|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:19:57 GMT -4
Because If they faked film footage it proves 1) Fakery was used to create Apollo illusion by NASA & co 2) This fakery has been covered up by all and sundry - including your forum - diligently. The logical implications of that are staggering if you are all proven liars. You will be asked to produce IRREFUTIBLE EVIDENCE you actually went to the Moon. Now, what about MY proof? So far do you disgaree or agree with my analysis of the footage? I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. If you are stating that if one is Fake then all come into question, the why wouldn't the opposite be true as well?? In other words, are you also suggesting, "If one is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the rest are validated" ?? YES - as you say - if you can prove Apollo beyond a shadow of doubt resistance is futile. But your proof has to floor me, just as mine has to floor you now on this thread I intend to provide proof of a hoax. Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. That's like saying some stories are true that never happened ;D
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 9, 2010 14:22:07 GMT -4
Then by all means, provide the proof now.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:26:17 GMT -4
Sorry but all I see at the link is a composite of images with numbers and arrows. No analysis is present. yes well it would be nicer if i could upload the actual image. But here is what it shows. I have taken screenshots from the OP video, cropped the relevant bits I (feet and timecode) and checked to see where the jumps started and peaked. The you tuber has done a good job of aligning start and apex I think as my RED ARROW analysis shows. Superimposed on every frame is a graphic I did of the starting level of the right foot in each case. Note this is locked onto a floor element in the control video (gym setup) With me now? Start time is 72, Apex is at 90 (or 91 I made it) Are you all with me so far?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Aug 9, 2010 14:33:31 GMT -4
Do bear in mind that lots of members here also belong to BAUT. The amateur dramatics are unnecessary if your analysis is sound.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 14:39:15 GMT -4
Do bear in mind that lots of members here also belong to BAUT. The amateur dramatics are unnecessary if your analysis is sound. OK I will cool it down. You are correct about the amateur part at least ;D Now then before we get to the downside is there a flaw in my analysis so far?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Aug 9, 2010 14:41:26 GMT -4
Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. On the contrary, "Apollo" is a very broad subject. Some of it could be exposed as a hoax (such as the Apollo 1 fire or Neil Armstrong's LLTV crash) without affecting the authenticity of the rest (e.g. Armstrong's "Mr. Gorsky" comment.)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 9, 2010 14:43:37 GMT -4
Are you all with me so far? In the blurry Apollo images, how did you determine the actual time the for left the surface? How have you accounted for potential differences in the bending of the legs in determining the apex of each jump? What is the point you are attempting to make in using the arrows? Why not just give us the full analysis, which you must have already done to come to your conclusion, instead of a few sentences?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 14:51:15 GMT -4
As was pointed out at BAUT Rodin didn't analyze the jump in a proper sense, he just did some manual estimates based on a clip he found at Youtube.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 15:03:10 GMT -4
now on this thread I intend to provide proof of a hoax. Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. That's like saying some stories are true that never happened ;D Apollo as whole cannot be both but it is possible for indvidual pieces of evidence to be false without invalidating Apollo. If this one piece of video were anomalous but all the others were consistent with being taken on the moon, and you add the rocks, and the telemetry, and the retroreflectors wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Apollo is perfectly real but someone tampered with that piece of footage? It's even possible for pieces of evidence to be fake and real. there's a famous picture of Aldrin I believe with a big chunk of black sky behind him. HB's seized on the fact that the antenna on his backpack can't be seen as proof that picture was faked, and they're right. When the picture was taken the upper edge ran practically across the top of Aldrin. Some picture editor didn't like the look of that so added the black sky to give it better balance for publication, creating a picture that was both real and faked.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 9, 2010 15:05:53 GMT -4
As was pointed out at BAUT Rodin didn't analyze the jump in a proper sense, he just did some manual estimates based on a clip he found at Youtube. I haven't browsed BAUT recently, but there is no surprise in what you say, given Rodin's inauspicious start here. Nevertheless, one should give the benefit of the doubt an let the claimant show his hand.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 9, 2010 15:13:14 GMT -4
It's even possible for pieces of evidence to be fake and real. there's a famous picture of Aldrin I believe with a big chunk of black sky behind him. HB's seized on the fact that the antenna on his backpack can't be seen as proof that picture was faked, and they're right. When the picture was taken the upper edge ran practically across the top of Aldrin. Some picture editor didn't like the look of that so added the black sky to give it better balance for publication, creating a picture that was both real and faked. It's AS11-40-5903. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903history.html
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:15:01 GMT -4
Are you all with me so far? You make a decent point there. Just use successive frames. Some will be clearer than others. You can determine to within about a click I would say The legs are straight at the apex. Obviously bent at launch but as the astronaut leaves the ground they are straight. Once 'in flight' parabolic motion begins. I will however at some stage get the best quality footage available ad do a frame by frame analysis measuring the height nit just of the feet but also other points, discarding rogue points - and plots. I do not expect to contradict this initial study - merely refine it To determine the apex. as you can see the middle annotated image in each case is highest from the ground Here is similar analysis done on the downside i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv9/ContrarianThinker/ApolloJump2.png?t=1281361225While the control subject just about makes the ground inside ESD, the astronaut takes much longer to descend. This is a GROSS discrepancy that can only be explained by a gross incorrect assignment of start apex and end of jump, or wires. I think my work is too accurate even in this initial analysis to allow for the former
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 9, 2010 15:25:05 GMT -4
I want to ask how you have taken into account compression and its attendant issues and the issues with filming and transmission.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Aug 9, 2010 15:31:28 GMT -4
you need to use original footage. Youtube clips are worthless for any timing, goodness only knows what path they have taken from the original. You are using the feet, bad choice there.
Also is this film footage or TV footage? That makes a huge difference to possible accuracy.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 15:31:48 GMT -4
now on this thread I intend to provide proof of a hoax. Apollo cannot be both a hoax and real. That's like saying some stories are true that never happened ;D Apollo as whole cannot be both but it is possible for indvidual pieces of evidence to be false without invalidating Apollo. If this one piece of video were anomalous but all the others were consistent with being taken on the moon, and you add the rocks, and the telemetry, and the retroreflectors wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that Apollo is perfectly real but someone tampered with that piece of footage? It's even possible for pieces of evidence to be fake and real. there's a famous picture of Aldrin I believe with a big chunk of black sky behind him. HB's seized on the fact that the antenna on his backpack can't be seen as proof that picture was faked, and they're right. When the picture was taken the upper edge ran practically across the top of Aldrin. Some picture editor didn't like the look of that so added the black sky to give it better balance for publication, creating a picture that was both real and faked. I will tell you what a court would do. It would look at the proof (lets say) that a chunk of what the public were told was footage from the Moon was actually filmed on Earth. If the proof stood up they would ask why was this faked? I am not sure but what if this was broadcast in real time (or Lunar delay time)? Well the court would want to know how, why did this happen. Who knew about it. etc. Perhaps right now peeps are working out their fall-back positions Now the defence HAS to answer these questions before we can proceed. of course the preferred route were I say defending this position would be to do what politicians are trained to do - change the subject. I would ask but what about the proof we DID go there like telemetry Doppler shifts and time delays Russia's acquiescence The radar ranging reflectors on the Moon Moon rocks (well no you already know that Von Braun went moon rock collecting in Antarctica) Oh - and the motion of objects obviously in a vacuum Well I have answers even to those that will surprise you. But right now NASA is in the dock and I am the prosecution witness
|
|