Anyone familiar with this 'claim' at Aulis.com?

[onebigmonkey]

Going back to the cloud thing, Aulis makes a big thing about cirrostratus clouds and them having a 'maximum height' of 26000 feet. They give a few internet encyclopedia references for this value. Of the references they cite for that value, one actually says that the highest levels are 42000 feet, and other two contain the same text and mention "about 6-8km" for mid latitude cirrostratus. I have found numerous websites citing much higher values than 26000 feet. I also have actual gosh-darned books that place the upper limit for cirrostratus much higher than that.

They freely admit that there are no data from Apollo 11 for the cirrostratus height on that day, but despite this the massive assumption that because there was "2nd level cloud cover" of cirrostratus at that height for Apollo 13, it must therefore have been that height for Apollo 11.

That kind of assumption is nonsense. Their own references show that there is also a lower limit at which cirrostratus can be found - the idea that it is only ever found at 26000 feet at the launch site is just stupid, and completely discredits any kind of 'scientific' analysis they might be trying to attempt using that number as a basis.

The author of the piece uses his PhD freely, but it is not in any way related to the field he is discussing. Make of that what you will.

[Glom]

Cirrostratus no higher than 26,000ft? They don't fly much.

[gwiz]

Another major problem with the Aulis calculation is the assumption that the shadow is the same length as the rocket - they are calculating speed from the time the shadow takes to travel its own length.  By the time the rocket reaches these high altitudes it is trailing an immense exhaust wake which will also cast a shadow, so their speed estimate will be low by a factor of rocket length to total length of rocket plus exhaust.

[Bob B.]

Going back to the cloud thing, Aulis makes a big thing about cirrostratus clouds and them having a 'maximum height' of 26000 feet. They give a few internet encyclopedia references for this value. Of the references they cite for that value, one actually says that the highest levels are 42000 feet, and other two contain the same text and mention "about 6-8km" for mid latitude cirrostratus. I have found numerous websites citing much higher values than 26000 feet. I also have actual gosh-darned books that place the upper limit for cirrostratus much higher than that.

The Saturn V was no where near those heights when it reaches the clouds in the video.  According to my simulation, the altitude at T+40 s is about 7,900 feet.  And the NASA recorded altitude at T+66.3 s (Mach 1 acheived) is 4.236 nautical miles (25,738 feet).

ETA:  Nevermind.  I just went to the Aulis website and I see that their talking about a completely different part of the video then I thought they were.  Sorry.

[Bob B.]

OK then. Relative to the clouds, the motion of the Saturn rocket is 'up' in the frame at first, but then 'down' relative to the clouds later on. This is because the spacecraft is pitching.

The Saturn V was pitched over about 50 degrees from vertical during the time in question.

[Eventcone]

Not going to spend much time on this.

1. It's Aulis. One of the biggest lie filled sacks of crap on the internet. The default position is, if it's from Aulis, it's wrong by default.

2. Some how, a hand held super Eight has a clock, synchronised with NASA superimposed on the film. How? The only option is that this footage is altered. By Aulis.

3. The difference between the OSD and the Youtoob clock varies wildly over the course of the video. Oops.

4. I have lost the will to continue looking at this Aulis BS

5. Present something meaningful or go back to sucking at the teat of Jack White and his successors.

6. Why exactly should anyone spend time on this lunatic claim?

Thank you for the 'welcome'. 

1. I have no experience with Aulis. I made one visit to their site (having been 'referred' to it by an 'opponent') and I have no reason to disagree with your sentiments concerning them.

2. Altered by someone, certainly.

3. Interesting. I sampled 5 points in the YouTube version (0.01, 3.47, 5.32, 6.15 & 6.41) and the difference with the OSD reading was 57mins 19secs in each case. 

4. Clearly, you're still hanging in there.......! 

5. I'm truly sorry that my post did not come up to your own standards of what might be considered "meaningful". Who, by the way, is Jack White, and why would you think that I would ever "suck at (his) teat"? You appear to have jumped to some erroneous conclusions concerning me.

6. Why indeed. But then cannot ALL claims that Apollo was faked be described as 'lunatic'? Yet ApolloHoax.net exists precisely because people do want to spend time on such claims. If you're not interested in any individual claim I respectfully suggest you ignore it.

[Eventcone]

An attempt to use Phil Pollacia's video to deduce the velocity of Apollo 11's Saturn has been discussed on the old forum.

Here's the thread, starting with this post:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=2732&page=2#94424

Thanks Dagger. 

I did attempt a search to see if it had been discussed previously, but found nothing at the time.

