ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: jr Knowing on April 27, 2019, 10:11:19 PM
-
Hi Everyone,
I figure I would create a new thread regarding other DAC footage where we won't get bogged down in arguments suggesting I have manufactured/tweaked images to suit my ends. To be clear, I only suggest you use a video editor to see things better. And with these two videos, there is no need to do anything but watch the videos.
The DAC videos for Apollo 11-12 showing the Lunar module rendezvous show some interesting things that are hard to reconcile. As I am sure many of you are aware, after lifting off from the moon, the lunar modules of A11-12 did one orbit of the moon approximately 12-14 miles below the CSM's orbit. The CSM was moving at approximately 4000 miles per hour and the LM's speed was comparable. After one revolution of the moon, the LM's altered course and started a slow climb of these last 12 miles to the CSM. According to docs, this climb took approximately 55 minutes.
This leads us to the two rendezvous videos. The first thing you should keep in mind is these videos were apparently shot using a mirror like many other DAC videos. Interestingly this was only admitted by NASA after some had pointed out many of the videos seemed backwards. To illustrate this point, even the original Apollo 11 Documentary Footprints on the Moon with Wernher Von Braun narrating shows many of the videos backwards. (Footprints deserves its own topic post :) ) Now the only documented mirror on these missions was a 1.5 inch right angle mirror that can be attached to the DAC. A right angle mirror is a curious thing. It is used mainly for photos and not video. And is rarely used for anything professional. It lacks clarity and your viewpoint is curtailed significantly. In fact, today it is mainly sold as a "gag" or "spy" lens for shooting girls on the beach etc, ie point the camera one way but really shooting at a 90 degree angle to that. Yet this apparently is the mirror they used to produce many of these video sequences according to the docs. (of course, a cynical person might point out that a mirror was used but that was because it was part of a front screen projection set up. And they didn't correct for footage orientation being shot into the two way mirror :) )
In any event, lets start with the A12 rendezvous footage. It is rather simple and appears to have significantly different ascent characteristics than A11's ascent to the CM. It starts at 1:05:10 and ends at 1:07:30 of the video below
The first thing you should note is while the footage took approximately 2:30 minutes, in reality, because the frames per second have been changed the real period of time is approximately 8-10 minutes. So what you are seeing is the last 8-10 minutes of ascent of the LM towards the CSM. The next thing you should note is the LM is being filmed from a stationary camera using a mirror on the CSM which is travelling approximately 4000 mph. Now what is extraordinary about this footage is the movement of the moon surface and the position of the LM vis a vis the X/Y axis of the video frame. The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster. This can be only because of one of two things. Either the moon is rotating faster or the Lunar Module is moving considerably faster than the CM's 4000 mph speed above it. Now we know the moon doesn't vary in speed so it can only be a mismatch in speed between the LM and CSM with the LM going significantly faster. Fair enough. But logic dictates otherwise. At this point in the rendezvous, there are less than 10 minutes left before the LM attains the same orbit as the CSM. That means horizontally (from the moon's surface) they shouldn't be more than 4-5 miles apart at most. So even if there was a mismatch in speed of 400 or 500 mph ONLY during (for instance) the first 30 seconds (2 minutes real time) it would mean the LM was over 25 miles behind the CSM when the film starts. Of course the film doesn't appear to show the LM 'catching up' but if we assume that is what is being shown, there are significant problems. For one, an object 10'x 12' twenty five miles away is virtually impossible to film even with today's technology. Are we to accept a small camera filming through a 1.5 inch mirror somehow captured these LM images 25 miles out completely in focus? And further and more importantly, if this film is really depicting the LM 'catching up' the camera should not have been in a stationary static position. And it was. It doesn't move, or re-adjust, or pan to account for the LM closing in on the CSM.
To me, it seems clear that the film has been made to create the illusion of speed and distance as the LM closes in on the CSM. It is almost as if they were trying to re-create the perception many people have that the rendezvous is somehow one speeding bullet catching another speeding bullet. (Of course, most here know the rendezvous was a slow gradual ascent between similarly moving crafts.) It was just a simple rudimentary use of front screen projection. The variation in the moon's rotation created the illusion of speed while the foreground object (the lunar module) remained on the same Y axis (camera seemed to be bumped slightly at 1:05:50 and then corrected a few seconds later) only growing larger to give the appearance of it moving closer to the CSM. Even the big flaw of front screen projection is clearly evident here. The foreground and background don't match up in clarity or light. Even the small LM profile at the beginning of the clip 'pops' out against the background. It looks very unnatural.
Take a very close look at the LM, it remained dead center in the video frame and its orientation/position profile remained identical for the entire film. That is mind boggling. Any braking, upward trajectory movements, etc, absolutely nothing altered the LM's profile orientation during the entire film. You can literally overlay the first frame of the film with the last frame of the film and the LM has not shifted its profile position at all. That is unbelievable. Even if the LM didn't shift its profile orientation because of braking, RCS thrusts etc (unlikely), as it ascended it should have caused a shift in its profile vis a vis the CSM's camera's angle of view. But it doesn't.
Now lets turn to the DAC footage of Apollo 11's LM rendezvous. It is somewhat different than A12's rendezvous but very similar in the techniques used. Below is the clip.
Again this rendezvous was shot using a mirror like Apollo 12. It is also longer than the A12 clip. It is approximately 4:30 minutes long or about 18-20 minutes in real time once the frames per second alteration has been taken into account.
The significant difference between these two rendezvous sequences is the seemingly different trajectories between the two LM's as they approach the CSM. A11's approach seems at odds with A12's. I am sure some are going to point out it is a perspective issue or you need to think in "3D". So I rather not even deal with this apparent inconsistency.
Rather I would like to highlight film similarities between the two rendezvous that are hard to ignore. In both films, the camera is stationary and doesn't pan. The A11 clip is rather extraordinary in that it captures approximately the final 18 minutes of the LM's trajectory from beneath and behind the CSM to being on the horizon in front of the CSM. Not once does the camera move or pan. Yet it captures the entire movement of the LM (in complete focus no less! ) Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film. And like the A12 sequence, the LM's profile remains the same/static for the entire ascent to the CSM. Only when out front of the CSM does the LM show a change in profile as it begins to rotate (on the SAME y axis). The rotations don't look real and appear mechanical in nature as if they are being rotated on a stick from behind. Of course some will argue (and have) that these rotations look unnatural because the film speed has been changed from 6 -10 fps to 24 fps. They would have a point but this change in speed does not seem to have affected other movements in the films. Only these rotations seem to be jarring and mechanical in nature. When you see the LM moving laterally its movement appears smooth. And the moon's surface rotation seems smooth as butter. So why do these LM rotations appear mechanical while nothing else exhibits the same jarring movements?
Like the A12 rendezvous, I believe a simple rudimentary front screen projection technique is being used to create the illusion of speed and movement of a stationary LM. Further it has all the hallmarks of the mismatch background/foreground lighting problems associated with front screen projection. This video standouts in particular as seeming unnatural. The lunar module 'pops' out from the moon background the entire clip. Even when it is only a tiny speck at the beginning of the clip, its clarity and lighting makes it standout unnaturally from its background.
With regards to the illusion of speed and movement, if you watch the film carefully from the beginning, the LM inexplicably moves up a y axis and when it reaches the top of the video frame it reverses and drops down the same y axis creating an illusion of speed as the moon's rotation slows down in the background. At the same time, the LM grows in size to create the illusion the LM is getting closer to the CSM to the point the LM finds itself somehow on the horizon in front of the LM. That is one magical camera with a 1.5 inch mirror. With a 1.5 inch mirror, the camera literally captures (in focus) 18 minutes of the lunar module moving from below and behind the CSM to in front of it on the horizon without no movement, adjustment or so much as one pan. And to top it off, it is filmed in such a manner the lunar module stays on the same Y-axis in the video frame for the film's entirety. Unbelievable is the only way to describe all this.
That's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.
-
I'm thinking you should ANSWER THE QUESTIONS put to you, before doing another imitation of a seagull.
-
ANSWER YOUR OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
-
My comments and thoughts are that you really don't know what you're talking about and are desperately trying to bend reality to fit your narrative despite the gaping plot holes in your story.
I love how HBs like to throw in the word 'admit whenever they reveal something NASA has said all along, as if someone forced them into saying something that's always been public.
The fact is that your claim that NASA only 'admitted' that some film is reversed when the images were pit on the internet is utter BS. This document:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/nssdc70-06-03.jpg
or here, in the press kit:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo11_Press-Kit_restored.pdf
clearly discusses the right angled mirror used in the CSM to deal with mounting the camera. Many NASA images and film of the lunar surface are presented reversed because, like you, the people preparing them for public use don't know what they're looking at.
If a camera was mounted and left running, why would it pan and move? If a distant object is heading directly towards the camera, why would it not be centre frame?
How is it possible for the 16mm footage to zhoe details of the surface not known about prior to the missions, or to show meteorologically accurate images if Earth?
I'd like to say you're overthinking this, but you're not thinking at all.
-
Hi Everyone,
I figure I would create a new thread regarding other DAC footage where we won't get bogged down in arguments...
I'll echo everyone else's sentiments - you need to respond to unanswered questions on your other threads before starting off on a new claim. Or are you admitting you were wrong on those topics, and have no answer?
