|
|
Post by Glom on Oct 21, 2006 6:15:00 GMT -4
Yes, yes. More stuff for Clavius. Bart Sibrel is the Michael Moore of Apollo.
I don't know where he got this cutout idea in the first place.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 21, 2006 9:24:08 GMT -4
I think that's unnecessarily insulting to Michael Moore ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 21, 2006 9:30:05 GMT -4
I don't know, I rank them about the same. I can't figure out how MM managed to get an oscar, someone left their brain at home that day.
|
|
|
|
Post by freon on Oct 23, 2006 10:50:42 GMT -4
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
|
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2006 6:06:50 GMT -4
The video first shows the Earth as depicted in the still below...  I thought it looked quite familiar. So I rotated the above image 90 degrees, and compared it to the Earth as filmed 22 hours later.......  The image I posted is the one on the right, with an image first posted in this thread by Count Zero on the left. Apparently, the Earth's cloud patterns remained virtually identical over a time span of 22 hours!! For that matter, so did everything else. This is impossible, of course. If you need to be reminded of how much these cloud formations change by the hour, look at any sequential or animated satellite images of Earth. The only viable explanation I can see is that this is indeed a cutout image of the Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 29, 2006 6:26:13 GMT -4
Incorrect as usual, turbonium. The vidcap I posted (and the rotated one from video) was from 10:32 GET (Ground Elapsed Time) not GMT. In fact, I even listed the GMT on my image, and you "accidentally" cropped this out to try to score points. Furthermore, 22 hours before 10:32 GET is, by definition, almost 11 1/2 hours before the rocket launched! That should have told you right there that you had a problem with your assessment.
In your zeal vandalize and denigrate the achievements of others, do you even bother to check your work, or see whether there could be an alternative explanation for your first impression, or even - gasp! - consider the possibility that you may be mistaken?
|
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 29, 2006 7:04:32 GMT -4
Incorrect as usual, turbonium. The vidcap I posted (and the rotated one from video) was from 10:32 GET (Ground Elapsed Time) not GMT. In fact, I even listed the GMT on my image, and you "accidentally" cropped this out to try to score points. Furthermore, 22 hours before 10:32 GET is, by definition, almost 11 1/2 hours before the rocket launched! That should have told you right there that you had a problem with your assessment. In your zeal vandalize and denigrate the achievements of others, do you even bother to check your work, or see whether there could be an alternative explanation for your first impression, or even - gasp! - consider the possibility that you may be mistaken? Totally off the mark. The GMT in my post is a TYPO. It is indeed correctly GET. So now, let me put it crystal clear. Below are two stills from the video. The left side still shows the first timestamp and the right side still shows the Earth as filmed within this first segment.....  The time for each still capture from the online video is also included. The above times are 0:14 and 2:48 respectively. The next two stills show the second timestamp and Earth as filmed within this second segment....  The time of capture for the stills above are 18:36 and 21:26 respectively. So, no "deceptions", no "trickery". It's all verifiable simply by looking at the video online. The Earth as I first posted remains exactly the same as in these stills Care to address the actual issue I raised now?? |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 29, 2006 9:00:38 GMT -4
So, no "deceptions", no "trickery" . . . . . . Other than changing one of the comparison images without comment. Did you think that no one would notice, or was that a "typo" also? Even at a cursory glance one can see differences, and when you look at the hi-res, they become glaring:  AS11-36-5341 ( HR)  AS11-36-5373 ( HR) The Earth as I first posted remains exactly the same as in these stills (emphasis added) Look closely at North America:  AS11-36-5341 ( HR)  AS11-36-5373 ( HR) They don't look anything like "exactly" to me. Incidentally, here are the precipitation charts for July 16th...  ...and 17th:  The weather didn't change that much. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 29, 2006 21:30:56 GMT -4
Weather paterns never change much in 24 hours in the big picture. Seeing similar structures in both is not unexpected, in fact if the paterns over that part of the world had changed dramatically then there is certainly reason to smell a rat.
However having said that let's compare this to BS's position. How could the earth look that same 22 hours later if we're only seeing it from LEO, we'd be looking at a different part (I'm not going to ask you exactly how we'd see the entire US Contenient from LEO.) So if it's not from LEO then that leaves his idea of a tranparency. Now while similar I am sure that even you aren't going to try and claim that the two are identical, and as they aren't identical, they can't be a single transparency. It also ignores that the middle transmission which BS conveniently forgets to show any of catagorically proves that the images of the Earth are film from beside the window and that it is not a transparency by focusing onto the window frame and having the earth shrink and disappear behind the frame, then reappear in a different window.
|
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 30, 2006 3:18:53 GMT -4
. . . Other than changing one of the comparison images without comment. Did you think that no one would notice, or was that a "typo" also? That's blatant nonsense. I said in my comparison post.... The image I posted is the one on the right, with an image first posted in this thread by Count Zero on the left.Weather paterns never change much in 24 hours in the big picture. Seeing similar structures in both is not unexpected, in fact if the paterns over that part of the world had changed dramatically then there is certainly reason to smell a rat. However having said that let's compare this to BS's position. How could the earth look that same 22 hours later if we're only seeing it from LEO, we'd be looking at a different part (I'm not going to ask you exactly how we'd see the entire US Contenient from LEO.) So if it's not from LEO then that leaves his idea of a tranparency. Now while similar I am sure that even you aren't going to try and claim that the two are identical, and as they aren't identical, they can't be a single transparency. I see the same images with only a difference in their resolutions. So Count doesn't try another misguided tirade, here is the relevant segment quoted from his post...... Here are frame grabs from each of the three transmissions, with a photograph taken at about the same time for comparison. Note that the cloud patterns match: AS11-36-5341 ( HR) Below is my frame grab from the footage taken 22 hours earlier Similar images are one thing. These are much more than that. The cloud formations have remained identical over a time span of 22 hours. It's absolutely absurd to claim this is possible. But, since you claim they are not identical, but merely similar, please point out what you specificaly see as different between them, that cannot be accounted for purely by the difference in resolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 30, 2006 3:33:16 GMT -4
'Round and 'round we go. This time I did a frame grab from your post:  Look at it: My image is from 10:32 GET (Ground Elapsed Time), and you follow this by saying your image is from 22 hours earlier. Please explain again how you have an image from 11 1/2 hours before Apollo 11 launched? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 30, 2006 11:32:35 GMT -4
Turbonium, I don't see what you're getting at here at all. The first Earth image from the video is the one from 10.32 GET. Of course it looks identical to the one Count Zero posted. It's the same piece of video. The one from 22 hours later is the second one you posted which is totally different.
Where are you getting this idea that the one on your video and the one Count Zero posted are filmed from different mission times?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 30, 2006 20:44:14 GMT -4
The next two stills show the second timestamp and Earth as filmed within this second segment....
I thought I should note here that while it's only segment two on Bart's films, it is in reality segment three since he (I could never guess why, ha ha ha) seems to have lost the second transmission on the cutting room floor.
|
|
Eddie Hitler
Mercury
Edward "Eddie" Elizabeth Hitler (at right)
Posts: 23
|
Post by Eddie Hitler on Nov 2, 2006 8:45:58 GMT -4
I'd love to see how it is that you get a picture of the earth with the entire terminator and from pole to pole from LEO. You'd have to bend light in the most astonishing ways and probably alter the laws of physics. Taking a picture of the Earth that encompases the entire planet from an altitude of 250 nm is simply not possible as you still have a horizon.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 2, 2006 16:16:34 GMT -4
*watches the tumble weeds rolling by while waiting on Turbonuim's answer.....*
|
|
