|
Post by oldman on Dec 30, 2008 14:25:38 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. Where in this photo do you see these tracks that you claim have been covered and if they were covered, how can you see them? As for my evidence that this photo is fake, you can start with the fact that the rover's tracks are clearly missing from this photo.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 30, 2008 14:26:02 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.
I've already addressed these points. The first one (regarding distance) was made irrelevant by the fact that we can easily distinguish tiny details in 18020 including small rocks, shadows and footprints--despite the distance involved. We can also see rover tracks in this photo that are even farther in the distance than the rover itself. Clearly, the distance that 18020 was shot from is not an issue. Your second point--that our viewpoint makes it difficult for us to view the tracks--is made irrelevant in replies #66 and #67.
Also, shot '20 appears to have been shot with a dirty lens, toward the sun. Hard to see the fine details of the ground.
Even if the lens were dirty, this would be irrelevant considering that we can easily see small rocks, shadows, etc. in 18020 that are significantly smaller than the missing track itself would have to be. As for the angle of the shot with respect to the sun, this apparently doesn't keep us from seeing these same small details on the ground and besides, the footprints that we see in the photo are made more visible by the sun's angle.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Dec 30, 2008 14:27:48 GMT -4
I will grant you the correction on this - the two astronauts are said to be "lifting the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell" together.Thanks. 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.I certainly agree that the astronauts could physically lift that much weight given that the conditions are equivalent to lifting a water bottle in an office environment. The real question is would they do this in this particular situation and why? What could possibly have motivated them to pick up and move the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell? 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?I doubt that being "hunkered over" is much of a problem in 1/6th gravity. Secondly, no one picks up something that weighs this much clear off the ground if they can easily drag it first. Also, you're assuming that the rover is perfectly balanced. Undoubtedly, one end of the rover would have come up ahead of the other and the one lagging behind would have been dragged until it came off of the ground. That said, it really doesn't matter because there are no footprints that were left behind by the astronauts as they supposedly picked up and hauled off with the rover anyway. Where are they in addition to the tracks themselves?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 30, 2008 14:45:25 GMT -4
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. Circular. The real question is would they do this in this particular situation and why? What could possibly have motivated them to pick up and move the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell? Because it was the simplest means to an end.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 30, 2008 14:49:27 GMT -4
All I have to show is that none of you can explain the anomaly...
No. You must first prove it is an anomaly and not just a problem with your expectations.
Then by what reason in particular--that I haven't already disproven--should we not expect to see any tracks in this photo?
Shifting the burden of proof. Your expectation, your proof.
You've already been shown that your explanations for this anomaly are utterly worthless.
You've already been shown that you're begging the anomaly. Your entire line of reasoning fails by subversion of support. I know that it's not the knock-down-drag-out you were hoping for, but it is the major flaw in your argument. You must deal with the actual flaws, not merely the ones you think you can overcome.
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.
You did not answer my question. Have you ever conducted an investigation where you were personally liable for the strength of its conclusion? Yes or no. Please answer. I will continue asking until I receive an answer.
Except that the answers that have been provided by all of you on this forum have been shown to be invalid.
Continuing to beg your questions does not invalidate the objections.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 30, 2008 14:51:12 GMT -4
As for my evidence that this photo is fake, you can start with the fact that the rover's tracks are clearly missing from this photo.
No. That's merely a violation of your unsupported expectation. Fakery requires positive proof, not proof by absense of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 30, 2008 14:54:26 GMT -4
The first one (regarding distance) was made irrelevant by the fact that we can easily distinguish tiny details in 18020...
Can you distinguish all tiny details? Do you represent that the factors affecting the visibility of details in this scene are uniform for all details?
Your second point--that our viewpoint makes it difficult for us to view the tracks--is made irrelevant...
I have several photographic instances in which changing the viewpoint drastically and selectively affects the visibility of detail, especially under certain phase angles.
I simply do not accept your handwaving that the detail you demand should be visible, should be visible.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 30, 2008 15:12:43 GMT -4
Oldman: How does the missing tracks prove fraud anyway? Why are they missing? What part of the forging process produced a lack of tracks?
