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 14:46:53 GMT -4
Okay I've learned some important lessons form jumping into this thread: Firstly when someone starts a thread with some numbers that show a 'contradiction', ask them how they came up with those numbers. Secondly do not try and work data on the equations of motion after 11 at night. And finally if someone clams to be able to take accurate measurements form a compressed web video back away slowly and carefully.
One thing though, when BertL calculated the drop time as 1.2s approx he appeared to be referencing the MPEG, when Johnsmith came back with 1.08 he referenced the MOV.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 22, 2009 14:58:05 GMT -4
JayUtah, what about you? You are constantly posing questions from the position of either a blind believer or an all-knowing entity.Please identify which of my statements seem to you to have derived from "blind belief." I've made no claim to be an "all-knowing entity." I have, however, claimed to be trained and experienced in photographic analysis. You're attempting a photographic analysis. You should probably get used to the notion that some people know more about some things than you do, and are going to ask you hard questions about your claims. You're not being subjected to any more strenuous analysis than what is done in the real world. The aim of my questioning is to identify the portions of your argument that are poorly documented, poorly computed, poorly reasoned, or just assumed -- and to ask you what you plan to do about it. So far, you've tried to shift the burden of proof, to insist that your assumptions must somehow still be credible, pile more assumption on top of it, and danced around the notion that your findings suggest the footage was hoaxed while providing no direct proof of any hoax. There is no slightest doubt at all in your mind concerning what really happened four decades ago?What does "slightest doubt" have to do with whether you're conducting an appropriate photographic analysis? Whether I have doubts or not is immaterial to whether you know what you're doing and have covered all the bases. Also, by questioning every sentence I write, please do not expect that I have the free time to respond. You're not being subjected to any more scrutiny than is commonly applied to this type of analysis in the real world. If you cannot meet that standard, then don't expect to be taken very seriously. Saying you have the time to present your claims but not time to defend and substantiate them does not bode well.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 22, 2009 15:04:35 GMT -4
One thing though, when BaleL calculated the drop time as 1.2s approx he used the MPEG, when Johnsmith came back with 1.08 he referenced the MOV. BaleL? ;D Okay, so I just calculated the feather drop using the 80MB .mov file, which runs at a rate of 29.97FPS (determined using GSpot). I solely looked at the hammer for this observation, and didn't include the feather. I must note that in this clip both are very hard to make out especially when they're moving. The first frame where you can visibly see the hammer drop is frame 1787 (or 59.62 into the clip). The first frame where the hammer hits the ground is 1827 (or 1:00.96 into the clip). This means that the hammer is falling for about 40 frames or (40 divided by 29.97) about 1.33 seconds. This has an inaccuracy of one frame, or 0.033 seconds. Putting these numbers into the following equation: d = 0.5 * g * ( t^2) Gives us the following numbers. The times used are the minimum time (39 / 29.97) and the maximum time (41 / 29.97) so that we have included the inaccuracy factor into our calculations. d_min = 0.5 * 1.622 * ( 1.30^2) = 1.37 meter, or 137 centimeter d_max = 0.5 * 1.622 * ( 1.37^2) = 1.52 meter, or 152 centimeter So using your .mov clip, these are the distances I get. They're pretty far away from the a 1.08 second figure you got using Ulead.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 22, 2009 15:14:36 GMT -4
One thing though, when BaleL calculated the drop time as 1.2s approx he used the MPEG, when Johnsmith came back with 1.08 he referenced the MOV. BaleL? ;D Sorry, in my defence I did realize my mistake and correct it, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmith on Jul 22, 2009 15:39:56 GMT -4
BertL, sorry to disappoint you, but at 1:00.96 the handle of the hammer finally lays on the ground, the hammer head hits the ground first before that. ;D You should stop at the frame when the hammer head touches the ground, not when the entire hammer lays on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 22, 2009 15:48:38 GMT -4
This is a little rough given the source but anyhow. The hammer was 39cm long, I did two scales based on that to try to bracket the error caused by the crapness of the image, which was from the 80mb .mov The hammer fell approximately 217 pixels. By the left scale that works out to 128.24 cm, by the right scale 122.5 cm. That's pretty consistent with the arm positions.
|
|