Dave Greer Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Dave ... No I'm certain the text I read about them taking their scheduled nap was when they first landed .... I was so amazed by what I read that I even took some notes so I could discuss it on the forum I was posting on at the time ... I think I even wrote down some of the dialogue from the book .I remember that afternoon at Barnes and Noble ... I was sitting across from my girlfriend and literally jumped out of my seat when I read it , saying gottcha !!! ... because I remembered the Parkes story was completely different . There is a possiblity that I read this in a different book but I thought it was Armstrong's biography ... I had six books on Apollo stacked up on the table and was rushing through most of them because my girlfriend was feeling ignored and getting antsy ... The reason I remember reading that they claimed to have taken their nap was not only because it was a complete contradiction to the Parkes version of the EVA timeline but I couldn't imagine being the first humans to ever land on another planet and then not rushing out onto the surface of that planet as fast as possible .... I thought , there's no way they would be able to sleep under these circumstances if they were really on the moon ! But as you well know , I don't believe they were ever really on the moon , so the story of them taking a scheduled nap came as no great surprise . Anyhoo .... Evan has proven that this info didn't come from the book I thought it had .... So I guess that's the end of that .... Unless I can manage to find the book it was in .... and after all this time , the odds are not very good at that happening . Well I don't doubt your story, but it would be good if you could remember which book it the quote was in. If it is as you remember, then there is of course the possibility that it's a simple error (as Evan mentioned). Given that you were flicking through six books hurriedly and had your girlfriend on your case, some corroboration of the actual book and quote would help! Incidentally, if I went to the moon, I'd be so eager to get outside I'd probably forget to put my helmet on. Not that it would matter on a studio set of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 If I went to the moon I wouldn't be quite as eager to get outside , as I would be to see if the launch button was working properly, to get me off the dang moon and on my way back home again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Okay Dave, or anyone else who might be interested ... How about addressing just a couple more photos then before we drop this thread for good . I posted this photo early on in this thread but you managed to skim right past it without much comment ... Would you care now to give an explanation as to why there are no bootprints leading up to where Bean took his alleged walk around the crater ? ... Why does it look like he is dangling from a cable wire and his bootprints look as if he had been lowered in place to do a little dance for this photo op ? Maybe lamson would like to answer this one .... I know ! ... I bet this has something to do with the INVERSE SQUARE LAW !! AS12-49-7213 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I answered that in this reply on another thread (see post #3 on that thread). There are no bootprints to the right because he walked there from the left then turned around to clear the way for a photo. There is no wire visible - unless you are referring to the antenna on the backpack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) Okay Dave, or anyone else who might be interested ... How about addressing just a couple more photos then before we drop this thread for good .I posted this photo early on in this thread but you managed to skim right past it without much comment ... Would you care now to give an explanation as to why there are no bootprints leading up to where Bean took his alleged walk around the crater ? ... Why does it look like he is dangling from a cable wire and his bootprints look as if he had been lowered in place to do a little dance for this photo op ? Maybe lamson would like to answer this one .... I know ! ... I bet this has something to do with the INVERSE SQUARE LAW !! AS12-49-7213 Duane Apologies if I missed this one but you did post rather a lot of photos in a short space of time, and with you then claiming some were jokes it's difficult to know for certain what you are persenting as evidence. Evan has posted a very thorough reply which makes a lot of sense to me -far more sense than "lowering an astronaut onto the scene on a wire". I'm assuming you mean that the antenna is the wire? Edited February 14, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) dbl post while editing... Edited February 14, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 (edited) bad day! Make that a triple. Edited February 14, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Evan .... Where is the proof that Bean walked to this spot from the left and then turned around to get his photo taken ? .... You posted this ALSJ conversation as proof that Bean turned around , but I don't see how you could have possibly surmised that from this . Reference to the ALSJ shows: 132:31:47 Conrad: I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll stop right here and take a pan. 132:31:51 Bean: Okay. 132:31:52 Conrad: How's that grab you? 132:31:55 Bean: Because these rocks obviously came out of the crater, because they're scattered more uniformly around it. There's a bunch of them on the rim and there's not many far away. We probably ought to grab a big one of them. 132:32:06 Conrad: 74 (foot focus). 132:32:07 Bean: We're moving straight south now. (Pause) There's an interesting rock. Hey, that's all right; let's get it. (Pause) Let me read your camera and you can read mine, if you would. Help them out a bit down there (in Houston). 132:32:34 Conrad: Just a minute. 132:32: Bean: Okay, your camera right now is on 36. How about mine? 132:32:41 Conrad: You're 36 also. 132:32:43 Bean: Okay. 132:32:43 Conrad: Move. 132:32:44 Bean: Did you copy that, Houston? 