Before I start getting some emails saying why my theory is lame let me give some more information.

When filming a flat object (especially a glossy object) you can’t light it from the front. If you do you will get a lot of glare. You have to light the object from an angle.

Watching the vid it looks like the photo was set on an easel with the floodlights on the floor to the left. The reason the shadow is so drawn out is because of the angle of the lights, it is also the reason the shadow disappears so quickly.

The fly flies away perpendicular to the photo. This is the reason it is still in the vid after its shadow is gone (the shadow, or what is left of it, is on the ceiling).

When filming a flat object (especially a glossy object) you can’t light it from the front. If you do you will get a lot of glare. You have to light the object from an angle.

Actually, with Lamberian falloff, you have to light it from two opposite angles, otherwise you get very non-uniform lighting.

See, e.g.,
http://www.sci.fi/~animato/stand/stand.html

You typically don't do this with really huge photographs for the simple fact that really huge photographs are difficult and expensive to make. Lab charges alone for a 3x3 foot print enlargement would be $100-$150. So much better to do it on an animation stand with a standard sized print that only costs you $3 and can be done in-house at most production companies.

But nowadays you can do it digitally. Even entry-level video editing packages can do zooms and pans on still photos.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

OK, I may be wrong. Thats what I get for trying to put my "BS" up against all you "Pilled Higher & Deepers", but I still think it looks like a fly.

That's okay. Better to consider a hypothesis and ultimately reject it than not to consider it at all.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This Test Range guy is exactly the same as several of the regular 'Creation Science' advocates on talk.origins.

I'll take your word for that.

never answer a question, talk in circles, misdirect the thread and insult the other posters.

That seems to be the procedure he's using.

it's pointless to argue with him.

Pointless if you goal is to change his mind. Not pointless if your goal is to get on record what a fake he is.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I agree that the zooming is evident in the size of the Earth getting bigger. As JayUtah pointed out, the only zoom lens was on a B&W camera, and the images used by L.E.M.U.R./ESC are in color (and converted to B&W presumably for printing in the journal).

Now, people could then theorize that perhaps the astronauts had another camera onboard. But that would mean they had one of which there is no record, no other images, etc. etc. That would itself mean that NASA was covering it up. Besides opening the door to silly conspiracy theories, why would NASA then release that video/movie footage to NOVA? Reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't make sense, therefore the most obvious conclusion is still that the original is a still photo, and NOVA zoomed in on it.

Jay, you mention this on the other board as well. How fast did the Earth rise (in, say, degrees per second) over the lunar limb? I looked into figuring this out, but realized it will take me an hour or so to make sure I've done it right, and I don't have the time right now. The orbiter was at a height of 100 kilometers over the lunar surface, and the velocity at that height is about 1.17 km/sec.

Some Apollo 8 info,

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_08a_Summary.htm

Hi everyone!!

As you can imagine, I find myself to be one happy camper today...I got a mention on the main site!!

Very heady stuff...well...until I realised what It was that I actually did to be granted this honor. I watched a video tape. Nothing more. So that keeps it in perspective for me.

I'd like to thank the Academy...No...Wait...Wrong speech...just a second...

Kidding aside, I'd like to thank those who have congratulated me...Thankyou!

I would be remiss if I didn't mention how gracious it was for the BA to include me on the page. He certainly didn't have to. He (and others) did 99.9% of the work. But I really do appreciate it. Thanks BA!!

I'm just very happy that in my small way I was able to help rid the world of a bit of Pseudo-science. That's worth a lot to me.

Funny thing, (and I've mentioned it before), It actually took me longer to find the darn tape than it did for me to solve the mystery!!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

For all those who question photo vs movie I suggest you go to the link below. It is a movie of the Apollo 11 command module getting ready to dock with the lunar lander.

Once the video is loaded, switch back and forth from the start of the clip to the finish. Watch the horizon and you will be able to see the change in the lunar landscape as the ships orbit the moon. (do a copy and paste, it's too long to remember)

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/..._onbclip14.mpg

Jay, you mention this on the other board as well. How fast did the Earth rise (in, say, degrees per second) over the lunar limb?

I'm not as sure now that the rise rate would be apparent over only ten frames or so. But over ten frames you should see a noticeable change in the terrain on the lunar horizon.

