|
Post by drewid on Jul 16, 2009 16:18:02 GMT -4
The thing with dust being thrown in a vacuum: even on earth most of the dust moved by a rocket engine isn't moved by the exhaust gasses, but by air displaced by exhaust gasses. Air pressure doesn't prevent dust movement, it aids it.
It's a similar effect to impact studies done in a vacuum. If you drop a steel ball onto a dust covered slab less dust is moved, and it moves less (30% less), when there isn't an air cushion there.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Jul 28, 2009 2:56:22 GMT -4
It is often the case, it seems, that arguments about the Apollo record will be made by HBs that extend into other areas of technology and historical record. The HBs do not seem to notice this, so I thought we should flag them up here. The examples I can think of off the top of my head are: No starsThe lack of stars in lunar surface images is often brought up and throroughly debunked. However, I have never seen any photograph taken in space that includes properly exposed sunlit objects and stars. These include astronauts on shuttle EVAs, distant planets such as Neptune photographed by Voyager, even the sky in the Gemini 12 EVA footage remains stubbornly starless despite parts of it being filmed on the night side of Earth. Note also that thse photographs are taken by all space agencies, not just NASA. Now, if the lunar surface photos 'must' have been faked because no stars show up, what about every other picture taken by any other probe of any other object that has no stars in?... Well, I am brand new here, but very recently I have been having fun downloading and processing the Apollo 11 raw film scans from eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm. I got started on this endeavor after looking at some of those moon landing hoax sites and seeing the outlandishly stupid conclusions and, in some cases, deliberate misinformation about what is actually visible in the high resolution original photos. Yet conspiracy nuts make sure that they "see" what they "want" to see in the photographs while not seeing what is truly shown in the photographs. Anyway, I have found several photographs which do show stars. Needless to say, the recorded star images are extraordinarily faint and are literally buried just above the grain noise within the emulsion. Yet proper image enhancement does make them visible, and more importantly the recorded stars consistently exhibit full width half max (FWHM) values of around 1.6 to 1.8 for stars recorded closer to the optical axis, and FWHM values of around 4.0 for stars recorded near the upper left or upper right corners of the image frames. I used MaxIm DL image processing software (software used by amateur astronomers and specifically created for processing astronomical images) to determine these values. Note that the Biogon 60mm F/5.6 was exclusively used for the EVA photos. This lens has less than 1% distortion (extremely good for its day), and its dominant off-axis aberration is astigmatism. Notably, this lens is noticeably free of off-axis coma. Now things get interesting. First and in order to process the ISD high res images, I had to create a custom gamma and color correction scheme for use in the freeware GIMP image processing program. It doesn't help that the scanner used by ISD to scan the original film produces noticeable horizontal red banding in all portions of the scanned film where large and very bright objects are located. You would think that ISD would have addressed this issue by either using a different brand film scanner, or that they would have at least tweaked the purchased scanner by painting all light baffles flat black or even installing additional light baffles in order to alleviate the red banding issue. On top of that, ISD didn't even bother to properly calibrate the scanner or light source since areas beyond the film emulsion show consistently green and blue, yet weak red. And furthermore, the original film has aged. The result is that the film now has taken on a distinct red cast which also has to be compensated for. Apparently this is what ISD tried to compensate for, but they did a poor job of it since they only concentrated on getting the mid tones of the moon surface to render as a generally neutral gray. The upshot is that I had to spend three days of my free time tweaking the gamma and RGB curve corrections in GIMP in order to fully compensate for these major issues: -- Improper ISD color calibration. -- The ISD scanner's red banding. -- The deterioration of the original film which has taken on a reddish cast. -- The nonlinear response of the film's silver particles within the film's individual RGB layers. This one was tricky to get right, and this alone took me two days of my free time to correct. Fortunately I was able to draw upon my over 30 years of experience as an amateur astronomer and astrophotographer to know how film of the period (late 1960's) responds in extremely low light. Yet nevertheless, even after fully color correcting the ISD images, any found stars will always have a very distinct blue hue since by nature silver grains within film always respond more to blue light compared to red light. I will soon be posting a link to a web page for my processed ISD images. Well, the upshot is that yes, stars actually are present in several of the roll 40 Apollo 11 photos, but these stars never were visible in print since for aesthetic reasons all published photos were offset to produce a black background. So, here is my teaser photo for ya'all to show my image processing skills. This photo is from image 5903 where I cropped in on Aldrin's gold visor, removed the gold visor tint, and de-spherized the reflections in Aldrin's visor in order to show what Aldrin actually saw when Armstrong shot the famous 5903 "Man On The Moon" photo: www.mem-tek.com/ISD/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-40-5903_visor_gold-removed_rotated_large_distorted_mirrored1.jpgYes, that is the Earth above and somewhat to the right of Armstrong. Sorry, it really is impossible (regardless of what photos others have published) to discern the true phase illumination of the Earth in image 5903 since Aldrin himself is far from perfectly focused in the 5903 photo and since the gold visor surface itself was not polished anywhere close to 1/4 wavefront optical quality in order to act as a true optical quality mirror surface.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 28, 2009 9:18:31 GMT -4
So, here is my teaser photo for ya'all to show my image processing skills. This photo is from image 5903 where I cropped in on Aldrin's gold visor, removed the gold visor tint, and de-spherized the reflections in Aldrin's visor in order to show what Aldrin actually saw when Armstrong shot the famous 5903 "Man On The Moon" photo:
Sweet! A new Apollo photo. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 28, 2009 12:34:12 GMT -4
Nice work, very very nice. Looking forward to seeing the stars.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Jul 28, 2009 14:07:10 GMT -4
Thanks for the nice comments about my photo. My computer monitor has a horizontal resolution of 1680, so that is why I resized the distortion corrected visor image to this width. That way I can view the image in full screen mode, put my face really close to the monitor, and pan the photo up and down to simulate Aldrin looking up and down through his visor. Neah, huh?
