|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 8, 2007 16:47:15 GMT -4
You berated us for our lack of objectivity in analyzing or not analyzing a 9/11 photo. That's discussing 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 8, 2007 17:47:20 GMT -4
Good grief. I wasn't discussing 9/11. I just wanted to point out that these people were not fit to do photo analysis because of a lack of objectivity which they show in that thread. And you are the last person who should be criticizing others for their lack of objectivity. It's like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan criticizing someone for their irresponsible behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2007 17:53:02 GMT -4
I think all of you know that Apollo was a hoax.
If that's what you have to tell yourself in order to keep your self-delusive world intact. The farther into it you retreat, the less comforting it will be to you.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Jun 8, 2007 18:01:33 GMT -4
www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I might as well speak frankly. I think all of you know that Apollo was a hoax. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I might as well speak frankly. I think that you are a troll.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jun 8, 2007 18:10:26 GMT -4
I might as well speak frankly. I think all of you know that Apollo was a hoax. With every post you make I become more and more confident it wasn't a hoax. People like you do wonders for the pro-Apollo side. You are so blatant in your lack of relevant knowledge, ability to understand even basic logic and entrenched, bigoted views that if you can not fail to convince in a neutral that Apollo was genuine. If you didn't already exist we would have to invent you.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 8, 2007 18:24:24 GMT -4
If you didn't already exist we would have to invent you. SSSH! it's a secret
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 8, 2007 18:33:26 GMT -4
When Rocky says that he believes that we all know that Apollo is a Hoax, it feels like he's calling me a hoax. Please don't presume so much Rocky, it offends.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2007 1:25:42 GMT -4
There isn't enough detail to say whether it was a 757, an F-16, or a flock of seagulls. Oh, I think you'd be able to distinguish their hair if it were Flock of Seagulls.
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Jun 9, 2007 8:01:51 GMT -4
I don't know how any thinking person could take any of you seriously when it comes to photo-analysis after that. I'm mainly posting stuff on this thread for the viewers to see. Sure, I'll debate with you but I doubt you even believe your own arguments for the reasons outlined in this link. Where have I heard this hubris before? Ah, yes: Vincini: Let me put it this way, have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Westley: Yes... Vincini: Morons.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 9, 2007 10:00:21 GMT -4
Oh, I think you'd be able to distinguish their hair if it were Flock of Seagulls. Heh heh... I was hoping someone would say something along those lines.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 9, 2007 10:00:50 GMT -4
Color isn't the issue here. Body movement is the issue. Your explanation is very vague. Please go into some detail.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 9, 2007 11:21:25 GMT -4
Your explanation is very vague. Please go into some detail. Yes, rocky. The explanation is very vague indeed. Please do go into some detail.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 9, 2007 16:32:30 GMT -4
On the face of it this is a falsifiable claim. There's not that much full-motion capture of the Apollo Eleven excursions. Just sit down to it and find some moment that can't be achieved merely by slowing the film down. I'd think Buzz's leap to the ladder might count right there.
Unfortunately these goal posts are not set in concrete. All rebuttal would require is changing "They didn't use wires until Apollo Twelve" to "They used wires for just a few shots during Apollo Eleven; by Apollo Twelve they'd refined the method."
But this does bring up a question I've had about this particular thread of hoax studies. So, NASA has over ten years to work at it, an all-but-limitless budget. They are filming because the risks of the fake being uncovered are less than the risks of an actual mission -- which implies strongly that they've got robust and trustworthy systems in place for making the film and photographs.
So why wasn't the stuff ready in time? How come so many shortcuts and mistakes that were only cleared up in time for later missions? Could it be, are the hoax believers implying, that what Hollywood knows and does is also a complex technical task and that advancing the standard of special effects by several decades is not lightly undertaken by a group of rocket scientists?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 9, 2007 19:35:41 GMT -4
Color isn't the issue here. Body movement is the issue. Your explanation is very vague. Please go into some detail. To reduce the amout of data sent back in the TV signal, and to simplify the camera equipment, the video took a series of frames in the separate colours. It took a green frame, a blue frame and a red frame, and it did it sequentially. These were cobined back here on Earth for a colour image to be formed. But, because it took each colour frame sequentially, if movement was fast enough you see a rainbow effect where the different colour frames do not fully overlay. That rainbow effect happens to give a very nice indication of the frame rate, and hence a verifiable check of whether or not it was recorded and played back at different rates. However, I predict a response along the lines of 'how am I supposed to verify that' or 'NASA made a special camera to avoid this signature effect giving the game away' or some other such nonsense.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 9, 2007 19:57:22 GMT -4
However, I predict a response along the lines of ... 'NASA made a special camera to avoid this signature effect giving the game away' Of course, NASA is brilliant and all-powerful and can do anything it wants, except land a man on the Moon.
|
|