I think it would take me an hour to figure out too.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Wouldn't simply dividing the number of degrees in a circle by the CSM's orbital period give a reasonable estimate? Or not?

Yes, if you assume the earth is infinitely distant. In that case you have an angular velocity of 0.053 degrees per second. Assuming that the earth subtends an arc of 1.9 degrees, that's 1/36 of an earth diameter per second. The vector, in space-fixed coordinates, from the CSM to earth varies by about half a degree across the diameter of the orbit, so spread that error over about 3,600 seconds and that gives you a rough idea of how far off the 0.053 degree estimate will be -- pretty far below the tolerances we're working with.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Good Lord! Did anybody read this reply:

http://members5.boardhost.com/shadow.../msg/1475.html

to Phil's post??? I'm scared 8-[

Hmmm. I was thinking of doing the full-blown calculation, but maybe you're right.

The Earth would go from the lunar horizon to the zenith in 1/4 of an orbit (actually a little more since we have some height above the lunar surface, but ignore that).

So we need the orbital period of the capsule. The velocity was 1.17 km/sec and the radius of the orbit was 3586 km.

period = circumference/velocity = 2 x pi x radius / vel = 19,260 seconds.

So in 1/4 an orbit (4814 seconds) the Earth moved 90 degrees, so it went 0.019 degrees per second.

Jay did you drop a factor of pi in there?

For a moment I thought there might be a factor of sin(theta) in there due to parallax, but now I see that the angular rate is contant in a circular orbit, so the angular rate of the Earth's motion in the sky is constant. Phew!

Jay, how did you get the 0.05 degree/sec number?

Either way, we need the times those pictures were taken, and I bet they don't exist. But if the Earth moves through it's own size in less than a minute, I suspect we'd see motion in those frames in the few seconds of zoom.

I got 0.05 too because I thought the period of the orbit that Apollo 10 was taking was approximately two hours. But you make it to be more than five.

So we need the orbital period of the capsule. The velocity was 1.17 km/sec and the radius of the orbit was 3586 km.

That's a pretty big moon. I think you want a smaller figure for the radius, along the lines of 1,738.1 km. Add 100 km for the orbital altitude and you have an orbital radius of 1,838.1 km.

but now I see that the angular rate is contant in a circular orbit, so the angular rate of the Earth's motion in the sky is constant.

I made the same initial mistake but realized it when I drew it out on the white board.

Construct a right triangle from the following three points:

A - the spacecraft
B - the moon's center
C - a point on the moon's surface at which a line passing through the spacecraft is tangent to the moon.

This triangle ABC is a right triangle whose angles are invariant through the orbit. Line AC is the horizon sightline. The triangle rotates about point B. The rate at which the triangle rotates (i.e., the angular velocity of the orbit) is the rate at which the sightline AC changes. If you consider the sightline to earth to be a space-fixed vector, the angular separation is directly the angular orbital velocity of the spacecraft.

I wasn't sure how much parallax would affect the results, but it turns out the space-fixed vector to earth is within our tolerances.

Jay, how did you get the 0.05 degree/sec number?

arctan ( 1.7 km / 1,838 km)

And that's because I misread your post about the orbital speed and used 1.7 km/s instead of the 1.17 km/s you gave. As a reality check I, knew the Apollo orbital period was about two hours, so I divided 360 degrees by 7,200 seconds in two hours and got 0.05 degrees per second.

A better figure is around 0.036 degrees per second.

That means, if the earth subtends 1.9 degrees, that it takes 52 seconds to go from first appearance to fully visible.

There is no time reference for the eight frames on the LEMUR web site. A worst-case estimate would be a separation of 1/30 second (the U.S. video frame rate), meaning that the eight frames comprise approximately 1/4 second. The earth will have moved 0.009 degree, or 1/200 of its angular diameter, during those eight frames -- not enough to notice.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

D'oh! I grabbed the diameter, not the radius! You'd think I'd catch that. It slows the velocity by sqrt(2) = 1.4 and adds to the circumference by a factor of 2.

