[video=youtube;1eFP4hcMruY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eFP4hcMruY[/video] Just give up, you're really so hopelessly wrong.
Correct. I haven't. I have proved you wrong and all you have is an inept understanding of how to google.
I am going to try to explain this as simple as I can: THIS: AND THIS: AND THIS: AND THIS: AND THIS: IS NOT EQUAL TO THIS: NICE TRY - BUT NO CIGAR!
You are becoming the king of epic fail. Yet again your ignorance knows no bounds. HE IS ON A SLOPE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Toy cigars from such an unobservant and mistake riddled individual are not needed!
It is my experience that the opposite is true. The common man is a misnomer, and the epithet 'ignorant' would have been more appropriate. Nice job Betamax, science wins out over lunacy every time.
No. You work it out yourself. Here's some clues. Non-level cameras, slopes, trying to get up and in motion. You are as ignorant a poster as Cosmored and that is a fairly low recommendation. Btw: I have a rough idea where most of them come from, but as a rule it is common courtesy to state the exact source, as it is a piece of cake to check when it occurred, the orientation of the LRV at the time and a good idea of the terrain from camera pans. Oh, but that sort of thing never occurs to you guys does it. Method and accuracy don't count when you can spout the "yeah, it looks like" crap! Your evasion in this thread and the others is pitiful.
How do you keep a hopeless hoaxer quiet? Send him off looking at pictures that "seem" problematic to him! The laws of physics are fine. The problem is you. You have no clue what you are talking about, no understanding of human kinetics, torque, the weight distribution which includes the shape of the PLSS aligned around the back area. You have persistence, but being wrong as an extra is not impressive. Keep going though, maybe you would like to isolate mission, time, Eva, placement and LRV orientation. Or just carry on with ignorant observations and silly emoticon in every post!
You would have thought the camera support stand would have had some way to level - but I guess that would have been too advanced for 1960 technology... BTW, thanks for the compliment!
The camera was state of the art with tilt zoom and pan. It was remote operated from a quarter of a million miles away. All in all it was perfect for the job. Whatever short comings there are compared to modern technology are irrelevant. Why don't you do something absolutely unheard of? Find the source of the pictures, see when they were taken, from what angle location and look it up on google Moon. Then look at any pictures of the rover and see what angle it was parked. Then do a balance analysis and show where the LOG and COG points are and exactly why there is a problem. Or you could always fail to do any of that and just make lots of noise. Shall we guess which of the two you will do compared to what you've done so far?
Tilt, zoom and pan from Houston - 250,000 miles away - but they couldn't get it level????? I just find that to be a bit odd...
It was plenty level. Making it level with the ground when on a slope would have looked really odd. Btw, you do realise that what you find "a bit odd" is actually as useless and unhelpful an assessment as there could be. It amounts to a dog barking at a ball as it rolls by.
Could you explain your above quoted statement in a little more detail? Do you mean that the camera is parallel with the slope looks odd? Or do you mean that the camera on the slope is perpendicular to the force of gravity (in other words, actually level) looks odd? And how do you define "plenty level" when you say that there was no means to level the camera?
I will explain the obvious. A vehicle ON the slope aligned to gravity will show everything at an angle. That looks odd for viewing purposes. Level enough to provide a perfect picture, but not level enough to placate mad claims 46 years later.
I don't quite understand your response. I never said anything about vehicles, all I want to know is what do you consider odd camera alignment when a camera is on a slope? 1. camera aligned parallel to slope 2. camera aligned parallel to horizon (actually level) equal to perpendicular to gravity A simple "answer 1" or "answer 2" will suffice. If the camera is level enough for a perfect picture; it should be level enough for the purpose of judging if an astronaut is upright or not!
Oh shut up. The camera is level with the orientation of the LRV which did not have lateral tilt on the camera. Your inability to work out upright astronauts is your inability. The rest of your post is of no concern to me. Your attempt at the if i ran the zoo fallacy is one of the more ridiculous examples
You sure don't like to answer simple questions on subjects you yourself brought up - that's for sure! OK - I understand your point about the LRV - but I was not thinking about the Rover when I asked about the camera. I clearly stated "camera support stand" in post #61. Not all videos (and photos) taken on the moon were from the LRV vehicle: and even this photo of the video camera stand shows an astronaut in a questionable stance. I think I understand your argument to be that the orientation of the camera would give us a false impression of the stance of the astronauts so we have to disregard the 1000's of images of astronauts on the moon as to whether they are in a balanced stance or not. Correct? Well, that is just silly for a number of reasons, but lets just look at a visual example: Here we have an image of an astronaut in a questionable stance: View attachment 41128 and here we are zoomed in: View attachment 41129 Now maybe the photo is slightly askew - so let's rotate the photo clockwise 10 degrees: There, now he looks a lot better, but if we rotate him, we have to rotate the entire photo: And this just does not make visual sense, unless they are on the side of giant hill that extends far out to the horizon! I think most of the photos and videos are close to level for various reasons. Some videos from the LRV on a slope, as you pointed out, may be slightly askew, but they can be understood by other visual cues in the video image (as I tried to illustrate above) So, I did not say anything about vehicles and I don't remember saying anything about zoo's, either!
