|
Post by svector on Jan 9, 2009 2:44:16 GMT -4
Again, I have proven this to be an anomaly Incontrovertible "proof" is an extremely high standard. Some might say an impossible one. Your claims really only rise to the level of supposition, and supposition based on dubious credentials at that. Let's do away with all the posturing, and boil the argument down to its core element: Jay (along with the entire scientific community) claims that ordinary activity by the astronauts around the vicinity of the LRV can account for the apparent lack of tracks in various photos, or that there are photographic reasons to explain their absence. Can you provide a clearly stated, logical argument to refute his position, without resorting to the standard CT fare of "I think it looks odd" ? In other words, produce some evidence which actually meets this lofty standard of incontrovertible proof you claim to have reached. So far, you've fallen short of the mark. Also, kindly provide your relevant credentials and your specific fields of study so that your arguments may be given proportionate consideration. Are you able to do this, or is it asking too much?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 9, 2009 7:44:40 GMT -4
Looked at them.
And I don't see any proof of an anomoly being proven. I do see that the photo and situation do not meet your expectations.
Don't feel bad about that; many hoax claims center on the issue with stars in the photos. Yet when such images are shown to them, they just don't meet their expectations.
As mentioned to you before, Oldman, claiming a "fraud" is not a default. Before claiming "fraud", you first have to explain the situation, such as how it was done, and why.
|
|
|
Post by scubadude402 on Jan 10, 2009 12:29:22 GMT -4
As mentioned to you before, Oldman, claiming a "fraud" is not a default. Before claiming "fraud", you first have to explain the situation, such as how it was done, and why.
He won't, because he can't. At least not without looking like clueless moron.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 11, 2009 3:41:20 GMT -4
He won't, because he can't. At least not without looking even more like clueless moron. Fixed it for ya, Scubadude... Cz
|
|
|
Post by scubadude402 on Jan 11, 2009 12:00:27 GMT -4
Thanks--Any help i can get is always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 15, 2009 0:34:32 GMT -4
Re: Why are the tracks missing in AS16-110-18020? « Reply #93 on Dec 30, 2008, 1:45pm » Because it was the simplest means to an end. Simpler than pushing a button and pulling back on a lever? Pushing a button and pulling a lever will not rotate the rover in place, or move it several feet sideways. Have you ever climbed into and out of a car REPEATEDLY in heavy winter clothing? After a few stops, you decide you don't really NEED to make that one-more-errand, and you feed the kids nasty drive-thru just to keep from having to climb in and out again. It has nothing to do with gravity, and everything to do with the added work of bending the clothing. Like using a hammer with winter gloves on - I get sore knuckles from doing that for very long. It's "easier" to use lighter gloves and get cold... Read the transcript again, and you will see the parallels here. You point out an "anomaly" here, but nobody else sees it. You proved yourself that your picture and several others that DO show tracks are in the same scene (your colored diagrams of rocks). So there are tracks, but they don't line up. They don't line up because the rover was picked up by the astronauts. Just because YOU can't pick up a 45# weight without busting a nut doesn't mean anything. [begging-the-question] What would be easier than simply leaning over, grabbing the convenient handle with one hand, grabbing under the frame with the other, and lifting?[/begging-the-question] {edit- because I do that}
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:18:13 GMT -4
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? Again, where in AS16-110-18020 do you see these tracks that you claim exist?
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:25:36 GMT -4
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. Yeah, it sounds like a real nightmare alright. I'm surprised the astronauts didn't just walk to each Station carrying everything on their backs.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:28:50 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.
Forget universal acceptance of expectations. Your expectation isn't even supported by evidence! You argue that we should not expect to see the tracks because of poor photo contrast and yet somehow this doesn't stop us from distinguishing details significantly smaller than the missing tracks would have to be. It also doesn't stop us from distinguishing tracks farther in the distance either. Then, you argue that we should not expect to see the tracks because our angle of view in 18020 would cause us to see them head-on and yet the ground on this side of the rover is obviously sloped downward with respect to our angle of view as evidenced by the shadows that are cast on the ground! Etc., etc... As I've shown, every single one of these 7 arguments fails by way of simple observations and now, you want to talk about universal acceptance of expectations when your expectation isn't even supported by evidence? Right!
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.
Already done.
and you have the burden to prove how some specific act of fakery accounts for it.
Sorry to dissapoint you. You seem to think that you're an attorney and that this forum is a court of law. You aren't, and it isn't. And no, I don't need to prove a specific act of fakery in order to prove fakery. If we have to choose between magic and deception, then deception it must be--pure and simple.
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.
That's merely your opinion that that's all I've done. 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.
Sorry. Again, this isn't a legal case, we're not be in a courtroom and you're not an attorney. Tell me why I'm logically required to do this just in order to prove fraud.
I don't need to show exactly how this photo was faked in order to show that it was faked...
Yes you do. ...
No I don't. Again, why would I?
So what would be your objection to answering them then?
Because, as the claimant, you have the burden of proof. ...
