JMV
Venus
Posts: 41 
|
Post by JMV on Apr 19, 2007 17:45:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 18:14:51 GMT -4
Sounds like the claim fails then by subversion of support: Venus is not missing in the photographs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 19, 2007 18:26:20 GMT -4
Looks like you got it! Pretty consistent with Bob B's estimated position, too. Actually, I think I was off by quite a bit. The distance of Venus from the Moon in Data Cable's GIF is only about 2/3rd the distance I estimated. There are a lot of things that could have introduced error -- the accuracy of the computer graphic, my estimation of the Earth phase and size in the photograph, etc. I suspect there were several things that had an cumulative effect. Of course I could have also simply made a math error. By the way, nice job Data Cable. It certainly looks like you may have found it. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Apr 19, 2007 18:47:42 GMT -4
This is great. I suspected that Venus had a fighting chance of showing up in the photos as long as the exposure was on the strong side. A question: In showtime's post, are we viewing the shadowed side of the LM?
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 19, 2007 18:54:46 GMT -4
I suspect there were several things that had an cumulative effect. I'll agree with that. Between showtime's dinky sim screencap of unknown FOV or aspect-ratio fidelity and a tiny sliver of an already rather small Earth in even the high-res scans, ± a few pixels at those scales tends to accumulate rapidly. Danke, danke beddy mouché. </pseudo-ethnic Elvis> |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 19, 2007 18:56:15 GMT -4
A question: In showtime's post, are we viewing the shadowed side of the LM? Yup. Lookin' right up the front face, and they always landed with back to the sun. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 19, 2007 19:15:10 GMT -4
I'll agree with that. Between showtime's dinky sim screencap of unknown FOV or aspect-ratio fidelity and a tiny sliver of an already rather small Earth in even the high-res scans, ± a few pixels at those scales tends to accumulate rapidly. Another possibility is that the computer generated sky map provided by showtime is for the wrong time. I determined my Earth-Venus separation assuming the graphic was accurate for the time the photograph was taken, however the angular separation changes by about 0.5 degree per hour. If showtime plotted the map for a time 8 hours earlier (or is it later?) than the actual time the photograph was taken, then that would account for the difference. EDIT: I may need to back off on my 0.5 o/hour per hour and 8 hours figures. Those numbers are assuming all the orbits are coplanar, which they are not. I over simplified while the real case is more complicated. Nonetheless, the possibility that a difference in time between the computer simulation and the actual photograph may account for the error remains a valid point. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 19, 2007 19:27:15 GMT -4
Another possibility is that the computer generated sky map provided by showtime is for the wrong time. Oh, certainly. He presented the screen cap and photo, with only the implication that the software was given a time and date corresponding to the photo. He didn't state what time/date he entered, nor even what software he used. That information might have been displayed on the screen, but it's too tiny to read anything but the planet captions. I'd put it at least a notch below Jack White's "Look at the differences between these two photos (one of which has been cropped, but I'm not gonna tell you that)" gags, since one can potentially sift through the Apollo photo catalog to locate the originals, whereas showtime deprives us of the opportunity to authenticate one of the images being compared here. |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 19, 2007 19:53:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2007 20:24:02 GMT -4
Sorry if I can not respond to all your arguments at one time,,,
You don't have to answer the photo exposure question. I stipulate that Venus is bright enough to be visible in an enhancement of the photos taken at their respective settings -- and in fact is visible in them.
Please be patient, I am only one person...
And you know that we are many, and that we will ask for the details you don't initially provide. By now you should know that a more complete case is necessary.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 19, 2007 21:12:50 GMT -4
If we assume showtime's computer graphic is for the correct time and location, then I estimate Venus' position as follows:  Earth's terminator is approximated by the yellow line. From showtime's images I estimate the angle between the terminator and the Earth-Venus line (show in green) to be 40.4 degrees. The Earth-Moon distance was about 394,000 km, giving Earth an angular size of about 1.855 degrees. The distance between Earth's cusps is 18 pixels, thus we have approximately 0.103 degree/pixel. Venus therefore lies 91 pixels from Earth along the green line in the position shown. This position is pretty close to the object Data Cable identified. If the time used by showtime is out of sync with the photograph, this could easily account for the difference. The shift in position might also be explained by parallax. If, for example, showtime's map is plotted from an moon-centric view, Venus' position on the map will be slightly different from that viewed from the actual landing site. |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 19, 2007 21:31:18 GMT -4
Now if I had a case of complete & overwhelming evidence , there wouldn't be any need to continue too post forum. The truth is the truth. On the other hand, if you had a case of complete & overwhelming evidence that we did land men on moon, there would be no need to continue to debunk ..the conspiracy would of died long ago... ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Apr 19, 2007 21:41:34 GMT -4
The Earth-Moon distance was about 394,000 km, giving Earth an angular size of about 1.855 degrees. The distance between Earth's cusps is 18 pixels, thus we have approximately 0.103 degree/pixel. Venus therefore lies 91 pixels from Earth along the green line in the position shown.
For what it is worth, I measured AS14-64-9191HR.jpg, doing a somewhat more photogrammetrical approach using the center fiducial as the optical axis for angle calculations. I assumed a 60 mm lens focused at infinity.
I wasn't sure of the best way to size the Earth. A circle with a diameter of 96 pixels appears to be a close fit. In that case, 96 pixels at that position in the frame came out to 1.98 degrees.
The distance from the center of that Earth circle to the candidate Venus spot came out to 7.8 degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 19, 2007 22:07:39 GMT -4
On the other hand, if you had a case of complete & overwhelming evidence that we did land men on moon, there would be no need to continue to debunk ..the conspiracy would of died long ago. What an interesting delusion. People believe stupid things without evidence--when all the evidence is against it--all the time. Shall I start citing examples? |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 19, 2007 22:07:52 GMT -4
On the other hand, if you had a case of complete & overwhelming evidence... Would you care to actually respond to the evidence we've presented in response to your query? You asked why Venus didn't appear in the Apollo photograph as apparently predicted by your software. I think I've pretty clearly indicated that it does appear in that photo, as well as 8 others taken immediately before and after it, though not as the large white circle you seemed to expect. Do you agree, or do you dispute my analysis? |
|
