|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 10:48:32 GMT -4
If you look at this piece of footage, www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/apollofilm.rmSpecifically the clip which starts at 55 seconds, you can quite clearly see that the astronaut is suspended on a wire. There is an unsuccessful attempt to raise him at first, which causes his posterior to rise from the ground momentarily, then a second attempt, which causes him to become erect without any physical effort on his part, such as him pushing himself upwards.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 25, 2005 11:03:29 GMT -4
Do you mean other than the fact that he has his left hand on his fellow astronaut?
Secondly, one can not clearly see anything on this video because the compression distorts the detail. Perhaps that is done for a reason!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 12:11:59 GMT -4
The video is terribly shrunken and badly compressed, hiding necessary detail. This is a common tactic of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette, the supplier of this clip. I could go on for hours about the complete irresponsibility of "Cosmic" Dave. I debated him at length, and he finally agreed to make changes in his site to reflect the parts of the argument he admitted he had lost. But of course he never did. "Cosmic" Dave and his brother Martin are charlatans when it comes to Apollo and they know it.
First scene (00:00-00:18): "hand" points to reflection off VHF blade antenna.
Second scene (00:18-00:33): "hand" points to compression artifact that is not part of the original video.
Third scene (00:33-00:46): No evidence of wires indicated.
Fourth scene (00:46-00:55): Film from astronaut training is shown. Wire suspension is used to simulate lower gravity. Apparently Dave wants us to think that the similarity of motion proves the lunar surface clips were done with wire rigs. Or, more parsimoniously, the simulation did its job and produced effects similar to lower gravity.
Fifth scene (00:55-01:20): The astronaut is helped to his feet by his companion.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 14:48:25 GMT -4
Fifth scene (00:55-01:20): The astronaut is helped to his feet by his companion. You can quite clearly see that this is not the case- his feet momentarily leave the surface because he is having vertical force applied to his midriff. Whether or not we have been to the moon, this footage was not taken on the moon, and the astronaut was clearly being lifted by a third party.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 14:59:24 GMT -4
No. His feet momentarily leave the surface. It is your supposition that this is due to some external suspension. But you have no direct evidence of any such suspension. You're simply begging the question.
...the astronaut was clearly being lifted by a third party.
The "third party" is visible in the frame -- it's the other astronaut.
If you look at a substantial portion of the dozens of hours of astronaut video -- not just the 15 seconds your conspiracy theorist clown shows you -- you see the astronauts consistently applying more force than is necessary to regain balance or do other things, they're used to being on Earth. Where there is lesser gravity, gravity-defying feats are the norm.
Again you're simply begging the question. You seem to believe that showing us gravity-defying feats somehow "proves" the astronauts are using chicanery to achieve them. You don't seem to realize that the same feats are explicable by lesser gravity. The clips aren't "anomalous" just because you say so.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 15:08:59 GMT -4
After cleaning up the video a little on my computer, I disagree with the premise that the astronaut's feet leave the ground. In any case the prone astronaut's left hand is clearly on his crewmate's thigh, providing a basis for lifting himself upright. Since the knees of the suit don't bend very well, his torso forms a "bridge" between his left arm on the standing astronaut's, and his own toes. Since the entire astronaut weighs only 60 pounds in lunar gravity, his feet don't dig in as deeply and his body doesn't tend to fall as fast.
There is nothing in that clip that cannot be explained by the lower gravity and the known properties of the space suit.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 15:42:02 GMT -4
After cleaning up the video a little on my computer, I disagree with the premise that the astronaut's feet leave the ground. I don't imagine you would be prepared to upload this cleaned-up footage so we can see and judge for ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 16:27:50 GMT -4
Why are you so interested now in judging for ourselves? A minute ago you said your case was "clear" from David Cosnette's version. Is your case now less clear?
As a matter of fact, I just looked at one or two frames with altered contrast to see whether there was ever "daylight" between the astronaut's foot and the ground. I didn't save anything. Is this the part where you try to shift the burden of proof?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 25, 2005 16:29:19 GMT -4
Margamatix, I would ask you to consider something very important before pursuing this argument further.
Conspiracy theorists will often provide short clips of footage, lasting maybe a few seconds, that they claim shows something anomalous. What they never tell you, and presumably either do not know themselves or do not want you to consider, is that the TV and film footage did not originally come in convenient bite-sized chunks like this.