2.8 * 0.019 = 0.053. ops: The period did seem awfully long to me. :roll:

Hey, Phil, welcome to the world of engineering. Nothing like drilling forty holes in a $20,000 piece of stock and then realizing that the docs list hole diameters and not the radii you thought. Now you see why we work in groups. You goofed; I goofed -- but eventually we got there.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And just think. If I were David Percy (or Tezzer, or or or), I could just edit the posts to make us look right all along! :^o

Off topic, I will say that I got into a discussion recently where the pseudoscientists were lambasting me because I said I make mistakes. How silly! It is a fool who never admits mistakes. How else would you ever learn?

Going back to the off-topic topic about wall candy, one of my wall sayings is, "There are two kinds of people: those that admit their mistakes, and those that don't."

I added a new one today: "Knowledge through inductance; dementia through conductance." You had to be there.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

That should be "Those who admit their mistakes..." 8)

Having seen the animated GIF, I detect all kinds of strange marks popping in & out of the frames over the shot.

To me the "chimney" and "smoke" marks don't even seem connected. My guess is that the "chimney" is either a dark geographic feature or shadow on the moon or more likely a piece of yuck that landed on the photo prior to scanning or shooting.

But why focus on that mark? Doesn't anyone see the alien white vertical array in lunar orbit and appearing in successive frames in the top left side???!!

And for petie's sake, get it together you guys, has everyone missed the fact that the "chimney" fires off a "cloud" that splat's the word "END" on the window? A warning of some kind to our planet to be sure. Weren't bellbottoms big then?

Cheers,
RBG

Well, you never claimed that you're a Good Astronomer... And it just shows that professionell astronomers are pretty much uninterested in the Moon. I guess, they only recognize the Moon when it degrades the seeing... :wink:

Gosh! it is just like the talk.origins news group.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Not necessarily obvious. It still (eh) could have been a zoom during a video. Of course, it has been shown not to be.
In that case, the bug would have been in focus, or not even visible--and the angular speed considerably smaller too.

The oddity that I noticed is that the smudge does not appear to move across the screen. It simply stays in the same spot as the camera zooms until it disappears. Go to LEMUR’s page and put your pointer on the smudge. While the surface features move by, the smudge will stay under your pointer. This leads two possibilities.

1. The wind on the moon was blowing such that the smoke blew in precisely this way and smoke was filmed by a secret camera.
2. There was a smudge introduced in the process of making a still into a moving image for a television show.

I find cause two to be the significantly more probable. Thanks to the RAF, the BA, JayUtah, and others for the clear insights and knowledge applied to this issue.=D>

__________________
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Did you read the updated LEMUR website? Got this from it;


They seem like they are sorry they opened up this can of worms in the first place.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

Not surprising - the LEMUR characters Jay, RAF and the BA were dealing with seemed level headed. Given the usual character of the grass-roots HBer, they might be a little shocked when the evidence is revised.

I looked at the link that Andrew mentioned;

If you have not seen it, you should go there just for a good laugh. The guy claims that there is a flying pyramid visible in the picture. Since we do not have flying pyramids here on earth, that picture must have been taken in lunar orbit, and that seems to negate beliefs on of other lemurs.

What was even more fun to me was that it sounded like that the guy admitted to having edited his photo, and you had to do all sorts of bizare things to see it. Hey if you stand on you head, and hold your breath for 2 minutes and stare at a picture of the moon, you can probably see our favorite Bad Astronomer taking a stroll on the moon, despite that fact that we do not know what he looks like. My point with this rambling is that if you do enough strange things while staring at a photo you can see almost anything that is suggested.

To the person who briefly mentioned the computers and the Apollo program. I know only a little about the onboard computers, such as that your average pocket calculater today has more computing power than the CM did, but that is not proof that we did notgo. I know even less about the Wright brothers flight, but I am willing to bet my next paycheck that they did not have an onboard computer...since modern aircrafts have on-board computers, does that mean that the Wright brothers did not make that famous first flight almost 100 years ago--NO....or maybe that is another conspiracy---we may not be capable of flight yet, all those long trips I thought that I took were mearly halucinations, created by...by...uhm...can someone help me out, I am not good at creating conspiracies?

MCC was run on a huge main-frame computer, we went to the moon using kilobytes, and yes by todays standards that would not work, however those engineers actually knew how to use a sliderule and do math on a piece of paper, which unfortunately too many people today do not know.

OK, I will try to stop my (probably pointless) ranting. Thanks for humoring me and listening/reading.