That said, since it's lazy Sunday morning time :
The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster. This can be only because of one of two things. Either the moon is rotating faster or the Lunar Module is moving considerably faster than the CM's 4000 mph speed above it.
Or, perhaps you aren't appreciating / understanding the relative motions and orientations of the different objects involved in this manoeuvre?
Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film. And like the A12 sequence, the LM's profile remains the same/static for the entire ascent to the CSM.
No, it doesn't. Even a cursory viewing shows the X & Y position in the frame is continually changing. And why would you expect large changes in orientation once the correct trajectory has been established?
The rotations don't look real and appear mechanical in nature as if they are being rotated on a stick from behind. Of course some will argue (and have) that these rotations look unnatural because the film speed has been changed from 6 -10 fps to 24 fps. They would have a point but this change in speed does not seem to have affected other movements in the films. Only these rotations seem to be jarring and mechanical in nature. When you see the LM moving laterally its movement appears smooth. And the moon's surface rotation seems smooth as butter. So why do these LM rotations appear mechanical while nothing else exhibits the same jarring movements?
Again, you're expressing an opinion on how things should work, or appear on film. Perhaps a better question would be "What rates of change of rotation would we expect, given the known mass of the LM and the thrust produced by the RCS?". Work that out, and then come back and tell us if it matches the observed rate in the film.
Like the A12 rendezvous, I believe a simple rudimentary front screen projection technique is being used to create the illusion of speed and movement of a stationary LM. Further it has all the hallmarks of the mismatch background/foreground lighting problems associated with front screen projection.
What you "believe" is irrelevant. What you can provide proof of is what matters. There is nothing in any of the material you've posted which looks unusual or "faked" to me. You've still not provided any verifiable, measurable proof of any of your conjectures, here or on the other threads.
That's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.
My thoughts are that it's a lovely sunny Sunday morning, and I've wasted enough time dealing with someone who seems determined to troll or Gish-gallop this board, possibly just to annoy the regulars, and there are better (boater ;)) things I can be doing. Perhaps you could find a more productive hobby as well... ::)
-
Mr Knowing:
Why should we pay any attention to your new questions when a) you haven't resolved your previous discussions b) it's clear from your history here that you're not interested in actually listening to our answers?
-
Let's dissect a few more of the false claims made.
There's this:
significantly different ascent characteristics
referring to the Apollo 11 and 12 LM ascent. Define 'significantly'. The only difference I can see is the viewing from which the two were viewed. Are you really incapable of seeing the same thing just because the camera has been rotated 90 degrees?
Then there's this:
The footage starts out with the moon rotating significantly faster than the end of the footage at probably three or four times faster.
Which is completely false. Pick a crater as it appears on the left hand side. See how long it takes to traverse the frame. Now do the same towards the end of the sequence. My count is roughly four seconds at both the start and end of the sequence. Your claim of 'significantly faster' and 'three or four times faster' needs accurately quantifying and actually demonstrating. Again, you are guilty of making a claim while making no effort at all to substantiate it.
What very few people notice in the Apollo 11 rendez-vous footage is that Earth appears in it. Here's the relevant still as published in Life magazine in 1969, together with the Earth as photographed by a Hasselblad.
(https://i.imgur.com/YnI4ioI.jpg)
Both images match the weather satellites of the time.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1b.html
Why is that?
Then there's this:
an object 10'x 12' twenty five miles away is virtually impossible to film even with today's technology
For a start it's a strawman argument, given that you have decided how far away the LM is and then declared it to be impossible to film (today's technology very much could film an object that size that far away, even back then all you need is a good enough lens and film, which they had). In reality the CSM and LM were only separated by 15 miles from their respective orbits when they started the rendez-vous procedure. These things are not difficult to find out. Likewise this (from the AFJ):
127:43:43 Collins (onboard): I have 0.7 mile [1.3 km] and I got you at 31 feet per second [9.5 m/s]
is the point when Collins started filming, not when they were 25 miles away. Are you just being a lazy researcher or being dishonest and hoping no-one will notice?
If you want to fool people into thinking you understand the material with which you are dealing, or to convince the gullible, you are in the wrong place.
-
I note that it didn't take long for jr Knowing to move from Just Asking Questions and this:
And yes I am not a naïve guy who just wandered in. But I am not a "hunchbacked" either. To be honest I don't know what to think anymore. I don't have a agenda. But having immersed myself in the subject over the years, some things continue to nag at me. I don't have blinders on and I am sure there are reasonable answers to many of my concerns.
to full-bore conspiracy nutjob. ::)
It's especially amusing as he apes hunbacked's inability to understand simple translations and movements in 3D space.
Anyhoo.....GO ANSWER YOUR OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS.
Perhaps Lunar Orbit might consider getting involved to restrict posting until jr Knowing answers his interlocutors?
-
Here's another false statement:
Even more extraordinary is the fact the LM stays on the same y axis of the video frame for the entire 18 minutes of film
Doesn't matter whether you mean X or Y axis, these three randomly chosen stills prove you wrong.
(https://i.imgur.com/OVr7uPT.jpg)
Making a claim, and that claim being true, are not the same thing.
-
What was wrong with the first thread you made on this? Why make another one?
-
Hi Everyone,
I figure I would create a new thread...
jr Knowing
I have removed your ability to start new topics. Respond to the topics that you have already started, and then maybe I will restore your ability to create new ones. Or leave... whatever.
-
Hi Onebigmonkey,
I appreciate your responses, at least you attempt to refute my claims. Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them. I have posted 100 times. I attempt to answer people's questions. (I only have so much time in a day) But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life. Case in point. You rightly point out the earth is in the background in last few frames of A11 DAC rendezvous footage. It is also in some corresponding A11 photos too. But are you suggesting because the earth in the Apollo photos matches weather satellite pictures at the time, these photos and film by deduction have to be real? I would highly object to that. Clearly if you were going to fake something like this, one would ensure to use current satellite photos. They are not going to use photos from 1965. I don't think you can use this argument as proof the film/photo is real. But that's life. You made your point, I made mine. We could argue for ever on this and perhaps get no where. This is just a friendly debate (at least the way I see it).
With regards to your comments about the moon's rotation in the A12 clip, I think you are mistaken with your time count and understanding of how this might have been filmed. At the beginning of the clip, any crater moving from the left side takes approximately 2.5 secs to reach the right side of the frame. At the end of the clip it takes over 6 secs for a crater to reach the right side of the frame from the left side. So the moon is moving nearly 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end. But that is just part of it. If you understand how front screen projection works, specifically zoptic techniques, to create the illusion of speed and distance, the background picture (being shot into a two way mirror) is not only manipulated from a speed perspective but can be gradually compressed/shrunk to effect an illusion of changing distance. And by doing that it also effects the perception of speed. And that appears to be the case with this A12 clip. At the beginning of the clip, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits in the upper right corner of the frame. A the end of the film, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits at a lower exit point on the x axis on the right side of the frame than the beginning of the clip. That is because the background film was slowly being compressed/shrunk to create the illusion the moon was further away. It also means that the moon wasn't rotating 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip but actually even more given the crater at the beginning is travelling more distance in the video frame than the crater at the end of the film.
Please check out the link I gave about Zoptic front screen projection. And read up about it. (it will also help explain why the foreground object might 'wobble' around the y axis) These two rendezvous clips are remarkable pieces of film. A stationary non panning camera shooting into a 1.5 inch mirror through a thick piece of glass travelling 4000 mph capturing the final 20 minutes of the rendezvous in its entirety from below to in front, all in frame and focus, is truly a masterful feat. The question is it believable?
-
Hi Lunar Orbit
I respect your decision. But I would like to point out I have only created 5 new topics in the 9-10 months I have been a member. (unlike that clown who peppered the forum with 5-6 new threads in one day and then disappeared) I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads. I have attempted to answer people's questions. I have only so much time in a day. It is me against 100. At least it feels like that to me. :) And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory. I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments. Yes, some of my views clearly don't conform to most view's here. But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.
-
Then - again - answer the questions put to you, which you seem unable to. Or admit - in writing - that you are wrong.
-
It is me against 100.
All the more reason to limit how many topics you start or participate in. Why create more work for yourself?
Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
-
Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them.
No. You're being chastised not because you have a different view than everyone else, but because you approach all your debates about your different views in a highly dishonest fashion.
This is just a friendly debate (at least the way I see it).
Stop trying to get people to go easy on you.
-
I respect your decision.
A pointless thing to say when you have no choice but to obey it. There's no chance you will be able to schmooze your way out of your restrictions.
I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.
Until you get backed into a corner and then run away. Then you come back after things cool down, change the subject, and pretend your prior failures never existed.
I have attempted to answer people's questions.
No, you haven't. You've been singularly evasive. The last time we tried to drag you back to the LM stability issue, you ignored everything that was said in the thread and tried to start that whole discussion over again de novo. Enough gaslighting; it doesn't work on us.
I have only so much time in a day. It is me against 100. At least it feels like that to me. :) And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory.
Whiny excuses. We're not interested. When you pretend to be some sort of scientist or engineer, you're treating on the territory of people here who have professional qualifications and experience in those things. If you can't walk the walk, be man enough to admit it and accept the correction of your betters.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments. Yes, some of my views clearly don't conform to most view's here.
