|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 31, 2008 8:54:29 GMT -4
This is a common problem with hoax believers; they often see their expectations as a baseline for determining if an anomoly exists or not, without bothering to do research or even ask questions about what it is they are looking at.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 31, 2008 10:07:24 GMT -4
... and more importantly how do you think it was done? And even more importantly, what evidence is there that it was done that way?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Dec 31, 2008 15:13:50 GMT -4
Yesterday at 1:27pm, oldman wrote: 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? --------------------------------------------------
Well it may have been quicker than panning the camera. On Apollo 15 at the end of the EVA 3 where Dave Scott demonstrated the hammer and feather falling in a vacuum, I have a memory of him single handedly dragging the car around to provide a better view (possibly at mission controls request). No doubt an isolated photo of the car after such a maneuver would be enough for you to claim fake.
Why don't you sit through an EVA or two. Quite frankly no one I have sat down has lasted more than 30 mins before deciding it was too boring to be fake! (not my opinion but it has a certain mind numbing prossaity that no director could ever come up with).
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 31, 2008 15:30:46 GMT -4
I doubt that any HB has bothered to watch a full EVA, and you're right, cos, they are as boring as watching paint dry for the most part, and often the camera is somewhere other than what the Astronauts are doing, like on a really fasinating rock (note the scarcasm here), which of course it totally understandable if they were real (certain people on the ground watching were rather fasinated by rocks so I understand) but as a viewing spectacle watching a test pattern can be more exciting. It certainly isn't the way any dirtector would fake it. The other thing that jumps out at you is the reality of the area they are in what you compare the 360 TV pans to the Panoramas take by the Astronauts. Those shots certainly show they weren't on a set. The trouble is that no HB will bother watching the entire footage unless they are looking for ammo, and that means speeding through the copious boring parts or just watching bit of it on downloads.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 31, 2008 17:17:28 GMT -4
Secondly, no one picks up something that weighs this much clear off the ground if they can easily drag it first.
No. I routinely pick up M-size oxygen cylinders which weigh more. [It's quicker and easier than draging or rolling them. Not to mention that dragging the cylinder is not the proper treatment - nor would this be proper treatment for the LRV.]
What exactly was faked, and how exactly was it faked, and why exactly was it faked?
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 31, 2008 20:29:02 GMT -4
I used to cart around kit that needed you to carry two, one in each hand. You needed to do that to balance yourself as they were quite heavy. No longer have that kit so unable to say how much they weighed but you could not go far with them. Some of the cables that fed the feeds from them to the head units, especially the 200 footers were doable but over the shoulder. And pulling some of them up masts by hand were a mare.
Now of course we have H+S edicts that say we have to carry such weights with trolleys and etc and use pulleys for the pulling.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:55:43 GMT -4
Re: Why are the tracks missing in AS16-110-18020? « Reply #93 on Dec 30, 2008, 1:45pm » 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. Simpler than pushing a button and pulling back on a lever?
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:56:01 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.
Already done. See OP plus replies #66, #67 and #91.
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.
If you believe that my expectations are not reasonable then say which one and why it isn't reasonable. That's not my shifting the burden of proof. That's simply my expecting you to cite specifics in support your vague claim that my expectations are somehow unreasonable.
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. ...
In which reply was this "shown" exactly? Again, all of your attempts to show that the anomaly isn't real...
the photo was shot from too far a distance the photo has too poor of contrast the angle of view is inadequate the sun's angle is interfering the lunar surface is too irregular the tracks don't extend far enough to be seen the camera lens was dirty
... have been made null and void in earlier replies.
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...
Nor will I. Your question is completely irrelevant to explaining this anomaly.
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.
Continuing to evade doesn't invalidate the anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:56:14 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. My expectations are well supported in earlier replies--you just conveniently ignore this. Again, what expectation specifically do you believe isn't supported? As for your second point, what absence of evidence are you referring to? The anomaly itself is clear evidence that the photo was faked.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:56:29 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?
There's no need to distinguish details at the atomic level here. All that is needed is to be able to distinguish details the width of a track and I can easily make out details significantly smaller than that.
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.
Too bad. Replies #66 and #67 show that our viewpoint in this particular photo doesn't affect our ability to see the tracks.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:56:45 GMT -4
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.
Again, it's not an issue of whether the astronauts could lift the weight.
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?
I doubt that under 1/6th gravity it's that much of a hassle to get in the rover and pull back on a lever. Also, what would stop Young from simply reaching over and actuating the lever without getting in the rover at all? And why do you assume that they'd need to go in reverse (making a three point turn) in order to rectify the situation? Finally, if the rover's original location was so problematic, why would the astronauts have parked there in the first place?
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,
Hardly. As already shown, the tracks that are missing from 18020 would have to extend about 10 feet on this side of the pictured rover. In addition, the driver-side track goes underneath the pictured rover and not behind it. For both reasons, activity at the back of the rover couldn't have been a factor in erasing the two 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.
I can and have explained this anomaly--you guys are the ones who apparently can't explain it. I rejected all of your explanations because they didn't hold up under even mild examination. As for my supposed assumption of fakery, what other choice do we have if the anomaly cannot be reasonably explained otherwise? If I have to choose between magic and deception in order to explain this anomaly, I'm going to pick deception as the cause every time.
The problem is you have offered no evidence of fakery, and the existence of the supposed anomaly doesn't count.
