furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 15, 2007 18:18:24 GMT -4
I think it's glaringly obvious that the dirt in the video is not behaving as it would in an atmosphere in normal Earth gravity. I agree with Jasons post, 2 observational opinions posted without argument, that makes it 2-1 now if someone else could do that it would have saved us 298 posts ;D *Apologies for flippancy* Post Edit *I have the strangest feeling regarding Nevrophillic Equine flagellation*
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 15, 2007 18:39:01 GMT -4
Rocky, all your handwaving isn’t going to get you anywhere. In Post #336 I outlined what I think you need to do to prove your case.
(a) Please identify in the video a particle whose trajectory we can see and follow.
You can’t just point at a cloud of thousands of particles following thousands of overlapping trajectories and demand that we see what you want us to see. To argue that a particle is following some specific trajectory you have to identify and isolate a particle whose trajectory we can see and determine.
(b) What are the particle’s departure conditions and how did you determine them?
The departure conditions are needed to complete step (c).
(c) Given those conditions, what would be the particle’s trajectory in a vacuum?
You claim the particles don’t follow the trajectories they would in a vacuum. To make that comparison we need to know what the vacuum trajectory is.
(d) Compare the actual particle trajectory to the predicted trajectory and report the results.
Once you’ve identified a particle’s actual trajectory and determined its theoretical trajectory in a vacuum, we can compare those trajectories to see if there is a difference.
(e) Please provide your proof that the variance is explainable by the existence of an atmosphere.
If a difference between the actual and theoretical trajectories is observed, you have to show that the atmosphere would produce the observed deviation. If the deviation is not consistent with what we would expect an atmosphere to produce, the explanation likely lies elsewhere.
At least give us step (a), Rocky -- isolated a particle and show us its trajectory. If the trajectory is as obviously non-parabolic as you claim, perhaps you will win over a few converts. As it stands now, nobody is seeing what you claim to see.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jun 15, 2007 20:27:20 GMT -4
*I have the strangest feeling regarding Nevrophillic Equine flagellation*
I prefer the term "equine sado-necrobestiality".
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 15, 2007 21:03:29 GMT -4
If you really were objective truth-seeking scientists who believed your own arguments, you'd just do the measurements and calculations to prove that you were correct and put the whole matter to rest. We are not obliged to do your legwork. If you were objective and wanted this matter put to rest, you'd provide the diagrams and calculations and prove yourself right. Then why don't you show them your calculations that you claimed to have done way back near the start of this thread? So why is it unacceptable for us to say the opposite, and that no calculations are necessary from us either? If your definition of diversionary tactic is demanding support for your arguments, then I guess it is. The true diversionary tactician here, however, is you. You do not accept any arguments against you, you drive us round in circles, and your only argument is that it is 'obvious'. Confronted with several new members who agreed with us and not you, you sweep them under the rug. You have demonstrated yourself utterly INCAPABLE of rational argument. They are, and they have. You are not coming out of this as well as your deluded mind believes you are.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 15, 2007 21:09:52 GMT -4
*I have the strangest feeling regarding Nevrophillic Equine flagellation*I prefer the term "equine sado-necrobestiality". You seem to be doing something to that piece of carrion, that I have not yet explored. although the your act expressed in the vulgar tongue is pretty much my sentiment.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 15, 2007 22:01:43 GMT -4
Lets look at the evidence...
Pro Apollo...100s of thousands of documents, NASA, Universities, scientific journals, et al, saying that the science and engineering behind Apollo is real, realistic, conforming with known science and technology.
HBs...Hoax sites (which misinterpret NASA evidence because "it looks like"), and HBs who know sqwat about anything about science, math, engineering, all of which are the basis of going to the Moon.
You won't do the math. You are NOT a photo analyist any more than me. You say it doesn't look parabolic (based on a lousy youtube video), I (we) says it does. The overwhelming evidence says it happened, the ignorant, contraversialists with zero data says it didn't. You haven't looked at any of our evidence, we KNOW all of yours very well. This is embarrassingly one sided.