132:32:48 Schmitt: Roger, we got it, Al. 132:32:51 Bean: Every crater you come to and look in, you see the glass beads. (I'll) move out of your way, Pete, (while you take the pan). (Pause) 132:33:12 Conrad: Okay, now. Back to rock-taking (camera) settings: 5 feet, f/8, 1/250th. Okay. All right, Al, where do you want to grab a sample here? ................. Plus , there are NO BOOTPRINTS coming form the left side in this photo either ... Unless you want to pretend they are hidden in the shadow of Bean's legs ... Oh yeah , I have read that one before too . Sorry , but your explanation is just as lame here as Dave's and Kevin's was about why the tire tracks are missing from so many photos featuring the lunar buggy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Evan .... Where is the proof that Bean walked to this spot from the left and then turned around to get his photo taken ? .... You posted this ALSJ conversation as proof that Bean turned around , but I don't see how you could have possibly surmised that from this .Plus , there are NO BOOTPRINTS coming form the left side in this photo either ... Unless you want to pretend they are hidden in the shadow of Bean's legs ... Oh yeah , I have read that one before too . Sorry , but your explanation is just as lame here as Dave's and Kevin's was about why the tire tracks are missing from so many photos featuring the lunar buggy . Duane Do you have any evidence to suggest that this can not have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yes , the evidence is obvious .... There are no bootprints coming in from the left in this photo either .... Not even in the shadows of his legs . Look at the way Bean is tilted forward and the way his arms are dangling out in front of him ... He is obviously hanging from a fly system .. The position of his bootprints even show evidence of this fact , and show that he didn't walk up to where he was suspended for this photo to be taken . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yes , the evidence is obvious .... There are no bootprints coming in from the left in this photo either .... Not even in the shadows of his legs .Look at the way Bean is tilted forward and the way his arms are dangling out in front of him ... He is obviously hanging from a fly system .. The position of his bootprints even show evidence of this fact , and show that he didn't walk up to where he was suspended for this photo to be taken . I disagree, he's obviously in mid-hop, as his feet are off the ground with a dust kicked up under them. And how do you know there aren't footprints in the shadows? Or that he didn't just take a big step or a hop to that spot from the left, he's close enough to the edge of the frame to do either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Look at his bootprints .... He's either doing the bunny hop or he's suspended by a wire ... A big hop ?? ... You mean like 18 inches in 1/6 g ? .... Right . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Duane, You keep on saying things are obvious - but are they? Have a look at this: Look at the squares marked A and B. It's obvious that they are a different shade of grey, right? One is nearly white, and the other nearly black, right? No. They are EXACTLY the same shade. You can print out the image and fold it so that the two squares are next to each other - you'll be surprised. There is also an online interactive version of this illusion: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_c...adow/index.html So if you say something is obvious, you have to back it up with objective evidence. You say Bean is on a fly rig? You have to prove that he is, not just say it is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Duane,You keep on saying things are obvious - but are they? Have a look at this: Look at the squares marked A and B. It's obvious that they are a different shade of grey, right? One is nearly white, and the other nearly black, right? No. They are EXACTLY the same shade. You can print out the image and fold it so that the two squares are next to each other - you'll be surprised. There is also an online interactive version of this illusion: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_c...adow/index.html So if you say something is obvious, you have to back it up with objective evidence. You say Bean is on a fly rig? You have to prove that he is, not just say it is obvious. For those who may not believe the squares are the same, simply take the image into photoshop and check the squares with the INFO tool. Both square A and square B have RGB values of 120,120,120. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Duane,You keep on saying things are obvious - but are they? Have a look at this: Look at the squares marked A and B. It's obvious that they are a different shade of grey, right? One is nearly white, and the other nearly black, right? No. They are EXACTLY the same shade. You can print out the image and fold it so that the two squares are next to each other - you'll be surprised. There is also an online interactive version of this illusion: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/lum_adelson_c...adow/index.html So if you say something is obvious, you have to back it up with objective evidence. You say Bean is on a fly rig? You have to prove that he is, not just say it is obvious. I'm always fascinated by this image. No matter how much I try, I can NOT get my brain to see both shades of grey as being equal. Despite knowing they are equal, I have to prove it to myself using Photoshop. Seeing something like that makes me wary when judging other photos. Ones where tyre tracks are invisible for example. I can use the eye-dropper tool in Photoshop to prove there is a change in contrast or darkness from one pixel to the next. Adjusting levels and contrast enhances this change. It's unfortunate that some people can't interpret what these enhancements show, or even reproduce them to show there has been no skullduggery involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now