No. As much as you might want to believe you're being persecuted for your beliefs, you're simply being constrained to act like a responsible adult. All this ham-fisted play at social engineering isn't helping you.
But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.
No. You don't act at all like you think you are almost certainly wrong.
-
... I feel I am being held to a higher standard. Which isn't fair but goes with the territory.
No, you're being held to the standard required to debate these issues.
You're making claims which question the science and engineering involved in planning, building and executing the Apollo (and presumably other) missions. You therefore need to address the science and engineering properly, and in particular you need to respond to questions with something more than "it doesn't look right to me". There are people on this board who have spent their lives studying or working in these fields who'd be more than happy to help you learn more about their respective fields, but you need to show a willingness to learn, and to admit that your guesses and impressions might be wrong.
You're also questioning the motives and honesty of a huge number of people who worked on Apollo, and by association, everyone who has worked on, or currently works on, spaceflight. Again, without any evidence of this huge deception. Perhaps you can understand the reaction you get to this approach.
-
You'd also get more credit if you had the balls to say "I don't believe we went" instead of keeping up the wide-eyed innocent JAQ nonsense. No-one believes it, no-one's fooled by it.
If you make a claim, back it up with evidence. No-one here has to take your word for anything. Show your working. It's that simple.
-
Hi Lunar Orbit
I respect your decision. But I would like to point out I have only created 5 new topics in the 9-10 months I have been a member.
As has already been made clear, it is not the number of topics that is the issue but your habit of starting a topic, then abandoning it with unanswered qestions once you get painted into a corner, then coming back with new ones as if the old ones never happened.
I have responded nearly 100 times in those threads.
Quality, not quantity is the issue, as you well know.
I have attempted to answer people's questions.
No, you have ignored or evaded people's questions. Such as the one about LM stability using the memo you presented as evidence, and your refusal to provide the other paper you claim exists proving that the RCS system requires perfect balance to function properly.
I have only so much time in a day.
Then use that time appropriately to answer your outstanding questions before bringing new topics to the table.
And to be quite honest I feel I am being held to a higher standard.
Higher than what? You are being held to the same standards as anyone else when it comes to this forum. Answer your questions.
I have been respectful and courteous to everyone. I am not here to belittle others or make hurtful/hateful comments.
This is frankly irrelevant. You don't get to avoi your own responsibilities in regard to defending your claims just because you're nice about it. Do you want a reward for basic decency now?
But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.
This blanket statement doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to defend your specific claims or else retract them.
If your time is so limited I suggest you spend it going back over your existing threads and answering the outstanding questions as you have been asked and now instructed to do. That is how actual reasoned discussion works.
-
as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong.
In that case you should be devoting 99% of your energy to a good faith study of the sciences behind the Apollo program.
-
I have only so much time in a day.
Then why do you chose to spend that time on conspiracy nonsense? if you were acting in good faith you would be approaching this differently. As it is, you are following the tactics of scores of other conspiracy nutjobs that have had a go on the pages over the years.
It is me against 100.
LOL...the odds are worse than that. Much, much worse.
It is you against a huge body of evidence, against tens of thousands of documents (most of which can't be find with a simple Google search); against the eyewitness reports of thousands of people; against qualified and recognised professionals that work in the very fields that you are disparaging; against the laws of motion, thermodynamics, mathematics and physics; against 400,000 workers who were part of the program, many of whom are still alive and active.
But you plough on, you lone seeker of the truth* ;D ;D ;D
*That was sarcasm, just in case you missed it.
-
I have only so much time in a day.
Of course we're all sat around like firemen on shift, tapping our pencils, calibrating slide rules, sighing out of boredom waiting for the "Fresh meat" klaxon to go off...
-
Hi Lunar Orbit
But I am also smart enough and realistic enough to admit, as I admitted to Jay, that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong. Thanks.
Yet you posted this on another thread of someone who is obviously a firm believer in the the hoax nonsense:
"Read Think Repeat,
I am on your "team""
Care to explain why you are on the hoax believers "Team" despite you saying "that I am probably 99 percent likely wrong."?
-
But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life.
Nope. To me, life is about acknowledging that you're wrong--not that you could be but are--when the evidence shows you're wrong, because how else do you learn anything? There's no "agree to disagree" on fact. I don't agree that vaccines cure autism, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, or that we didn't land on the Moon. In all three cases, going to actual documentation shows that there's right and wrong involved. Be it double-blind studies, the words of the people actually involved, or the literal tons of evidence of events as they happened, you're going to have to show that all the facts as we know them are wrong, and you are nowhere near close enough to make there even a sliver of doubt.
-
Please address Jay's questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1563.msg50403#msg50403) in the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander Pre-Launch (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1563.0) thread before starting any new discussions.
-
jrk has made much in his DAC footage posts about the use of a mirror, finding it to be suspicious for some reason or other. I decided (because that, jrk, is what inquiring minds do) to look into it a little more.
This is the 16mm mounting we're used to seeing - the famous image from inside the LM:
(https://i.imgur.com/RXeW0ew.jpg)
It's on what is obviously a mount that allows for a degree of flexibility in where the camera is pointed; the LM could land on sloping ground, it might end up with a window in the sun, or be pointed vertically downwards to film the ascent back to orbit.
It's also somewhat intrusive, liable to be knocked.
Here's a view of the camera, and you can see the important part fitted to the side of the it:
(https://i.imgur.com/GtjaCAo.jpg)
That attachment allows it to slide inside a grooved mount, where it can be gripped securely. I've circled the part doing the gripping in the Apollo 11 image.
The camera mount for the CSM was in the rendez-vous window, which was angled upwards so that they could view the rendez-vous and docking. Here's a photo of Apollo 9's, but they are all the same:
(https://i.imgur.com/i20cmYn.jpg)
It's more important here to know that your camera is pointing in the right direction. The position of the mount means that the camera can be mounted flush with the CSM body - nicely out of the way. It's good design for a small space. How to they resolve the problem that the lens is not pointing of the window?
Answers on a postcard...
-
But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life. Case in point. You rightly point out the earth is in the background in last few frames of A11 DAC rendezvous footage. It is also in some corresponding A11 photos too. But are you suggesting because the earth in the Apollo photos matches weather satellite pictures at the time, these photos and film by deduction have to be real? I would highly object to that. Clearly if you were going to fake something like this, one would ensure to use current satellite photos. They are not going to use photos from 1965. I don't think you can use this argument as proof the film/photo is real. But that's life. You made your point, I made mine.
As others have mentioned, we don't agree to disagree about things that are factually wrong. In this specific instance, you object to the match between images of Earth in A11 footage and weather satellite photos being used as evidence that the mission happened. You suggest that making sure they match is an obvious part of faking something like this.
Do you understand that this footage was broadcast live? Matching images in a live broadcast with images from weather satellites, that also corresponds with reported weather at the time, simply isn't possible. Either it really is live, and there is no way to get the images you need, or it is filmed ahead of time and there's no way to know in advance what the weather is going to be. The only reasonable conclusion from matching images in both the footage and the weather satellites is that both images were captured at the same time, which is essentially proof of authenticity of the A11 footage.
You don't get to "agree to disagree" with that. You can either agree and admit error, disagree intelligently and provide some kind of reasoned counterpoint, or you can stick your head back in the sand and insist on believing things that are demonstrably false. But don't expect anyone to give any legitimacy to the third choice. If you choose that you plant yourself firmly within the ranks of the conspiracy nuts you have disavowed several times already.
-
To be fair for a moment, obviously the 16mm and Hasselblad images weren't transmitted live, but there are many cases where Earth was filmed live on TV in a number of the missions, often with those images then appearing on the next day's front pages. The live images were more often than not broadcast in advance of the satellite images being taken. The USA were not the only ones who had access to the satellite images, and the Soviets also had their own satellite programme that would instantly have exposed them as a fake if the weather patterns did not correspond.
Claiming that they would obviously have faked the Apollo images by using the satellite data is, frankly, just a lazy and desperate cop-out and adds yet another layer of complexity to the alleged hoax. Now we have to introduce a team of people poring over black and white images from weather satellites (or by Apollo 17 the colour Landsat ones), painstakingly assembling a collection of photographs and 16mm footage that accurately portray not just the view of Earth is seen in cislunar space, lunar orbit and the lunar surface, but also how the weather patterns change over time, the position of the terminator, a whole range of features that need to be 100% accurate in order for the hoax to work.
Just handwaving it away and saying "oh well we just have to agree to differ" does not amount to a meaningful explanation for the meteorological exactness of the Apollo imagery of Earth, it's just an empty distraction.
How did they fake the images? Who did it? Where? When? They can only have taken the Earth images during the mission timeframe, so how many people would have been involved in the rapid turnaround of 16mm and 70mm images?
-
Just handwaving it away and saying "oh well we just have to agree to differ" does not amount to a meaningful explanation for the meteorological exactness of the Apollo imagery of Earth, it's just an empty distraction.
Because that's all he has. Assuming he's not just trolling, he just shows the same total failure of reason as every other hoax believer. Here's a simple decision tree:
Situation: Something looks wrong to me
Option 1: FAKE!
Option 2: Maybe my expectations and understanding are flawed so I should learn a bit more about how this was done and reassess.
