|
Post by thetart on Aug 9, 2010 16:06:40 GMT -4
I cant understand. Rodin - what is exactly your point?
If it is to do with a time up v's time down discrepancy then that applies to the centre of gravity of the astro not the feet, which may or may not be in exact symmetry with the centre of gravity.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 16:08:28 GMT -4
Is this clip better than the YouTube one? www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpgThe description says, "For students interested in analyzing John's 'Big Navy Salute', I have made a short, 2.7 MB MPEG-1 clip of better resolution and at 29.97 fps, showing only the two jumps.” Now that's what I call a true scientist. many thanks We do God's work here
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 16:11:29 GMT -4
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 Actually the defence is not required to do anything, the prosecution is required to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. And your evidence is woeful. For example; Von Braun's trip was a matter of public record at the time it was undertaken. He is not a geologist so exactly what merit would there be in having this high profile figure on your meteorite gathering trip? The meteorites from Antarctica and the moon samples have differences due to the meteorites passing through the earth's atmosphere and the moon samples have surface features that cannot be recreated on Earth. There are two metre sample cores among the material returned from the moon, there is no possibility Antarctic meteors could have provided these, oh and of course the small point no one knew such meteors existed until a decade AFTER Apollo. But how about we stick with the fact that your 'case' rests on a Youtube clip that you haven't done anything more with than pause and make some guesses about timing? Why should you expect you assertions to be taken seriously when your'evidence' is so ridiculously flimsy?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 16:17:54 GMT -4
If I may ask again, what is your take on the quality of information you have used? You base a lot on it, do you understand it? It is GOOD ENOUGH to prove a point. Give me your best quality film and I will settle this using a frame editor and multiple body sample points. I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why I went on BAUT and here - to see what counter arguments could be raised. I'll be back And what qualifications do you have to make that judgment? There are people on this board who actually understand photo and video and analysis and they say otherwise, and even as a layman I can see the massive flaws in your methodology. That you essentially demand that people here provide you with the materials that any reasonable investigator would regard as a bare minimum to have access to before making such claims says a great deal about you and very little about Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 9, 2010 16:31:52 GMT -4
If I may ask again, what is your take on the quality of information you have used? You base a lot on it, do you understand it? It is GOOD ENOUGH to prove a point. Give me your best quality film and I will settle this using a frame editor and multiple body sample points. I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why I went on BAUT and here - to see what counter arguments could be raised. I'll be back Not what I was getting at. You are using flawed data. How do you account for the results when a video has been mangled through the web let alone, for example, mpeg compression.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Aug 9, 2010 16:43:36 GMT -4
It is GOOD ENOUGH to prove a point. Give me your best quality film and I will settle this using a frame editor and multiple body sample points. I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. That is why I went on BAUT and here - to see what counter arguments could be raised. I'll be back Not what I was getting at. You are using flawed data. How do you account for the results when a video has been mangled through the web let alone, for example, mpeg compression. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16salute.mpgI'll be back
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 9, 2010 16:43:45 GMT -4
Again, I have to ask "why would you expect someone jumping to go up at the same rate they go down?"
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 9, 2010 16:53:31 GMT -4
Again, I have to ask "why would you expect someone jumping to go up at the same rate they go down?" Isn't that exactly what happens? Time up is always the same as time down? The force of gravity deccelerates a body at the same rate as it rises.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 9, 2010 17:05:46 GMT -4
I can tell you now though I will prove wires beyond a shadow of doubt. Then please get on with it. This has been pretty much a pointless discussion so far.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 17:05:58 GMT -4
It's odd, if someone walked into the Louvre and claimed the Mona Lisa hanging on the wall there was a fake and their evidence consisted of examining a black and white photograph of the painting in a magazine they found lying in their doctor's waiting room would Rodin expect the Louvre to take them seriously or show them to the street?
And yet here he is doing something that parallels the above and expecting to be taken seriously. In all of these threads where someone claims to have found some anomaly in the video they are always working from some compressed clip they found on the web, they never try to get hold of the original source material, they never use any recognized analysis software or techniques. And they always end up denouncing the rest of the board members for not accepting their crummy nonsense as a smoking gun.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 9, 2010 17:07:39 GMT -4
Again, I have to ask "why would you expect someone jumping to go up at the same rate they go down?" Isn't that exactly what happens? Time up is always the same as time down? The force of gravity deccelerates a body at the same rate as it rises. I'm not really an expert on such things, but I think the speed going up would be dependent on the amount of effort the astronaut put into the jump and the amount of gravity, whereas the speed going down is dependent only on the amount of gravity. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 9, 2010 17:10:10 GMT -4
To be honest, I don't understand Rodin's point either. Because of the red arrows on his picture I thought he was comparing the height differences between John Young's jump and the one by Adam Savage, but now I gather that's not the point he is trying to make.
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Aug 9, 2010 17:11:39 GMT -4
Isn't that exactly what happens? Time up is always the same as time down? The force of gravity deccelerates a body at the same rate as it rises. I'm not really an expert on such things, but I think the speed going up would be dependent on the amount of effort the astronaut put into the jump and the amount of gravity, whereas the speed going down is dependent only on the amount of gravity. Is that correct? I am pretty sure it is the same. Whatever force is applied upwards, is applied downwards.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Aug 9, 2010 17:11:55 GMT -4
And how exactly have you verified that your new postage sized MPEG is of the same quality as the original footage? Or even of adequate quality to use in analysis? What new analysis tools are you planning to apply to this? And again what experience/qualifications do you have to conduct such an analysis?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 9, 2010 17:15:24 GMT -4
Again, I have to ask "why would you expect someone jumping to go up at the same rate they go down?" Isn't that exactly what happens? Time up is always the same as time down? The force of gravity deccelerates a body at the same rate as it rises. Correct. Of course this is only true when gravity is the only force at work. On Earth you also have drag from the air. At slow speeds, such as somebody jumping, drag is negligible, but it can have a big effect on something moving at high speed. For example, if you throw something upward at greater than terminal velocity, it will take less time to reach its apex than it takes to fall back to the ground because coming down it will never go faster than terminal velocity.
|
|