|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 13:59:34 GMT -4
My copy is very heavy. It seems to work well for pressing leaves, which is a fun thing to do this time of year.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Oct 9, 2007 15:19:56 GMT -4
By the way take a look at the photo on page 22 dark moon. Fig 19a shows some trees. the center tree shadow has a slight bend in. A straight vertical tree trunk and a bent shadow. Oh look theres a depression in the ground. Bennett and Percy may have shot themselves in their own foot. Obviously you're not part of the target audience of the book. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 16:54:16 GMT -4
It's not the first time they've committed that particular error.
While discussing varying shadow lengths in the 16mm DAC footage, Percy argued that the slope and variation in the terrain could not have affected the shadows because the ground in that area was flat. He presented a small copy of one of the 70mm stills as documentation of the "flat" ground. And he fell suspiciously silent when the larger version of the same photo was supplied in which the shadow of the flagpole was obviously not straight. Apparently he was unable to explain how a straight rod could cast a crooked shadow onto a "perfectly flat" piece of terrain.
We have stereograms of Apollo photographs taken from stereo pairs that show quite clearly how invisible most of the lunar terrain variation is to a monocular vision. A similar procedure was done several years ago for Martian surface photography.
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 10, 2007 14:14:40 GMT -4
I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing that this photo has the depression in the ground. All that tech stuff that they mention in TDM just seems to be going around in circles that come to dead ends. and there is no beginning, middle or end and the plot is lost after the first page. And as for the crop circles and the face on mars whats that got to do with landing on the moon. Definatly not a fan or TDM. I even tried composing my own chest mounted photography a few years back with a friend wearing a motorcycle helmet. and whether it was taken from the chest or by eye level. The two photos were nearly identical. even trying it on top of a raised piece of ground or in a depression, they did'nt seem to be any difference wat soever. Sadly however I have lost those pictures.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 14:54:01 GMT -4
My biggest criticism of Dark Moon is that it tries to discuss every fringe theory at once. Or, as some critics have said of the same situation in other books: the covers are too far apart.
Dark Moon says nothing because it tries to say everything. The authors defend its volume by saying that in order to understand any particular piece, you have to see the whole puzzle and how each piece fits. Which, of course, is just trying to excuse blatant handwaving. The authors can't make a single point stick without framing it lavishly in a whole web of other conjecture, so they make a colossal house -- nay, a mansion -- of cards and chastise anyone who tries to pick at one point as having too fine a perspective.
The 500+ pages of text and 4+ hours of film ensure that it can't be experienced in one, or even a few sittings. That convenientlly allows readers and viewers to forget the details of the previous sittings that contradict what's said in subsequent ones. Dark Moon is full of contradictions, many of which are documented in the sticky thread in this forum. But if you spread out the contradictory details amidst a field of irrelevant crap, each point seems valid in its widely-separated context.
And I think the sheer volume of their material is aimed at ensuring no one tackles it critically on the same scale. People like me will always find some section or chapter that constitutes a refutable unit and address it, leaving Percy and Bennett free to ineffectually complain, "But Jay didn't address our entire argument."
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 11, 2007 13:52:55 GMT -4
I tried reading the book from cover to cover but when i always picked it up i'd read the page that i opened it at. but like i say the more read nothing ever made any sense. you just get lost in all the mish mash.
the Japanese launched a probe to the moon a few years back. i understand that it was going to photograph the whole of the moon. not just a brief photgraphic trip but a full indepth close up in full detail of the moon surface.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 11, 2007 15:53:11 GMT -4
the Japanese launched a probe to the moon a few years back. i understand that it was going to photograph the whole of the moon. not just a brief photgraphic trip but a full indepth close up in full detail of the moon surface. The Japanese mission was delayed and only reached lunar orbit last week. It has yet to start the survey.
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 11, 2007 16:15:38 GMT -4
do you kno any details of the mission.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 11, 2007 17:13:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 12, 2007 17:49:03 GMT -4
Thanx for the link, much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 18, 2007 14:26:23 GMT -4
By the way take a look at the photo on page 22 dark moon. Fig 19a shows some trees. the center tree shadow has a slight bend in. A straight vertical tree trunk and a bent shadow. Oh look theres a depression in the ground. Bennett and Percy may have shot themselves in their own foot. Obviously you're not part of the target audience of the book. ;D Was recomended the book buy a friend who was a bufora investigator. but was told to read with an open mind and not to believe all you read from it. He did say that it gets a bit wierd towards the back of the book and that you will get lost in all that so called tech stuff contained within.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 18, 2007 15:21:03 GMT -4
When someone tells me to read something "with an open mind," that's usually an indication I'll be subjected to unsubstantiated claims, specious reasoning, and liberal portions of FUD. I don't like it when people urge me to suspend my natural caution.
The "technical stuff" is mostly technobabble. It has little real meaning, and the authors know it. It's meant only to impress people who want to have some reason to believe there's a technical justification to all the moon hoax stuff.
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 19, 2007 16:57:19 GMT -4
I can,t run me friend down for the recomendation. But as a bufora investigator most of his investigations seemed to be identified in the end or a more 'down to earth' plausible explanation. . He was a keen aviation enthusiast. Sadley though he passed away a few years back to a heart attack. When he recomended that book he did laugh after saying read with an open mind, as to all the content of the book. Has any one on Clavius mentioned about the Avebury hill and Cydonia having 'connections between the two.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2007 17:21:38 GMT -4
Clavius deals only with the moon landing hoax theory. There's plenty else in Dark Moon that could be rebutted, but I don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by quatermain on Oct 21, 2007 4:44:08 GMT -4
Ok will steer clear of that. Thanks.
|
|