Thank you for the correction on Apollo 16. Do you have a reference for this?
Look it up yourself. I don't do homework for conspiracy theorists
Your understanding of "math/tolerances" is just enough to sounds smart while being entirely wrong on your results. Or, giving you benefit of the doubt, you were just rushed, and so moving forward, we'll see how well you respond to discussions of this analysis in more detail.
Nope.
I don't need your benefit of the doubt. My understanding of mathematical tolerances is just fine. I do this sort of stuff for a living, and I have been correct in all of my assessments of your shoddy work.
Trying to measure timings with with an uncertainly of one second over a maximum measurable reference time of three seconds introduces error bars of about ±30%. This is because you have not allowed for digital uncertainty.
When a digital clock reads 10 seconds, the actual value could be as low as 9.5s or as high as 10.4s... a possible error of 0.9 seconds.
When a digital clock reads 13 seconds, the actual value could be as low as 12.5s or as high as 13.4s... a possible error of 0.9 seconds.
therefore, the actual elapsed time could be anywhere between 2.1 seconds (12.5-10.4), and 3.9 seconds (13.4-9.5)
2.1s over a 3 second measurable reference time is 21/3x100 = 70% (-30%)
3.9s over a 3 second measurable reference time is 3.9/3x100 = 130% (+30%)
Therefore, your error bars are at ± 30%
Q.E.D.
This makes the basis on which you have taken you measurements flawed. When the basis is flawed, any measurements you take are meaningless, and any results you draw from them are therefore also meaningless. The rest of your errors do not really matter. Nonetheless, I will address them.
The 500' vs 300' range changes the "angular error" from this "ignored factor" from 0.14 pixels to 0.3 pixels max. This makes very little impact on overall analysis. It remains "mostly negligible" and I excluded it for simplicity, not because I cannot "do the math and correct for it".
The height of the Rover/camera -- also plays a small role here, so we can be off by a considerable amount on estimates, and still have almost no impact on the final analysis results (because if there is angular skew here, then it impacts BOTH the AM Height calculation and the Rise calculation by nearly the same amount!). This has LESS impact than does my wrong estimation for Apollo 16 camera distance, which was also negligible.
Nope.
1. You don't know what the scan frame error rate is for that camera. Its frame rate was 30fps over approximately 200 lines. I'll let you do the math - if you're as intelligent as you claim, you will have no trouble... Hint: the frames were interlaced, and the raster frequency was 15750Hz... I think. (Dwight would have a better idea about this than me... he literally wrote the book Apollo TV technology)
2. You don't know if the LRV was positioned above or below level of the descent stage landing pads, and I have not found any information about that. It could be five or more metres above or five or more metres below. At a distance of 90 to 158 metres. That is significant and would be extremely difficult to see from the LRV camera
If you are right about the camera being 1m above the ground
LRV is 5m below at 90m, the elevation angle to the top of the Descent stage is +4.6°
LRV is 5m aboveat 90m, the elevation angle to the top of the Descent stage is -1.8°
LRV is 5m below at 158m, the elevation angle to the top of the Descent stage is +2.7°
LRV is 5m below at 158, the elevation angle to the top of the Descent stage is -1.0°
You are trying to measure fractions of a pixel over the vertical height of a video that is barely 200 lines, without taking into account scan frame errors, and without being sure about the height of the camera. These disparities will render your measurements useless.
Your claim of "distortion" (vertical vs. horizontal) - is a good concern that I have not yet accounted for. Because we're dealing with known geometries here, we can calculate the amount of distortion going on here -- and I will add this to the analysis. And then will modify the results accordingly.
Good luck with that, because despite years of searching, I have never been able to track down barrel, pincushion or mustache distortion figures for the LRV cameras, and without those, to quote a line from C.K. Stead's 1971 novel "Smith's Dream" (from which Roger Donaldson's 1977 movie
"Sleeping Dogs" was adapted...
"you're up shit creek in a barbed-wire canoe"
