|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 16, 2008 19:15:12 GMT -4
Lets pretend there aren't any tracks, what exactly would that imply?
Use you imagination.
I don't have to. I'll just summarize pages 138 to 167 of "NASA Shill's Handbook for Hoax Rebunking." Chapter 12 "Troubles with the Pseudolith"
They tried driving (pushing - it didn't really drive since the so-called "pancake" drive motors were a fabrication to fool real electrical engineers) the rover around the set, but it kicked up too much dust. The air filters in the Argentinian salt-mine they used for A16 kept clogging up. The gaffers were flipping out because the dust was getting on the lights. The grips were getting sick from the fiberglass particles in the fake moon dirt. Finally Kubric just told the grips to carry it from shot to shot, wearing "crater" boots to disguise footprints. They had a single tire on a handle that they used to make tracks in and out of the shots.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Dec 17, 2008 11:21:31 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." It's *even worse* than that! "Here is a photo of John. I don't see any air coming out of his mouth, therefore he must be dead, therefore you must convict someone of his murder."
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 17, 2008 16:22:31 GMT -4
Actually, the other thread was going so poorly for oldman that I think he wanted to abandon it. He's just following the script. According to the "The Conspiracy Theorist's Handbook, 3rd Edition, Chapter 4 - Tips for Online Debate", rule number 23 states: "23. When it becomes apparent a debate is lost, open a new thread, rephase your old argument, and start afresh."
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:21:49 GMT -4
Was it really necessary to start another thread for what is basically the same topic covered in this one? Why not resolve that thread before moving on to a new one? For one thing, you can't just assume that it's the exact same anomaly just because tracks are missing in both cases.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:23:00 GMT -4
If you don't want us to yawn loudly, you might consider presenting something new and interesting. Like a detailed explanation of either how the whole thing was faked or why these pictures were faked. One would think that a track missing from a photo in which there's no obvious explanation would be of some interest.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:24:03 GMT -4
If you don't understand the anomaly illustrated by this photo, then exactly which part do you not understand? I guess I don't understand any of it because I don't see anything anomalous. Then kindly point out where the tracks are in this photo. I don't see them.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:24:37 GMT -4
... 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.] I stated in that thread that it was caused by composite photography. I believe the same is the case here as well.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2008 21:32:38 GMT -4
Composite photography in the late '60's and early '70's required a very massive computer system. The work was farmed out to the NSA. The "wacom" tablet used was about the size of a tennis court, with a "stylus" on a gantry-frame arrangement. It was driven around by a joystick. If you hunt around on the web, I think you can find a picture of it, but it wasn't called a wacom, or a tablet.
"NASA Shill's Handbook for Hoax Rebunking." pgs 25 - 26
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:33:03 GMT -4
I don't want to use my imagination, Oldman. I want you to tell me what you think is going on.
Again, as with AS17-137-20979, the anomaly seen in AS16-110-18020 is the result of composite photography.
You see, if I ask the others what's going on, they tell me.
And now you've been told.
You cry "fraud!" with no explanations.
You might not be satisfied with my explanation but you folks haven't provided any explanation at all for this anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 17, 2008 21:41:22 GMT -4
No, I've already answered this question twice -- perhaps three times.
To this point in the thread I don't believe that you have answered any questions regarding this particular anomaly. Also, you couldn't possibly have responded to this anomaly in a completely different thread as you weren't even aware of it yet.
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.
If, by your own admission, you don't even understand the anomaly presented in this photo, how can you say that these two threads are almost identical? I realize that it would be real convenient for you if all photos with anomalous missing tracks could automatically be considered "explained already" by your magical kicked dirt theory--which couldn't even explain all of the facts surrounding AS17-137-20979--but it doesn't work that way. Every anomaly has to be considered separately.
You think that "some kind of fraud" is all you have to prove,
Well, duh!
and that it is proven by nit-picking away at a few straw men according to your begged-question expectations.
Let's see... When you say "straw men", do you mean like as in "waving flags", "insufficiently dark shadows", and similar arguments which you brave warriors in defense of truth have so handily defeated over and over again?
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.
"Erode" would only apply if you actually had a hypothesis to account for the anomaly seen in this photo and thus far, you haven't stated one.
An eroded hypothesis that accounts even for a subset of observations is still automatically more credible than a vague or unstated hypothesis.
Your own hypothesis for this anomaly is unstated--nothing can be eroded that doesn't already exist.
Your flawed approach [blah, blah, blah...]
If so flawed, then by all means please enlighten us oh wise one. Tell us why the tracks are missing from this photo--if you can.
As is so very common of conspiracy theorists [blah, blah, blah...]
All anyone can assume from your ongoing blather is that you simply cannot explain why the tracks are missing from this photo (AS16-110-18020).
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 17, 2008 22:05:12 GMT -4
AS16-110-18006 (OF300) 173k or 1237k Rightward of 18005, showing the back of the Rover. In this photo, note that the Rover is not sitting on it's own tracks. After getting off, John decided at 145:11:16 that the Rover had to be re-positioned and, rather than spend any time getting back on, he and Charlie picked the vehicle up and moved it.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#M110
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 17, 2008 22:10:46 GMT -4
Why would they use composite photography to make the photo when they had a working rover? It was seen moving in multiple videos. What's more, is the pictures that you have problems with fit with the videos taken during that time showing the same physical features and of course as mentioned before, a fully functional rover.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 17, 2008 22:47:26 GMT -4
To this point in the thread I don't believe that you have answered any questions regarding this particular anomaly.
I explained at length why it doesn't matter.
You think that "some kind of fraud" is all you have to prove,
Well, duh!
And because you stubbornly don't understand why this isn't sufficient, you will never understand why your approach is wrong and why I'm not going to indulge you.
If so flawed, then by all means please enlighten us oh wise one. Tell us why the tracks are missing from this photo--if you can.
The flaw in your approach is an inappropriate shifting of the burden of proof. Trying again to shift it doesn't correct the flaw.
All anyone can assume from your ongoing blather is that you simply cannot explain why the tracks are missing from this photo (AS16-110-18020).
You say it's "fraud." Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 17, 2008 23:22:39 GMT -4
You might not be satisfied with my explanation but you folks haven't provided any explanation at all for this anomaly. I find this very funny. You have been provided, over and over, with very sensible explanations. You don't like them. Your arguments against them don't hold up against, you know, the evidence. However, somehow, this all equals "fraud." So if the photo were a composite, a thing unlikely at the least, what does that mean? Does it explain away the other tons of evidence?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 17, 2008 23:39:51 GMT -4
Let's pretend the photos of the rover are composites. How does that prove the moon landings were faked? It doesn't. Maybe one of the astronauts dropped a photograph of his mistress on the surface of the moon and to avoid having his wife find out he had the NASA photo people remove it from the picture.
The only way to prove the moon landings were faked is to provide an alternative scenario that makes sense from start to finish. How did they fake the whole thing? A faked photograph alone wouldn't be enough.
Having said all that, I still do not see any anomalies in those photographs. If a few "missing" tire tracks is the best oldman can do then I don't really have much reason to believe the moon landings were faked.
|
|