No, you don't understand. Hypothetically, I could share your beliefs and still ask that you explain this anomaly out of curiosity. How does this make me a "claimant" if I share your beliefs and am merely asking for you to explain something that I find anomalous?
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."
Again, as I continue to demonstrate in my replies, my claim is well supported by the evidence and yours isn't.
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.
And nor have you found a solution other than to just whine repeatedly about all matters irrelevant.
I have already explained at length why your approach is not logically sound,
Well, at least you keep making vague claims over and over without actually supporting them--like claiming that the anomaly is merely a violation of my own expectations when in fact I've shown otherwise.
You ... insist that your hypothesis must be accepted as a default
Fakery is a default only in the sense that you give us no other choice but magic!
Would you like me to give you another 3 weeks?
I will not change my position.
It sounds like you need more time.
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?
I don't care if you split the atom. If you can explain the anomaly, you will. If you can't, you won't and after 3 weeks, you haven't. Like I said from the beginning, this photo is F-A-K-E!
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:32:52 GMT -4
I can and have explained this anomaly...
No, you have not. You have simply adopted a general, unspecified explanation of "fakery."
I seem to recall having said that the anomaly is the result of fakery via "composite photography". Just because that may not be enough detail to suit you doesn't make it a non-explanation. In fact, it's way more than you've provided. As for providing direct evidence, I'm the only one in this discussion who has provided any direct evidence in support of his claim.
When asking for someone else's explanation, you demand that it be highly detailed and testable.
No, that's just it. I haven't demanded that you tell me exactly how this photo was made--the focal length, the F-stop, the type of film, etc. I don't care. You don't have to disclose all of this in order for me to prove that this photo is fake. Likewise, I don't need to disclose a wealth of irrelevant details in order for you to prove that this photo is genuine. Either you can explain this anomaly or you can't and it's becoming quite clear that you can't.
Yours is a blatantly preconceived position. It would not stand up even remotely under a real-world evaluation.
Well, yours certainly is. In addition, yours is a blatantly unsupported one.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:36:27 GMT -4
Again, I have proven this to be an anomaly
Jay (along with the entire scientific community) claims that ordinary activity by the astronauts around the vicinity of the LRV can account for the apparent lack of tracks in various photos, or that there are photographic reasons to explain their absence.
Even if the "entire scientific community" did in fact claim that activity by the astronauts could account for the lack of tracks in various photos, this still wouldn't explain the lack of tracks in this particular photo. For one thing, there are no footprints in the immediate area where the tracks should exist and even if there were, they couldn't possibly account for the disappearance of two tracks that are each about 10 feet in length and 6 feet apart from one another.
As for "photographic reasons to explain their absence", yeah, I'm sure that the "entire scientific community" would line up right behind Jay in agreeing that tracks shouldn't be visible in 18020 due to "poor contrast". This, despite the fact that anyone with eyes can see details in the photo significantly smaller than the width of a track and even rover tracks farther in the distance than the rover itself... LOL! And the rest of the "photographic reasons" that some of you guys have proposed and others blindly defend are no better than this one!
Can you provide a clearly stated, logical argument to refute his position, without resorting to the standard CT fare of "I think it looks odd" ?
I believe I already have. Which part of Jay's position hasn't already been refuted? Also, I never said "I think it looks odd", but you guys keep repeating this over and over as if I had.
In other words, produce some evidence which actually meets this lofty standard of incontrovertible proof you claim to have reached. So far, you've fallen short of the mark.
If, as you claim, I've fallen short of the mark then I assume that you must be capable of stating exactly how I've fallen short. Or, is this too "lofty" a request?
Also, kindly provide your relevant credentials and your specific fields of study...
Sorry, this isn't rocket science. Common sense alone is all that's needed to determine the truth in this matter. As is typical, you guys want to turn this into an argument about anything except the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:38:03 GMT -4
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.
Looked at them.
And I don't see any proof of an anomoly being proven. I do see that the photo and situation do not meet your expectations.
Again, all of your attempts to show that the anomaly isn't real have been made null and void in earlier replies:
the photo was shot from too far a distance - DISPROVEN the photo has too poor of contrast - DISPROVEN the angle of view is inadequate - DISPROVEN the sun's angle is interfering - DISPROVEN the lunar surface is too irregular - DISPROVEN the tracks don't extend far enough to be seen - DISPROVEN the camera lens was too dirty - DISPROVEN
Which of these hasn't been disproven?
As mentioned to you before, Oldman, claiming a "fraud" is not a default. Before claiming "fraud", you first have to explain the situation, such as how it was done, and why.
If so then claiming "genuine" is also not a default. Before claiming "genuine", you first have to explain this anomaly, such as how it came about, and why.
|
|
|
Post by oldman on Jan 17, 2009 13:38:34 GMT -4
Simpler than pushing a button and pulling back on a lever?
Pushing a button and pulling a lever will not rotate the rover in place, or move it several feet sideways.
I'm sure there was no requirement that the astronauts rotate the rover in place or just move it sideways. Pushing a button and pulling (or pushing) of the lever while steering would certainly result in the rover being relocated to its pictured location and I'm also pretty certain that this complicated maneuver couldn't have been any more of a challenge than dragging 90 pounds up-hill...
