|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 14, 2011 2:53:09 GMT -4
So, I assume there are shots taken from the moon landings (few seconds watched). There was a topic on here about the hammer feather drop recently and boy did I learn how the camera worked from the posts of the more informed. Also there is compression used in converting videos today, to an extend depending on the method. Have you taken this into consideration and how so?
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 14, 2011 3:04:00 GMT -4
The problem is: He's right... Well, then maybe you can answer a few questions he never has. Such as why it was impossible and how it was faked. All of it. You see, he doesn't answer either of those satisfactorily, because everything he suggests as a possibility is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 14, 2011 5:38:09 GMT -4
A quick tip for you, vincent. Next time think about your title. Your analysis is a hoax, is it? Out of the mouths..
So, 'vincent', you come to a board largely populated with engineers, scientists, professionals in many fields and Apollo enthusiasts, and bravely say nothing but present two links to Youtube. Youtube - the haven of the indefensible - the place to go when you wish to hide behind the walls of stupidity, attract the trolls and block any dissenting views...
You provide no explanation, no substance, no methodology, and what's more, you appear to be presenting a topic that others have dealt with in great detail before, without having addressed any of the issues that you would HAVE to, to do any sort of real analysis.
Have I summed it up ok? Then you spend your time whining about people who 'trash' on you - what would you like us to do, hand you a tissue?
And you expect people here to spend their time viewing your videos, on no basis whatsoever. NONE.
Well, forgive me for not giving you another hit - if you are so incredibly lazy that you can't even explain your analysis here in your own words, then I think it's pretty obvious what will unfold in this thread...
Because here's the thing, 'vincent'. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do a very simple thing. At least it WOULD be simple if you were a decent, credible researcher. I'll even tell you what it is.
You need to explain your methodology in reasonable detail.
I'll even give some more hints (aren't I kind!?) on what is meant by 'reasonable detail'.
First, you outline the problem or issue you are addressing. Then you can explain your methodology in detail, including things like:
1 - how you applied 3d photogrammetry to a 2d video
2 - how you addressed provenance - eg frame timing issues
3 - how you calculated the centre of gravity for the duration, and how it would have changed
4 - how you have applied this type of analysis to an actual situation (real or simulated) and verified the accuracy
5 - what assumptions you have made, what constraints would apply to the situation, and what error ranges apply across the entire analysis
There's more, but that's a start.. And some of these are easy to address, but some require a lot of thought and are far more complex than an amateur might guess at. Now, if you can't do all that, I'm afraid you are sorely - hopelessly - out of your depth. Now there's no shame in that - I'm hopelessly out of my depth in neurosurgery - but then I don't post ridiculous assertions on neurosurgery forums.
By the way, I've made a rash assumption in no 3 above - I trust you have not just measured some extremity of the astronaut's suit and assumed it could be analysed as a discrete point that would follow a 'ballistic' path - ie in direct synch with the c-o-g.....? Because if you have that would indicate you are not just out of your depth - you need resuscitation... Please tell me you didn't make that elementary, fundamental, mistake, vincent.. If you DID, then words fail me... Although, I'll give you a few points if you can now explain why that is not valid and how you could go about addressing that issue... And if you don't, I will.
I'm sorry to be harsh and possibly curb your youthful enthusiasm, but you need to hang out with the sort of people who actually understand science and engineering and physics (even basic bio-mechanics in this case) and who know how to *properly* perform a real analysis. That set of people does not include Jarrah.
Oh, and vincent - feel free to tell me how your videos addressed all of those issues, and if you have, I will come back and apologise... If not, then the apology should come from you, for wasting our time.
BTW, anyone noticed it's Spam-Jarrah's-Videos week? He must be getting low on hits. Or maybe he is about to make the big announcement that he's been trolling all along..
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 14, 2011 6:49:24 GMT -4
Actually, John Young's jump demonstrates that it did indeed take place on the moon. Around here we tend to use source material that is as close the original as possible. We take in to account things like sequential color artifacting and the bad evil haywire that can occur when you use sub-standard youtube quality video.
We also tend to understand the difference between fully-matrixed color video (derived from a sequential source), full gamut colour video (non-sequential), kinescope (and its associated celluloid artifacts), slow-scan converted monochrome video, and things like 4:2:2, 4:2:0 color coding and frame rate conversions.
edited to add last paragraph
|
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 14, 2011 7:38:54 GMT -4
Vincent, You have compared yourself jumping on Earth unencumbered to an astronaut on the Moon with a PLSS. You also swung your arms to give you vertical impetus.....Young didn't. The correct comparison, like for like.......is for you to try that jump with somebody on your back, so that you weigh a total of 360lbs. I like this video showing Jarrah debunking himself...... www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsUThere's a challenge at the end of the video, care to take it up? As for the wires claim, the astronauts actually cross over during that footage ....which would mess things up slightly. Saying he's on wires and not jumping high enough is a bit of contradiction. His jump matches Lunar gravity fall and rise times. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 14, 2011 15:33:32 GMT -4
As far as I was able to stand, his argument seemed to boil down to "He could have jumped higher." He is perfectly aware that jumping high would put the astronaut at risk (which is unusual for an HB) and admits that in the video. But his answer to that is; Young said "Here's a big one."
