Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #120 on Feb 5, 2010, 12:13pm »
LunarOrbit wrote:
If he is unwilling to post here it's only because he believes he is not capable of remaining civil. Making an exception to the rules just for him would be like giving your bank card to someone with a gambling problem.
Actually my post over at Chrismartenson.com is quite civil and polite. The rule I'm violating is this one:
10) Intentionally provoking the moderator
Also, there seems to be a general assumption that I'm a "Hoax Believer". Actually I'm not, I'm a "Hoax Agnostic" and from time to time I might repeat arguments from "Hoax Believers" even though I myself don't know what to think, or I know my opinion is shaky.
Which brings up this other rule,
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them. [added: 06/29/09]
And I certainly do find it entertaining, how easy it seems to be to get you folks worked up.
Posting substantiation of your claim that AS11-40-5862 is not lit solely by sunlight reflected by the lunar surface would constitute intentional provocation of the moderator?
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby
"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #125 on Feb 5, 2010, 1:20pm »
Cavorite, it's not my primary intention to make anybody angry. It's just a side effect of attempting to carry on a conversation.
I'm done talking about the shading in the photo for now. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of opinion, and I can't concede on behalf of any other "HB"s even if I were to concede on my own behalf.
Joined: Aug 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 261 Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #126 on Feb 5, 2010, 1:27pm »
I stand by my assessment of your reasons for posting here. You have continued to complain about the moderation despite refusing repeated requests for you to show how you personally have been treated unfairly in any way. To use an Irish phrase, you are "dragging your coat", trying to provoke a response so you can pretend you are the aggrieved party.
Cavorite, it's not my primary intention to make anybody angry. It's just a side effect of attempting to carry on a conversation.
By posting your responses to questions on this forum on a completely different forum for which we need to sign up to even read the post, even though you admit that there is nothing in your on-topic posts that would be a reason for you getting banned?
If you would have broken the rules (interesting point about Rule 10), then it would be in one of your off-topic posts where you talk about how you are breaking the rules and can't post on here, and not in any post related to the discussion at hand.
Actually my post over at Chrismartenson.com is quite civil and polite.
Good for you. So why couldn't you have posted it here?
Quote:
The rule I'm violating is this one:
10) Intentionally provoking the moderator
I'm aware that you're trying to provoke me, but you seem to underestimate my patience. I'm trying to give you the opportunity to make your case (whatever that may be) and you're wasting it.
If you are eventually banned (for violations that you even admit to) then it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you are a hoax believer.
Quote:
Also, there seems to be a general assumption that I'm a "Hoax Believer".
It's hardly our fault if we have gotten the wrong impression from you if you aren't willing to actually discuss your own beliefs with us.
Quote:
Which brings up this other rule,
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them. [added: 06/29/09]
And I certainly do find it entertaining, how easy it seems to be to get you folks worked up.
You seem to be the type of person that throws rocks at hornet nests and then complains when they sting you. Why should anyone be sympathetic towards you if I do ban you?
I stand by my assessment of your reasons for posting here. You have continued to complain about the moderation despite refusing repeated requests for you to show how you personally have been treated unfairly in any way. To use an Irish phrase, you are "dragging your coat", trying to provoke a response so you can pretend you are the aggrieved party.
Please stop posturing.
Cavorite,
It's not that the moderator has treated me unfairly. It's that this forum is a place where abusive behavior and comments are welcome and indeed condoned, if they support the moderator's position. Many things have been said about me here already that are hostile if not downright abusive. Fortunately I have a pretty thick skin, but even still this place has not only amused me, but also gotten my adrenaline up at times.
The "response I'm trying to provoke" is to get people to join my thread over at chrismartenson.com, where I trust that the moderation is balanced and fair, and there's a track record of civilized conversation.
Someone named A_C_C has already come over. Why don't you? Scared of a simple registration?
I'm done talking about the shading in the photo for now. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of opinion
It is my opinion that a structure made of raspberry jam is just as sound as one made of steel. A structural engineer disagrees with me and uses a lot of complicated jargon to support his argument. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of opinion, there's no way to determine which of us is right.
That you don't understand the scientific underpinnings of lighting and photography does not make it a matter of opinion.
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes." - Sam "NasaScam" Colby
"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #131 on Feb 5, 2010, 2:15pm »
LunarOrbit,
Interesting characterization, that this place is like a "hornet's nest." You said it, not me.
I haven't been intentionally trying to provoke you in anything I've said here. If I've provoked you by anything I've said here at this forum, it was a consequence of raising what I think are legitimate questions.
I deny that I've broken any rules in what I've said here, but I don't expect any sympathy from anyone if you decide to ban me. It seems that everyone who has a contrary opinion, is long gone. Gee I wonder why.
Why not come on over to Chrismartenson.com and let someone else be the referee for a change, and we'll see if we can work out our differences? Is it really such a hassle to register?
It's not that the moderator has treated me unfairly. It's that this forum is a place where abusive behavior and comments are Someone named A_C_C has already come over. Why don't you? Scared of a simple registration?
Oh, now you're daring us to come over. What's next, a double-dog?
Or will you up the ante and and go straight to a triple-dog dare?
I'm done talking about the shading in the photo for now. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of opinion
It is my opinion that a structure made of raspberry jam is just as sound as one made of steel. A structural engineer disagrees with me and uses a lot of complicated jargon to support his argument. As far as I can tell, it's just a matter of opinion, there's no way to determine which of us is right.
That you don't understand the scientific underpinnings of lighting and photography does not make it a matter of opinion.
Data Cable,
The issue here is that although Jay uses a lot of technical jargon, he hasn't actually done the calculations to support his position, and his experiment is botched because they overexposed the picture at Mythbusters. Maybe they overexposed it because it was the only way they could get it to come out looking even remotely right.
If you look way back to my first post in this thread, there's a 3D modeler at another blog who has taken an interest in this topic, and he says if anyone wants to lay some cash on the line, he'll run the necessary computations to find out the truth. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth taking that bet or not.
Meanwhile, until somebody really does the work that's necessary, it's all just handwaving and opinions.
Joined: Jul 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 582 Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #134 on Feb 5, 2010, 2:24pm »
porphyry, You haven't said anything about the links I and others have posted that demonstrate that a single light source is sufficient to provide shadow detail in a Lunar photograph.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://home.comcast.net/~jbpostma/d20.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s37/b2220128/achnaten.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.amnet.net.au/~osbot5/Melies.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.majhost.com/gallery/BertL/Stuff/aniava.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/lunarorbit/manonmoon.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://www.bautforum.com/signaturepics/sigpic31082_1.gif "[avatar]")