Burden of proof dude...prove your premise.
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Jun 15, 2007 23:27:12 GMT -4
These people are most likely either friends of yours or just the same regulars here using different names. In the interest of disclosure I am the same regular as that I have been posting. I must be candid and admit I cannot offer an affirmative proof determining the ballistics of dust particles using only three decade old footage of insufficient resolution. The best I can make out are clouds of thousands of particles. The motion of a particular mote, as it bumps and jostles others near it, is utterly lost to me. What I see is a net motion of a system of dust grains and I'm completely helpless - unlike you, rocky - to focus on a particular speck, observe its initial velocity, discern its mass and that of others colliding with it, manage the thousands of vector calculations and definitively infer the presence of an atmosphere. To put a final coup de grace on the whole matter, you might estimate the density of the atmosphere and use that to determine the altitude of the sound stage the rover footage had made - what's your word - obvious use of and match that to suspected sites where the hoax was produced. That, as they say, would be one more myth busted.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 16, 2007 0:22:45 GMT -4
You know the fact that even the other HB's on the board aren't coming to Rocky's defence is also very telling. Not only has not one of the people he thinks are laughing at us bothered to pipe up in support of him, but the ones that should be all over this if it was as obvious as he claims aren't here.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 16, 2007 0:50:11 GMT -4
Rocky probably believes that he is the only real conspiracy believer here, and that the others that pop up from time to time must be government-paid shills who's goal is to make the hoax believers look bad, since they haven't spoken in his defense.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 16, 2007 1:52:03 GMT -4
I should also state - in the spirit of disclosure - that this is the one and only registration I have here, and is the only one I have ever posted under.
In spirit of Bart Sibrel, I make this statement under pain of treason, civil litigation, wrath of God, and loss of library privileges.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 16, 2007 6:57:51 GMT -4
Rocky probably believes that he is the only real conspiracy believer here, and that the others that pop up from time to time must be government-paid shills who's goal is to make the hoax believers look bad, since they haven't spoken in his defense. Perhaps Rocky is a "government-paid shill who's goal is to make the hoax believers look bad". He has certainly failed miserably if his aim is to make the hoax look good. If you're still counting votes, Rocky, here's another who says he see's no evidence of atmosphere in the clip.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 16, 2007 16:39:33 GMT -4
In spirit of Bart Sibrel, I make this statement under pain of treason, civil litigation, wrath of God, and loss of library privileges. No! Not loss of library privileges! I'm only up to "c" in their DVD collection! I, personally, am not yet so pathetic and bored that I would bother creating a sock puppet to agree with myself. And my friends are pretty uninterested in the whole thing--though some of the stories of HB behaviour that I tell them do amuse them.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jun 16, 2007 18:10:26 GMT -4
Yesterday I watched an episode of the "12 days that shook the world" series on the History channel - the topic for this one being Apollo.
Apart from seeing Neil (HB: "never gives an interview") Armstrong being interviewed, I also watched the last man on the moon running around.
I wasn't quite sure if it was an artifact or not, but it sure seemed to me like stuff being kicked up by his feet at a low-angle was bouncing. That is, the soil was "parabolarising" off, and bouncing up again.
If opinions count for anything, that looked a lot to me like stuff not being slowed down by being in air.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jun 16, 2007 18:18:26 GMT -4
Thanks pzkpfw, you have just provided me with my new word of the week ... \off to find somewhere to use Parabolarising ...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 16, 2007 23:37:25 GMT -4
Please don't ask me why I'm watching Superman 2, but their dust is aerosolizing all over the place. I could make a whole laundry list of unconvincing effects in the lunar surface scene, but every time an actor shuffles there is a very noticeable billow of dust that hangs in the air through the entire shot, even after the rest of the material has fallen to the ground.
|
|