|
Post by gillianren on Feb 6, 2012 18:31:52 GMT -4
I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible. This is ridiculous. Say you're a scientist who uses the Apollo data to send up a satellite. You are not a government scientist and it is not a government satellite. Are you saying that you in your ignorance are better equipped to know that the data is wrong than the scientist whose satellite would fall down? Whereas scientists know what the data is supposed to look like, and you're listening to the most gullible people of all--hoax believers.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 6, 2012 20:11:14 GMT -4
What makes it fun is that these circumstantial anomalies keep coming up over and over again. All three of us side with the hoax side now mostly because we have discovered anomalies on our own. Please list the alleged anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 6, 2012 20:23:42 GMT -4
[I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible. A perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. He hits points 1, 2, and 3 dead on. Whether 4 will ever happen is up for grabs. Fred
|
|
|
Post by chew on Feb 6, 2012 20:32:08 GMT -4
I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. On the contrary. You've fallen for some of the dumbest ideas ever put forth by man.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 6, 2012 20:40:46 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. Of all the things that should be redundant a second camera would be viewed as critical on a first moon landing. I read the camera was very expensive and dependable but that is no guarrantee. If this was a moon landing and Armstrong's camera malfunctioned then we would not have have any photos. And this would have been catastrophic, why? Yes, too bad we wouldn't have had historic photographs, but we would still have had the TV transmissions, and the samples that were returned. It would not have made the mission a failure, and the weight woudl have been significant.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 6, 2012 21:07:48 GMT -4
And this would have been catastrophic, why? Yes, too bad we wouldn't have had historic photographs, but we would still have had the TV transmissions, and the samples that were returned. It would not have made the mission a failure, and the weight woudl have been significant. Not to mention the 16mm footage..
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 6, 2012 23:45:10 GMT -4
A camera in hand on the lunar surface is worth a million inside a lander. I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible. What was more valuable than everything was minutes on the moon surface. Which were very few on A11. Minutes spent moving non essential equipment to the surface would have been the greatest waste. BTW what is your experience in testing of equipment in harsh environments to project the failure potential for the mission? What is your experience in mission planning of any sort? From past experience I know you won't give an answer, so I'll reply for you. "None." Now if you wish to contradict me please go ahead. Your protest of not being easily fooled would only be worth only the paper it is printed on if it was sincere. But we know you are not.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:25:28 GMT -4
I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible. So your ignorance is worth a million science degrees? Oh please....
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:28:22 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. For what safety related reasons would a second stills camera have been useful? Explain why taking pictures is so critical it requires redudancy? So what? We had live TV and 16 mm film of the event. The loss of pictures would be annoying to the geologists and might have been a minor PR point, but we'd still have a record and we'd still have the samples returned. Well of course they do, if you have the same preconceptions about the circumstances as you do.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 7, 2012 4:38:05 GMT -4
Funnily enough I am not in many pictures when we (family and I) go out. None really, though I do take many shots and can fill a 2 gig card in an afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 7, 2012 7:36:10 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. [Emphasis mine] This is not a safety concern. At all. You have absolutely no idea what the word safety means. Your argument fails. Hard. ZOMG, even the sock puppet has sock puppets! They're multiplying exponentially!
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 7, 2012 8:07:29 GMT -4
I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 7, 2012 15:39:02 GMT -4
I'd note that during Apollo 12 both the TV camera and one of the Hasselblads broke, and the other Hasselblad nearly suffered the same issue (the trigger coming loose) and kept failing to take images. The only camera caused safety issue however was when Alan Bean forgot to stow the DAC on landing back on Earth and the jolt caused it to fall and hit him in the head knocking him out.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Feb 7, 2012 16:18:26 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. Of all the things that should be redundant a second camera would be viewed as critical on a first moon landing. I read the camera was very expensive and dependable but that is no guarrantee. If this was a moon landing and Armstrong's camera malfunctioned then we would not have have any photos. If by "catastrophic" you mean they would have simply selected the hi-res switch on the TV camera and sent down 35mm quality images, then yep. I'm with you on that one for sure. Heck it might have even gotten so catastrophic that they may have even used the sequential color attachment to get color pics as well. Run away!
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 13, 2012 20:10:20 GMT -4
I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. I think your point is pretty good however. But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. Just in case you have forgotten this. You going to say anything about this? Not sure what you mean. What I mean is that if I go to New York City I'll have my picture taken from the top of the Empire State Building or in front of The Blue Note or in front of Radio City Music Hall. These landmarks distinguish my being as in a uniquely Manhattan place. The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. I do not know where the photos were taken but they were not taken on the moon. That is for sure. Aldrin was not there. The photos are proof of nothing. As a matter of fact I find them insulting now that I have looked at this situation carefully. They are proof of a hoax if anything.
|
|