Hoax believers either don't even consider option 2, or they think a bit of googling and web browsing with some high-school science is actually enough for option 2.
-
Nope. To me, life is about acknowledging that you're wrong--not that you could be but are--when the evidence shows you're wrong, because how else do you learn anything? There's no "agree to disagree" on fact. I don't agree that vaccines cure autism, that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, or that we didn't land on the Moon. In all three cases, going to actual documentation shows that there's right and wrong involved. Be it double-blind studies, the words of the people actually involved, or the literal tons of evidence of events as they happened, you're going to have to show that all the facts as we know them are wrong, and you are nowhere near close enough to make there even a sliver of doubt.
All of the above.
It's a depressing fact in this post-truth world where any jackass with an opinion and an Internet connection can broadcast and expect to have his opinion treated as judiciously as facts. I make no apology, or indeed, expect no debate when some one claims that they are subject to abrupt and robust handling if they try to make the claim "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
-
It's a depressing fact in this post-truth world where any jackass with an opinion and an Internet connection can broadcast and expect to have his opinion treated as judiciously as facts. I make no apology, or indeed, expect no debate when some one claims that they are subject to abrupt and robust handling if they try to make the claim "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
As I once wrote on Cosmoquest (and was gratified to see someone put it as a properly attributed quote as their signature line afterwards):
Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is.
-
It's a depressing fact in this post-truth world where any jackass with an opinion and an Internet connection can broadcast and expect to have his opinion treated as judiciously as facts. I make no apology, or indeed, expect no debate when some one claims that they are subject to abrupt and robust handling if they try to make the claim "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge".
As I once wrote on Cosmoquest (and was gratified to see someone put it as a properly attributed quote as their signature line afterwards):
Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is.
Absolutely.
Everybody, rightfully, should expect others to respect their rights to hold an opinion. What they should never do though is to expect that the opinion itself is held in the same high regard. Especially if that opinion is utter bunkum and nonsense.
It's a depressing fact that in today's media world there is a habit, in the name of balance, to have an expert in a field placed at the same level as some gobshite dragged in off the street. It demeans the expertopinion and I feel it panders to the despicable rise in populism and extreme views.
-
Nice work posting the precise place where my signature line in this forum came from. :)
-
Hi Onebigmonkey,
I appreciate your responses, at least you attempt to refute my claims. Others would rather put down people for having different views on things then them. I have posted 100 times. I attempt to answer people's questions. (I only have so much time in a day) But in the end, we are going to have to agree that we will disagree on many things. That's life. Case in point. You rightly point out the earth is in the background in last few frames of A11 DAC rendezvous footage. It is also in some corresponding A11 photos too. But are you suggesting because the earth in the Apollo photos matches weather satellite pictures at the time, these photos and film by deduction have to be real? I would highly object to that. Clearly if you were going to fake something like this, one would ensure to use current satellite photos. They are not going to use photos from 1965. I don't think you can use this argument as proof the film/photo is real. But that's life. You made your point, I made mine. We could argue for ever on this and perhaps get no where. This is just a friendly debate (at least the way I see it).
With regards to your comments about the moon's rotation in the A12 clip, I think you are mistaken with your time count and understanding of how this might have been filmed. At the beginning of the clip, any crater moving from the left side takes approximately 2.5 secs to reach the right side of the frame. At the end of the clip it takes over 6 secs for a crater to reach the right side of the frame from the left side. So the moon is moving nearly 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end. But that is just part of it. If you understand how front screen projection works, specifically zoptic techniques, to create the illusion of speed and distance, the background picture (being shot into a two way mirror) is not only manipulated from a speed perspective but can be gradually compressed/shrunk to effect an illusion of changing distance. And by doing that it also effects the perception of speed. And that appears to be the case with this A12 clip. At the beginning of the clip, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits in the upper right corner of the frame. A the end of the film, a crater entering the lower left corner of the frame exits at a lower exit point on the x axis on the right side of the frame than the beginning of the clip. That is because the background film was slowly being compressed/shrunk to create the illusion the moon was further away. It also means that the moon wasn't rotating 2.5 times faster at the beginning of the clip but actually even more given the crater at the beginning is travelling more distance in the video frame than the crater at the end of the film.
Please check out the link I gave about Zoptic front screen projection. And read up about it. (it will also help explain why the foreground object might 'wobble' around the y axis) These two rendezvous clips are remarkable pieces of film. A stationary non panning camera shooting into a 1.5 inch mirror through a thick piece of glass travelling 4000 mph capturing the final 20 minutes of the rendezvous in its entirety from below to in front, all in frame and focus, is truly a masterful feat. The question is it believable?
I have to agree with obm although I get a slightly different count mine is ~3.5, but it remains fairly constant for the range of time that the LM is in view.
We don't need to understand how front screen or rear screen projection works, because you haven't proved that either was used to film the sequence.
Both spacecrafts are travelling at approximately the same speed so continual posting that one is moving at 4000 mph. You should buy Kerbal and play with it until you understand the speeds required to rendezvous. If you don't have the ash you might try Orbiter.
-
Hi bknight and One Big Monkey,
Thanks for addressing my claims.
OBM, actually Apollo 7 Magazine 4 is the only place I believe shows the right angle mirror attached to the DAC. Pic 1559 is probably the best pic. Camera is not tucked to the side of the window as you were surmising.
Bknight, not quite sure how you get 3.5 seconds moon rotation continually through the clip. Apart from the fact it should be visually obvious to anyone viewing the clip that the moon appears to be rotating substantially faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end of the clip, one just has to use a video editor to break this down into 24 fps like I did and the results are nothing like yours or OBM's. I don't know why you get differing results? And no one addresses the fact the crater (for instance) exits the frame on the right side at a lower and lower point on the x axis versus its entry point on the left of the frame as time goes on.
And no one has taken a shot on explaining how a stationary non panning camera using a 1.5 inch mirror was able to capture (all in frame and in focus) 20 minutes (real time) of the A11 lunar module moving from below and behind the Command module to a position of on the horizon in front of the CM. Try that from an airplane window and don't move your camera. And the ground is only 40000 feet below. The LM at the beginning of these clips maybe 60000 ft plus below. Try picking out a 10'x12' object 60000 feet below. And then try to keep it in focus and in frame and then don't move/pan your camera for the next 20 minutes as it flies up to and in front of the airplane. Does anybody honestly feel they could replicate this Apollo footage? (I know earth's atmosphere is different than space but I am sure people get the point. Or not :) )
-
Thanks for addressing my claims.
It's not wrong to praise people for engaging you meaningfully. Do you understand why your failure to engage people reciprocally engenders such ill will in your direction?
-
And no one has taken a shot on explaining how a stationary non panning camera using a 1.5 inch mirror was able to capture (all in frame and in focus) 20 minutes (real time) of the A11 lunar module moving from below and behind the Command module to a position of on the horizon in front of the CM.
Why do you think it is moving from below and behind the CSM to in front of it? THe LM and CSM maintain the same relative positions. It seems you are still treating this like an aircraft and not an orbiting pair of objects. Are you assuming that the fact the horizon is not in view and then moves into view means the CSM is changing the way it faces during the course of the footage?
-
... Try that from an airplane window and don't move your camera. And the ground is only 40000 feet below. The LM at the beginning of these clips maybe 60000 ft plus below. Try picking out a 10'x12' object 60000 feet below. And then try to keep it in focus and in frame and then don't move/pan your camera for the next 20 minutes as it flies up to and in front of the airplane. Does anybody honestly feel they could replicate this Apollo footage? (I know earth's atmosphere is different than space but I am sure people get the point. Or not :) )
You're talking about a completely different scenario, but the Red Arrows footage posted by OBM here - http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1624.msg50376#msg50376 - shows that it isn't really that difficult or unexpected.
As already mentioned, there are simulation programs such as Kerbal Space Program which will let you recreate the orbital rendezvous exactly. You can then view it from the camera's perspective, or from any viewpoint to see the relative motions and orientations etc.
I get the feeling you haven't actually looked properly into how the rendezvous took place, and have some weird idea about the ascent path which is leading you to wrong conclusions. All the data is available, so please make use of it.
-
Hi bknight and One Big Monkey,
Thanks for addressing my claims.
OBM, actually Apollo 7 Magazine 4 is the only place I believe shows the right angle mirror attached to the DAC. Pic 1559 is probably the best pic. Camera is not tucked to the side of the window as you were surmising.
And I am happy to concede that this is the case - I searched many images , and despite seeing that one come up had not spotted the camera in its mount. My post was based on guess work in the absence of finding a photograph with the camera mounted. Oddly, the mirror does not seem to be correctly oriented on that one - I would have thought that it would need to be positioned the other way. That aside, can you see why, with the camera mounted in that position, that the mirror is required? Even though my assumption as to how the camera could be mounted seems to be incorrect, the underlying argument was that the mirror was required because of the way the camera was mounted in the window. That is still the case. Your argument, which was that just seems a bit fishy, only holds a right angled mirror to your prejudice about the images it filmed.
Bknight, not quite sure how you get 3.5 seconds moon rotation continually through the clip. Apart from the fact it should be visually obvious to anyone viewing the clip that the moon appears to be rotating substantially faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end of the clip, one just has to use a video editor to break this down into 24 fps like I did and the results are nothing like yours or OBM's. I don't know why you get differing results?