You proved yourself that your picture and several others that DO show tracks are in the same scene (your colored diagrams of rocks). So there are tracks, but they don't line up. They don't line up because the rover was picked up by the astronauts.
You're missing the point. Photo 18006 shows a curved set of tracks proving that the rover's rear wheel had to rest just behind the pictured rover's right rear wheel (thus the rover's front wheels had to rest about 10 feet this side of the pictured rover). These front wheel tracks are missing from photo 18020.
Just because YOU can't pick up a 45# weight without busting a nut doesn't mean anything. [begging-the-question] What would be easier than simply leaning over, grabbing the convenient handle with one hand, grabbing under the frame with the other, and lifting?[/begging-the-question]
I didn't say it was impossible for the astronauts to lift 45 pounds. I believe I said it was highly improbable that they'd resort to physically lifting the rover and moving it up-hill while wearing pressurized spacesuits. Impossible is that they could do any of this without leaving behind any visible evidence. Where are the footprints that had to have been left behind as a result of the astronauts picking up and moving the rover?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 17, 2009 14:01:14 GMT -4
Forget universal acceptance of expectations.
Sorry but that's the standard. You cannot claim something is an "anomaly" just because you personally don't understand it.
Sorry to dissapoint you. You seem to think that you're an attorney and that this forum is a court of law.
No, I don't think I'm an attorney and I don't think this is a court of law. The claimant always has the burden of proof. No one gets to hold a hypothesis by default, which is what you're doing.
I will ask for the fourth time: have you ever had to conduct an investigation where you were personally liable for the correctness of the results?
Your persistent refusal to answer this question indicates that you have not, but I would like to hear you give an answer to it rather than to evade the question repeatedly. Your evasion suggests that you recognize that some knowledge and experience would ordinarily be required here in such an investigation, and you realize that you don't have it.
Please answer my question.
No one accepts that argument, nor should they.
Actually everyone here except for you subscribes to that argument. You are the claimaint, therefore the burden of proof is yours.
Tell me why I'm logically required to do this just in order to prove fraud.
Because "fraud" as a general concept is unfalsifiable and therefore untenable. You can only claim fraud if you can identify the properties of a specific act that fits the definition of fraud; and whose properties are putatively falsifiable. A conclusion that cannot be falsified cannot be asserted according to an argument, and this is basic categorical logic.
You propose to require your "fraud" hypothesis to be refuted by affirmative rebuttal, and by no other means. This is improper for two reasons. First, there are other means of rebuttal available. The claimant does not have the right to cherry-pick how his claim will be tested. Second, the affirmative rebuttal in this case, where the conclusion is held by default, amounts to an unbounded conjunction.
Now if you had any actual training in investigative methodology I wouldn't need to be so remedial here.
Further, in the context of historical research treating the authenticity of materials, authenticity is always presumed. The burden of proof lies always upon any who claim forgery. Again, this is because of the logical question of the unbounded conjunction. Proving authenticity would require satisfying an open-ended and therefore innumerable set of propositions, whereas proving forgery relies upon a disjunction, specifically requiring only one term of the disjunction to be proven. It therefore does not matter whether that set is unbounded.
How does this make me a "claimant" ...
That doesn't make you the claimant. What makes you the claimant is where you claim that the picture in question was produced by fraud. Specific the fraud and prove your case.
Again, as I continue to demonstrate in my replies, my claim is well supported by the evidence and yours isn't.
Your argument is logically flawed in its first step, where you intend to hold your hypothesis by default. What you propose to do after that is immaterial.
And nor have you found a solution other than to just whine repeatedly about all matters irrelevant.
The logical basis of one's argument is not irrelevant, no matter how much you wish it to be.
And since you have asked me what tenet of logic applies to your responsibility as the claimant, you have specifically made it relevant. You may not therefore now dismiss the answer as irrelevant. Fix your broken logic or go away.
Fakery is a default only in the sense that you give us no other choice but magic!
It is not anyone's responsibility to disprove forgery if you have not made any sort of claim.
It sounds like you need more time.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that you're waiting on me. Your approach is logically unsound. We all realize it. You don't. We're waiting on you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 17, 2009 14:03:11 GMT -4
Again, all of your attempts to show that the anomaly isn't real have been made null and void in earlier replies:
the photo was shot from too far a distance - DISPROVEN the photo has too poor of contrast - DISPROVEN the angle of view is inadequate - DISPROVEN the sun's angle is interfering - DISPROVEN the lunar surface is too irregular - DISPROVEN the tracks don't extend far enough to be seen - DISPROVEN the camera lens was too dirty - DISPROVEN
Which of these hasn't been disproven?
The rest of the unbounded conjunction. Simply because I or anyone else hasn't imagined them or named them is immaterial. The set of such propositions is fundamentally open-ended and can never be exhausted.
This is why, logically, you have the burden of proof. Because the burden of rebuttal is logically, provably, mathematically unsustainable. The rest of the world understands this. You don't.
|
|