I am working on a spreadsheet for computing the exact positions of objects in the photos based on the coordinates of of the reseau ticks and then the coordinates of an object in the image. A spreadsheet is necessary since the optics within the film scanner which ISD used has noticeable pincushion distortion. The scanner lens's distortion makes it a pain in the keester to compute the exact angular separation of star pairs which I have found in some of the AS11 photos. I will post links to photos showing stars once I am darned sure that I have identified the specific stars shown in the photos in order to prove that they really are stars.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 30, 2009 13:58:50 GMT -4
I have read a number of comments on this forum stating that the stars should never by visible because they simply would not register on the film with the exposure settings. Others have seen what they thought were stars but were shown to be radiation strikes on the film. I look forward to you seeing your work.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 30, 2009 14:52:17 GMT -4
I have read a number of comments on this forum stating that the stars should never by visible because they simply would not register on the film with the exposure settings. Others have seen what they thought were stars but were shown to be radiation strikes on the film. I look forward to you seeing your work. I recall seeing a thread on BAUT where someone calculated that Sirius would have been at least within the realm of possibility for the film to pick up, though they didn't work out if any other stars would be. Even if gonetoplaid doesn't find any actual stars he has done some interesting and impressive work.
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Aug 1, 2009 17:44:09 GMT -4
Yeah, Sirius and 1st magnitude stars "should" be within the reach just above the film grain signal noise floor, especially considering that there is no atmospheric attenuation involved. Yet the Biogen camera lens had no multi-coatings to reduce lens flare since lens multi-coating technology still was nearly 10 years later. Anyway, if I do find any 1st magnitude star candidates while processing the various Apollo lunar images, I will definitely let ya'all know and I will post a photo with the star candidate circled.
|
|
|
Post by garygo on Dec 16, 2009 20:45:20 GMT -4
Hi Guys
Just having a look round..
Feels like I've climbed into a cage of pseudo-loopers
Conspiracy this straw man that - lets debunk that no wait a minute do you remember this one.... yeah lets ridicule this group next..... hey slap my back again!! hey this is great !! we're really sockin it to them. - Winning arguments I create myself is great!!
But hey!! - everyone thinks I'm good at maths! Plus I know loads of cool Physic's terms like Quantum Mechanic's......
Man this is a disappointment... This whole forum lacks any real objectivity at all.... And well I suppose this is/was my first post!! Am I excited?
hmmmmm?.... ask me a few easy ones and then ask me that again later on..
Q - How do you post a new topic??
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 16, 2009 21:33:23 GMT -4
Q - How do you post a new topic?? Click the button that says "New Thread", it's located at the top of every forum between buttons that say "Mark As Read" and "New Poll". But before you start any topics, have a look at the forum rules. I've got a feeling you're one of those people who believes they can come here and insult us and get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 17, 2009 1:29:44 GMT -4
This whole forum lacks any real objectivity at all.... We save objectivity for when two sides of an argument have similar merit. If I say that the Moon is round, and no one here argues that it is a square or a triangle, does that mean we lack objectivity?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Dec 17, 2009 3:53:21 GMT -4
Plus I know loads of cool Physic's terms like Quantum Mechanic's...... We also know how to use apostrophes and proper nouns correctly.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Dec 17, 2009 4:58:48 GMT -4
Riiiight Garygo.... and I bet you've found something that no one has ever spotted before ever...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 17, 2009 6:59:26 GMT -4
This should be interesting.
Welcome to the forum Garygo.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 17, 2009 10:55:34 GMT -4
yeah lets ridicule this group next..... hey slap my back again!! hey this is great !! we're really sockin it to them Welcome to the forum. yeah lets ridicule this group nextRidicule is sometimes an appropriate response. This forum is not an academic presentation for guest lectures, it is a place where ideas are tested. Have you ever been to a doctoral candidates theses defense? They can be pretty rough and tumble tests of ideas. hey slap my back again Praise of colleagues when they do excellent work is a good thing. We tend to be collegial here and will even offer praise when hoax believers do the right thing and acknowledge failed arguments. we're really sockin it to them The intent of this forum is to vigorously debate the moon hoax. Sometime that properly requires a hard press on a claimant to get them to fully reveal what they mean. Particularly when the true agenda is unspoken. We are here to provide a record of moon hoax claims and the rebuttals to those claims. The more we get the hoax proponents to reveal, the more complete our rebuttal and the better we are meeting our purpose.
|
|