Post by JayUtah on Jun 4, 2007 9:50:34 GMT -4
Part of the plan for a hoax this size would require the fabrication of large amounts of data.
And the subsequent use of that data by thousands of private companies the world in countries not at all friendly to the United States, in the course of billions of dollars of commerce a year. Why haven't they figured out yet that the data are bogus as you claim?
You're simply rewriting large amounts of reality to make your delusion seem real.
Your explanations don't make sense.
That's because you're ignorant, and you admit that you're ignorant.
I've seen lot's of photos of reflections of the sun on convex surfaces and I've never seen anything such as you described.
Wrong. Photos were posted in the thread along with instructions for producing them.
Of course, I can try taking a picture of one myself but it seems like such an obvious waste of time that I'm going to wait for someone to confirm it.
Sounds more like you're going to wait for a YouTube video that tells you want to believe. Your utter unwillingness to learn and experiment is why you'll forever be at the mercy of conspiracy theorists.
There's lots of other proof such as the wire glints...
Thoroughly explained. Your rebuttal to the explanation was that all the other glints that don't fit our explanation but would have fit yours "must" have been airbrushed out. In other words, you speculate that there might exist evidence in your favor. Pure wishful thinking.
And as others have noticed, this is video. It's hard to imagine anyone in this day and age who hasn't used a video camera, so I have to wonder why you think airbrushing something out of video is possible. And as a minor point, airbrushes are most useful for making gentle gradients. A regular brush would work better in this case. That is, if it were possible to "brush" out details in video at all.
issue of the difference in body movements that I mentioned in reply #2.
Pure conjecture. No response needed.
This is mere rhetoric.
No, it's your well-established modus operandi. Every time you open a new Apollo topic, you try to make it on a scientific principle so you can assert how smart you are about your anti-Apollo beliefs.
But in very short order others demonstrate considerably more scientific knowledge than you that leads them to different conclusions. You try for a while to bluster your version of the science, but when you get bombarded with questions you just can't answer, that's when you try to allude to the bigger grand conspiracy that produces reams of bogus data and hundreds or thousands of self-protective spin doctors.
And you drag in all the other anti-government conspiracy theories that you hope will bolster your claim through guilt by association. But the problem is and has always been that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscientific just because it came from YouTube.
Not what I said. Your claims are both pseudoscientific and they come from YouTube. The two don't have to be causally related; but in your case they're both true.
Jay I want to ask your opinion of the alleged science fraud described here in this video.
Irrelevant. I told you I'm not taking your silly litmus tests. Stay on the subject.
You're an expert with lots of experience in science so I'd like to hear your opinion of what is alleged here and please don't say it's not relevant to Apollo.
It's not relevant to Apollo.
Yes, I know it's possible for there to be fraud in one project and not another. That's not my point.
But it's my point, and why it's not relevant to Apollo.
If you bring up specific evidence of a putative scientific nature and it fails scientific scrutiny, you can't build a shadowy case based on some other anti-science allegation or on vague handwaving accusations of the general dishonesty of science. Either deal with the evidence that specifically applies to your claim, or withdraw the claim. It's really that simple.
I just want you to give your opinion of the fraud allegations as you are a scientist.
Hogwash.
You want me to weigh in on a controversial subject so that you can use my answer to discredit me. If I agree with you, you use it to try to undermine my irrelevant belief elsewhere. If I disagree with you, that's grounds for calling me 'insincere" or "biased."
And if I refuse to answer, you will say that I refuse to have my sincerity tested, which begs the question that this is what your exercise is designed to do in the first place.
Believe me, I'm very familiar with the silly high-school debate tricks most conspiracy theorists use. Now that your ridiculous litmus test is exposed for what it is, will you please forget about it and concentrate on your Apollo claims.
Anyone who doesn't see anything strange in the astronauts' behavior in those videos is less than objective.
"I am going to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with me."
Sorry, your inability to convince with a purely subjective claim is your own fault.
What we need is an objective panel of judges to decide whose opinion reflects reality.
No, that's what you say that you need. I certainly don't need it because I'm comfortable and confident in my grasp of the behavior of the natural world.
I'm not satisfied with very much of what you say.
Only because you don't like the answers. They eat into the illusion you've built for yourself, so the only way you can save the little bubble of delusion and make it still seem real to you is to suggest that we're part of the evil outside world and to hold out hope that some future event will solidify that belief for you.
Exposure time just increases the glare that surrounds the reflection. It does not increase the size of the reflection.
