|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 17, 2009 14:08:14 GMT -4
Sorry, this isn't rocket science. Common sense alone is all that's needed to determine the truth in this matter. As is typical, you guys want to turn this into an argument about anything except the evidence.
Your argument lies entirely in your interpretation of the evidence. Therefore your qualifications, skill, and experience in interpreting such evidence is very relevant.
"Common sense" is not all that's required, as any who have been formally trained in investigative methdology (which I have) can attest. "Common sense" is put forward as a credential only by people who have only that.
Please answer the following questions:
1. Have you received any formal, adjudicated training in the science of photographic interpretation?
2. Have you received any formal, adjudicated training in investigative methodology?
3. Have you ever conducted an investigation where you were personally legally liable for the strength of the results and the correctness of the methodology?
These questions are relevant because they reveal your ability to formulate a logically sound argument. They are relevant because they reveal your ability to interpret photographic evidence correctly. You have alluded to all these points repeatedly, so you clearly agree that they are relevant.
I suppose we'll have to wait another several days or weeks to get our answers.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 17, 2009 15:48:35 GMT -4
Yeah, it sounds like a real nightmare alright. I'm surprised the astronauts didn't just walk to each Station carrying everything on their backs. What is such a nightmare about picking up 45 pounds and taking a couple minutes to reposition it?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 17, 2009 15:57:38 GMT -4
I suppose we'll have to wait another several days or weeks to get our answers. I think we'll have to wait another several days or weeks before oldman posts again. Whether those posts include answers remains very doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 17, 2009 16:11:05 GMT -4
I admit, there's a lot I don't understand about the minutiae of Apollo, but isn't it possible that a combination of factors work together to prevent tracks to be visible on the pictures? And isn't that a simpler explanation than Magic Fraud?
Because as presented, the "fraud" argument is magic. "I don't know how they did it, but they did." It's like the ever-popular "and then a miracle occurs" cartoon.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 17, 2009 22:37:04 GMT -4
Oh, my. There appears to be a deep scratch in this record.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 18, 2009 0:31:29 GMT -4
From the looks of things Oldman, it has been explained to you. And you dismiss the explaination.
Also consider that these photos have been around for nearly four decades, and have been seen by who knows how many photography experts over that time.
Do you seriously think you're in a position to claim something professionals and experts haven't seen?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 18, 2009 2:30:51 GMT -4
If so then claiming "genuine" is also not a default. Before claiming "genuine", you first have to explain this anomaly, such as how it came about, and why.
Wrong.
First, disputing your claim that this photo is fake does not constitute a counter claim and does not incur a burden of proof. You say the photo is fake. You are obliged to supply proof of fakery, and not just vague handwaving, but a specific act of fakery. And the imagined lack of some affirmative rebuttal to your claim does not constitute that proof. It is -- as has been explained repeatedly -- simply another of your clumsy efforts to shift the burden of proof.
Second, repeatedly calling something an "anomaly" doesn't make it so. You have no training and no adjudicated experience in photographic interpretation an analysis. Hence your expectations are uninformed and inexperienced. "Common sense" (i.e., ignorant supposition) is insufficient.
Third, (as I have already mentioned) in questioning the authenticity of some historical artifact, it is presumed genuine. I have explained the logical reasons for this: the open-ended set of propositions and whether they are to be treated conjunctively or disjunctively. In short, you can never prove something is genuine; you can only prove that it wasn't faked in any of the ways one knows about and can test for. This is the open-ended set of propositions, all of which must be falsified in a proof for authenticity. In a proof for forgery, only one proposition need be confirmed: that method by which the forgery actually occurred. It does not matter that the set of such possible propositions is open-ended.
The proposition that some artifact is genuine is indeed the default, and according to the epistemology of forgery investigation and the basic rules of logic it must be the default. And no, this is not just sophistry. It has been explained to you several times by several people how your approach is not logically sound. It doesn't matter how successful you think you have been in arguing a case that doesn't lead to your conclusion anyway.
A trained, skilled investigator must understand both the logic and the evidence at hand. You have shown that you understand neither, and purposely evade questions on those points. You try to call the logic irrelevant, and you won't consider the problems with your interpretation of the evidence. And it is even more suspicious that you specifically refuse to elucidate any specific fakery theory because you know it will be closely examined. Yet you propose that others must provide you theories so that you can nit-pick them.
