Discussion:
Can do pure paradox
(too old to reply)
Charles Packer
2020-05-30 02:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Last November when the last survivor of the Hindenburg disaster
died, there was a link in the obit to a video that those of us of
a certain age have probably seen on some TV documentary or another:



In keeping with the mysterious fact (as noted in the Wikipedia
page on the disaster) that there is no extant
imagery of the first moments of the fire, the video goes from
unremarkable scene-setting to the dirigible half-engulfed in
flames with a white flash (at 2:50). I glimpsed a momentary dark
shape in it. So I repeatedly dragged the progress marker back to 2:49
and then stopped the video to try to halt it in mid-flash. I was
able to capture four different nonblank frames that apparently
follow one white frame and whose screen shots are in the directory at
http://cpacker.org/hindenburg .

What's going on here? I posted a comment to the video's page
wondering if I was the first viewer in 82 years to notice the anomaly.
A few weeks later, I went back to see if there were any replies.
All the comments were gone and commenting for that video had been
disabled.

http://cpacker.org
Gary R. Schmidt
2020-05-30 04:26:06 UTC
Permalink
On 30/05/2020 12:13, Charles Packer wrote:
[SNIP irrelevant post]

This is rec.arts.sf.written - your post fails[1] on several grounds,
please fuck off.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

1 - As do your previous posts, please do be sure to follow the above advice.
--
Waiting for a new signature to suggest itself...
J. Clarke
2020-05-30 14:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Last November when the last survivor of the Hindenburg disaster
died, there was a link in the obit to a video that those of us of
http://youtu.be/CgWHbpMVQ1U
In keeping with the mysterious fact (as noted in the Wikipedia
page on the disaster) that there is no extant
imagery of the first moments of the fire,
What's "mysterious" about it? Have you ever seen the kind of cameras
they were using at the time? One reporter described his experience.
He had just shot his last glass plate when the fire started. Desperate
for something, _anything_ that would let him get an image he dumped
his bag on the ground and noted that he had a 35mm camera, which at
the time was regarded by professionals as a "toy". So he grabbed that
and got his shots for the paper. But some time had elapsed before he
got that in action. Movie film (not video, video recording would not
exist until several decades later) was a similar story. They'd shot
what they were going to shoot and were packing up to leave when the
fire started, so they had to set up again.
Post by Charles Packer
the video goes from
unremarkable scene-setting to the dirigible half-engulfed in
flames with a white flash (at 2:50). I glimpsed a momentary dark
shape in it. So I repeatedly dragged the progress marker back to 2:49
and then stopped the video to try to halt it in mid-flash. I was
able to capture four different nonblank frames that apparently
follow one white frame and whose screen shots are in the directory at
http://cpacker.org/hindenburg .
That you attribute importance to nonblank frames that follow white
frames tells us mostly that you have no experience of old movies. It
happens regularly--artifact of a rather primitive hand-cranked camera,
the person cranking it paused for a moment resulting in an overexposed
frame.
Post by Charles Packer
What's going on here? I posted a comment to the video's page
wondering if I was the first viewer in 82 years to notice the anomaly.
A few weeks later, I went back to see if there were any replies.
All the comments were gone and commenting for that video had been
disabled.
http://cpacker.org
Thomas Koenig
2020-05-30 15:59:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That you attribute importance to nonblank frames that follow white
frames tells us mostly that you have no experience of old movies. It
happens regularly--artifact of a rather primitive hand-cranked camera,
the person cranking it paused for a moment resulting in an overexposed
frame.
Terry Pratchett had an interesing system for cameras in "Moving
Pictures", with a somewhat different explanation for the handle :-)
Charles Packer
2020-05-31 11:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
That you attribute importance to nonblank frames that follow white
frames tells us mostly that you have no experience of old movies. It
happens regularly--artifact of a rather primitive hand-cranked camera,
the person cranking it paused for a moment resulting in an overexposed
frame.
Screen capture a3 shows the airship in the far distance.
Frames a1 and a4 show it high up over what appears to be part
of the mooring tower, and not approaching it. Competing
scenarios could be advanced to explain their relation to the
chronology of the scenes before 2:50 and after and whether they were
left in or placed in the final edited newsreel product.

http://cpacker.org
J. Clarke
2020-05-31 18:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Post by J. Clarke
That you attribute importance to nonblank frames that follow white
frames tells us mostly that you have no experience of old movies. It
happens regularly--artifact of a rather primitive hand-cranked camera,
the person cranking it paused for a moment resulting in an overexposed
frame.
Screen capture a3 shows the airship in the far distance.
Frames a1 and a4 show it high up over what appears to be part
of the mooring tower, and not approaching it. Competing
scenarios could be advanced to explain their relation to the
chronology of the scenes before 2:50 and after and whether they were
left in or placed in the final edited newsreel product.
JEEZUS H CHRIST.

Learn something about airships before you spout nonsense.

There was more than one mooring tower at Lakehurst for openers. Two
of them are shown in the newsreel you are on about. Lakehurst was the
US Navy's airship factory.

Airships did not "approach mooring towers". You have this vision of
the thing flying up to the mooring tower and ramming the nose into it
somehow under control of the pilot. That's not how it worked. The
airship would drop long cables that would be grabbed by a large crew
on the ground who would then pull it down to ground level and drag it
by hand to the mooring tower. You can see part of that as well, the
ropes being dropped.

And if you can find them there are three other newsreels.
Charles Packer
2020-06-01 10:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Learn something about airships before you spout nonsense.
Who said anything about how airships operate? My post was
about how a film product was put together.

http://cpacker.org
J. Clarke
2020-06-01 20:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Packer
Post by J. Clarke
Learn something about airships before you spout nonsense.
Who said anything about how airships operate? My post was
about how a film product was put together.
If you were critiqueing the editing of a 80 year old newsreel you
should have made that clear. You give the impression that you are
spouting some kind of conspiracy theory.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-06-01 20:39:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:13:09 GMT, Charles Packer
Post by Charles Packer
Post by J. Clarke
Learn something about airships before you spout nonsense.
Who said anything about how airships operate? My post was
about how a film product was put together.
If you were critiqueing the editing of a 80 year old newsreel
you should have made that clear. You give the impression that
you are spouting some kind of conspiracy theory.
He probably believes the moon landings were faked, too, because 100%
of the evidence is *exactly* what you'd expect if it were real.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Loading...