|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 6, 2012 23:29:09 GMT -4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXwtrMJoqvg&feature=relatedThere is a bit about balsa wood being taped to the outside window of the CSM in this MoonFaker episode. Obviously, that's ridiculous, considering the moon landings were real, does anybody know what the explanation is for this one? I can't think of one, but unlike a hoaxer, just because I don't understand this, doesn't mean I think it's fake. Anybody have any ideas? If you're wondering where it is, go to 5:15 in the video. An answer will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 6, 2012 23:56:30 GMT -4
Dunno. Problems that show whatever it is wasn't there when the photograph was originally taken: There aren't any fiducials visible on the tape or wood. The fiducial plate was very close to the film, too close to tape something between the lens and fiducial plate, yet this object is blocking the crosshairs. The tape edges and wood edges are almost in focus but probably should be a lot more out of focus considering its proximity to the lens. For its focus level there is no tape grain or wood grain visible. The shadows are wrong! The wood is not face on to the lens; if it were taped to a glass plate normal to the lens we should only see one side of the wood, the closest side, but we can see two sides even though it is almost in the center of the photograph. Magazine in question: www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS15R15
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 7, 2012 0:08:22 GMT -4
Dunno what the video is on about (I'm listening to Flanders & Swann and I'd rather not interrupt them), but the image AS15-M-0113 looks like an inexpert film-splice job, done before exposure. If that is what it is, they're lucky it didn't jam during the mission.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 7, 2012 0:14:35 GMT -4
Balsa wood and tape... that's the extent of the technology NASA had to make fake photographs?
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 7, 2012 1:11:33 GMT -4
Balsa wood and tape... that's the extent of the technology NASA had to make fake photographs? I can only assume the hoax believers mean to tell us that this was a "subtle attempt" by Al Worden to "Blow the Whistle". I don't understand why people who notice this kind of stuff can't just do a little bit of research first. The answer is out there somewhere, and the wrong answer is that Apollo was a fake.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Jan 7, 2012 1:21:34 GMT -4
There was a discussion of this almost 3 years ago in another thread here.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 7, 2012 4:37:47 GMT -4
Just in case it's not obvious from the previous discussion, we're seeing the splice between two sections of film. The two horizontal sections are pieces of tape on the film, the vertical bar is a gap between the film sections. Little or no mapping data is lost because of the overlap between each pair of frames.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jan 7, 2012 7:03:49 GMT -4
Let me get this straight. Jarrah White, intrepid researcher, didn't figure out that was a film splice...? Yes. Ok.. (tries to keep straight face..) It shouldn't have taken much research - if I'm not mistaken, the camera had "a 3-inch (76-mm) focal length, f/4.5 lens. The format is 4½ x 4½ inches on 5-inch-wide film". Without going into the technical details, that's a camera that will have a quite limited depth of field. In other words, anything up close in its field of view would be significantly blurred. Yet the sticky tape is sharp!! Anyone with knowledge about film and scanning should immediately recognise that the sticky tape was rendered very sharply because it was exactly at the film plane when it was scanned. Either that, or the sticky tape was enormous (miles wide?) and very distant in the original image, or that camera and lens broke all the laws of optics.. Jarrah went for the latter options... Oops. To be fair, I guess those unfamiliar with film (young whippersnappers!) might not immediately realise that when you see scanned film images, you are seeing the sum total of two completely separate images - the one that the camera took and captured on film, and then the one that the scanner took of the film, including added dust, scratches, c-shaped hairs, anything on/in the scanner optics/glass/cover, sticky tape from splices, etc... You woulda thought that after the C-rock embarrassment, they mighta learnt. Unless, of course, they are deliberately misleading people, but oh no, Jarrah would never do that...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 7, 2012 8:52:48 GMT -4
In my younger days I did a lot of my own darkroom work so I'm familiar with the adhesive tape used to anchor the end of a 35mm film roll to the cassette spool, or the leading edge of "120" type film to its paper backing. So when I saw this picture I immediately knew what those artifacts were.
