|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 12:39:27 GMT -4
Look at that! A regular poster is actually going out on a limb providing real arguments following one of my posts! Congratulation JayUtah, you might actually learn something! Couldn’t you just have spared us days of empty rhetoric and post your opinion right after my first post? I wonder why you are coming with this 3 hours after LunarOrbit has threaten to ban me if I don’t, for lack of better words, comply with the main views on this forum and lose my nasty “attitude”? Are you posting this now to make sure you actually appear to have tried to discuss this issue just before I conveniently disappear from this forum? I am not implying you did just that, but I seriously wonder about it. I will comment on your post since you have provided some resemblance of “substance”, but I will say, once again, that I am pretty bored with the “multiple reflections on multiple visor layers” copout. You actually epitomize what is wrong with the Apollogists. Why concentrate on the “spherical” term or on pixel interpolation degradation of the footage? Why not discuss reflections on visors in Apollo missions in general? Are you scared of what we would find? Why not determine if the “multiple reflections on multiple surfaces of the visor assembly” is a behaviour that is common in footage from moon missions? Don’t you think this is at least remotely interesting? Don’t you think this could actually serve a purpose for future hoax debunking? What about photographic or video evidence of multiple reflections in other Apollo missions? Can *you* provide other occurrences so we can see how it fits the theoretical premise that is so proudly presented on this forum with such confidence? Why are you satisfied with your own “best” explanation for the sun reflection(s) in this video? Do you think science evolves with the “best explanation” being the end of every quest? “It’s just multiple reflections on multiple surfaces and if you don’t like this explanation, then that’s the end of the discussion” just won’t work with me because, contrary to you, that is not the way I approach a dilemma. And what about the sole imprints? Don’t you have a way to copout of that one too? Don’t you have a minute meticulously picked detail you can cling onto to avert discussion? Here are some sole imprints that are apparently impossible to be seen (according to many Apollogists) on “poor quality” Apollo movies: [history.nasa.gov is down right now. I will add the link to the footage later on.]<Text added after original posting> history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1252239.rm(You can clearly see sole imprints at time 1:00. I am looking for this type of imprints seen behind an astronaut that is moving over a distance of at least a few feet while jumping and hopping the usual way. The footage seen at time 2:00 in this particular video does not allow good conclusion about the nature of the imprints left behind. I am looking for more evidence to draw my own conclusions. And yes, I searched extensively myself, but that does not imply that better evidence cannot be found.) </Text added after original posting> Now, YOU find me some footage showing one astronaut making this type of sole imprint while he is on the move jumping and hopping over a distance of several feet and I will concede that the clear, well define imprints we see on photographs like these are at least remotely possible: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co....e_U.S._Flag.jpgOtherwise, I still hold my views (even if that causes me to be banned) that photographic sole imprints are bogus and unconceivable for anyone who has a clue about how sole imprints are being produced while hopping and jumping on a surface that is not a solid. If you still want to live in Apollo wonderland, that is your prerogative, but don’t expect people who work with basic logic to argue endlessly with your empty arguments and your “shift of burden of proof” wall of protection. If you can’t provide any decent proof of multiple reflections on visor assemblies on the moon besides the movie I linked to (which you obviously showed no qualification to analyze by yourself – see your previous post on primary and secondary reflections), than you are basically basing your argumentation on no facts at all. Did you actually research this issue? Did you ever discuss this issue with anyone who doesn’t agree with you? Do you care that you are making such sweeping statements without any evidence? Does that make you a dangerous “expert” on this forum? Yes it does. Same with the sole imprints, if you haven’t seen any astronaut produce, *live on film*, at least a few consecutive clear, well defined sole imprints with such a level of x and y stability while hopping and jumping over a distance of at least a few feet (when you NOW know that video footage in capable of showing sole imprints), than you basically have no evidence to maintain your belief that such perfect imprints can be produced in those conditions. Photographic evidence of a static moment in time does not in any way represent a dynamic process. Don’t get me wrong, I am very opened to the idea of revising my views pending on any evidence clearly showing that I am wrong. I do mean real evidence though, not the “it is multiple reflections and if you don’t believe this you are wrong” or the “Neil was recorded as saying that…” type of assertion. If I am wrong, show me that this is the case with evidence and I will move on to other claims or maybe even start considering that my views on the Apollo missions have to be revised. Otherwise, spare me your pseudo “you have alternative motives” analysis, your empty rhetoric and your “expert” futile picky concerns about pixel interpolation when it is clear that you know very well what I am looking for and what is ultimately needed to be produced for you to keep holding your position without being perceived as person who just believes based on faith. Now, can we discuss these issues please? Thanks ews
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 12:53:28 GMT -4
I assume these parameters are so because I do not agree with the multiple reflections theory that is presented by the regular posters on this forum. Assuming allows for discussion without having to conform to premises.
