|
Post by sts60 on Dec 15, 2008 14:34:04 GMT -4
I was looking at the first part of oldman's post. He did allude to the rover being picked up and moved, and I skimmed over that acknowledgment. So I deleted my commentary on that part above. My apologies for jumping the gun.
As for the second part, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, so won't comment. (Of course, I'm still waiting for him to say exactly what he thinks happened, and how, over in the other thread.)
[eta: Fingers still working way faster than brain.]
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 15, 2008 14:39:12 GMT -4
I don't want to use my imagination, Oldman. I want you to tell me what you think is going on. You see, if I ask the others what's going on, they tell me. This makes them reliable. You cry "fraud!" with no explanations. This makes you unreliable. What do you think is going on?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 15, 2008 14:58:56 GMT -4
With the exception of Sir Mildred Pierce's response, these are exactly the kinds of responses I'd expect. It seems your only defense in the face of a real challenge is to "yawn" loudly, hurl insults and resort to name-calling in the hopes that no one pays any attention to the details.
No, I've already answered this question twice -- perhaps three times.
You don't grasp the notion that your entire approach is meaningless. You want this discussion to mire down in the inconclusive details of your attempt to undermine some straw-man prosaic explanation, just as you tried in the previous almost-identical thread. You think that "some kind of fraud" is all you have to prove, and that it is proven by nit-picking away at a few straw men according to your begged-question expectations.
It simply does not matter whether you can erode faith in some prosaic explanation if you cannot provide a specific evidentiary case in favor of some other specific fraud hypothesis. An eroded hypothesis that accounts even for a subset of observations is still automatically more credible than a vague or unstated hypothesis.
Your flawed approach further stems from the unstated but highly erroneous premise that every detail in any real photo must be accounted for by means of internal consistency analysis alone, or even by any means. Real photo analysts have no such expectations, which is why you don't see real analysts questioning the Apollo photos on grounds that resemble yours.
As is so very common of conspiracy theorists, you make a grand leap over the top of everything that a proponent would ordinarily have to establish first, and land arbitrarily on some point far down the road upon which you think you can prevail, in order to establish the illusion of rigor. So unfortunately you may not try to take your opponents to task for wanting to talk about the parts you left out.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 15, 2008 15:04:34 GMT -4
"Lets pretend there aren't any tracks, what exactly would that imply?"
Use you imagination.
No.
In your previous thread you finally revealed your belief that the photo was created by means of "composite photography." But you declined to make any specific case beyond that, citing your fear to have it examined. That is unacceptable. I don't consider intellectual cowardice a position from which one can arguably talk down to one's critics.
You are the claimant. You may not bait your critics into making straw-man propositions. Please kindly explain exactly how you believe this photograph was created, if not by taking it on the Moon, and please apply the proper evidentiary controls to extract the consequential side-effects that establish your theory or method over any other.
Is physically manipulating objects the only conceivable means of faking a photo? Again, feel free to use your imagination.
No. You are the one claiming fakery. It is not our responsibility to imagine the ways in which that can be done, in leiu of you making a case. It is your responsibility to present the precise method you say was used here, and show evidence from the photo or from some other appropriate means of the side-effects of that precise method.
And yes, I will continue to press you to do this regardless of whether you agree that it is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 15, 2008 16:28:16 GMT -4
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I don't have to tell you how the defendant commited the murder, the victim was found dead and thus this proves it was murder. What I want you to do is use your imaginations to figure out how it was done and then convict the defendant because he's clearly guilty.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 15, 2008 17:07:26 GMT -4
...the victim was found dead and thus this proves it was murder. It's worse than that. Here there isn't even a corpus delicti. It's more accurate to say, "...I saw the victim once and he wasn't moving. Even though I'm not a doctor and I can't explain his motionlessness, I'm going to draw the conclusion that he is dead."
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 15, 2008 18:30:53 GMT -4
Eh, a few of the ones I've seen motionless really have been dead. But most of the time, they're just drunk. Pants optional (on them, not me). But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 15, 2008 22:06:09 GMT -4
This thread is driving me crazy....I'm off.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 15, 2008 23:43:19 GMT -4
feel free to use your imagination.
Why? You're using enough for everybody.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 16, 2008 8:16:16 GMT -4
Let us say that the explanation offered by he kind people of this board do not satisfy you, and you still think the tracks are missing because they of fraud. OK then, riddle me this. Why? Why would they drop the rover from a crane, when they could just push or drive it along?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 16, 2008 10:34:56 GMT -4
But oldman hasn't said, AFAIK, anything about a crane. He's just pointed to a couple of things he feels are anomalous and said, "Fraud!" We're still waiting for him to say exactly what he thinks happened, exactly how it was supposedly done, who is supposed to have done it, and why he thinks his claim (whatever it is) fits the entire Apollo record better than known history, science, and technology.
I'm sure oldman will actually get to the point soon.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Dec 16, 2008 14:29:38 GMT -4
It's a fraud because the whole apollo thing has to be a fake. NASA think we are so stupid or they are so careless that they didn't even think people would notice there were no tracks.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 16, 2008 14:37:48 GMT -4
Are there two seperate threads about missing tire tracks now?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 16, 2008 14:57:22 GMT -4
Are there two seperate threads about missing tire tracks now? Such damning evidence deserves at least four threads... one for each wheel. Actually, the other thread was going so poorly for oldman that I think he wanted to abandon it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 16, 2008 18:02:47 GMT -4
But oldman hasn't said, AFAIK, anything about a crane. He hasn't said much of anything. But he has invited people to use their imaginations. That's a move calculated not only to relieve him of the burden of actually proposing anything testable, but also to provide a means by which to chide us for our lack of imagination. Some conspiracists believe that if their critics can't enumerate and explain away every single possible hypothetical method of fakery, then we haven't done our homework and are only taking Apollo's authenticity on faith. I agree with you: this whole zero-responsibility method of argumentation is for the birds. He owes us some specifics. In the other thread he mentioned something about "composite photography," by which I assume he means cutting and pasting elements of a photograph together. I don't know if he believes such a thing was done here. But in any case he has provided no details and no evidence. So I don't see much use in wasting time on it.
|
|