|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 24, 2008 20:54:51 GMT -4
If you can't explain the serious anomaly that is demonstrated by this photo in terms of the photo being genuine, then how can this photo be anything else but fake? Oh sure... I always look at things that I can't immediately understand or have explained to me as fakes... The Global Warming debate... must be fake... Dubya's second term... had to have been fake... Flava Flave and Brigitte Nielsen... could only have been fake... Hmmm... I guess that means Oldman must be fake too.... Cz
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 24, 2008 21:49:09 GMT -4
Do you think oldman that just perhaps you'd cut us all a break and let us first have at least 5 whole minutes with our families on this Xmas eve? I know it's a big ask, but I'm hoping you'll grant us all, however undeserved it may be, the chance to indulge in reality? Surely the crimes of NASA after having survived 40 years, can hold on just a touch longer? You realize you don't have to respond to my posts immediately, don't you? ;-) That said, I wouldn't be much of a gentleman if I denied anyone of their time spent with loved ones on Xmas eve, would I? Merry Xmas!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 24, 2008 22:13:09 GMT -4
At this point in the thread I've already shown that this is an actual anomaly by addressing everyone's relevant points that have been made. No, you haven't. You haven't addressed mine, for starters. But let's try this--exactly how was the photo faked? Why, then, doesn't it show any of the (generally quite obvious) signs of being faked? And, of course, why was it faked in the first place? I can respond right away--I had my holiday Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 24, 2008 22:38:40 GMT -4
At this point in the thread I've already shown that this is an actual anomaly by addressing everyone's relevant points that have been made.
No. You simply assert that it's an anomaly and dismiss anything that requires you to prove it is.
Here we have tracks missing from a photo in which one has every reason to expect them...
Begging the question.
You keep repeating this sentence over and over. You don't seem to realize that this is the point where you simply wish the "anomaly" into being.
If you know of some reason why tracks should not exist or be visible in this photo then state your reason.
Shifting the burden of proof.
You are the one relying upon the expectation. Therefore you must prove that the expectation is valid.
Wrong.
No, right.
Have you ever conducted an investigation in which you were personally, legally liable for the logical and evidentiary strength of the conclusion? Yes or no.
I have. You have no idea what it means to mount and prove a case.
If you can't explain the serious anomaly that is demonstrated by this photo in terms of the photo being genuine, then how can this photo be anything else but fake?
Asked and answered.
You are simply trying to remount the indirect case. The indirect case is of non-validating form. I gave you an example of such a case (child abuse, by lack of exculpation), and when you responded to it you had to change the conditions of the case in order to hypothetically provide the direct evidence. You stipulated yourself that direct evidence is required.
State your specific fraud scenario (e.g., composite photography) and provide the direct evidence you have already assented is required.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 25, 2008 3:41:37 GMT -4
Most interesting tactic. I can see tracks, I can see evidence on how they can and were covered. I have read accounts of the conditions and seen actual film of how the material moves. Yet it is claimed to be a fake but no evidence put up.
You can lead a horse to water and all that.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 25, 2008 14:34:12 GMT -4
Do you think oldman that just perhaps you'd cut us all a break and let us first have at least 5 whole minutes with our families on this Xmas eve? I know it's a big ask, but I'm hoping you'll grant us all, however undeserved it may be, the chance to indulge in reality? Surely the crimes of NASA after having survived 40 years, can hold on just a touch longer? You realize you don't have to respond to my posts immediately, don't you? ;-) That said, I wouldn't be much of a gentleman if I denied anyone of their time spent with loved ones on Xmas eve, would I? Merry Xmas! Aye that you have! And a happy holiday season to you as well. I don't agree with your POV on Apollo, but you are definitely a gentleman!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 25, 2008 21:40:52 GMT -4
18020 was shot a few minutes after 18060. It's shot from farther away, from a position that does not favor viewing of the tracks. Also, shot '20 appears to have been shot with a dirty lens, toward the sun. Hard to see the fine details of the ground.