If anyone can post a link to the closest to the original version, we can go on discussing relative or absolute intensity of a better version of the footage. In the footage we are presently referring to, the “spherical aberration” on the far right is the most intense within that cluster of 4 reflections.
That being said, a discussion on multiple reflections of the sun, in this particular case, seems totally fruitless, but that is the only theory that is being discussed on this forum for the moment. As you might know, people here have asked that I give a complete detailed explanation of what the reflections are if not multiple reflections of the sun, but I have no particular theories about an alternative explanation right now. I suppose that makes me a bogus HB that has no clue for people posting on the present forum.
ews
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 15, 2008 13:37:17 GMT -4
Congratulation JayUtah, you might actually learn something! Couldn’t you just have spared us days of empty rhetoric...
I didn't read any further. Your abrasive and condescending attitude does not belong in polite company.
Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 15, 2008 15:17:25 GMT -4
ews,
Have you gone through the thousands of photos in the photographic record on the web? They are readily available. There are many different sorts of footprints visible...some very crisp and clear, some "damaged", and some obliterated. It's all about when they were created, when they were photographed, and what happened in the intervening time.
The powdery surface was very compatable with clear, fine grained footprints.
edit...they were not constantly hopping and loping across the surface, much of the time was in small gentle, careful steps...watch the footage.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 15, 2008 15:55:49 GMT -4
I don't think you understand, EWS. You don't have to agree that Apollo happened, though anyone with any historical perspective and scientific awareness should. Disagree. Have at. Just be polite about it.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 15:58:33 GMT -4
scooter,
Nope. And I do not believe that it is useful to go through thousands of pictures to settle this problem that I have with sole imprints made “live”. I am actually looking for the best sole imprints that anyone has seen an astronaut make live on video (with conditions that I repeatedly stated earlier) if they happen to have any in mind. Others who are interested in this matter might want to do some research to find some relevant footage since I did not find any (although, *once again*, it certainly might exist). Evidently, I am not expecting the same resolution as what we see on pictures. That is it. That is all I am asking about as far as sole imprints are concerned.
I don’t recall seeing much of, or if any at all “small gentle, careful steps” when astronauts are seen moving over a distance of at least several feet. Would you have examples of such movements?
Thanks
ews
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 15, 2008 17:30:41 GMT -4
I don’t recall seeing much of, or if any at all “small gentle, careful steps” when astronauts are seen moving over a distance of at least several feet. Would you have examples of such movements? Thanks ews Well, Harrison Schmitt takes very careful steps in the video clips on this page (he's in the middle of a boulder field). history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.sta5.htmlAnd in the video on this page (go down to 118:49:36), Schmitt walks somewhat slowly because he's carrying the heavy ALSEP. history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.alsepoff.htmlIf you go to www.apolloarchive.com, click on Apollo Multimedia, and look at the video from Apollo 11, there's a video labeled "Armstrong during first few minutes of EVA as filmed from 16mm camera in LM window (silent)." At about 25 seconds into this video, you see Armstrong make a clear footprint.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 15, 2008 18:23:54 GMT -4
I am actually looking for the best sole imprints that anyone has seen an astronaut make live on video (with conditions that I repeatedly stated earlier)...
When do you plan to answer all the questions about your expectations on this point? The ones you dismissed as "empty rhetoric?"
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 19:33:22 GMT -4
gillianren,
I do not consider that I have to be polite with anyone who wrongly maintains accusations of alternative motives after I repeatedly stated to have none. People who go that way will receive similar treatment from me if they don’t stop. That is what happened here. If I get banned for replying to unjustified accusations after I clearly stated many times that they are unfunded, then be it. Such is life on a Web forum. You have to live with the rules of the moderator whether you like it or not. I respect that, but I respect myself a little more and I will not be abused on here or anywhere else. If LunarOrbit wants me to debate *his way* and he wants to force some alternative motives out of me because he is the moderator, he might as well ban me right now because he is looking for something that does not exist. Every single question I have asked on this forum so far has been an occasion for certain posters (especially the regular watchdogs) to infer that I do have alternative motives or that I pretend to be someone that I am not. Without proper evidence to back such claims it is completely uncalled for and it is considered a violation of good Usenet or Web forum etiquette. If LunarOrbit allows people to abuse me or if he continues to do it himself (ban threats are to be used responsibly and for very good reasons), that is just a reflection (no puns intended…) on the nature of the forum he moderates; “Treat every HB who ask a question like a moron who actually has a big secret hoax scheme evolving boots at the end of a 12 foot pole to make sole imprints in a studio sandbox”. I have no big scheme and I have no theories on how the sole imprints or reflections were falsified. What do regulars here want me to do? Make some up? All I have are questions. What should I do? Not ask any because they can only be answered if coupled with an elaborate hoax scheme? I don’t have an attitude when people serve me decent arguments. I develop an attitude when a person who disagrees with me and clearly has the brains to discuss the matter openly, prefers to protect him(her)self behind rhetoric and false accusations.
