|
Post by nomuse on Aug 1, 2007 16:52:34 GMT -4
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 12, 2007 15:14:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Aug 12, 2007 15:57:17 GMT -4
Clavius analysis is correct. The shadows in that series of photos would be an impossibility if an artificial light source such as described by "Dr." Groves was used.
|
|
|
Post by VALIS on Aug 12, 2007 16:22:51 GMT -4
I didn't watch the whole video because they changed the subject after a while. However, I didn't see any analysis in the first 6 minutes, Groves just says he made an analysis and the results are a light 26 cm or so from the camera. I find his results weird, and I can't check how he reached them.
On the other hand Clavius gives a detailed explanation on why Groves' results are wrong. I can't find anything wrong with the explanation.
2-0 Clavius
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 12, 2007 16:33:19 GMT -4
rocky,
The clavius.org link is a response to the David Groves claims, which seems reasonable to me.
However i am interested in hearing your personal thoughts - perhaps you would be willing to point out what you believe the fallacies are in the clavius.org link?
(edit - fyi, i did watch all the youtube vid)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 12, 2007 20:11:55 GMT -4
I have a question for you, rocky. Where are the people who agree with you? Fifteen people have responded to the invitation to make their views known, and all of them disagree with you. I'd say it's pretty obvious what they think about the issues.
So why don't you ask sensible questions?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 12, 2007 20:23:19 GMT -4
Welcome back Rocky! From what I'm aware of, hot spots can occur in the shadowed area, and items in the shadowed areas can be lit up with reflected light. I've seem these cases demonstrated to me convincing me that there is no anomaly in the Apollo photographs. The question that you should ask rocky is that if NASA spent hundreds of billions of dollars on faked missions how would they commit such basic errors (if they were in fact such). I think the answer is that the missions weren't faked and all anomalies can be explained if you do the research. check out: www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htmI'm sure you cold duplicate these examples easily with your own camera.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 12, 2007 20:27:36 GMT -4
Groves just says he made an analysis and the results are a light 26 cm or so from the camera. I find his results weird, and I can't check how he reached them.
His method and computations are given in an appendix to David Percy's book Dark Moon. Percy maintains that you must buy both his book and his movie in order to understand his arguments fully.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 12, 2007 21:19:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 12, 2007 22:18:16 GMT -4
Groves just says he made an analysis and the results are a light 26 cm or so from the camera.
Well in a way he was right, the light was about 26cm from the camera, right where you'd find Armstrong's shoulder, the white spacesuit material reflecting the bright sunlight.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 12, 2007 23:04:07 GMT -4
As the originator of this thread, I would like to request that discussion of any particular claim, such as the photo-analysis issue, be taken to a separate thread. I would like to keep this thread specifically for lurkers and newcomers to introduce themselves and tell us how they have "judged" rocky's claims. (15-0 against so far.)
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on Aug 13, 2007 6:03:09 GMT -4
I've been lurking and viewing for a whgile, and just registered myself so thought I'd add my two penn-orth.
Yes, I believe we went to the Moon. I was born in 1960, was just about ood enough to understand what was going on in the Apollo flights, and remember some of the later Gemini flights. Space fascinated me from a very early age, and Astronomy is an ongoing hobby of mine (serious enough to start studying and taking exams in my spare time). The mountain of evidence that Apollo happened as advertised is overwhelming.
I, too, find the attitudes of the HB'ers astounding. But, unfortunately, we are dealing with faith rather than reason. Faith cannot be shaken by any application of external pressure, it has to be changed from within. Someone with deep faith will ignore or twist facts that tend to contravene their faith no matter how watertight those facts might be. In a way, a discussion with a HB'er is a waste of space (no pun intended) but, as has been mentioned before, the discussion may just convince the undecided lurkers to think seriously. We can but try.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 13, 2007 7:38:41 GMT -4
Welcome aboard ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:35:06 GMT -4
16-nil so far rocky. Where are your supporters?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 13, 2007 10:53:32 GMT -4
Welcome, ipearse, and thanks for chiming in.
16-0. I'm reminded of an (American) football coach, back in the good old days of the Southwest Conference, who was quoted thusly after his team suffered an especially bad defeat: "They whipped us 'til we cried. Then they whipped us for crying."
|
|