Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 18, 2010 17:46:29 GMT -4
I think that's why HBs speed it up less. Things in normal motion start to look more realistic, but things moving faster or slower than the average speed of each piece look bizarre. The HBs can't have it both ways. They pick something in the middle so they can compromise on both types of motions so that neither stands out as especially strange. Of course that's cheating and a deliberate misrepresentation. They have to either go all in or not at all. If they get the body movements right, the fall rate is wrong. And if they get the fall rate right, the body movements are unnaturally fast. I wonder if there is a video with a long passage speeded up, the likeliehood of more oddities showing as obvious, rather than easily dismissable? I have not seen an HB present a long video segment sped up. They selective pick short segments precisely so they can hide the parts that don't fit their claims. What was that experiment that looks definitely odd when speeded up, when all around is quite normal looking? I don't understand your question. Can you further explain?
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jun 18, 2010 19:11:02 GMT -4
What was that experiment that looks definitely odd when speeded up, when all around is quite normal looking? I don't understand your question. Can you further explain? It was a post I saw, can't remember where on apollohoax, it was an experiment they were running (involving a pendulum?) that when sped up is obviously wrong. Sorry can't be more specific.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 18, 2010 19:24:47 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 17, 2010 17:57:59 GMT -4
Another question....Has this been debunked? It's a JW short vid, but he doesn't talk on it. Citing a flag movement before astronaut got to the flag...... www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUgIsn't it impossible to push air in front of your body to do that? I always thought it rushes out sideways as you move forward. I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 17, 2010 20:59:42 GMT -4
There is some amount of compression wave pressure due to body movement but the effect is negligible in ordinary circumstances. www.sciencetoymaker.org/hangGlider/index.htmThis site has plans for a paper airplane that can be pushed around with a notebook. Check out the vid. In kung fu one can learn to blow out a candle with a punch. It takes practice. At highway speeds you can see snowflakes bounce away from your car. I once walked(very quickly) backstage between the cyc and the upstage wall and noticed a wave of air build as I traveled. This was in a narrow space, and over a distance of 50+ feet. Sorry, but I don't think a slow moving guy in open space can move the flag by "pushing air" with his space suit. I posted this thought at Delusional Idiots Forum and DavidC/Rocky/Cosmored responded by telling me that the slo-mo camera work would suggest that the astronaut was going faster. Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 21:34:12 GMT -4
The Mythbusters tried several methods, including running at 1/2 speed, to duplicate the Apollo footage, and all of them had telltale problems that gave the game away. One prominent grandson of the hoax theory haughtily claimed, after the show aired, that the real theory is that a combination of slow motion and wire supports were used. I'd never heard that claim before, though it's possible I missed it, but more importantly it doesn't make sense. It's just another example of moving the goal posts. The only way to make ballistic objects on (above) the earth mimic motion in lunar gravity is to change the film speed by a ratio of sqrt(6). Any other ratio simply wouldn't work. So once you've done that, what good are wire supports? Applying forces to objects that are supposed to be in ballistic motion will simply make them move non-ballistically. And applying forces to some supposedly ballistic objects but not others will make them move differently when they should be moving the same.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 17, 2010 21:57:45 GMT -4
I'd never heard that claim before, though it's possible I missed it, but more importantly it doesn't make sense. It's just another example of moving the goal posts. The only way to make ballistic objects on (above) the earth mimic motion in lunar gravity is to change the film speed by a ratio of sqrt(6). Any other ratio simply wouldn't work. So once you've done that, what good are wire supports? Applying forces to objects that are supposed to be in ballistic motion will simply make them move non-ballistically. And applying forces to some supposedly ballistic objects but not others will make them move differently when they should be moving the same. The wires are obviously what is being used for the bits where speeding up the film would make it look wrong due to the astronauts moving their arms or other parts ridiculous fast. The slight problems of transitioning between the two modes seamlessly in the extremely long shots produced by the Apollo missions and the situations where you have both ballistic objects and astronauts moving in the wrong way are simply handwaved away.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 18, 2010 2:29:27 GMT -4
You mean those shots are longer than the clips on YouTube?