That's your opinion. The anomaly is clear evidence that the photo is fake.
Is there any evidence that the photo itself is actually fake?
Yes, the anomaly which you folks can't explain and therefore feel compelled to ignore.
This picture has been in the public domain for many years ... from a time before Photoshop.
Compositing of photos obviously pre-dates digital technologies.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 8, 2009 17:57:02 GMT -4
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.
Again, I have proven this to be an anomaly and yes, one that isn't just a violation of my own expectations. See OP plus replies #66, #67 and #91. All of your attempts to show that the anomaly isn't real...
the photo was shot from too far a distance the photo has too poor of contrast the angle of view is inadequate the sun's angle is interfering the lunar surface is too irregular the tracks don't extend far enough to be seen the camera lens was dirty
... have been made null and void in these earlier replies.
...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.
First, lest anyone forget, you haven't provided an explanation at all for this particular anomaly. You claim that it doesn't exist even though I've shown that it does. Secondly, why am I required to provide details of my believed cause and who requires this except for those of you who use this simply as a means of evading the hard questions that none of you can answer? I don't need to show exactly how this photo was faked in order to show that it was faked and I certainly don't need to show this in order to for you to defend your belief that the photo is genuine. In fact, I could even share your exact same beliefs and still ask these very same questions just out of curiosity. So what would be your objection to answering them then?
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?
What I actually said was: "I understand quite well that, in general, my simply disproving someone else's hypothesis doesn't necessarily make mine correct. Its you who seems to not understand this given your incessant begging for my "several paragraphs" of detail in the hopes that you can nit-pick it to death when in fact, you never provided this degree of detail for your own hypothesis to begin with." This was in reference to the fact that your "detailed analysis" (of the anomaly in AS17-137-20979) essentially boils down to one sentence completely devoid of any details and analysis: The anomaly was caused by kicked dirt because the astronauts worked around the rover leaving footprints and "dust flies great distances when the astronauts shuffle about".
As for calling me a coward, it's abundantly clear that you can't make a sensible argument in defense of this photo despite that you've had over 3 weeks to do so... Would you like me to give you another 3 weeks?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 8, 2009 18:07:29 GMT -4
Because it was the simplest means to an end. Simpler than pushing a button and pulling back on a lever? You are understating the difficulty of climbing back into the rover and repositioning it by driving. If you were being honest with yourself, you'd see that picking it up and turning it around is the simpler solution.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 8, 2009 19:15:57 GMT -4
Again, I have proven this to be an anomaly and yes, one that isn't just a violation of my own expectations.
No, you just beg the question that your expectation is universal.
First, lest anyone forget, you haven't provided an explanation at all for this particular anomaly.
It is not an "anomaly" until you prove it to be. And you are shifting the burden of proof. You have the burden to prove it's an anomaly, and you have the burden to prove how some specific act of fakery accounts for it.
You claim that it doesn't exist even though I've shown that it does.
"Existence" is not at issue. You claim a certain photograph is anomalous. All you've done is to suggest that it doesn't match your personal interpretation of what a real photograph must look like or how astronauts ought to behave. No one accepts that argument, nor should they.
Secondly, why am I required to provide details of my believed cause...
Because you are the claimant.
I don't need to show exactly how this photo was faked in order to show that it was faked...
Yes you do. Fakery is not a default proposition that holds simply when some number of others appear to fail. If you argue it was faked, you must provide a positive case for some specific act of fakery. For the third time, I explained how you even stipulated this must be the case. Kindly stop waffling and fulfill your responsibility.
So what would be your objection to answering them then?
Because, as the claimant, you have the burden of proof. You want the discussion to bog down in an inconclusive discussion of someone else's counter propositions in order to distract from the utter bankruptcy of your own position and to shift the burden of proof.
You are the claimant, and it is incumbent upon you to answer questions regarding your claim. It is not required of people who disbelieve your claim to propose and defend some competing counter claim.
As for calling me a coward, it's abundantly clear that you can't make a sensible argument in defense of this photo...
Shifting the burden of proof. You are the claimant, and your claim fails by subversion of support. "Subversion of support" means there is, as yet, nothing to "defend."
despite that you've had over 3 weeks to do so...
In that three weeks I have not even thought of this discussion. I am not floundering to find a solution. I have already explained at length why your approach is not logically sound, even if your premises are granted for the sake of argument. You simply ignore that discussion and insist that your hypothesis must be accepted as a default unless someone else can refute it to your satisfaction. My position has not changed from the one I had three weeks ago, and nothing you have said compels me to change it.
Would you like me to give you another 3 weeks?
You may delay as long as you like, but I will not change my position. You may continue to bluster so long as the moderator allows you to take up space.
You still have not answered my question whether you have conducted any investigation in which you were held personally liable for its correctness. I will ask again. Have you?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 8, 2009 19:20:53 GMT -4
I can and have explained this anomaly... No, you have not. You have simply adopted a general, unspecified explanation of "fakery." And you hold it as a default, not as something for which you believe you need to provide direct evidence. When asking for someone else's explanation, you demand that it be highly detailed and testable. However, when you are asked for a highy-detailed and testable explanation you explicitly decline to provide one on the grounds that you don't want it carefully examined. Yours is a blatantly preconceived position. It would not stand up even remotely under a real-world evaluation. I will ask again: Have you ever conducted an investigation for the correctness of whose findings you were personally and substantially liable? Please answer a simple yes or no.
|
|