No, one just has to pick out a crater as it emerges on one side of the screen and count how long it takes to move to the other side. It isn't "visually obvious". If it was, no-one would be disputing it. Prove your point - you have a habit so far of making claims but not providing any evidence for them. We shouldn't have to run around trying to work out what it is you're saying. It doesn't take long to produce resources and provide links. See my post about the window mount. As for why you get different results? Because you want to.
And no one addresses the fact the crater (for instance) exits the frame on the right side at a lower and lower point on the x axis versus its entry point on the left of the frame as time goes on.
You haven't said why this should be an issue. Can you not picture objects in three dimensions? The objects on the surface are quite some distance away relative to the LM in the foreground. It would only take a small rotation in the CSM window for craters in the distance to take a different relative path. Again, you would help your cause, and our understanding of your point, if you were to take a few moments to produce a visual to inform your audience.
And no one has taken a shot on explaining how a stationary non panning camera using a 1.5 inch mirror was able to capture (all in frame and in focus) 20 minutes (real time) of the A11 lunar module moving from below and behind the Command module to a position of on the horizon in front of the CM.
Yes they have. The LM is moving directly towards the CSM. The two objects were aiming to meet up. The crew in both craft communicated with each other. They matched speed and orientation. You are being fooled by the background again. You also don't seem to understand how focus works, and haven't explained why it should be that a mirror (and we're not talking about some cheap piece of crap from Walmart here) would prove to be such a problem. Have a look at the film from the LM from the latter stages of the rendez-vous on this magazine:
As for the claim about being in perfect focus, really? JPEG artifacts aside, do you consider this to be in perfect focus? How much fine detail can you see?
(https://i.imgur.com/NZrcNdj.jpg)
Try that from an airplane window and don't move your camera. And the ground is only 40000 feet below. The LM at the beginning of these clips maybe 60000 ft plus below. Try picking out a 10'x12' object 60000 feet below. And then try to keep it in focus and in frame and then don't move/pan your camera for the next 20 minutes as it flies up to and in front of the airplane. Does anybody honestly feel they could replicate this Apollo footage? (I know earth's atmosphere is different than space but I am sure people get the point. Or not :) )
The CSM isn't filming an object 60000' feet away, this has been pointed out to you before. Repeating false assumptions doesn't suddenly make them true. You also need to verify the length of time involved in the film. You claim 18-20 minutes, but the AFJ:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/19day6-rendezvs-dock.html
says more like 8 minutes from the start of filming to the Earthrise shots taken by the Hasselbad and stationkeeping. I'm happy to be proved wrong on that, but it's your claim, you need to prove it.
There's an awful lot of wording in your responses, but not a lot of substance, and the parts to which you don't reply are telling.
-
Try picking out a 10'x12' object 60000 feet below.
Another question: do you believe they had to 'pick out' the LM in order to correctly aim the camera?
-
<snip>
but the AFJ:
https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/19day6-rendezvs-dock.html
<snip>
jrk:
From AFJ that omb linked:
127:43:43 Collins (onboard): I have 0.7 mile [1.3 km] and I got you at 31 feet per second [9.5 m/s], [garble] look good.
127:43:50 Aldrin (onboard): Okay, [garble].
About now, Mike begins to film the approaching ascent stage as they orbit above the Moon. At the start of the shot, the LM is almost impossible to see except for a flashing light lower left of centre.
Now .7 mile is a little over 3600 feet, not the 60000 you thought.
From earlier in the report
Collins, from 1969 Technical debrief: "It looked like the doggone LM was riding on rails. There was absolutely no line-of-sight rate that I could see. It really looked great to see the LM coming up from the surface. For the first time, I had the feeling that that son of a gun was really going to get there in one piece."
So it seems that your statement it would have been difficult to keep the LM at the same position in the camera was also not true.
As mentioned by others comparing the LM approach with filming an object out an airplane is not appropriate, unless that object was travelling at the same direction, same altitude and same speed as the airplane, which of course the LM and CSM were.
-
Bknight, not quite sure how you get 3.5 seconds moon rotation continually through the clip. Apart from the fact it should be visually obvious to anyone viewing the clip that the moon appears to be rotating substantially faster at the beginning of the clip than at the end of the clip, one just has to use a video editor to break this down into 24 fps like I did and the results are nothing like yours or OBM's. I don't know why you get differing results? And no one addresses the fact the crater (for instance) exits the frame on the right side at a lower and lower point on the x axis versus its entry point on the left of the frame as time goes on.
The orientation of the CSM relative to the lunar surface changes throughout the clip. At the beginning of the clip it is pointing almost straight down towards the surface; as the LM approaches, the CSM's orientation relative to the Lunar surface changes (it stays pointing the same direction in space, so as it orbits the Moon the nose starts pointing more towards the horizon). I've attached a very crude drawing illustrating this.
And no one has taken a shot on explaining how a stationary non panning camera using a 1.5 inch mirror was able to capture (all in frame and in focus) 20 minutes (real time) of the A11 lunar module moving from below and behind the Command module to a position of on the horizon in front of the CM.
The CSM is always pointing the same direction and the LM is always in front of it.
-
But those RCS thrusters were unstable ::)
-
The orientation of the CSM relative to the lunar surface changes throughout the clip. At the beginning of the clip it is pointing almost straight down towards the surface; as the LM approaches, the CSM's orientation relative to the Lunar surface changes (it stays pointing the same direction in space, so as it orbits the Moon the nose starts pointing more towards the horizon). I've attached a very crude drawing illustrating this.
Nice work. And here's a drawing I did some years ago illustrating the same thing for someone who couldn't figure out how the shadows changed, how the time for things to cross the image changed, or how the LM remained in one place in the view. It shows how the amount of lunar surface captured in the field of view increases as i gets closer to the limb, how the two spacecraft remain in the same relative line of sight, how the spacecraft do not change their orientation, and how it goes from looking straight down onto the surface to looking into space.
(https://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/MX-M260_20111125_174730.jpg) (https://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/MX-M260_20111125_174730.jpg.html)
JR, you just cannot compare orbiting bodies to aircraft in the way you want to. Do you, for example, understand that neither of the two spacecraft in that footage are actually under powered flight at that point in the mission?
-
The orientation of the CSM relative to the lunar surface changes throughout the clip. At the beginning of the clip it is pointing almost straight down towards the surface; as the LM approaches, the CSM's orientation relative to the Lunar surface changes (it stays pointing the same direction in space, so as it orbits the Moon the nose starts pointing more towards the horizon). I've attached a very crude drawing illustrating this.
Nice work. And here's a drawing I did some years ago illustrating the same thing for someone who couldn't figure out how the shadows changed, how the time for things to cross the image changed, or how the LM remained in one place in the view. It shows how the amount of lunar surface captured in the field of view increases as i gets closer to the limb, how the two spacecraft remain in the same relative line of sight, how the spacecraft do not change their orientation, and how it goes from looking straight down onto the surface to looking into space.
(https://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/MX-M260_20111125_174730.jpg) (https://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/MX-M260_20111125_174730.jpg.html)
JR, you just cannot compare orbiting bodies to aircraft in the way you want to. Do you, for example, understand that neither of the two spacecraft in that footage are actually under powered flight at that point in the mission?
Well that puts my sad little PPT slide all to shame, and illustrates far better what is happening.
One of the weird things I noticed playing with an early version of KSP is how my little spacecraft kept the same orientation in space as they orbited. At the time it surprised me because I was used to how spacecraft flew in science fiction - that is, like airplanes. The more I think about it, though, the more sense it makes, as there's nothing exerting a torque on the spacecraft to turn it in the direction of motion. For small spacecraft (and the CSM counts), the difference in gravitational attraction from one end to the other is too small to have much influence.
So I'm assuming that for comm and spy sats that continually have to be pointing towards the surface, you have to apply a momentary torque (either through a thruster or reaction wheel?) to get it to spin, and make sure it's spinning at a rate such that it completes one rotation per orbit.
-
So I'm assuming that for comm and spy sats that continually have to be pointing towards the surface, you have to apply a momentary torque (either through a thruster or reaction wheel?) to get it to spin, and make sure it's spinning at a rate such that it completes one rotation per orbit.
Yes. Some communications spacecraft have extremely tight pointing constraints because their beams have to hit not just the planet, but a specific small area -- and only a specific small area -- of the planet. Recon satellites don't have to be geostationary, but they can often be in geosynchronous orbits, sometimes with very low perigees. The shape of the orbit differs with the mission. But the overriding point is, as you say, that the orientation of the spacecraft and its orbital path are not physically coupled until you start talking about tidal forces. A spacecraft in orbit can maintain its same orientation relative to the planetary surface only by specifically arranging for that to happen.
-
One of the weird things I noticed playing with an early version of KSP is how my little spacecraft kept the same orientation in space as they orbited. At the time it surprised me because I was used to how spacecraft flew in science fiction - that is, like airplanes. The more I think about it, though, the more sense it makes, as there's nothing exerting a torque on the spacecraft to turn it in the direction of motion. For small spacecraft (and the CSM counts), the difference in gravitational attraction from one end to the other is too small to have much influence.
This, I think, is one of the things which is confusing JRK - spacecraft don't fly like aircraft, don't stop dead when the engines turn off, and don't need to bank when turning.