That's his entire case. That Young must have intended to jump as high as possible, and he fell short. Even given the factors he has not taken into consideration...how the suit specifically restricts certain motions, what the actual extension may have been, correct use of acceleration and scaling laws, better tools to measure the covered distance...he is left with this bald assumption.
Vincent, suppose Young had been flying in an F18 (an airplane capable of tearing its own wings off with a drastic maneuver.) Say he radioed "And now I'm going to make a tight turn!" Are you claiming that this skilled and experienced man would then proceed to wreck the airplane: instead of making the tightest turn that could be safely accomplished?
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 14, 2011 15:34:12 GMT -4
Never mind reading up on source material do HB's ever actually read through the board before they post? The exact same argument was gone over ad nauseam last year and I'm not seeing anything new being brought to the party by vincentmcconnell.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 14, 2011 15:43:34 GMT -4
Never mind reading up on source material do HB's ever actually read through the board before they post? The exact same argument was gone over ad nauseam last year and I'm not seeing anything new being brought to the party by vincentmcconnell. Yeah and I can emphatically state I'm not going to upload the same segment with the same time-code burnt in for the same jump from the same master tape again. This same case was closed about 3 years ago to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of television - and I'm 100% certain that 1970's Apollo sequential tv theory hasn't altered one bit since that time.. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 15, 2011 5:50:51 GMT -4
Question for Vincent. Just been reading the "about me" on your front page. It seems there is a video flagged for some impropriety or another and you are holding this as proof for a fake landing.
The question is with regards this bit of text
"Youtube seems to be disgustingly and unfairly corrupt. A video nobody had a problem with before is now a strike on the community guidelines. It has been up for nearly two years. The reason?? Well, because I'm exposing NASA for the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax. Well the fact that Youtube is going after me for it, I now know for sure that the moon landings were faked. Because why would youtube and NASA care if I was making videos about the hoax? Because they're afraid."
Who in the real scientific world cares what you post on youtube on this topic? It is why your chum hides there, a well written and peer reviewed document will get you more in the real world scientific community. I know people try to point out the errors and that makes for a good bit of education if you choose to watch them and I learn from them as well (the ones pointing out why the hoax position is a load of cobblers). But beyond that, do you think they are after you? In the grand scheme of things, the evil moon landing villain is stroking his cat looking at your vids and saying "meh".
|
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 15, 2011 6:23:45 GMT -4
Never mind reading up on source material do HB's ever actually read through the board before they post? The exact same argument was gone over ad nauseam last year and I'm not seeing anything new being brought to the party by vincentmcconnell. Yeah and I can emphatically state I'm not going to upload the same segment with the same time-code burnt in for the same jump from the same master tape again. This same case was closed about 3 years ago to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of television - and I'm 100% certain that 1970's Apollo sequential tv theory hasn't altered one bit since that time.. No need Dwight.....a youtube user already uploaded it  ......... www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcT6gkd0t4 |
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 15, 2011 6:48:47 GMT -4
We have had experts in various branches of physics analyse it, and it all works out. Problem is that people like Jarrah White and Jack White think they know better than people with training and expertise (hmmm - are they the same person?).
|
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 6:56:38 GMT -4
So you want us to believe that is the reason? Just on your word? I'm afraid if this is based on the sort of logic you appear to have applied to the John Young jump, then I suggest you might want to try all this on a different audience, perhaps GLP or ATS.. Yes, of course, that's it. Youtube are going after you. Yup. It's not anything else, and everyone here believes you. Or perhaps not. So you can't post it elsewhere? Or is there maybe ... another reason why you are having this difficulty? After all, there are all manner of sites out there claiming all sorts of garbage about Apollo, Obama, 911, and yet they all seem to be withstanding the pressure. Perhaps you need to post it elsewhere, or maybe even (gasp) set up your own site and host your own video. Or maybe you should just toughen up, princess. Seriously, you are unable to get the word out? Send it to Erin Brokovich - she'll know what ta do...  Anyway, getting back on topic, I'm waiting, vincent. As tedward said, if you are prepared to put your work up for peer review (which means you will have to do it properly in the first place), and you are right, then you will win the argument. So when are you going to address the points I (and others) have raised above about how to do a REAL analysis? Would you like me to repost them? Maybe explain in more detail? Or would you rather just try to evade any real analysis and throw around more lame 'I'm-being-persecuted' garbage? Yes, we can see what you have learnt from Jarrah.. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 15, 2011 10:49:16 GMT -4
I somehow doubt that vincent's video was flagged by sending him a message "Hi, this is Youtube. You've violated our community guidelines by revealing the Apollo hoax. Take it down now!"