My point? What's your point? This entire topic is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 25, 2008 22:03:38 GMT -4
I looked at the anomalies site. Wow. That's some pretty hard- hitting analysis. :0 Apparently, the astronauts couldn't have possibly lifted the Rover, because they would be lifting 90 pounds. Each. Not together. I guess HB's have trouble dividing by 2. Personally, I could lift 90# pretty easily, 45# even more so. I'm not that big, and I'm currently in pretty soft shape, but I used to toss 90# sacks of concrete and 50# boxes of nails around HomeDepot all night without much hassle. Ninety pounds of two-man lift, once or twice in a work day, for fighter pilots in their prime? Yeah, that's "hard to believe." Next. Nowhere on apolloanomalies.com/missing_tracks_as16-110-18006.htm does it state that the astronauts lifted 90 lbs *each*. Here's each of the three references that you're apparently incapable of either reading or understanding: "There's no pause whatsoever before Duke--wearing a pressurized spacesuit--agrees to help lift the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell." "So, where's this slope that's mentioned in the voice transcript that motivated these two astronauts to lift the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell uphill while wearing pressurized spacesuits (when all that was really necessary was for Young to simply push a button and pull back on a lever)?" "Also missing are any drag marks. Why would the astronauts pick up the rover clear off of the ground just to reorient it (on the moon it still weighed almost 90 pounds)?" I will grant you the correction on this - the two astronauts are said to be "lifting the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell" together. That's 45 pounds. I can lift that with one arm, carry it inside from the minivan and tuck it into bed. A 5 Gallon Carboy of water weighs that much, and I've watched skinny secretaries in high heels change out the water bottle on a dispenser. As for the "drag marks" in your above quote, why would there be any? The handle is about 20" off the ground (see www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_TM_X_66816.pdf Pg. 14). Standing straight up, my grip is about 29" off the ground. Dragging the LRV would require that the astronauts move the thing all hunkered over. Why do that, when standing up straight is a much easier and safer way to move a load?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 29, 2008 17:04:14 GMT -4
Heck, there are deep cycle batteries I've lifted that weigh 50+ pounds. With one arm.
And to think typical HBs talk about using "common sense".
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 29, 2008 17:05:22 GMT -4
Are they pretty?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 29, 2008 17:26:37 GMT -4
Are they pretty? I have found the elegant symmetry and the pleasing blue colour of the water cooler bottles I have encountered to be, yes, pretty. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slang on Dec 29, 2008 19:50:37 GMT -4
Are they pretty? And there I was, deciding not to post my request for documentary evidence for that unsupported claim. But it made me feel like a dirty old man (no pun intended).
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 30, 2008 7:35:13 GMT -4
Are they pretty? I have found the elegant symmetry and the pleasing blue colour of the water cooler bottles I have encountered to be, yes, pretty. ;D Oh ha ha. I must say, I find outboard engines to have a bit of beauty about them. Even the ones considered "ugly" by most people.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 30, 2008 14:24:51 GMT -4
At this point in the thread I've already shown that this is an actual anomaly by addressing everyone's relevant points that have been made. No, you haven't. You haven't addressed mine, for starters. But let's try this--exactly how was the photo faked? Why, then, doesn't it show any of the (generally quite obvious) signs of being faked? And, of course, why was it faked in the first place? I can respond right away--I had my holiday Sunday. I've addressed all of the points made by you guys that are relevant to the existence of the anomaly itself. As for obvious signs that the photo was faked, I'd say that rover tracks missing from a lunar surface photo where there's no reasonable explanation for them to be missing constitutes a pretty obvious sign that the photo was faked.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 30, 2008 14:25:16 GMT -4
At this point in the thread I've already shown that this is an actual anomaly by addressing everyone's relevant points that have been made.
No. You simply assert that it's an anomaly and dismiss anything that requires you to prove it is.
My providing infinite details about what I believe is the cause of the anomaly isn't required for me to prove that it is in fact an anomaly. All I have to show is that none of you can explain the anomaly and judging from all of your responses thus far it's quite apparent that none of you can explain it.
Here we have tracks missing from a photo in which one has every reason to expect them...
Begging the question.
Then by what reason in particular--that I haven't already disproven--should we not expect to see any tracks in this photo?
If you know of some reason why tracks should not exist or be visible in this photo then state your reason.
Shifting the burden of proof.
No. You've already been shown that your explanations for this anomaly are utterly worthless. The ball is now in your court.
Have you ever conducted an investigation in which you were personally, legally liable for the logical and evidentiary strength of the conclusion? Yes or no.
I have. You have no idea what it means to mount and prove a case.
Well I certainly hope that lives weren't at stake based on conclusions you might have led others to draw because you have no idea how to determine truth.
If you can't explain the serious anomaly that is demonstrated by this photo in terms of the photo being genuine, then how can this photo be anything else but fake?
Asked and answered.
Except that the answers that have been provided by all of you on this forum have been shown to be invalid.
|
|