Science fiction TV and movies have played into the "aircraft-like" trope for many years, and influenced expectations. Except perhaps for Babylon 5's Star Furies, which I believe were admired for their control systems by some NASA engineers :)
-
One of the weird things I noticed playing with an early version of KSP is how my little spacecraft kept the same orientation in space as they orbited. At the time it surprised me because I was used to how spacecraft flew in science fiction - that is, like airplanes. The more I think about it, though, the more sense it makes, as there's nothing exerting a torque on the spacecraft to turn it in the direction of motion. For small spacecraft (and the CSM counts), the difference in gravitational attraction from one end to the other is too small to have much influence.
This, I think, is one of the things which is confusing JRK - spacecraft don't fly like aircraft, don't stop dead when the engines turn off, and don't need to bank when turning.
Science fiction TV and movies have played into the "aircraft-like" trope for many years, and influenced expectations. Except perhaps for Babylon 5's Star Furies, which I believe were admired for their control systems by some NASA engineers :)
and BSG 2002's Vipers.
-
HI JFB and Jason Thompson, Bknight, Molesworth, OBM et al
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
JFB and Jason Thompson, your suppositions actually help my case. Jason, even if one agrees to your plotting of the LM relative to the CSM and the range of view from the CM window (both which I take exception to), you (and JFB) seem to ignore the fact of how this was filmed. It was was filmed into a mirror. More specifically a right angle mirror. First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view. Even if you can overcome this, if the CSM is pointed nose down as you suggest how is it possible to film the entire sequence using a right angle mirror. I have attached an Apollo photo of the Command Module and how the DAC camera was deployed with a right angle mirror. As you can see (when you re-orient the photo so the Astronaut's head is at the top of photo) if the CSM is nose down (astronauts head is at the top of the CM cone) the right angle mirror would be shooting off into space away from the moon's surface. Futhermore, if you look at the photo, the question arises why would you want to use a mirror anyways? If you just remove the right angle mirror from the DAC, the camera is pointed in the direction you suggest in your hypothesis . Of course, as you can see the window is too small and on angle to get a clear view in that direction. So any shot of LM in a CM nose down position will undoubtedly have part of its view obscured by the window frame. The question then is if your supposition is correct why is A12 rendezvous clip not obscured by the window frame at all. Again, as you can see by the DAC setup in the CSM, given these clips were shot into a mirror, demonstrate they were not likely shot the way you are suggesting. In fact, if the rendezvous took place the way you are suggesting there is no reason a mirror should have been used at all. Let me know if there is way this could done.
Also no one has taken a shot on why the A11 footage of the LM's movements and rotations appear to be mechanical in nature and not natural. To the point, some of the rotations appear to show the LM 'bouncing back' in the opposite direction after a rotation ends. Does anyone have any ideas?
I would also like to further add, not only were these films shot using a mirror, the DAC, unless I am mistaken (let me know), did NOT have a viewfinder (apparently it had a attachable ring sight that could be used when hand held). Lets think about that. We have these perfectly framed rendezvous clips. Never out of focus nor out of frame with the LM moving on the same Y axis the entire time. All shot in a 1.5 inch right angle mirror from a camera is which you can't even view what you are filming. This would be hard enough to remain focus in on an object miles out with a view finder. (Try it with your own camera, not easy) Now add a small mirror angled in a different direction, on top of no view finder and remember keep the camera stationary the entire time. These are truly amazing films.
-
JFB and Jason Thompson, your suppositions actually help my case. Jason, even if one agrees to your plotting of the LM relative to the CSM and the range of view from the CM window
The concept of an ilustrative example totally escapes you, doesn't it? I never said the spacefraft were oriented in that way. It is simply an illustration of how the LM can remain in the same relative position within the field of view, and how the background will change over time.
I ask again, do you understand that neither spacecraft is in powered flight at the time? Do you still believe they need to 'pick out' the LM in the distance to aim the camera? Do you understand that the CSM remains pointing the same way as per the illustration during the orbit?
It was was filmed into a mirror. More specifically a right angle mirror.
So?
First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view.
Why? Explain exactly how the use of a 1.5 inch miirror would restrict the view if it was placed close enough to the camera lens.
Even if you can overcome this, if the CSM is pointed nose down as you suggest
I never said it was. But by definition during one orbit about half of it has the LM pointed 'nose down' to some degree, while the other half is 'nose up' The CSM remains in one fixed orientation in space, not relative to the lunar surface. Do you understand this?
the question arises why would you want to use a mirror anyways? If you just remove the right angle mirror from the DAC, the camera is pointed in the direction you suggest in your hypothesis
Really? And you can't see any way that using a mirror helps you out in terms of where the body of the camera goes?
Of course, as you can see the window is too small and on angle to get a clear view in that direction.
You have a strange fixation about the size of windows. You made the same argument in the LM thread. Why don't you understand that the field of view from a window depends on where you are in relation to it? If I stand back from a 9-inch window my field of view of what is outside it is heavily restricted. If I put my face (or a camera) up close it's not. You can try this yourself with a piece of card with a hole in it.
Also no one has taken a shot on why the A11 footage of the LM's movements and rotations appear to be mechanical in nature and not natural.
No-one has taken a shot on why footage of the movement of a mechanical object looks mechanical? Are you serious?
To the point, some of the rotations appear to show the LM 'bouncing back' in the opposite direction after a rotation ends. Does anyone have any ideas?
See if you can figure out how the LM stops a rotational manoeuvre and that might answer your question.
did NOT have a viewfinder (apparently it had a attachable ring sight that could be used when hand held). Lets think about that. We have these perfectly framed rendezvous clips. Never out of focus nor out of frame with the LM moving on the same Y axis the entire time.
Again, you make the mistake of assuming you need to be able to see what you're filming to find it. Again I ask, do you understand that neither vehicle was under powered flight during the footage? THat is actually a key part of understanding how they could set up a camera to capture something without using a viewfinder. THe physics of the situation dictates where everything is in relation to everything else.
-
. Never out of focus nor out of frame
What was the f-stop and aperture of the camera? What was the focal length of the lens? Do you understand the relationship between aperture and DoF?
By the way, PLEASE ANSWER YOUR OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS.
-
First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view.
Why? Explain exactly how the use of a 1.5 inch miirror would restrict the view if it was placed close enough to the camera lens.
Of course, as you can see the window is too small and on angle to get a clear view in that direction.
You have a strange fixation about the size of windows. You made the same argument in the LM thread. Why don't you understand that the field of view from a window depends on where you are in relation to it? If I stand back from a 9-inch window my field of view of what is outside it is heavily restricted. If I put my face (or a camera) up close it's not. You can try this yourself with a piece of card with a hole in it.
Tangible, medieval example of this are arrowslits. Narrow slit is difficult target for attacking archer in distance but defending archer just next to arrowslit has much better fields of view and fire.
Lurky
-
HI JFB and Jason Thompson, Bknight, Molesworth, OBM et al
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
WARNING: Liberal arts major attempting science here.
One relevant thing the quote documents is that the two craft were closing at about 10m/s while they were coasting to rendezvous.
The ascent stage was roughly a cube 4 meters on a side.
The visual acuity of the human eye is about one minute of arc.
A 4 meter cube will subtend a minute of arc at about 13.75 km.
At 10m/s the LM will close 12 km distance with the CSM in 20 minutes.
So it doesn't seem that implausible to me that you'd be able to see the approaching LM from the CSM for "18-20 minutes".
And I personally can only see the LM in the frame for about 3:40 or so of the clip in question, so it's more like 15 minutes real time, not 18-20. We're probably watching a closing distance of <10km or so over the course of the clip? I think?
I'm sure more knowledgeable people can tweak my back of the envelope guesstimates here.
-
HI JFB and Jason Thompson, Bknight, Molesworth, OBM et al
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
WARNING: Liberal arts major attempting science here.
One relevant thing the quote documents is that the two craft were closing at about 10m/s while they were coasting to rendezvous.
The ascent stage was roughly a cube 4 meters on a side.
The visual acuity of the human eye is about one minute of arc.
A 4 meter cube will subtend a minute of arc at about 13.75 km.
At 10m/s the LM will close 12 km distance with the CSM in 20 minutes.
So it doesn't seem that implausible to me that you'd be able to see the approaching LM from the CSM for "18-20 minutes".
And I personally can only see the LM in the frame for about 3:40 or so of the clip in question, so it's more like 15 minutes real time, not 18-20. We're probably watching a closing distance of <10km or so over the course of the clip? I think?
I'm sure more knowledgeable people can tweak my back of the envelope guesstimates here.
See post number 41 and from AFJ Collins began filming the approach at .7 mile a little over 3600 feet, not even KM, now if you are referring to A12.
145:15:07 Gordon: What do you have on the tube?
145:15:10 Carr: Nothing yet, Dick.
145:15:17 Gordon: Okay. I'm going to roll a little more and give you some more High Gain.
145:15:34 Carr: Clipper, Houston...
145:15:37 Conrad: 38 feet per second.
145:15:40 Carr: Clipper, Houston. We're going to need about a 60-degree roll right to get to High Gain.
145:15:48 Gordon: You're getting it. [Long pause.]