The white spot on the film includes both the reflection itself and the glare, both of which saturate the film thus rendering them indistinguishable. Because this demonstrably occurs, not all whiteness on film can be attributed to the reflection alone as you and Percy have done. This was explained at exhaustive length, demonstrated empirically, and instructions given for demonstrating it yourself.
I'm still waiting to talk to an objective third party on this one though.
Still waiting for that YouTube video to come along and save your sinking ship on this point.
As the opinion of a qualified objective third party is still pending...
It's not pending on my account. I need no such opinion.
Your first party (David Percy) is not qualified. He has demonstrated no appropriate knowledge of optics or film response, and he has refused to discuss the matter with me or with any other qualified photographers.
Your second party (me) is qualified, and has given you a fully-detailed explanation including examples and instructions for reproducing the effects. You ignored them.
Further, this is not a case in which you are haplessly in the middle, torn between two equally plausible and equally qualified opinions. You have quite clearly sided with David Percy on no stronger grounds than that he tells you what you want to hear. (You admitted as much.) You apply much more stringent tests to one side than the other, indicating your favor. This is most certainly not a case of a confused layman pleading, "Whom of these feuding parties shall I believe?"
Sorry, yours is not a question legitimately open and waiting for verification. This is a case in which your claims have been soundly refuted, and you are simply unwilling to admit it. Your allusion to some promised-land third-party panel is simply a ploy to delay that concession indefinitely. If you are unwilling to concede that your arguments have failed when sufficient refutation is given, then you do not deserve the attention of civilized people.
I'd like to concentrate on the other evidence I mentioned in this thread.
I'd like instead to keep pressing you on this particular issue, since you're the one who keeps bringing it up.
If you believe that some third party will rule in Percy's favor and against my opinion, then you must believe there is something scientifically wrong with my opinion and that the third-party panel will identify it. What specifically do you believe is wrong scientifically with my opinion and on what grounds?
Why haven't you tried to demonstrate any of those flare effects yourself?
Why haven't you explained the photographs I posted, that demonstrate exactly the effect I said would occur?
Let's say a third-party panel convenes to rule between your theory and mine. What's to guarantee you won't simply call them biased -- as you always do -- if they should happen to rule against you? Your judgment of bias is based entirely on whether someone agrees with you! You define "objective" as "agrees with me," so why should anyone who disagrees with you consent to the judgment of such a panel?
You expend a great deal of effort avoiding a meaningful examination of your specific claims. It grows tiresome.
And the subsequent use of that data by thousands of private companies the world in countries not at all friendly to the United States, in the course of billions of dollars of commerce a year. Why haven't they figured out yet that the data are bogus as you claim?
You're simply rewriting large amounts of reality to make your delusion seem real.
Your explanations don't make sense.
That's because you're ignorant, and you admit that you're ignorant.
I've seen lot's of photos of reflections of the sun on convex surfaces and I've never seen anything such as you described.
Wrong. Photos were posted in the thread along with instructions for producing them.
Of course, I can try taking a picture of one myself but it seems like such an obvious waste of time that I'm going to wait for someone to confirm it.
Sounds more like you're going to wait for a YouTube video that tells you want to believe. Your utter unwillingness to learn and experiment is why you'll forever be at the mercy of conspiracy theorists.
There's lots of other proof such as the wire glints...
Thoroughly explained. Your rebuttal to the explanation was that all the other glints that don't fit our explanation but would have fit yours "must" have been airbrushed out. In other words, you speculate that there might exist evidence in your favor. Pure wishful thinking.
And as others have noticed, this is video. It's hard to imagine anyone in this day and age who hasn't used a video camera, so I have to wonder why you think airbrushing something out of video is possible. And as a minor point, airbrushes are most useful for making gentle gradients. A regular brush would work better in this case. That is, if it were possible to "brush" out details in video at all.
issue of the difference in body movements that I mentioned in reply #2.
Pure conjecture. No response needed.
This is mere rhetoric.
No, it's your well-established modus operandi. Every time you open a new Apollo topic, you try to make it on a scientific principle so you can assert how smart you are about your anti-Apollo beliefs.
But in very short order others demonstrate considerably more scientific knowledge than you that leads them to different conclusions. You try for a while to bluster your version of the science, but when you get bombarded with questions you just can't answer, that's when you try to allude to the bigger grand conspiracy that produces reams of bogus data and hundreds or thousands of self-protective spin doctors.
And you drag in all the other anti-government conspiracy theories that you hope will bolster your claim through guilt by association. But the problem is and has always been that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I wouldn't call it pseudoscientific just because it came from YouTube.
Not what I said. Your claims are both pseudoscientific and they come from YouTube. The two don't have to be causally related; but in your case they're both true.