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 18, 2010 4:11:21 GMT -4
There is some amount of compression wave pressure due to body movement but the effect is negligible in ordinary circumstances. www.sciencetoymaker.org/hangGlider/index.htmThis site has plans for a paper airplane that can be pushed around with a notebook. Check out the vid. In kung fu one can learn to blow out a candle with a punch. It takes practice. At highway speeds you can see snowflakes bounce away from your car. I once walked(very quickly) backstage between the cyc and the upstage wall and noticed a wave of air build as I traveled. This was in a narrow space, and over a distance of 50+ feet. Sorry, but I don't think a slow moving guy in open space can move the flag by "pushing air" with his space suit. I posted this thought at Delusional Idiots Forum and DavidC/Rocky/Cosmored responded by telling me that the slo-mo camera work would suggest that the astronaut was going faster. Yeah. Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I also saw someone talking about static, but not that far away. I also saw someone suggest a CRT effect, but both colours of the flag are 'blooming'. It is very odd. Even if it had been filmed on Earth, I can't see how the flag moved?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 18, 2010 4:49:01 GMT -4
Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I've studied this one quite a bit, and I conclude you're seeing video artifacts. First of all, the color TV system used by Apollo is quite different from the one used in the US until the recent switch to digital. There's only one camera tube, with a rotating color wheel in front that sequentially exposes each field to red, green and blue light. Except for this rotating filter, the signal coming out of the camera is essentially a standard black and white signal. Back on earth, the individual fields are recorded on a magnetic disk and read back to synthesize a NTSC (US color standard) image. Note what this means: the individual color components in each TV frame that you see (especially when still-framing) do not come from the same instant in time. That's why you so often see those colored artifacts in Apollo video, especially on rapidly moving objects (like the "confetti" during LM ascent). Second, the image you're seeing has been through an additional step of lossy digital compression. MPEG-2 (and all later schemes) code across several frames in time, looking for parts of each picture that remain the same so they don't have to be repeatedly transmitted. Combine all these artifacts and it's not at all surprising that you might, while still-framing a video, see what looks like something beginning to move before it actually started to move.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 18, 2010 7:20:50 GMT -4
Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I've studied this one quite a bit, and I conclude you're seeing video artifacts. Why is this effect not apparent in other footage? I could see why an HB would shrug this off. Is there a way of elaborating on this...specifically the same instant in time, so I can better understand it.......It kind of makes sense, but not quite.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 18, 2010 7:35:52 GMT -4
Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I also saw someone talking about static, but not that far away. I also saw someone suggest a CRT effect, but both colours of the flag are 'blooming'. It is very odd. Even if it had been filmed on Earth, I can't see how the flag moved? I gave a post with more posibilities on another thread: apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2811&page=11#82578My own opinion is that the most likely explanation is dust, too fine to be seen, kicked up by one of the astronauts and hitting the flag.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 18, 2010 8:41:00 GMT -4
There is some amount of compression wave pressure due to body movement but the effect is negligible in ordinary circumstances. www.sciencetoymaker.org/hangGlider/index.htmThis site has plans for a paper airplane that can be pushed around with a notebook. Check out the vid. In kung fu one can learn to blow out a candle with a punch. It takes practice. At highway speeds you can see snowflakes bounce away from your car. I once walked(very quickly) backstage between the cyc and the upstage wall and noticed a wave of air build as I traveled. This was in a narrow space, and over a distance of 50+ feet. Sorry, but I don't think a slow moving guy in open space can move the flag by "pushing air" with his space suit. I posted this thought at Delusional Idiots Forum and DavidC/Rocky/Cosmored responded by telling me that the slo-mo camera work would suggest that the astronaut was going faster. Yeah. Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I also saw someone talking about static, but not that far away. I also saw someone suggest a CRT effect, but both colours of the flag are 'blooming'. It is very odd. Even if it had been filmed on Earth, I can't see how the flag moved? Why not that far away for static? They are in a vaccum which offers no resistance. All of our assumptions about static are based on our experience on Earth where it has to work through the insulator we call air.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 18, 2010 9:47:13 GMT -4
Okay, it can't be air moving the flag.......so what can it be. There appears to be a small movement when he's 2 feet away. I also saw someone talking about static, but not that far away. I also saw someone suggest a CRT effect, but both colours of the flag are 'blooming'. It is very odd. Even if it had been filmed on Earth, I can't see how the flag moved? Why not that far away for static? They are in a vaccum which offers no resistance. All of our assumptions about static are based on our experience on Earth where it has to work through the insulator we call air. OK, I'll buy that, how would it work? I mean how does static electricity effect the movement of the flag when he is near it for this bit, but not when he is standing on the opposite side?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 18, 2010 16:30:32 GMT -4
Why is this effect not apparent in other footage? Oh, but it is apparent in a lot of other footage. You're just not looking at it as closely. How much Apollo EVA footage have you still-framed and carefully examined? LM ascent is the most dramatic example because you've got little bits of insulation flying all over the place, and each bit moves quite far between successive frames. So you get a red dot, then a green dot, then a blue dot, and so on for each bit. It certainly doesn't look natural. Oh, there's another phenomenon that frenat (I think) mentioned, and that's blooming. If the footage you saw passed through a kinescope stage (i.e. display on a CRT and recording by a film camera), then you also have CRT artifacts to consider, and one of those is "blooming". If the high voltage supply to the CRT anode isn't perfectly regulated, then it will decrease as the average picture brightness increases -- such as when Scott and his bright suit enter the picture. A drop in anode voltage causes the electrons to move more slowly and to be deflected by a greater angle as they pass through the magnetic deflection yoke. This causes the entire picture to get a little bigger, hence the name "blooming". I think I can detect a little of this as Scott enters the picture. It's easy to forget about a lot of these video artifacts as we look at our modern LCDs driven by digital computers displaying digital data that had been transferred over a digital network. Digital systems don't accumulate artifacts at each stage; analog systems, like those on Apollo, do. One of the reasons I'd really been looking forward to going back to the moon was to see it all over again but in digital high definition TV, with a continuous real-time stream of high resolution digital still photography better than the Apollo Hasselblads. The communications aspect of Apollo helped inspire me into a career in communications engineering, and we've come so far since then...
|
|