I invite you to read (again?) the first post on this thread and judge for yourself if I have been thoroughly opened about my intentions from the start. The reality on this matter is that many regulars here try to put HBs in a defensive position from the get go and then take any advantage from any weaknesses they perceive (even if it doesn’t pertain to the debate) while they don’t commit themselves with anything to avoid scrutiny.
I don’t agree that, in the footage I provided, multiple reflections of one object, the sun, on two layers (two layers is what most Apollogists will describe) of reflective material is a valid proposition to explain what we see. It makes no sense to me and I don’t care for discussing this theory anymore (although I’ve been dragged into it once again) because I have been there several times with Apollogists who haven’t researched this at all, but who will still not agree to look into it because of the implications. Apollogists then invariably fall back to the lack of resolution, the image degradation, the fact the there is only one sun in space… And then that is pretty much the end of the debate. Therefore, I am trying to get to another level of the debate by looking for other possible explanations. People can still discuss the multiple reflection theory to their heart’s delight; I have no problem with that, but that is not what I came here for. You see, we started to discuss multiple reflections in more details in the last few posts and pretty soon the thread will be exhausted without having addressed any other possible explanation.
ews
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 19:41:39 GMT -4
JayUtah, You actually have confessed to have stopped reading an elaborated post (where I was replying to you) after you got to the third sentence. Maybe what you are looking for is in there.
People who provide me with substance get substance from me. Please quit it, you are not looking too good right now.
ews
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 15, 2008 19:42:29 GMT -4
Ah, the martyr act. Right on schedule. If you have been treated badly it is because you as much as asked for it. Your first two questions were explain these reflections but "I'm not interested in the most likely explanation" and explain how they made clear footprints when hopping and jumping and then ignoring the fact that they didn't always hop or jump. They often moved slowly and carefully. You then proceded to insult some of the posters here because they dared to point out the same things I just did. If you weren't acting so pigheaded people might treat you with more respect but so far you seem to have gotten what you deserve.
|
|
|
Post by ews on Nov 15, 2008 19:47:42 GMT -4
I would not describe any part of what I saw on the page (I looked at most parts of 3 films) or in the two videos you provided links to, as “small gentle, careful steps” while moving over a distance of several feet. Think of a cat slowly advancing towards a pray or how you would walk on a wooden floor to avoid a cracking sound. That is “gentle, careful steps”. As for the “small” component, that is debatable.
By the way, I am not saying that no footsteps can be seen in Apollo footage. Please read my last post to JayUtah for information on what I am claiming is hard to find. Thanks for providing clear direct links to the footage you are referring to instead of just telling me that it exists somewhere. I appreciate that.
s
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Nov 15, 2008 20:32:01 GMT -4
why don't you tell us what you think aboutthe footprints and reflections? WHy do you know theat apollo is a hoax? THere must be more of a reason than a few footprints.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 15, 2008 20:38:47 GMT -4
Think of a cat slowly advancing towards a pray or how you would walk on a wooden floor to avoid a cracking sound. That is “gentle, careful steps”. As for the “small” component, that is debatable. Well, at about the 2:15 mark in this video when James Irwin walks off camera, he walks somewhat slowly and carefully because he just dug a trench and doesn't want to kick dirt into it. history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1480712.rmAnother Apollo 15 clip: history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1480138.rmIn the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal text for this clip (linked below), Eric Jones specifically mentions that Irwin "starts to walk carefully toward the gnomon." history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.sta8.html#1480138
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 15, 2008 20:58:12 GMT -4
JayUtah, You actually have confessed to have stopped reading an elaborated post (where I was replying to you) after you got to the third sentence. Maybe what you are looking for is in there.
It isn't. Your "elaborated post" is merely a lengthy laundry list of what's wrong with me and a bunch of speculative hogwash about why I won't undertake to disprove you. You have not provided one single answer to any question I've asked.
It's abundantly clear that you have no substance.
People who provide me with substance get substance from me. Please quit it, you are not looking too good right now.
Yeah, you have so many fans here.
|
|