|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 21, 2006 5:20:02 GMT -4
Well, at least it is a new argument, I suppose! So why isn't it in a new thread, or are we still talking about the Sibrel footage?  |
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 21, 2006 5:24:51 GMT -4
And what does that suggest? Wouldn't a fake be easier to spot at high res? Why? When the fake was originally created in hi-res, by reducing the size and quality of the original it wipes out the original scans interpolated pixels. What interpolated pixels? The originals are on film, and pre-date Photoshop by decades. Any faking in those days would have to be done optically or by physical cut-and paste. |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Nov 21, 2006 5:39:54 GMT -4
One thing bothers me why did they film the Earth from a position away from the window ( as in the footage in BS's film)? If you want to take a picture of a distant object through a small window then it's easier to keep it in frame if you're closer to the window. As we all love discussing things to the point of molecular structure as far as semantics go, how about we clarify the fact that there is no such thing as a video camera that "films". Part of that means there is no multi angle option when using one camera. That means you have alot of footage that is redunant and not perfectrly framed at all times. Which leads me too thate next paragraph. My memory is failing me here but I seem to recall an invention called a zoom lens which can make things appear bigger or smaller depending on whether the lens was zoomed in or out. Amazing thing that, because at first I thought the earth was pulsating. What a great thing live fly-on-the wall video is. You see it all from the point the circuit breaker is in, right up to the end of transmission. I guess some folk will whine about how this raw footage doesn't have a music track for the more dramatic moments. Secondly what is the point of using a compressed jpeg image replete with all its inherent artifacting to demonstrate alleged photo trickery? Wouldn't it be better to get a high res print direct from the original negative to start as a basis? You know, what with keeping this all halfway legitimate? |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 21, 2006 9:18:19 GMT -4
One thing bothers me why did they film the Earth from a position away from the window ( as in the footage in BS's film)? If you want to take a picture of a distant object through a small window then it's easier to keep it in frame if you're closer to the window. If you watch the real video, Mission Control actually comments on seeing them pull the camare back from the window. But Bart wouldn't want you hearing that. Just watching it makes it so obvious though, as the cabin light comes into view, and someone clearly moves in front of the window. Then the lights come up, and it's clear that he is across the cabin from the window. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 21, 2006 9:33:38 GMT -4
Why is it that HBs constantly call upon technology that didn't exist or wouldn't be perfected for decades to support the hoax?
Photoshop, bluescreen, digital erasing of video; do people think this stuff was always around?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 21, 2006 10:15:43 GMT -4
Why is it that HBs constantly call upon technology that didn't exist or wouldn't be perfected for decades to support the hoax? Especially when they also claim that Apollo-era computer technology wasn't up to doing the mission for real. But then they also claim that Apollo-era robotics was so advanced that the rocks were collected and the instruments deployed by an unmanned probe. Consistency isn't their strong point. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 21, 2006 10:38:34 GMT -4
But then they also claim that Apollo-era robotics was so advanced that the rocks were collected and the instruments deployed by an unmanned probe. And then they want use to believe NASA has not reapplied this technology over the last 3+ decades, while at the same time complaining the manned landings should have been repeated by now. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 21, 2006 15:11:14 GMT -4
the Clavius photo is very suspicious. It shows a picture of the Earth just peeping over the horizon, yet it couldn’t have been taken from the lunar surface at any of the landing sites because the Earth would have been at a higher angle in the sky. But this photo can’t have been taken from lunar orbit either because it shows too much detail of the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 21, 2006 15:12:18 GMT -4
They say that they had the camera up to the window, but we have to take their word for it. Because the interior lighting was off there are no other objects to give the viewer any sense of location. The only time we have this is when they turn on the lights afterwards and we can see that the camera is positioned a long way back.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 21, 2006 15:26:46 GMT -4
the Clavius photo is very suspicious. Perhaps you should take a look at the original photograph instead. Yeah, definetly. |
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 21, 2006 15:50:49 GMT -4
the Clavius photo is very suspicious. It shows a picture of the Earth just peeping over the horizon, yet it couldn’t have been taken from the lunar surface at any of the landing sites because the Earth would have been at a higher angle in the sky. But this photo can’t have been taken from lunar orbit either because it shows too much detail of the ground. You're kidding, right? You're talking about the earthrise photo on the Clavius homepage? too much detail?AS11-44-6549 images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1969/medium/AS11-44-6549.jpg Robert, tell me again why it cannot be an orbital photo. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 21, 2006 16:01:53 GMT -4
They say that they had the camera up to the window, but we have to take their word for it. Because the interior lighting was off there are no other objects to give the viewer any sense of location. When the edge of the window comes into view it is quite evident the camera is very close to the window. |
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 21, 2006 16:40:22 GMT -4
It is also quite evident that they are not in low Earth orbit as the land masses and cloud formations stay the same instead of moving rapidly as they would in a low fast orbit.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 21, 2006 16:48:52 GMT -4
Why? When the fake was originally created in hi-res, by reducing the size and quality of the original it wipes out the original scans interpolated pixels.The other obvious question to put in here is "How?" Remember that computer based graphical manipulation didn't exist in 1969. Computers operated by punched cards and tapes. The Apollo images were taken with transparency film cameras so how do you create a composite image on that film? eta: I should have read the next page 
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 21, 2006 16:58:44 GMT -4
They say that they had the camera up to the window, but we have to take their word for it.Which is why we tell you to go look at ALL the footage rather then accepting Sibrel's word for it. Why are you so willing to accept what he tells you, but can't be bothered even going to look at a page I linked for you? Examples of what Bart is hiding from you are below.   Because the interior lighting was off there are no other objects to give the viewer any sense of location.It was?  The bright bit on the right is the Earth, the bright bit on the left is an internal light.
|
|