[Echnaton]

6. Why indeed. But then cannot ALL claims that Apollo was faked be described as 'lunatic'? Yet ApolloHoax.net exists precisely because people do want to spend time on such claims. If you're not interested in any individual claim I respectfully suggest you ignore it.

Fair enough. 

1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers. 

Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy.   In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address.  While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.

And, welcome to the forum.

[Eventcone]

C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.

Thanks 

[gwiz]

C'mon, guys, he already knows that. He just wanted to know the actual, specific errors in the analysis. Yes, Aulis may be 100% bullshit but that's not the answer he wanted.

Thanks 

To sum up, the specific errors are first the plucking a figure out of the air for cloud height which is nowhere near the maximum possible for cirrostratus clouds and second the shadow length problem that I mentioned above.  As a contributing factor, they ignore uncertainty in the film timing.

[Bob B.]

Another major problem with the Aulis calculation is the assumption that the shadow is the same length as the rocket - they are calculating speed from the time the shadow takes to travel its own length.  By the time the rocket reaches these high altitudes it is trailing an immense exhaust wake which will also cast a shadow, so their speed estimate will be low by a factor of rocket length to total length of rocket plus exhaust.

Indeed.  At the time in question (T+108 s), the Saturn V's heading was about 79° and its pitch was about -46°, i.e. an elevation of 44°.  At the same time and location, the Sun's position in the sky was approximately azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  The means the Saturn V was pointed almost directly into the Sun, which would extremely shorten its shadow.  For the shadow to appear as elongated as it does in the video, we have to be seeing the shadow of a very long exhaust plume.

[Eventcone]

Fair enough. 

1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers. 

Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy.   In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address.  While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.

And, welcome to the forum.

Ahhh.

If this is the reason for the 'acidity' (no offense intended) of Abaddon's initial response, then please allow me to say that I quite understand. Having lurked here a while before posting I can say that I can recall one hoax believer who did just as you describe.

Perhaps I did not make my position clear enough in my original post or, more likely, I guess it takes time before established members begin to trust those new to the site? In any case, and for what it is worth, let me state here that my only motive in posting was to see the Aulis claim demolished.

In any case, I would like to thank ALL of those who have replied. I don't have time to reply to you all individually. Let me take time to digest the earlier discussion on the old site, to which Daggerstab (?) kindly provided the link.

And, thanks for the welcome.   

[Bob B.]

6. Why indeed. But then cannot ALL claims that Apollo was faked be described as 'lunatic'? Yet ApolloHoax.net exists precisely because people do want to spend time on such claims. If you're not interested in any individual claim I respectfully suggest you ignore it.

Fair enough. 

1. We have had a number of "individuals" here within the past few months that are sock puppets of two personalty identifiable people that are exceptionally driven to make claims of a hoax.
2. It is quite common for hoax believers to start a conversation by saying they wanted help debunking an argument who quickly reveal themselves as into hoax believers. 

Unfortunately this situation has left us gun shy.   In the era of Tor and commercial proxy servers, it is next to impossible to trace sock puppets by IP address.  While we all agree it is best to take each poster as they come, the frustration with trolling sock puppets also comes out sometimes.

And, welcome to the forum.

And it's incidents like this one that illustrates the point gillianren has been trying to make lately.  We shouldn't immediately assume sock puppetry or question motives.  I think we'd all do better if we could keep our personal feelings in check and focus on the arguments.  If Eventcone really is a sock puppet of a previous HB (and I don't currently believe that's the case), getting all emotional is giving him exactly what he wants.  Stay cool, people.

[Echnaton]

If this is the reason for....

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but have, myself, been in the position of releasing frustrations with intransigence hoax believers and sock puppets.  To employ a bit of spin, lets call it a "timing issue."   

[Bob B.]

Indeed.  At the time in question (T+108 s), the Saturn V's heading was about 79° and its pitch was about -46°, i.e. an elevation of 44°.  At the same time and location, the Sun's position in the sky was approximately azimuth 84° and elevation 37°.  The means the Saturn V was pointed almost directly into the Sun, which would extremely shorten its shadow.  For the shadow to appear as elongated as it does in the video, we have to be seeing the shadow of a very long exhaust plume.

Let's add another point...  The pitch angle describes the direction the rocket it pointed, i.e. its attitude.  In this case, the longitudinal axis of the rocket is inclined upward 44° with respect to the local horizon.  However, this is not the direction the rocket is traveling.  The Saturn V's flight path angle at the time in question was about 28°, which means the velocity vector was inclined 28° to the horizon.  The effect of this is that the shadow appears to move more slowly than it would assuming the pitch and direction of travel are one in the same.  Therefore the key premise on which the Aulis method is based fails:

"The key idea of the method is that when the shadow has gone its one length "l", it also corresponds to the rocket having travelled one length of itself."