No it doesn't. His PLSS weighs 22lbs, hugs his back and over his upper shoulder and is offset by extra weight from his suit and thermal garment. No, if you claim they are not balanced, show the calculations for the COG/LOG, show the orientation of the LRV and any slopes on the ground! So is an inexperienced hoaxer who is barking at the ball as it passes by. No it doesn't. His PLSS weighs 22lbs, hugs his back and over his upper shoulder and is offset by extra weight from his suit and thermal garment. His hands are also extended out as even more counter balance. I really shake my head at how useless you are at the totally obvious. The astronaut is standing on an upslope in the first place and his balance point is just fine. Tried and failed miserably. I don't care. The "if I ran the zoo" logical fallacy is where you suggest what should have been done with your deep "insight" and "knowledge". Needless to say it is crap.
We have gone over this plenty of times - but once again - THE WEIGHT DOES NOT MATTER! It is not about weight - it is about balance! The COG must be over the BOS! Here, let's make this visual: The Center of Gravity When we support a weight, we have a new center of gravity - the combination of our body's center of gravity plus the center of gravity of the weight we are supporting. If the weight is off-axis, we must lean away from the load to keep our new center of gravity over our feet so that we don't fall. Posture must change to accommodate the bag we carry, and the heavier the load, the more we must lean. Line of Force The force applied to support the load must go through the center of gravity of the load. When the weight is off-axis, we must pull in a direction such that the direction of the pull goes through the center of gravity of the load. This introduces a horizontal component to the force, which is added to the weight, meaning that more force is required. Put another way, a heavy backpack requires you to lean forward and pull forward with your shoulders. This is why you see hunched shoulders and forward heads with backpack use. And for the fifth time: The author of the video clearly states that "if you cant stand upright on the earth with a heavy backpack, then you cant stand upright on the moon either" Do you agree or disagree with that statement? A "yes" or "no" will suffice...
You search, you find, you don't understand. I suggest you read the second link and learn something. After all the pictures and videos showing how humans have the ability to use muscular corrective action(torque) to offset the pull from the extra weight, you still come back with your basic claim. But even now you still haven't isolated where the COG is on the astronaut or shown where they MUST be off balance!
This is such a diversionary answer. Here again is what I wrote:- His PLSS weighs 22lbs, hugs his back and over his upper shoulder and is offset by extra weight from his suit and thermal garment. Most of the PLSS contents are aligned against the inner part of the pack. A total width of 10 inches puts an average weight distribution at 5 inches away from the body. BUT it wasn't an average weight distribution was it! The OPS was almost over the back shoulder and the consumables were packed tight to the inside. In addition to this, the 10" figure is the maximum width of the lightweight exterior casing. So what does that make the average? Three inches? Maybe 4? And where does the LOG line run from? Simply arching the body and a slight knee bend offsets that easily. But even standing perfectly vertical, the body can rotate forwards from the base of the spine to offset any imbalance. Try it yourself, get somebody to pull you backwards from the shoulders - you can resist a much larger force than you imagine. Just because the ideal is to bend forwards to do this, doesn't mean it can't be done vertically. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo7/hires/s68-34582.jpg Now once again, show me where the astronauts' COG is on a simple picture. Your failure to do this FIRST step of a scientific process is obvious. If you can stand upright on the earth with a heavy backpack, you can stand upright on the moon. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IMG_4751.jpg
Unlike you, I will answer that question. I disagree completely with your statement because it is illogical nonsense. You cannot stand upright with a heavy (enough) backpack; it is against the laws of physics. And the image that you linked to as proof - is not the result of proper reasoning - and can easily be proven so...
How about 22lbs!! We're still attempting to beat that straw man. Show where the astronaut center of gravity is! How many times has that been requested. Unlike you I respond properly to important things! Then stop jerking about and do so.
