|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 9, 2005 21:58:03 GMT -4
The pole of the object matches the mast of the S-band antenna. Would anyone else like to bet that Turbonium will flatly deny this? Perhaps he'll claim that it's the stamen of a lily.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 9, 2005 23:58:08 GMT -4
The pole of the object matches the mast of the S-band antenna. Would anyone else like to bet that Turbonium will flatly deny this? Perhaps he'll claim that it's the stamen of a lily. Ever the class act, I see, kiwi...I already stated I have no problem with the antenna comparison. But I won't scream about how you are ignoring my posts or anything. That would be rude! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 10, 2005 2:20:31 GMT -4
I already stated I have no problem with the antenna comparison. The remaining question is, has enough evidence been presented to support the assertion that the object in question is not a bare human arm, but, in fact, the folded S-band antenna?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 10, 2005 5:51:32 GMT -4
I already stated I have no problem with the antenna comparison. The remaining question is, has enough evidence been presented to support the assertion that the object in question is not a bare human arm, but, in fact, the folded S-band antenna? That is still a point in contention for me. I have a problem with the "insidious processing" argument. "If you want images that look good, and aren't worried about detail resolution in individual frames, this is a valid method to use. I will definitely agree with you and your 10 friends on this point: The left-hand image does "look" clearer" So I asked for examples of where the detail resolution is better in the DVD still frame compared to the online still frame, but I have not had a reply to this as yet. If you see the double/triple exposure effect as the "ribbing", I fail to see how that is in any way "detail" of the object. It is the exposure effect, nothing to do with being part of the overall actual object itself. For example in this comparison to the mesh - what and where are the actual edges of the object? The double/triple exposure, herringbone effect and pixelation make it impossible to define what is and isn't the true object boundaries and details. A further problem I have is that it appears on both DVD and online stills that the object has a very distinct bend at a near 45 degree angle at the bottom and going to the left and past frame view. We don't know where this angle section ends in the frames available. The object bottom is not where the blue arrow is pointing, the object continues off to the left. This is confirmed by viewing either the DVD or the online clip. Also, I am awaiting replies as to what the other anomalous objects could be on page 4 (I think) of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 10, 2005 23:26:29 GMT -4
The remaining question is, has enough evidence been presented to support the assertion that the object in question is not a bare human arm, but, in fact, the folded S-band antenna? That is still a point in contention for me. . . In the absence of any visible ribbing (face it, the resolution is not great in any version), we have to look at the other evidence to identify this thing; all - and I mean ALL - of the evidence points to the the object being the S-band antenna. There is nothing that points to it being anything else. Surely you don't believe that the cleanroom still and the video fram are taken from the same angle? The odds of that happening are very small. What we can see in the photograph is that the furled antenna does show this "petticoat" effect at various places around its circumference. A simple random rotation was all it took to bring such a geometry into view on the video.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 3:27:43 GMT -4
I see the angling off to the left of the object, not due to a "petticoat" or flaring out effect.There is a very distinct continuance of the object off to the left side and out of frame view. This frame from the DVD shows obvious angling off to the left..The below still includes red arrows and lines to point out the angling off of the object..
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 12, 2005 5:44:00 GMT -4
There is a very distinct continuance of the object off to the left side and out of frame view. This frame from the DVD shows obvious angling off to the left.. No, there's a very distinct and obvious motion-related image artifact going of to the left. You can tell this because it is only visible in the frames when the camera is whipping around, and not in the frames when the camera momentarily steadies (horizontally) on the antenna, as seen in the images that you yourself posted earlier in this thread:(Note that there's a vertical component of the same type of artifact in this image)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 20:44:27 GMT -4
count, the artifact in the example you show is not like the left angle section, which is very solid . And, as both these stills show, there is NO visible ending to the left side of the object - it goes past the left side of the frame. Also, I'm still waiting for plausible explanations on the other anomalies way back from page 4 of this thread......
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 13, 2005 13:12:51 GMT -4
You mean the guy in the swivel chair and the monitor? Just because that's what they look like to you doesn't mean that's what they are. Those objects don't become anomalies until you've proven they're what you hypothesize they are, and are thus inappropriate to the context. And proof of the hypothesis is not, "But what else could they be?"
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 13, 2005 14:45:23 GMT -4
Also, I'm still waiting for plausible explanations on the other anomalies way back from page 4 of this thread...... Here is your "man in swivel chair" frame, reduced to 30% and superimposed over AS12-46-6726 (which, btw, you included in your immediately preceeding post on p.4). (Click for full-size image) The most obvious corresposding details are indicated, namely the porch handrail, and the RCS deflector support struts. The exact alignment of the details is not identical, of course, because this is a 3-dimensional object photographed from 2 different locations, but the relative arrangement of those details is unmistakable.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 13, 2005 15:44:34 GMT -4
Also, I'm still waiting for plausible explanations on the other anomalies way back from page 4 of this thread......The simplest and most plausible explanation is pareidolia. You see something you think looks like a reflection of a swivel chair, or a monitor, or what you think looks like a human forearm, even if that's not what they really are. But, frankly, they don't really look much like anything to me, or evidently to most of the other people here. The "forearm" is shown to be in the right place and have the right general appearance for an antenna, and doesn't look much like a forearm; the reflections are far more vague. Such Rorshach-playing doesn't make anything an "anomaly". I can see the shark's teeth in Data Cable's picture above. But that doesn't mean NASA was faking the lunar pictures in the ocean, either.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 13, 2005 17:33:18 GMT -4
The upshot here is that visual interpretation which is consistent with the context is automatically more parsimonious than interpretations that violate the context. This is not "cheating". Turbonium, you want to create anomalies by noting that some feature can be interpreted to mean something outside the context. You then argue that the context is a lie. That is really just an elaborate stab at making a right out of two wrongs. Or perhaps "tail wagging the dog" is a better metaphor. If you're going to try to invalidate the context by means of a detail, the interpetation and identification of that detail has to be absolutely airtight in order to satisfy parsimony. Otherwise the most probable explanation by far is that the "bare arm" isn't really a bare arm, and the "swivel chair" and "monitor" aren't what they seem at first glance. The photographic interpreter must gain conscious control over the interpretive portion of his visual apparatus and not allow it to intrude where unwarranted.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 13, 2005 23:09:58 GMT -4
I believe I have now spotted a human arm, in a segment of the clip during the time the camera is stationary, before it is taken by Bean and moved around. This still shows the hand grabbing the material. In the video, it quickly comes up, grabs the material and comes down. I'll be posting the clip soon for those who don't have the video (you can still see it at this link in stream format www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/video12.htmlAt this link page, go to TV Troubles section, and it's the first video down in the section. It takes a while to load before it plays. From what I see, it reinforces my argument that it is a bare human arm (no rorschaching!). The still shows fingers tugging at the material. The video shows that it iquickly moves up, grabs at the material, and goes down, with NO camera movement.....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 13, 2005 23:20:29 GMT -4
This is the first still after only "Auto Levels" was used in Photoshop (no "selective" or "trick" editing of the original still)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 13, 2005 23:47:20 GMT -4
The sequence turbonium grabbed this frame from was when Al Bean was at the MESA prepping it to remove the camera. He is very close to the lens, so everything is quite out of focus and motion is very blurred. Plus, his bright suit has caused the Automatic Light Control in the camera to clamp down, causing the darker areas you see in the frame. I cannot make anything out in the sequence really.
|
|