Re: those incredibly muddy first images

Post #310,919 by drook 7/13/09 11:43:52 PM 7/13/09 11:46:41 PM Reply	Re: those incredibly muddy first images You ever hear the story about that? Apparently the footage was crystal clear when it got back down to Earth. But in a different format than the commercial TV networks. Oops, nobody thought of that. They literally pointed a TV camera at a monitor, which was showing a compressed feed. And those are the tapes that have survived. No one currently knows for sure where the original tapes are, nor do they have any working equipment with which to scan the warehouse full of un-indexed tapes that might contain the originals. Oh wait, holy crap. They found them! http://www.dvorak.or...40th-anniversary/ If that's what they have on the site linked at the top of this thread, it wasn't very noticeable. -- Drew Edited by drook July 13, 2009, 11:44:24 PM EDT Edited by drook July 13, 2009, 11:46:41 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #310,920 by rcareaga 7/14/09 12:09:45 AM Reply	Re: those incredibly muddy first images Yes, I had heard about that. Jeez, Dvorak wants Paypal donations for his blog? On the basis of his Mac coverage since 1984 I'd consider paying him a modest monthly stipend to STFU. cordially,
Post #310,932 by malraux 7/14/09 8:48:21 AM Reply	Allegedly the report from The Express is a fraud There's something odd going on in that clip. In the latter half of the video items in the background are showing through the spacesuit, similar to the effect of a poor green-screen attempt. Watch the right-most pole at about 1:18 or so. Ah, from one of the comments: ItÂs a kind of short-term temporary burn-in. There is a technical term for it, but I canÂt remember what it is. Remember, this was shot in direct sun, more direct than you get at the bottom of our atmosphere. When the astronaut crosses in front of the camera, it takes a few seconds for the image that had been in that spot since the camera was turned on to fade away. Making the whole thing moot, the British report is allegedly a fraud: http://blogs.discove...ideo-tapes-found/ Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #310,936 by static 7/14/09 9:29:26 AM Reply	I heard just the other day a story about that. There was an interview on the Science Show on ABC Radio National with someone who used to work in OTC in Sydney at the time. NASA were using the radio telescopes at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek (near Canberra) as part of their relay network. Parkes, being the larger dish, was to be the primary link, but on the day in question, there was a windstorm. However the dish was over at its limits and even though it was withstanding windgusts ten times the design limits, the operators refusd to stow it. Regardless, the wind made its signal too chancy so the world saw the descent and landing from Honeysuckle Creek. Once the Eagle had landed, though, the wind at Parkes had died down. The NASA people had an argument about cutting over to Parkes, as the picture from Parkes was much better. Obviously, the cutover was going to take some time. Australia wasn't supposed to be the main link at the landing, but Armstrong overrode the schedule from Houston and took the lunar module down early. Oh and he confirmed that the "conversion" process from the slow-scan pictures was to point a camera at the slow-scan screen. :-) Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

Welcome to IWETHEY!