|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 9:38:53 GMT -4
frenat could you also give me a reference to the astronauts response to Sibrels requst? "The astronauts knew he was slime and didn't want to play along with his childish games" Why should there be a reference for something that wa likely word of mouth? while your digging for references please provide one for this statement also "Sibrel has even said that if they swore on the Bible he would call them liars and if they didn't he would would still call them liars" Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. I don't feel like looking it up because I'm sure you'll just handwave it away anyway. Are you physically unable to push the quote button so people know who you're talking to?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 27, 2011 10:58:51 GMT -4
3000 rads over 3 years is about 2.74 rads/day or .685 rads/belt crossing, remarkably close to what the Apollo astronauts experienced on each of their belt crossings. A few years back I went to a talk by a guy from Surrey Satellite about their GIOVE-A satellite, which was in a high circular orbit within the belts, so spending more time actually in the belts than your satellite. At one point he put up a graph of the onboard radiation measurements. As far as I remember, it was similar to the level you mention, perhaps 10 rad per day.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 27, 2011 11:02:05 GMT -4
I'm reposting this for playdor as he seems to have missed it last time. Sorry for the possible feeling of a déjà vu, everyone. playdor, Whoever these "experts" are, they are wrong. Front screen projection works by means of projecting an image over the whole scene. In 2001 that would mean that the background (the wide scape with the mountains) is also being projected upon the foreground (the apes, the more orangy rocks, plants cetera). The reason this doesn't produce any shadows is because (using one-way mirrors) the projection comes from the exact same place as the camera. It's similar to a camera with flash on it - the light source comes from the same place as the lens is watching from. So why do we see the projected image on the background, but not on the foreground? Because the projected image is very faint and there is a very reflective screen at the back of the set. However, anything that is even faintly reflective will reflect the screen back, giving a ghosting effect. This can be seen in a number of shots in 2001, for example where a lion(?) looks into the camera, and in a case where a prop rock in the foreground reflects the background, giving a slightly ghostly feeling. Now in the case of Apollo, the astronauts are wearing these incredibly reflective visors. If front screen projection was used, it would appear that the background would continue on in the visors. Nowhere in any of the footage do you see this effect. So what I'm wondering is who these "experts" are, why you blindly believed them, and why yo uand they make these ridiculous claims. Can you answer this?
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Nov 27, 2011 11:14:38 GMT -4
Please look at film 1122d the sun screen in window is almost in focus, the moon is always in focus, and the lm is always in focus, even when it gets close. can a lens keep all objects in focus from infinite to a few feet away or in the case of the sun screen, very close to the lens? It's called "depth of field". A good depth of field, i.e., a wide range of distances all in focus, is an inherent property of a short (wide angle) lens, especially when stopped down as it would be for daylight photography. Many of the pictures on the moon also have good depth of field because they too were taken with a fairly wide lens and small f-stop. By the way, this is very good evidence that we were seeing the real thing, not miniature models. Any photographer who has ever tried to photograph models or anything else quite small (e.g., with a macro lens) knows how extremely difficult it is to get them entirely in focus. In fact, a limited depth of field is one of the most reliable tip-offs that one is looking at a miniature model, e.g, in Hollywood movie effects. There's also the lack of dust and atmospheric scattering that tends to make far objects on earth appear defocussed/hazy. You wouldn't expect that in an airless environment, but it's a key part of judging distance here on earth.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 27, 2011 11:17:08 GMT -4
Thanks! *** Ugh, I hope no astronauts had to make use of the diapers while on EVA. The clean up after, ugh.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 27, 2011 11:19:47 GMT -4
can a lens keep all objects in focus from infinite to a few feet away or in the case of the sun screen, very close to the lens? playdor, I can only assume that you never, ever used a simple point-and-shoot camera, or you would know the answer to this from experience. And please, feel free to explain who "they" are. You know, "they" who have actual evidence that Apollo was filmed using front projection? Oh, and while you're at it, please produce this actual evidence.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:25:20 GMT -4
Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. It was on Groklaw for a week or so after the incident, but has since been removed as it is no longer relevant. In Sibrel's statement to the prosecuting attorney, he said that it was his plan to offer Sibrel [e.t.a.] Aldrin an honorarium to appear on the program, and then accuse him on camera for being dishonest in taking an honorarium for something he never did.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:30:46 GMT -4
So what I'm wondering is who these "experts" are, why you blindly believed them, and why yo uand they make these ridiculous claims. Can you answer this? The person in question is Jay Weidner. And no, he's not an expert. He's just yet another YooToober who makes hoax videos, ignores all criticism, steals other people's material (including mine), and never ventures out into the real world. His particular obsession is the alleged Kubrick connection.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Nov 27, 2011 13:43:24 GMT -4
Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. It was on Groklaw for a week or so after the incident, but has since been removed as it is no longer relevant. In Sibrel's statement to the prosecuting attorney, he said that it was his plan to offer Sibrel an honorarium to appear on the program, and then accuse him on camera for being dishonest in taking an honorarium for something he never did. Don't you mean Aldrin rather the the second Sibrel?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 13:44:55 GMT -4
Don't you mean Aldrin rather the the second Sibrel? Er, yeah. Thanks, the coffee hasn't brewed yet.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 14:00:43 GMT -4
Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. It was on Groklaw for a week or so after the incident, but has since been removed as it is no longer relevant. In Sibrel's statement to the prosecuting attorney, he said that it was his plan to offer Sibrel an honorarium to appear on the program, and then accuse him on camera for being dishonest in taking an honorarium for something he never did. Thank you. I knew I'd read about it somewhere. Why would anyone want to deal with a person like that?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 27, 2011 14:08:49 GMT -4
Why would anyone want to deal with a person like that? Actually few people do. He charges an enormous appearance fee and isn't very cordial.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 27, 2011 15:59:18 GMT -4
That was posted by Laurel. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you really have to ask that question?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Nov 28, 2011 3:16:59 GMT -4
Playdor, I have put myself in a non believers shoes in the past and tried to think it through as a hoax. How would it be done, how is it accomplished and all that. If you have an open mind (something certain groups who venomously have blinkered vision accuse us of) you will see that it could not be done and the only way was it happened. You could toe the party line and continue to deny it but that will be through ignorance.
Try it. Lets look at one part.
Think about engineers. You (as the gubbmint secret hoax department) have asked them to cheat for you. Engineers that I have met are driven, ones I see in the press and on TV are also so inclined. I would suggest that any such request would suffer peer pressure, that is you will not cheat as you will forever be associated with that lie. Your name is linked to a fake. The grape vine (or networking as I have heard it called) will spread the word. Secrecy gone and any engineer worth his/her name would shy away. Rather engineers would see the challenge, they want to get on with doing the deed and succeed or fail in public. Do not forget the astronauts qualifications, they would be doubly driven I think. And the thing is you can find the names of the people that worked on it. You can see they are capable.
What next do you want to examine?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 28, 2011 11:01:01 GMT -4
Spacecraft Films do a DVD set on Project Gemini which includes all the onboard film taken on all the flights. Docking was performed on Gemini 8, 10, 11 and 12.
You may have to see if you can rent it from somewhere or buy it. First rule of real research: YouTube is not the best tool.
|
|