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Dec 30, 2008 15:25:01 GMT -4
It's covering up NASA's secret teleportation machine. Star Trek is no myth, my friend.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 30, 2008 15:31:57 GMT -4
It's covering up NASA's secret teleportation machine. Star Trek is no myth, my friend. I wish, I really really wish. But if wishes were starships, I'd be an Admiral of Starfleet!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Dec 30, 2008 18:26:15 GMT -4
I certainly agree that the astronauts could physically lift that much weight given that the conditions are equivalent to lifting a water bottle in an office environment. The real question is would they do this in this particular situation and why? What could possibly have motivated them to pick up and move the equivalent of a 90 pound barbell? I really don't see why you have such a problem with this point. 90 pounds is really not that much to begin with, so between the two of them they are lifting effectively 45 pounds each. I have a digital piano that weighs 42 pounds, which I carry into gigs in a hard case (weighing a further 4 pounds) in one hand. As to why they would do it ... well, if you want it facing a different direction, why bother getting in, turning on the engine (using valuable battery power) and making a three point tun, when you can easily pick it up, turn it around and put it down in less time? Seems to me that the lack of tracks in this particular photo are more likely the result of activity at the back of the vehicle, but the lifting and turning of the rover is really not as big a deal as you are making it. Just because you have decided you wouldn't do it that way doesn't make it anomalous. Bob B is also quite right, your argument that the photo is fake is certainly a question being begged. "There are no tracks, which I believe to be an anomaly so the photo could be a fake, the evidence for which is that there are no tracks". The supposed anomaly is not evidence of a fake photo, it is simply something which you cannot explain, and you have chosen to reject all the explanations offered here and assume fakery. The problem is you have offered no evidence of fakery, and the existence of the supposed anomaly doesn't count. Is there any evidence that the photo itself is actually fake? Is there any evidence (for example) that the rover has been pasted in? Mismatching dust patterns, rough edges, incorrect lighting or shadow? This picture has been in the public domain for many years ... from a time before Photoshop. Is there anything in the photo that suggests it is not legitimate? If so, what is it and how did you discover it? If not, what does that tell you?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 30, 2008 19:06:55 GMT -4
I've never dragged a forty-five pound weight in my life. It's more work to do it that way!
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 30, 2008 19:09:45 GMT -4
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. Exactly how was the photo faked? Why was it faked?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 30, 2008 20:53:20 GMT -4
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. You are required to prove that something is an anomaly -- that is, a violation of objective and universal expectations, not just a violation of your expectations. Calling your expectations universal doesn't make them so. It just begs the question. But while we're on the subject, you are required to provide the details of your believed cause before you can hold it up as tenable. Until you are willing to advance and defend a specific proposed cause, you don't get to say yours is better supported by the evidence. You've already said you're afraid to state any proposition because you fear its examination. Why should we give any attention to such intellectual cowardice? No. That is as wrong as it can possibly be, and although it's been explained to you a dozen times by as many people, you still don't get it. You have absolutely no clue how to formulate and prove a case. The inability of one person, ten people, or a thousand people to identify an evidentiarily-defensible prosaic cause for some observation is in no way proof that the cause is not prosaic. That is a basic tenet of elementary reasoning, for which there is even a formal proof found in any basic logic textbook. It is the basic problem of the open disjunctive set. The proof that the cause of something is extraordinary is to first identify and prove the cause. Then you can characterize the cause you proved as either extraordinary or prosaic. You are simply deploying the same old fallacious indirect argument you did from the very first page of the very first thread on this topic. I said it then, and I will repeat it: your argument fails at that point, not as part of the subjective slogging back and forth about the silly details about whether the camera is too far away to see tracks. Your argument is broken in the very first sentence, because you intend to hold a specific proposition by default. "All I have to do is wait for you to fail," is not a valid argument in favor of your claim.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 31, 2008 4:33:58 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. Where in this photo do you see these tracks that you claim have been covered and if they were covered, how can you see them? As for my evidence that this photo is fake, you can start with the fact that the rover's tracks are clearly missing from this photo. 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?
|
|