|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 19, 2011 3:14:26 GMT -4
I love the way many HBs on trying to explain how NASA faked the moon landing they couldn't do because they didn't have the technology required, resort to speculating about how NASA had technology in 1969 we still don't have today.
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 19, 2011 17:50:55 GMT -4
Phantom - maybe you should come out from the rainforests of Uganda for sometime. Here outside we had all the basic techniques of photomanipulation in early 70s (and before that we did not need them when producing Apollo pics) - and we have used these methods in Phantom and Tarzan movies. If you could have come to my country, I could have made university lectures about 3D perspectives, adding/removing and putting together image materials, tone adjustments in data borders, processing of scanned images, etc.
For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth...
Which I don't quarrante are the details of topography (my mountains will bee smooth), shadows if simultaneous orbital image data is missing, and details of vehicles as long as I don't have them in by backyard gravel pit.
"Even in Wikipedia" argument does not apply here. Pokrovsky's theories were put to Wikipedia and they weree removed within few hours and his personal Russian page was hacked and destroyed - this is so called US democracy and liberty - freedom to express....
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 19, 2011 18:21:20 GMT -4
OK, prove it. Make an Apollo like shot. There is photos taken from orbit available online, like Lunar Orbiter, and LRO, as well as replica LM and suits for sale, with such images been available on-line and a plethora of photos of Earth from space. Why you would need images of the CSM to fake a landing EVA photo I don't understand ,but whatever. There is models and images of the CSM available online. Perhaps include an Apollo shot, not telling us which is which, as well so we can't say "Oh, we know it's fake because we know you faked it" I'll even be generous and let you use a modern desktop computer instead of anything like what was available in the 70's.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 19, 2011 18:25:26 GMT -4
Oh I dunno, I have seen Tsialkovsky claim many things and re write history.
Nothing on the table yet though.
Re Wiki and all that, if he had anything then publish in the mainstream at the very least?
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Dec 19, 2011 18:41:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Dec 19, 2011 18:50:14 GMT -4
For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth... Then stop talking about it and do it. As Raven pointed out there are lots of online sources for pictures of Earth, the CSM, the LM and Apollo suits and if for some reason they aren't suitable lots of the pictures from Apollo that just show landscape without the astronauts, LM, or Earth in the shot so you can produce one of those. As you claim to be able to produce thousands a day (you do realize that they took a very large number of photos on each mission don't you?) you should easily be able to find the time to do it.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 19, 2011 19:06:40 GMT -4
"Even in Wikipedia" argument does not apply here. Pokrovsky's theories were put to Wikipedia and they weree removed within few hours and his personal Russian page was hacked and destroyed - this is so called US democracy and liberty - freedom to express.... Perhaps you don't understand what Wikipedia is. It's an encyclopedia. It summarizes knowledge already held elsewhere. It is specifically not for original publiction of new work. Everything has to be cited. And not everything with a cite can go in either. The work has to be credible. Pokrovsky's hypotheses about the Saturn V (I won't call them theories) are easily ruled out with firmly established facts and observations, such as the dimensions of the various stages, the time it took to rise the height of the launch tower, and most importantly the observation by millions of people of the formation of shock condensation clouds around the launcher at the precise moment it is reported to reach Mach 1, the speed of sound. This alone completely trashes Pokrovsky's claims of a much lower delta V for the S-IC stage.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 19, 2011 20:21:07 GMT -4
Phantom - maybe you should come out from the rainforests of Uganda for sometime. Here outside we had all the basic techniques of photomanipulation in early 70s (and before that we did not need them when producing Apollo pics) - and we have used these methods in Phantom and Tarzan movies. If you could have come to my country, I could have made university lectures about 3D perspectives, adding/removing and putting together image materials, tone adjustments in data borders, processing of scanned images, etc. For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth... Which I don't quarrante are the details of topography (my mountains will bee smooth), shadows if simultaneous orbital image data is missing, and details of vehicles as long as I don't have them in by backyard gravel pit. "Even in Wikipedia" argument does not apply here. Pokrovsky's theories were put to Wikipedia and they weree removed within few hours and his personal Russian page was hacked and destroyed - this is so called US democracy and liberty - freedom to express.... I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that the photos could be manipulated using technology of the early 70's? How many punch cards would it take to store one photograph? And what happens if you floor-sort the deck? Oh, I know! Gene Cernan ends up with an antenna growing out of his head!
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 19, 2011 20:33:41 GMT -4
Tarzan? You're citing the realism of *Tarzan movies* as some sort of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Dec 19, 2011 20:42:03 GMT -4
"Even in Wikipedia" argument does not apply here. Pokrovsky's theories were put to Wikipedia and they weree removed within few hours and his personal Russian page was hacked and destroyed - this is so called US democracy and liberty - freedom to express.... I suppose it is. It gives the freedom to a private organization like Wikipedia to post, or choose not to post, whatever it wants. Are you under the misapprehension that Wikipedia has some sort of obligation to post anything they do not believe is useful or true?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Dec 19, 2011 22:53:08 GMT -4
For me it takes one day per mission to prepare images exactly like the Apollo pictures ... I only need LM and space suites - and few puictures of CM and Earth... Then do so. Prepare for us an entire mission's-worth of faked Apollo photographs, using only hardware and software available to you in 1969. You have 24 hours. Go. [Edit: punksheayshun]
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 20, 2011 3:07:33 GMT -4
I think Mr T does not understand the challenge even IF he had the software and technology. It has to be done on the fly for it to work, despite hi re writing history (don't worry, real events still happened). Events have to match the record, his time starts now, lift off. He has to fake all imagery on the fly to tie in with the record as it happened.
And out of curiosity what was available in the 1970's Tsialkovsky?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 20, 2011 6:16:29 GMT -4
Pokrovsky's theories were put to Wikipedia and they weree removed within few hours [...] I take it you still don't understand the implications of the work of your 19th century countryman whose name you have appropriated?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 20, 2011 9:26:49 GMT -4
I've seen soviet era photomanipulation. It fooled the viewer for about one microsecond.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 20, 2011 10:02:25 GMT -4
I've seen soviet era photomanipulation. It fooled the viewer for about one microsecond. Well, of course there are examples of people who were erased from Soviet photographs. However, the quality of those photographs doesn't compare to Apollo records by a long shot, so I don't think it could be comparable.
|
|