|
Post by Kiwi on Jun 8, 2006 7:38:33 GMT -4
I propose the "Percy" as a unit of bogosity. Since the bogousness is so strong, everyday values will typically be measured in micropercies or even nanopercies. I like the sound of picopercies. Perhaps they could be used as some form of measure of the overall importance of David Percy's claims.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 8, 2006 8:02:14 GMT -4
There are many ways in which you can empirically test this claim.
But why would you need to when obvious examples exist in the very record they are saying was faked by particular methods? Cut-and-paste does not explain the picture posted above, or the one on Clavius with the fiducial only disappearing behind the white stripes of the flag but clearly present over the red stripes.
What do Percy and co say about those. or do they just ignore them?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2006 10:20:42 GMT -4
They just ignore them. But empirical tests offer refutation by subversion of support. The need for any hoaxish explanation -- regardless of the actual proposed method -- is obviated by proof that the phenomenon arises naturally.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 8, 2006 10:40:36 GMT -4
Thinking about it, I wouldn't be overly surprised if some HB still claimed weird cut-and-paste composition for the fiducial/flag stripes type refutation. After all, it still could be explained by cut-and-paste, or manual painting over the fiducials but they only had white paint to do it with, or some such cobblers.
But I agree, white objects 'bleeding' in photographs is a known and understood phenomenon, so showing that it occurs in all sorts of other places and not just the Apollo record is always a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 8, 2006 10:42:09 GMT -4
I like the sound of picopercies. Perhaps they could be used as some form of measure of the overall importance of David Percy's claims.
Hmm, I don't know. Even a picopercy might be too big for that. Does roll off the tongue nicely though....
|
|