Public Affairs Office - "Pete Conrad reporting a closure rate of 38 feet per second, about 1.7 nautical miles away. 145 hours, 16 minutes; standing by for any television transmission."
As far as I could see no reported time for the film, if it was done concurrently with the TV, But th distance was 1.7 miles, again not the 60000 that jrk reported. Very easy distant to find and film/TV an approaching craft that was approximately 4 m on a side.
-
HI JFB and Jason Thompson, Bknight, Molesworth, OBM et al
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
WARNING: Liberal arts major attempting science here.
One relevant thing the quote documents is that the two craft were closing at about 10m/s while they were coasting to rendezvous.
The ascent stage was roughly a cube 4 meters on a side.
The visual acuity of the human eye is about one minute of arc.
A 4 meter cube will subtend a minute of arc at about 13.75 km.
At 10m/s the LM will close 12 km distance with the CSM in 20 minutes.
So it doesn't seem that implausible to me that you'd be able to see the approaching LM from the CSM for "18-20 minutes".
And I personally can only see the LM in the frame for about 3:40 or so of the clip in question, so it's more like 15 minutes real time, not 18-20. We're probably watching a closing distance of <10km or so over the course of the clip? I think?
I'm sure more knowledgeable people can tweak my back of the envelope guesstimates here.
See post number 41 and from AFJ Collins began filming the approach at .7 mile a little over 3600 feet, not even KM, now if you are referring to A12.
145:15:07 Gordon: What do you have on the tube?
145:15:10 Carr: Nothing yet, Dick.
145:15:17 Gordon: Okay. I'm going to roll a little more and give you some more High Gain.
145:15:34 Carr: Clipper, Houston...
145:15:37 Conrad: 38 feet per second.
145:15:40 Carr: Clipper, Houston. We're going to need about a 60-degree roll right to get to High Gain.
145:15:48 Gordon: You're getting it. [Long pause.]
Public Affairs Office - "Pete Conrad reporting a closure rate of 38 feet per second, about 1.7 nautical miles away. 145 hours, 16 minutes; standing by for any television transmission."
As far as I could see no reported time for the film, if it was done concurrently with the TV, But th distance was 1.7 miles, again not the 60000 that jrk reported. Very easy distant to find and film/TV an approaching craft that was approximately 4 m on a side.
Right, I saw that, but since jrknowing was disputing that, I took a different approach: even using his own math, there's no reason to assume the LM travels any where near 60000 feet in over the interval filmed.
-
Tangible, medieval example of this are arrowslits. Narrow slit is difficult target for attacking archer in distance but defending archer just next to arrowslit has much better fields of view and fire.
Quite right. As if that property of a window has been known for centuries! The design was even such that it was as small as it could be and still be useful, because practical engineering was already a thing.
-
HI JFB and Jason Thompson, Bknight, Molesworth, OBM et al
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
WARNING: Liberal arts major attempting science here.
One relevant thing the quote documents is that the two craft were closing at about 10m/s while they were coasting to rendezvous.
The ascent stage was roughly a cube 4 meters on a side.
The visual acuity of the human eye is about one minute of arc.
A 4 meter cube will subtend a minute of arc at about 13.75 km.
At 10m/s the LM will close 12 km distance with the CSM in 20 minutes.
So it doesn't seem that implausible to me that you'd be able to see the approaching LM from the CSM for "18-20 minutes".
And I personally can only see the LM in the frame for about 3:40 or so of the clip in question, so it's more like 15 minutes real time, not 18-20. We're probably watching a closing distance of <10km or so over the course of the clip? I think?
I'm sure more knowledgeable people can tweak my back of the envelope guesstimates here.
See post number 41 and from AFJ Collins began filming the approach at .7 mile a little over 3600 feet, not even KM, now if you are referring to A12.
145:15:07 Gordon: What do you have on the tube?
145:15:10 Carr: Nothing yet, Dick.
145:15:17 Gordon: Okay. I'm going to roll a little more and give you some more High Gain.
145:15:34 Carr: Clipper, Houston...
145:15:37 Conrad: 38 feet per second.
145:15:40 Carr: Clipper, Houston. We're going to need about a 60-degree roll right to get to High Gain.
145:15:48 Gordon: You're getting it. [Long pause.]
Public Affairs Office - "Pete Conrad reporting a closure rate of 38 feet per second, about 1.7 nautical miles away. 145 hours, 16 minutes; standing by for any television transmission."
As far as I could see no reported time for the film, if it was done concurrently with the TV, But th distance was 1.7 miles, again not the 60000 that jrk reported. Very easy distant to find and film/TV an approaching craft that was approximately 4 m on a side.
Right, I saw that, but since jrknowing was disputing that, I took a different approach: even using his own math, there's no reason to assume the LM travels any where near 60000 feet in over the interval filmed.
Another question: are we sure the DAC was filming at 6 fps, as opposed to 12?
-
Another question: are we sure the DAC was filming at 6 fps, as opposed to 12?
I was able to sneak home for lunch and can have a peek at the Apollo 11 Flight Journal now. So, to reconcile distances:
At 127:43:43, they're going 9.5 m/s.
I had forgotten they were breaking during this time rather than just coasting (I was thinking a bit too Kerbal for my own good). By 127:46:13 they're already down to 3.4 m/s. And by 127:52:05 they were already stationkeeping. So even ignoring Collins' comments, the distances covered would be even less.
So 2:30 at an average speed of ~5.6 m/s ~840m. And another 400 seconds at an average speed of 1.7m/s would cover 680m. 1.52 km, plus whatever their separation was at that point. Compared to 1.7 km Collins called out. So it checks out!
-
Another question: are we sure the DAC was filming at 6 fps, as opposed to 12?
I was able to sneak home for lunch and can have a peek at the Apollo 11 Flight Journal now. So, to reconcile distances:
At 127:43:43, they're going 9.5 m/s.
I had forgotten they were breaking during this time rather than just coasting (I was thinking a bit too Kerbal for my own good). By 127:46:13 they're already down to 3.4 m/s. And by 127:52:05 they were already stationkeeping. So even ignoring Collins' comments, the distances covered would be even less.
So 2:30 at an average speed of ~5.6 m/s ~840m. And another 400 seconds at an average speed of 1.7m/s would cover 680m. 1.52 km, plus whatever their separation was at that point. Compared to 1.7 km Collins called out. So it checks out!
ETA: Collins gave the distance as 1.3 km, not 1.7. Still a close enough agreement.
-
<snip> Passive aggressive commentary.
First, BKnight, the distance is more than 3600 feet between the LM and CSM. The communication you quote is the first dialogue when they come around from the far side of the moon. The A11 clip is 20 minutes in real time. It took 55 minutes for the LM to transition from its lunar orbit to the CSM's lunar orbit approximately 12-14 miles higher. Clearly that points to a greater separation between the LM and CSM at the start of the clip than you are suggesting.
<snip>
No the distance is not greater did you read the PAO commentary the filming started at that point. Yes the LM was much further away when the LM engine cut off.
124:29:17 LM Crew: Shutdown. [Pause.]
124:29:23 Aldrin: We got 5,337.3 [feet per second horizontal velocity, 1,626.8 m/s], 32.8 feet per second [vertical velocity, 10.0 m/s], 60,666 [feet, 1849.1 metres altitude].
There is no measurement comment until:
126:03:20 Collins: [Very weak.] Eagle, are you ready to copy [garble].
126:03:30 Collins: [Very weak.] Okay, your CDH [garble] 45 [garble] 0.2. [Long Pause.]
This is Apollo Control. Columbia's now in an orbit measuring 56.6 nautical miles [104.8 km] by 62.5 nautical miles [115.8 km], and the displays here in Mission Control show the range from Eagle to Columbia a tad over 100 nautical miles [185 km] and about 99 feet per second [30.2 m/s] closure rate.
This is nearly plus hours after shut down, one orbit, and several burns with the RCS system to get the orbits matching, but no filming until
127:43:43 Collins (onboard): I have 0.7 mile [1.3 km] and I got you at 31 feet per second [9.5 m/s], [garble] look good.
127:43:50 Aldrin (onboard): Okay, [garble].
About now, Mike begins to film the approaching ascent stage as they orbit above the Moon. At the start of the shot, the LM is almost impossible to see except for a flashing light lower left of centre.
Prove that the film was started 20 minutes from acquisition to rendezvous. The clips you have proved and on AFJ are a little more than 4 minutes.
Do you comprehension issues with the English language?
-
Another question: are we sure the DAC was filming at 6 fps, as opposed to 12?
I was able to sneak home for lunch and can have a peek at the Apollo 11 Flight Journal now. So, to reconcile distances:
At 127:43:43, they're going 9.5 m/s.
I had forgotten they were breaking during this time rather than just coasting (I was thinking a bit too Kerbal for my own good). By 127:46:13 they're already down to 3.4 m/s. And by 127:52:05 they were already stationkeeping. So even ignoring Collins' comments, the distances covered would be even less.
So 2:30 at an average speed of ~5.6 m/s ~840m. And another 400 seconds at an average speed of 1.7m/s would cover 680m. 1.52 km, plus whatever their separation was at that point. Compared to 1.7 km Collins called out. So it checks out!
ETA: Collins gave the distance as 1.3 km, not 1.7. Still a close enough agreement.