I suspect he had copyrighted music, or some other violation, and this led to the result, but vincent thinks it's a coverup.
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 15, 2011 11:12:44 GMT -4
For people who don't feel like sitting through a YouTube video or aren't able to watch YouTube from their current computers, could you sum up your argument, please? I covered 13 minutes of that jump. Basically lunar gravity analysis. Lunar regolith analysis. Photographic anomalies. Jarrah White's helping me smooth out two errors I made. When I get the video re-uploaded with the files he sent me, it should add more content. Basically an analysis of the jump to see if it was fake. Which it was... Hey Vincent, How about you run this by your science teacher, call it a "vetting". Get their input. Lunar regolith...Hmmmm, curious as to which particle you chose to measure for trajectory and time aloft. Measuring an indistinct cloud on a lousy quality video is a rather inaccurate test to say the least. It was rather entertaining to see you jumping around in your foyer...hope the neighborhood kids weren't watching... |
|
|
|
Post by capricorn1 on Jul 15, 2011 15:14:56 GMT -4
I don't think he is going to do a summary on this.....so I will. The first thing he says is that John Young jumps 19 inches with "barely any effort". Agreed, in the vicinity of 20 inches, and with not much effort. He then shows us how he measured this..... with pixels and gimp, and using Young's 5' 9" height.More luck than judgement since he is nearer 2 metres in his suit, and you measured it diagonally. Then an odd statement......."as if the astronauts didn't have anything better to do than jump around all day".Two jumps hardly qualifies as all day. He then tells us the weight of an astronaut on the Moon as 65lbs and films himself jumping nearly 19 inches on Earth.I already explained that one......put a PLSS on and try it again. Like for like. That video I linked to shows the strawman.....you weigh 107lbs on Earth, Young weighs 360 plus. He says Young weighed 66lbs and Navy pilot muscles so should have shot off the ground.Still a strawman. Finally changes the subject by saying the phrase "Big one" uttered by Duke.....insinuates he wants a full jump!Contradicting what you said earlier about "barely any effort". That is clearly the case. No arms moving upwards.....and he can't bend his knees that much. More stuff about how high he should jump, comparing to a lady of similar weight to you.....bounding in a test rig.Still a strawman......the lady isn't wearing a restrictive suit, and has no worry about falling on her back. The dust below his boots hits the ground before him and is evidence of fraud. Wowie, that's a good one. Jumping dust now.  The dust is dragged up by his boots and won't have the same velocity as he does. Concludes that the explanation for why the dust hits the ground before Young is..........wire supports!No, he jumped higher than the dust he dragged up. Says Charlie Duke's boots don't touch the ground, proving he is on wires.Ho hum, I have no clue what you are talking about......a short part of the clip shows him on the front part of his boots....other than that you seem to be seeing things. Makes the old claim about the flap missing on the video, that he retracts with an annotation box. Measures the height of the photo against the video......concludes they are different.Looks fine to me....are you lining his feet up with the footprint below him? Makes a bare assertion that it was slowed down 50% to simulate gravity.My bare assertion says it looks crazy sped up 200% - loads of youtube videos back this up. Says mythbusters were wrong because Jarrah made the jump look like Young's by slowing it down.So? I would suggest that maybe you can see the wires with mythbusters. Says Young and co, deliberately moved their limbs faster so that when sped up 200% it would look odd.Too funny. Second video, does a compare on the stills and concludes he is higher off the ground.Very odd. You drew the line nowhere near his bootprint. Try that again. He talks about some youtuber who passed comments on head movement.......and a spacesuit used on mythbusters that has no relevance.He shows the lunar olympics footage of them jumping and says how can they now jump 4 feet, yet Young could only manage 19 inches.They are trying to jump as high as possible.......Young wasn't. He talks about Shane Killian misleadingly speeding up footage incorrectly.Not rellevant. He does a summary, then says he is going to reply to Lunartuner's fingerprints in space.Can't wait ;D But you'd best read this thread before you embarass yourself again........ apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3132My conclusion.......epic fail. |
|
.........
The dust is dragged up by his boots and won't have the same velocity as he does.