Sorry, but there is a limit to how long we will dance this dance with you. You accept no intellectual responsibility for your claims.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jan 19, 2009 1:55:42 GMT -4
For one thing, there are no footprints in the immediate area where the tracks should exist Why must visible footprints exist where someone has previously stepped? Why would footprints be the only possible factor in accounting for an apparent lack of tire tracks? Name a PhD who disagrees with the evaluations given by the pro-science side regarding the LRV tracks. Why must all LRV tracks be visible and clearly delineated when photographed on uneven terrain, under varying lighting conditions? To whose satisfaction? Your arguments amount to nothing more than conjecture by an admitted layperson, so "it looks odd" is an accurate summary of your stated reasoning. By summarily dismissing the most reasonable and probable explanations to your manufactured anomalies because they don't strengthen the conclusions you've already formed, and are determined to retain. Also by not offering anything substantive or new to the debate. Actually it is, but setting that aside for the moment - are you capable of stepping out of your role as an ideologue, at least temporarily, and explaining in an intellectually honest way why the explanations offered to you are impossible? The battle cry of every single conspiracy theorist since the beginning of conspiracy theories. Just as wrong now as then. As a skeptic, I'm all about the evidence. When you can produce some instead of your mislabeled guesswork, you'll have my undivided attention.
|
|
|
Post by renritmit on Jan 19, 2009 6:08:28 GMT -4
Mr "oldman" As an "agnostic" in these matters, and having read all the posts in this thread please could you provide some answers to the following questions that i will pose. Hopefully your answers will help in my efforts to come to some conclusion.
1). If you believe that the photographs have been faked do you also believe that the lunar surface transcripts were also "faked".
2). In what order do you think that these "fakes" were created-photos and then a transcript to match, or the other way round.
3). What level of intellect/intelligence/technical ability would you ascribe to the people that carried out this "fakery".
4). If you were attempting to carry out this kind of "fakery" would you create a composite that looks dogy, and then write a transcript in an attempt to validate that dodgy looking photograph, or would you.................
5). Could you explain the "nuts and bolts" of how the images were produced. And also do you have any examples of "faked" images from this era (not ones from the Apollo series)-i ask this to satisfy my curiosity as to wether the state of the art was able to carry this off then.
6). If as you believe that this image was a composite then this image must be a collage of other photos-surely if there was a "fake Moonscape" a "lunar rover" would it have not been so much easier to "drive it there" and take a photo???
Playing at being the "Devil's advocate" i would just like to voice a few general thoughts
We are used to viewing images that are taken within an atmospheric condition, not on an airless lump of rock that has no familiar reference points.
If i was designing a piece of equipment i would place handles on/or near the centre of gravity
Why would handles be put on the vehicle There are "assumptions" as to the C of G of the Rover- from both sides, how can any one base a valid argument on an assumption.
It may seem that many of the questions are stacked against you, this is because in my opinion you have not really attempted to demonstrate "How" or "Why".
There appears to me too much discussion (or if you want to get to base level "schoolyard petulism") as to who has to prove what or why because you raised the accusation/they are accused blah, blah blah-ad infintum.
A small piece of perspective:- I am English and have previuosly been selected, and attended, jury service. I do not know or understand how the American legal system works, but we work on the tenets "Innocent untill proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt".
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 19, 2009 7:44:24 GMT -4
18020 has tracks in it. 18006 has tracks in it. There are mechanisms and conditions to explain both. What is your take? Apart from obviously fake and more importantly how do you think it was done? Again, where in AS16-110-18020 do you see these tracks that you claim exist? Sorry, I thought you were deliberately refusing to see them. I can see what appear to be tracks. I shall reiterate. I can look back and forward of that place in time and see (video), read logs of what was going on and examine pictures (that are logged) etc. I did this with your previous thread and when you examine all angles things are a lot clearer. If memory serves, there were two photo's from different angles that supported each other? And what appeared to be tracks that you claimed were missing. I think others here still require answers so I will not add to them suffice to say I do find it strange trying to examine the minutiae to find a problem but ignoring all that is going on around it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 19, 2009 14:14:04 GMT -4
I do not know or understand how the American legal system works, but we work on the tenets "Innocent untill proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt" In the US as well. You'll find that quite a lot of the US legal system is based on the British one--for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 19, 2009 14:28:13 GMT -4
...would line up right behind Jay in agreeing that tracks shouldn't be visible in 18020 due to "poor contrast".