The AFJ gave .7 miles and my post of 1.7 miles was incorrect, thanks for the correction.
You see jr Knowing how easy it is to admit an error? Why not try it?
-
JFB and Jason Thompson, your suppositions actually help my case. Jason, even if one agrees to your plotting of the LM relative to the CSM and the range of view from the CM window (both which I take exception to), you (and JFB) seem to ignore the fact of how this was filmed. It was was filmed into a mirror. More specifically a right angle mirror. First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view. Even if you can overcome this, if the CSM is pointed nose down as you suggest how is it possible to film the entire sequence using a right angle mirror. I have attached an Apollo photo of the Command Module and how the DAC camera was deployed with a right angle mirror. As you can see (when you re-orient the photo so the Astronaut's head is at the top of photo) if the CSM is nose down (astronauts head is at the top of the CM cone) the right angle mirror would be shooting off into space away from the moon's surface.
I've attached an annotated version of the image showing what's going on.
The right-angle mirror gives the DAC the view outside of the rendezvous window (the same direction the astronaut is looking); IOW, the direction the LM is approaching from. The mirror is mounted close enough to the lens that it fills the lens' field of view. The whole assembly is mounted a couple of inches from the rendezvous window, so it has a mostly unobstructed view.
Futhermore, if you look at the photo, the question arises why would you want to use a mirror anyways? If you just remove the right angle mirror from the DAC, the camera is pointed in the direction you suggest in your hypothesis .
No, it isn't. Think of how the astronauts sit - "forward" is towards the pointy end, "up" is toward the main hatch. The camera is mounted so that it's pointing "up", aiming at the part of the hull where the hatch is.
The camera is a bit bulky to mount such that it's pointing out the window, and would obstruct the astronaut's view. So it's mounted "sideways" against the window and the mirror is used to give it the same view as the astronaut.
Of course, as you can see the window is too small and on angle to get a clear view in that direction. So any shot of LM in a CM nose down position will undoubtedly have part of its view obscured by the window frame.
Again, the camera is mounted a couple of inches from the rendezvous window - there's nothing to obstruct its view.
The question then is if your supposition is correct why is A12 rendezvous clip not obscured by the window frame at all.
Because the camera is mounted a couple of inches from the window.
-
First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view.
Huh? How do you figure that? You clearly know very little about how cameras, lenses and optics work.
Have you ever used a telescope? Ever notice that virtually all telescope designs (except the huge refractors in older observatories) all use a diagonal to turn the lightpath through 90 degrees? The "standard" size of these are either 1.25" or 2" (this refers to the barrel size of the eyepiece that the diagonal can accommodate. The larger 2" designs are used when using heavy lenses as the body of the diagonal is physically able to accommodate heavier loads (strictly speaking, especially with dielectric mirror coatings a 2" diagonal has less aberrations near the edge than a 1.25").
The field-of-view available to the DAC will all depend on the focal length of the system. The depth of the focal field will depend on the aperture of the camera. The size of the mirror is virtually irrelevant
-
I appreciate your responses to my claims (and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
Then pick one topic to discuss and concentrate on that, rather than multiple unrelated issues. Perhaps then you'll have the time to respond. Many of us have full time jobs and other interests as well, so it would make our lives easier too.
It was was filmed into a mirror. More specifically a right angle mirror. First off the use of a 1.5 inch mirror will greatly curtail the scope of view.
How will the field of view (I presume you mean) be affected by a planar mirror at 45 degrees to the optical path? What can you conclude from observing that he edges of the mirror aren't visible?
Rather than going by what you might "feel" or "expect", perhaps you should find out the diameter of the camera lens, its field of view, and the distance from the lens to the mirror. Then please show us what effect this arrangement would have on the overall field of view.
Also no one has taken a shot on why the A11 footage of the LM's movements and rotations appear to be mechanical in nature and not natural. To the point, some of the rotations appear to show the LM 'bouncing back' in the opposite direction after a rotation ends. Does anyone have any ideas?
I did cover this on page 1 of the thread, but you skipped over it. Again, it's time to move beyond guessing and expectations, and do some real analysis. What was the mass of the LM during ascent? How are the RCS thrusters positioned? How much force do they apply when operated to rotate the craft? Now work out the angular accelerations and resulting angular velocities, and tell us whether this matches what we see.
These are truly amazing films.
Yes, they are. However, you seem unable to appreciate just how remarkable.
-
Also no one has taken a shot on why the A11 footage of the LM's movements and rotations appear to be mechanical in nature and not natural.
It's a machine - by definition, its motions are mechanical.
And remember, the camera was undercranked, so the motions are sped up, adding to the "unnatural" feel.
To the point, some of the rotations appear to show the LM 'bouncing back' in the opposite direction after a rotation ends. Does anyone have any ideas?
Think of it as the space equivalent of parallel parking. The astronauts move the LM around by applying the thrusters. Since they're human, they sometimes thrust for too long and move too far in a particular direction, so they have to thrust the other way to correct. It takes a couple of tries to get the LM in the position they want.
This is basic stuff. It's Newton's Third Law in its purest form (you don't have to take friction or air resistance into account).
-
To the point, some of the rotations appear to show the LM 'bouncing back' in the opposite direction after a rotation ends. Does anyone have any ideas?
Think of it as the space equivalent of parallel parking. The astronauts move the LM around by applying the thrusters. Since they're human, they sometimes thrust for too long and move too far in a particular direction, so they have to thrust the other way to correct. It takes a couple of tries to get the LM in the position they want.
This is basic stuff. It's Newton's Third Law in its purest form (you don't have to take friction or air resistance into account).
A two dimensional example would be the 40 year old video game, Asteroids (or for an older still example, Spacewar!.) For a three dimensional example, Kerbal Space Program and Orbiter are two good examples, the latter being free. Seriously, I claim no special expertise, especially compared to others here, but if you are making basic, simple, elementary mistakes like this, you may wish to rethink your position, jr Knowing.
-
...and Jay, I do believe I am attempting to reciprocate, albeit I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
That excuse wore out a long time ago. Just man up and admit you were wrong. You had plenty of chances to try to rehabilitate those arguments. But you know you can't. You don't know what you're talking about, and the honest thing to do would be to admit that. That would be the friendly thing to do, too.
-
I don't think it would take that much digging to find examples of everyone in this discussion being corrected and acknowledging said correction. Except for one person . . . .
-
I don't have enough time in the day to respond to everyone.
This excuse comes up so often from hoax believers, and always apparently un-ironically without realising why this situation arises in the first place.
JR, if you stuck to a topic, addressed the comments on that topic, and conceded your mistakes, we wouldn't still be responding to old topics when you bring up new ones. The reason you 'don't have time' is because you keep bringing new elements to the discussion. What exactly do you expect to happen in that case?
I still want an answer to my question about the mathematics of LM stability from the memo you brought up as evidence to support your claims in your earlier thread. If you want me to stop bringing it up then actually respond, whether it's to challenge my interpretation of the mathematics or to concede you were wrong. Frankly I don't care which. But don't sit there trying to present yourself as the victim of an avalanche of responses you don't have time to deal with when you're the one poking the cornices and triggering the avalanches in the first place. Clean up one before moving on to the next. It's simple enough, no?
-
The reason you 'don't have time' is because you keep bringing new elements to the discussion.
Arguably to distract from having been backed into a corner on the point at hand. Changing the subject, or "pivoting," as the politicians call it, is a time-dishonored way of avoiding uncomfortable questions or evading responsibility for failure. Jr's critics respond the way they do here because they're well aware of the tactic and are properly not letting him get away with it without consequence.
I still want an answer to my question about the mathematics of LM stability from the memo you brought up as evidence to support your claims in your earlier thread. If you want me to stop bringing it up then actually respond, whether it's to challenge my interpretation of the mathematics or to concede you were wrong. Frankly I don't care which.
This is my vote too. I have no desire to pursue Jr on some other damn fool idealistic crusade until I know whether there's a destination. I will keep bringing up LM stability until there's a resolution. The notion that Jr will let things be "resolved" only in his favor -- or failing that, some pretended impasse that he can walk away from -- is antithetical to any sort of reasoned exercise.
-
It's not uncommon for a hoaxer to keep posting until everyone 'gives up' on that thread as they go to the multitude of 'newer' threads, then they claim (either there or elsewhere) 'see I was right, no-one contradicted me!!!'
I've noticed this tactic being used a few times...
-
then they claim (either there or elsewhere) 'see I was right, no-one contradicted me!!!'
I've noticed this tactic being used a few times...
Quite right, which is why moderators sometimes have to restrict some people's posting privileges and behavior so as to make evident the conflation. "No one could refute me, so they all fell silent" looks a lot like "I'm a rude, annoying s.o.b. that no one wants to waste any more time on."
But also, "We debated the issue and arrived at an impasse" looks a whole lot like "I got backed into a corner, so I changed the subject and refused to continue the original topic." The latter governs debates like these where the claimant participates solely at his pleasure and cannot be held responsive. At forums such as Cosmoquest, they have tighter system of rules for controversial debates that suspends posting privileges if someone avoids hard questions. However implemented, the point is to lay bare when a claimant is being dishonest.
On the issue of LM stability we are not at an impasse. We are at the point where Jr refuses to acknowledge facts from his own sources.