Jay I want to ask your opinion of the alleged science fraud described here in this video.
Irrelevant. I told you I'm not taking your silly litmus tests. Stay on the subject.
You're an expert with lots of experience in science so I'd like to hear your opinion of what is alleged here and please don't say it's not relevant to Apollo.
It's not relevant to Apollo.
Yes, I know it's possible for there to be fraud in one project and not another. That's not my point.
But it's my point, and why it's not relevant to Apollo.
If you bring up specific evidence of a putative scientific nature and it fails scientific scrutiny, you can't build a shadowy case based on some other anti-science allegation or on vague handwaving accusations of the general dishonesty of science. Either deal with the evidence that specifically applies to your claim, or withdraw the claim. It's really that simple.
I just want you to give your opinion of the fraud allegations as you are a scientist.
Hogwash.
You want me to weigh in on a controversial subject so that you can use my answer to discredit me. If I agree with you, you use it to try to undermine my irrelevant belief elsewhere. If I disagree with you, that's grounds for calling me 'insincere" or "biased."
And if I refuse to answer, you will say that I refuse to have my sincerity tested, which begs the question that this is what your exercise is designed to do in the first place.
Believe me, I'm very familiar with the silly high-school debate tricks most conspiracy theorists use. Now that your ridiculous litmus test is exposed for what it is, will you please forget about it and concentrate on your Apollo claims.
Anyone who doesn't see anything strange in the astronauts' behavior in those videos is less than objective.
"I am going to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with me."
Sorry, your inability to convince with a purely subjective claim is your own fault.
What we need is an objective panel of judges to decide whose opinion reflects reality.
No, that's what you say that you need. I certainly don't need it because I'm comfortable and confident in my grasp of the behavior of the natural world.
I'm not satisfied with very much of what you say.
Only because you don't like the answers. They eat into the illusion you've built for yourself, so the only way you can save the little bubble of delusion and make it still seem real to you is to suggest that we're part of the evil outside world and to hold out hope that some future event will solidify that belief for you.
Exposure time just increases the glare that surrounds the reflection. It does not increase the size of the reflection.
The white spot on the film includes both the reflection itself and the glare, both of which saturate the film thus rendering them indistinguishable. Because this demonstrably occurs, not all whiteness on film can be attributed to the reflection alone as you and Percy have done. This was explained at exhaustive length, demonstrated empirically, and instructions given for demonstrating it yourself.
I'm still waiting to talk to an objective third party on this one though.
Still waiting for that YouTube video to come along and save your sinking ship on this point.
As the opinion of a qualified objective third party is still pending...
It's not pending on my account. I need no such opinion.
Your first party (David Percy) is not qualified. He has demonstrated no appropriate knowledge of optics or film response, and he has refused to discuss the matter with me or with any other qualified photographers.
Your second party (me) is qualified, and has given you a fully-detailed explanation including examples and instructions for reproducing the effects. You ignored them.
Further, this is not a case in which you are haplessly in the middle, torn between two equally plausible and equally qualified opinions. You have quite clearly sided with David Percy on no stronger grounds than that he tells you what you want to hear. (You admitted as much.) You apply much more stringent tests to one side than the other, indicating your favor. This is most certainly not a case of a confused layman pleading, "Whom of these feuding parties shall I believe?"
Sorry, yours is not a question legitimately open and waiting for verification. This is a case in which your claims have been soundly refuted, and you are simply unwilling to admit it. Your allusion to some promised-land third-party panel is simply a ploy to delay that concession indefinitely. If you are unwilling to concede that your arguments have failed when sufficient refutation is given, then you do not deserve the attention of civilized people.
I'd like to concentrate on the other evidence I mentioned in this thread.
I'd like instead to keep pressing you on this particular issue, since you're the one who keeps bringing it up.
If you believe that some third party will rule in Percy's favor and against my opinion, then you must believe there is something scientifically wrong with my opinion and that the third-party panel will identify it. What specifically do you believe is wrong scientifically with my opinion and on what grounds?
Why haven't you tried to demonstrate any of those flare effects yourself?
Why haven't you explained the photographs I posted, that demonstrate exactly the effect I said would occur?
Let's say a third-party panel convenes to rule between your theory and mine. What's to guarantee you won't simply call them biased -- as you always do -- if they should happen to rule against you? Your judgment of bias is based entirely on whether someone agrees with you! You define "objective" as "agrees with me," so why should anyone who disagrees with you consent to the judgment of such a panel?
You expend a great deal of effort avoiding a meaningful examination of your specific claims. It grows tiresome.