Jarrah is probably much too young to have any personal experience with film. And given his conspiratorial mindset and his rich imagination, I suppose I can see how he might think it was a piece of "balsa wood". But like the vast majority of the supposed hoaxer-discovered "anomalies" it still makes no rational sense; why would there be a piece of balsa wood taped to the CSM window for just one shot? What possible purpose what that serve in the context of a hoax? I know Jarrah is not exactly known for his painstaking research and attention to detail, but wouldn't even he have known, from the format of the picture number if nothing else, that these pictures weren't taken manually by the astronauts using Hasselblads looking through the windows of the CSM but by a special camera mounted in the SIM bay of the service module?
All this is what makes watching hoaxers so fascinating and amusing.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jan 7, 2012 11:30:51 GMT -4
Unless, of course, they are deliberately misleading people, but oh no, Jarrah would never do that... He's doing the same on Youtube at the moment, claiming that because NASA have imposed a no-fly zone over the Apollo sites, the LROC images are the last ones we'll see. His followers will lap it up without bothering to research the reality of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 7, 2012 13:51:00 GMT -4
I love that "imposed a no-fly zone" bit; it's so absurd even on the face of it - as though NASA have either the authority, jurisdiction or even means to enforce such a thing - that it's hardly even worth pointing out that what they in fact did was ask, nicely, that future visitors to the moon not disturb two historically important sites (the first and last landings) and included some recommendations on how to do that, in the form of borders around the descent stages.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 7, 2012 15:05:43 GMT -4
Vince, you're a young man, you believe the moon landings were real now, so take my advice: stop wasting you time with old Jarrah videos and divert your efforts spending some time working toward your goals in life. You'll thank me in the end. You are at a point in your life where your education is make or break, so put some time into that.
Jarrah has been debunked time and time again. He's going to his grave believing the hoax, and to be quite honest I don't really care that he's wasting his life any more. I care more that he's attracting people into his world of stupid, and brining them down. Most of his audience have problems, look at some of the comments left on his videos.
Jarrah has spat venom across the internet, he deserves the various labels he has now attracted. I really hope he wakes up and realises what he is wearing now, and just what a loathsome little oik people are beginning to think he is. Sadly he's going the same way as Ralph and Bill. His epitaph will be a sorry one to read. 'Here lies Jarrah White, another idiot that wasted his life on conspiracy theories.' He's trying to sell some Earth globes that he used for one of his videos. The marketing ploy being that 'you have a chance to own a globe that was used during a MoonFaker production.' That is how sad he has become.
Think about it Vince.
Best wishes, and I hope it's all going well for you and the USMC.
Luke
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 8, 2012 11:20:46 GMT -4
^^^ What he said. Sage advice.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 8, 2012 14:17:34 GMT -4
I don't think it's a complete waste of time debating hoaxers, and I suspect many of you agree or you wouldn't be here.
No, you won't change the minds of the hard core true believers, but that's not the point. You can help the many lurkers who don't really know what to think because they haven't heard the whole story. But more importantly you can use it as a springboard to teaching yourself not just about Apollo itself, but about its many related scientific and technological aspects.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 8, 2012 15:31:34 GMT -4
I don't think it's a complete waste of time debating hoaxers, and I suspect many of you agree or you wouldn't be here. No, you won't change the minds of the hard core true believers, but that's not the point. You can help the many lurkers who don't really know what to think because they haven't heard the whole story. But more importantly you can use it as a springboard to teaching yourself not just about Apollo itself, but about its many related scientific and technological aspects. To be honest, I have always found my debating the opposite side extremely educating. Because of my interest in Apollo I have learned so much about Apollo. Had I never gotten into the hoax debate, I would only know that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. So it isn't a complete waste, and I do other things in my life than just Apollo, but whenever I'm on the computer, that's mostly what I do.
|
|