Every single one of the clips you see on these sites is part of a much longer piece of footage, often lasting in excess of one or two hours. The brief clip you link to may appear to show something anomalous, but robbed of its context we have no objective way of judging that. Would the rest of the footage from that section support the claim? Or would the rest of the footage show scenes that are completely incompatible with the claim? It is important to see the whole section, because if someone claims that a clip shows without doubt that the astronauts were suspended by wires, but another piece of footage from the same TV broadcast section shows activity that definitely could not be explained by that, then the argument falls apart.
You must also observe other aspects of the footage. For example, suspension by wires may explain the astronauts' apparent reduced weight, but how then does the behaviour of the dust, or any object not connected to an astronaut, fit that claim?
Context is everything. What appears to be the case in a selected clip of a few seconds may demonstrably not be the case in other sections of the same footage. Find the full footage (I believe most of it is available in short but contiguous sections in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal) and examine that, then see if the original claim can still be held. Otherwise you might as well be trying to deduce the entire plot of The Hound of the Baskervilles from a single passage in which a mysterious man is seen observing Dr Watson on the moor.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 16:32:28 GMT -4
Why are you so interested now in judging for ourselves? A minute ago you said your case was "clear" from David Cosnette's version. Is your case now less clear? As a matter of fact, I just looked at one or two frames with altered contrast to see whether there was ever "daylight" between the astronaut's foot and the ground. I didn't save anything. Is this the part where you try to shift the burden of proof? I'll take it that means "No" then.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 16:35:04 GMT -4
I didn't save my examination. It's not a matter of being unwilling; it's a matter of being unable.
You claimed the astronaut's feet left the ground, and that this is inappropriate. You have that burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 16:42:03 GMT -4
I didn't save my examination. It's not a matter of being unwilling; it's a matter of being unable. You claimed the astronaut's feet left the ground, and that this is inappropriate. You have that burden of proof. They did leave the ground. You can clearly see that they did, and no amount of blaming "poor compression" alters that. You can clearly see that he is jerked upwards- that his feet momentarily leave the ground, and he is then lowered before a second, successful attempt is made to lift him. This footage was not taken on the moon.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 16:46:55 GMT -4
They did leave the ground. You can clearly see that they did, and no amount of blaming "poor compression" alters that.
Begging the question.
This footage was not taken on the moon.
Non sequitur. Even if we grant that the astronaut's feet leave the ground -- which I do not stipulate -- you have not shown that anything there is inconsistent with a low-gravity environment. You have merely postulated that the observations are explained by a suspension rig and not low gravity. Where is your evidence of the rig?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 25, 2005 16:58:49 GMT -4
. You have merely postulated that the observations are explained by a suspension rig and not low gravity. Where is your evidence of the rig?
Because being moved by a rig is the only way that a human being could move in the manner shown, regardless of the vacuum, gravity or temperature in which he found himself.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 25, 2005 17:02:39 GMT -4
You can clearly see that he is jerked upwards- that his feet momentarily leave the ground, and he is then lowered before a second, successful attempt is made to lift him.
No. His hand is on the other astronaut's leg the entire time. The motion you are interpreting as being lifted is the prone astronaut pushing off from the other's thigh and lifting his knee in an attempt to get it underneath him. His right foot does momentarily leave the surface, but only because he is flexing his knee, per procedure. What you may be interpreting as his left arm is not his arm at all, but rather his Hasselblad camera attached to his chest. It is obscuring the view of his left leg; you cannot tell whether it has left the ground at any point.
The normal procedure for recovering from a prone fall is to get to hands and knees, rock forward on the arms (slightly bent) and push upward sharply with the arms while the knees are kept as bent as the suit allows. This is intended to raise the astronaut to the kneeling position from which suit tension rapidly extends the legs. In some cases the astronaut could push up sharply enough with the arms (remember, he weighs only 60 lbs in lunar gravity, but has to content against suit resistance) to get his feet directly beneath him and "pedal" his way to verticality. But in some cases the ground did not provide sufficient traction.
It is obvious that this clip does not provide sufficient resolution for you to recognize the features of a suited astronaut. You have consistently neglected the prone astronaut's left arm on his companion's leg (this too was a practiced manuever). That -- not some mythical suspension wire -- is responsible for the vertical movement. You further seem to have trouble discerning arms and legs. Obviously the size and compression are misleading you.
Since there are several hours worth of Apollo 16 video, it would be kind of you to obtain the time reference (i.e., GET) for your clip so that you can argue your case from the best evidence, not evidence that has been intentionally obscured.
|
|