|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 21, 2010 21:55:46 GMT -4
You just might be right, considering that Sibrel also enjoys jumping up and down on cars. Well, he has to get the money to pay his fines and court costs somehow. Yeah, it wasn't just anyone's car, it was the County Prosecutor's! |
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 20, 2011 16:53:47 GMT -4
Isn't it possible to determine the distance a photograph was taken from the Earth given how much a continent appears to span the visible Earth? AS11-36-5355 shows all of Africa. The visible sector of a planet is dependent on the distance. At 200 km the horizon is a sector with a radius of 14.2 o. From a geosynchronous orbit it's 80.9 o. At 200,000 km it's 88.2 o. Increasing distances would make Africa appear to occupy less of the visible surface. I don't know enough about spherical trigonometry or photogrammetry to do any accurate math but it seems intuitively possible to me. |
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Jan 20, 2011 21:40:42 GMT -4
It sure is possible to determine the distance a photograph was taken from the Earth using spherical trig and photogrammetry. Alternatively, you can simply load a CAD file of the Earth with the Earth's continents and then change your viewpoint and distance until what you see matches the photograph. Or you can simply view Google Earth or the Earth in Celestia and do the same thing -- change your position and distance such that what you see matches the Apollo photograph and then simply note the distance of your point of view from the Earth's surface.
|
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 20, 2011 21:48:41 GMT -4
D'oh!
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 21, 2011 16:18:57 GMT -4
It sure is possible to determine the distance a photograph was taken from the Earth using spherical trig and photogrammetry. Alternatively, you can simply load a CAD file of the Earth with the Earth's continents and then change your viewpoint and distance until what you see matches the photograph. Or you can simply view Google Earth or the Earth in Celestia and do the same thing -- change your position and distance such that what you see matches the Apollo photograph and then simply note the distance of your point of view from the Earth's surface. You're the man Plaid... you're the man!!! How about you make a video of it? |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 21, 2011 20:58:14 GMT -4
If my calculations are correct, that picture must have been cropped. It is listed as having been taken on 70mm film with a 250mm lens at about 48 hours 30 minutes elapsed time; at 48 hours the PAO gave Apollo 11's distance to earth as 160,760 nm (roughly 300,000 km or 75% of the way to the moon). If the active picture area is 60x60mm, then the angle from the center of the picture to an edge (not corner) is asin(30/250) = .12 radians or 6.9 degrees. That picture on the LPI archive is 3900 pixels square, or .12/1950 = .0000617 rad/pixel. The polar diameter of the earth is 1210 pixels, or a radius of 605 pixels. The apparent radius of the earth was therefore 605 * .0000617 = .037 radians or 2.13 degrees. The polar radius of the earth is 6357 km, so that corresponds to a distance of 6357 km / tan(.037) = 172,000 km. But Apollo 11 was almost twice as far away. So either this picture was cropped, or a longer lens was used, or....Apollo was faked. Your choice. :-) |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 21, 2011 22:45:36 GMT -4
If my calculations are correct, that picture must have been cropped. It is listed as having been taken on 70mm film with a 250mm lens at about 48 hours 30 minutes elapsed time; at 48 hours the PAO gave Apollo 11's distance to earth as 160,760 nm (roughly 300,000 km or 75% of the way to the moon). If the active picture area is 60x60mm, then the angle from the center of the picture to an edge (not corner) is asin(30/250) = .12 radians or 6.9 degrees. That picture on the LPI archive is 3900 pixels square, or .12/1950 = .0000617 rad/pixel. The polar diameter of the earth is 1210 pixels, or a radius of 605 pixels. The apparent radius of the earth was therefore 605 * .0000617 = .037 radians or 2.13 degrees. The polar radius of the earth is 6357 km, so that corresponds to a distance of 6357 km / tan(.037) = 172,000 km. But Apollo 11 was almost twice as far away. So either this picture was cropped, or a longer lens was used, or....Apollo was faked. Your choice. :-) According to these pages: nix.larc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=l2wmc5p8xpq?id=AS11-36-5355&orgid=8images.jsc.nasa.gov/luceneweb/caption_direct.jsp?photoId=AS11-36-5355Apollo 11 was 98,000 nautical miles from Earth when the photo was taken. That's 181,500 km -- pretty close to your calculation. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 22, 2011 8:08:45 GMT -4
Cool! So I guess I was right all along, and instead I've apparently found a mistake in the Apollo Flight Journal. At 048:32 (which was July 18, not July 16) Aldrin describes his view of earth and the Journal inserted links to AS11-36-5352,3,4,5 saying they were taken at this time.
In defense of the AFJ, no dates appear for these pictures in the catalog, there are numerous pictures of the earth in that section of the magazine, and the approximate location of the terminator does match Aldrin's description. But he describes an isolated cloud in the vicinity of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border that doesn't seem to match this picture.
A better candidate for a picture taken around 048:30 is 5377, later on the same magazine. In it I measure the earth as 747 pixels high, which corresponds to a distance of 276,000 km; according to the PAO, Apollo 11 was at about 298,00 km at 48 hours. Close enough, especially since I guessed about the size of the active picture area on a 70mm slide. Anybody know?
|
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 22, 2011 8:22:59 GMT -4
Cool! So I guess I was right all along, and instead I've apparently found a mistake in the Apollo Flight Journal. At 048:32 (which was July 18, not July 16) Aldrin describes his view of earth and the Journal inserted links to AS11-36-5352,3,4,5 saying they were taken at this time. Cue the hoax theorist in the wings waiting to exploit this apparent anomaly. I'll set up a book now, and give strong odds for that one individual will produce a 300 hour video on this subject. I'll take money on the 600 hour follow up series of unrelated clap trap and bunk.  |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 22, 2011 14:16:18 GMT -4
I'll take money on the 600 hour follow up series of unrelated clap trap and bunk. I'll lay 2:1 odds on 384hrs. of bunk and 216hrs. of claptrap, but only 72.4% of it unrelated. |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 22, 2011 14:22:19 GMT -4
I'll lay 2:1 odds on 384hrs. of bunk and 216hrs. of claptrap, but only 72.4% of it unrelated. 72.4% unrelated...  I'll give you 750-1 on that. You'll get even money on 97.8% unrleated. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 22, 2011 14:30:21 GMT -4
And thus, I have expended my vast wealth of gambling jargon.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonetoplaid on Jan 26, 2011 1:38:01 GMT -4
Aah, yet nobody asks or gives odds for how many followup videos one certain hoax believer individual will produce.
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 26, 2011 4:01:49 GMT -4
Why bother? There's no suspense in a question for which everybody already knows the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Aug 10, 2011 15:53:49 GMT -4
Good Job. Definitely proves that they were not in Low Earth Orbit. I don't see what's the buzz about Sibrel anyway. He's obviously a deluded moron and a criminal. His theories are stupid, his tactics are illegal and pathetic, and his theories are wrong.
I wouldn't waste any time with that criminal.
|
|
I'll give you 750-1 on that. You'll get even money on 97.8% unrleated.