Suspect DAC Footage - Part 2 Apollo 11-12 LM Rendezvous

[Zakalwe]

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".

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

Nice work posting the precise place where my signature line in this forum came from.

[bknight]

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.

[jr Knowing]

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 ) 

[JayUtah]

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?

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[molesworth]

... 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.

[onebigmonkey]

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?

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[bknight]

<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.

[jfb]

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.

[bknight]

But those RCS thrusters were unstable 

[Jason Thompson]

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.



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?