I have made no such specific claim. And until recently, a good portion of your diatribe has been to complain that I indeed had not offered any explanation for your "anomaly." You offered me three more weeks to come up with one, and just recently lamented that I apparently needed more time.
Now, without my having said or done anything differently, you seem to have assigned me an argument anyway. So which is it? Are you going to complain that I'm not explaining your "anomaly?" Or are you going to complain that "my" explanation doesn't meet your approval?
I think this shows how desperate you are to keep that burden of proof far, far away from you.
Which part of Jay's position hasn't already been refuted?
The part that is my actual position.
I stated at the very beginning, and have maintained throughout this lengthy thread, that your approach is logically unsound. Even granted all your "anomalies" for the sake of argument, it doesn't doesn't amount to a proof of fraud.
You are trying to bait me and others into an endless niggling debate over minutiae of suit mobility, photographic detail, and other points that are entirely irrelevant to an accusation of forgery. I will not go there, because it is logically unnecessary to go there. You want to force your critics into affirmative rebuttals, when the most effective and most logically sound rebuttal is right under your nose.
Your argument is an argument from silence. That is simply logically unsound. I have explained at length why. You even asked what tenet of logic gave you the burden of proof for your accusation of forgery. And after it was explained, you dismissed it as irrelevant.
It must be frustrating to have your argument cut off at the knees, but that is life. You must deal with the sound rebuttals that actually occur, not just the one you had prepared for. That's the difference between real-world investigation (in which you have no training or experience) and the toy "investigations" undertaken by people waving their diploma Bachelor of Common Sense from the University of Making It Up As You Go.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 19, 2009 15:44:31 GMT -4
I am English and have previuosly been selected, and attended, jury service. I do not know or understand how the American legal system works, but we work on the tenets "Innocent untill proven guilty", and "beyond reasonable doubt".
The United States legal system essentially extended unbroken from the English model of jurisprudence that was practiced during our colonial period. A quote I often use, "Facts are stubborn things," was spoken by John Adams acting as a barrister under English law in an English court in Boston defending the King's soldiers against a charge of murder in the Boston Massacre. If you read the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, cases in England are routinely cited as precedent if they were decided before the independence. American jurisprudence is expressly derived from English jurisprudence.
In the legal context, different standards of proof apply to different kinds of questions. In criminal cases you have the beyond reasonable doubt standard, which is a high standard to meet. The claimant must prove his case to the point where only unreasonable doubt (e.g., postulating leprechauns, or teleportation) would exonerate the accused.
In most civil actions you have the clear and convincing proof standard and the preponderance of evidence standard. These are varying degrees of belief that the evidence presented is more likely true than not.
As has been pointed out, an investigation of authenticity is not a court case. Nevertheless standards of proof still apply to any investigation. There is no standard of proof in any context that amounts simply to zero evidence or to shifting one's burden of proof. The claimant is obliged to present some proof, and not just a demand for and summary rejection of counter claims.
Presumption too has a legal and a philosophical basis. But both derive from what can be proven. Is it possible to prove innocence? Or can only only prove the absence of some specific form of guilt; and therefore is innocence a matter of absolution from all conceivable applicable forms of guilt?
Similarly is authenticity provable? Can we time-travel and teleport to the time and place where something was created and verify that it occurred as claimed? Or are we, in the here and now, restricted in what we can infer about the article and what evident properties might affect its authenticity?
Presumptions occur because the logical question requires them, not because someone is trying to cheat.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jan 21, 2009 11:16:21 GMT -4
Oldman
Can you answer a couple of questions for me?
Why did NASA release these photographs if they are so obviously full of mistakes that you spotted so easily? Why weren't they spotted by the people who made them, or released them or any of the many thousands of people who have seen them over the years?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 21, 2009 15:57:36 GMT -4
Spotting photographic fakes goes back to the beginning of photography.
I cannot think of a single example of a photographic fake in history that was not spotted and proclaimed a fake by photo experts of that time.
|
|