|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 3, 2011 0:06:45 GMT -4
Just download or purchase an image processing software like photoshop and "enhance" it. That's all you have to do.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 3, 2011 0:13:04 GMT -4
No thanks, you're the one making claims, so you can do your own work and tell us what you think is wrong with the photograph.
|
|
|
Post by kimchijjigae on Mar 3, 2011 0:26:53 GMT -4
Are you hot? Just joking.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 0:45:04 GMT -4
Although, it seems very unlikely now. What proves that they couldn't have brought all these rocks using unmanned probes? Sigh. I thought we settled this. If you expect us to believe that unmanned probes returned the Moon rocks to Earth then prove to me that those probes existed. Until you do it's purely hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 0:48:45 GMT -4
Are you hot? Just joking. Okay. That comment got you banned. You're obviously an immature teenager. Come back when you grow up.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 3, 2011 0:53:15 GMT -4
I don't doubt any of the scientific conclusions. However, their conclusions has very limited implications, and for that reason do not by themselves prove that we sent men on the moon.
I understand that you've abandoned the samples claim, but this requires some comment. The Apollo explorations of the Moon completely revolutionized our understanding of the origin of the Moon and the evolution of the Earth-Moon system.
To say these conclusions had "limited implications" is, well, laughable. Taken together with your comments about the lunar samples and retroreflectors, I can only conclude that your understanding of the Apollo program is extremely limited.
Yet you freely accuse people here, many of whom have spent quite a bit of time and effort investigating the program and producing explanatory materials, of ignorance and being "NASA fanboys". In short, you're simply saying no one knows any more than you do; not the regulars here, not all the scientists and engineers who made Apollo happen and could have figured out if various aspects had been faked, and not the scientists and engineers (like me) who came afterward.
But that's not actually the case. The record is far wider and deeper than you understand, and there are people who actually understand the issues, and evidence-free assertions that they could have faked this or that - especially when you have no idea how it could have been done - simply don't carry any weight.
ETA: I guess it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 3, 2011 0:59:37 GMT -4
At bare minimum, Apollo has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any further than that, and you're moving into philosophy, not science. The philosophical concept relevant here is solipsism - the only thing that you're really sure exists is your own mind. If you claimed that your brain is actually floating in a vat somewhere, connected to a massive computer simulating everything you experience and reacting to everything you do, a la The Matrix, I couldn't disprove it. Even if I seemed to be standing right in front of you, I could just be one of the many things being simulated by that computer connected to your brain. This is all arguably true, but is it useful? Should you live your life differently because of this possibility? I'd say no. You simply have to make certain axiomatic assumptions about the nature of reality and live as though they were true -- because the other way lies madness. Science has proved itself through experience as the single most powerful tool we have for understanding the natural world around us. (It is not our only intellectual tool, as science specifically excludes morality, aesthetics, meaning, ethics, etc, from its scope; those topics are left for religion, the arts and philosophy.) But if you have a factual question about the world or universe, science is the tool to use. That includes questions about whether certain events actually happened, so forensics is (or at least should be) heavily based on scientific principles. Scientists are hardly infallible. They're just people who've agreed to follow certain time-tested rules as they try to understand the natural world. Like all people they can make mistakes. But the rules of science are specifically designed to maximize the chances of catching and correcting those mistakes so that over time a consensus can be reached. Coming back to solipsism, it's axiomatic in science that the objective universe really does exist, i.e., it's not just a figment of your imagination. It operates according to fixed rules that we can understand through empirical observation. I.e., science rejects solipsism even though it can't be rigorously disproved. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves, and that's not much fun even in simulation. Of those who demand such extreme levels of 'proof' for Apollo having been real, I'd like to ask this: do you live your whole life this way? If not, why the double standard? Is there some reason Apollo bothers you?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 3, 2011 2:39:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by slang on Mar 3, 2011 3:54:13 GMT -4
Alright, well, seriously, it's very unlikely, but that doesn't mean there aren't other explanations that I didn't think of that could be possible still. Gee. Didn't I predict you'd do this? And it didn't even take a full list. Silly kid. Let's, for the sake of the argument, assume that I right now present you with a list of international universities that examined each gram of Apollo lunar samples, complete with telephone numbers and all that would prove to you sufficiently without a shred of doubt that each and every sample did indeed come from the moon. Now be honest. At that point you will just claim that it is possible that NASA had developed sufficiently advanced remote controlled craft that brought the samples to Earth, or some other imaginary scheme that would fit the evidence without involving men on the moon. Right?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 3, 2011 8:47:05 GMT -4
In post #76, randombloke said:
In post #150, kimchijjigae said:
He shoots. He scores.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Mar 3, 2011 14:29:57 GMT -4
Someone has watched 'Dark Star' once too often.
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Mar 3, 2011 15:35:52 GMT -4
LOL Just like your 'rational' comments on YouTube... Youtube? I don't even go to that site. What are you talking about? Can you prove that?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2011 15:51:25 GMT -4
Just download or purchase an image processing software like photoshop and "enhance" it. That's all you have to do. I realize that this comment is now irrelevant--what a time to have my computer go out on me!--but I have to say, this is one of the stupidest arguments in the HB pantheon that doesn't lead to a suspicion of cognitive dissonance. "Enhance"? What does that even mean? What does it do to the picture? Why does it produce a valid result? Or how about "why is it more valid than the statement of people trained in photography and photogrammetry that the pictures are valid and show no signs of forgery?"
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 3, 2011 16:18:57 GMT -4
Not that it matter much for our OP, but I thought that our regulars might be interested in this. These are the sample catalogs. The first is the newer version and is flash driven, just pick a mission and sample and it will give some details and images. It also tells how much of the sample is still pristine. I noted that out of 698 samples gathered on Apollo 15, only 6% are still untouched. The second is the older non-flash version. Both are really useful because the PDF's they connect to (use the Lunar Sample Compendium button on the sample details page to get the PDF in the new version) are chock full of information about the sample, including images, slides if they have them, chemical made up and more, and right at the end, all the papers that have been written based on that sample. A veritable goldmine for anyone really interested in learning more about the samples. curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/samplecatalog/index.cfmwww.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/index.shtml
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Mar 3, 2011 16:58:26 GMT -4
"Enhance"? What does that even mean? What does it do to the picture? Why does it produce a valid result? I guess you know this gillianren. In hoax parlance, it means to fiddle around with contrast, brightness, colour correctness, gamma etc until you can see something in the photo and say 'oh look, a hot spot, therefore proving [insert words here].' You may at this point insert 'a secondary light source', 'front screen projection', 'wire supports' or 'post image processing' as your chosen words. It makes no difference that there is no rhyme or reason to jump to said conclusion, as it sounds good. Hope that helps
|
|