|
Post by gwiz on Jan 22, 2007 4:23:09 GMT -4
I'm not expert in this so I've been asking around. Nobody I've asked so far agrees with you. I haven't asked any real experts though. This Thursday I'm going to have a chance to ask a high school physics teacher. Jay has pretty well answered this, but I'd just add that you don't need an expert, all you need is i) a normally exposed picture that includes the Sun and ii) the basic school-level trigonometry to work out how big the Sun's image should be and how big it appears to be. As Jay says, science is not a democracy, evidence trumps opinion every time. It's the angular size that matters. If your claim that it is a true image of a floodlight is correct, then the light has to be bigger if it is farther away to give the same image size. A bigger light farther away will give the same umbra/penumbra as a smaller light closer. Without doing a detailed analysis, my estimate is that the size of the reflection implies a floodlight about 10 to 20 degrees across when seen from the position of the astronaut. I will leave you to work out how big a floodlight that is if it is 100 yards away.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Jan 22, 2007 9:29:51 GMT -4
In many ways this web forum format is limiting. Give me 15 minutes with a whiteboard and a digital camera and I guarantee you'll understand it as well as I do.
Oh, oh !!! Jay teaching a class just for us! I would so be there, except that you live in Utah and I ...don't (Toronto)
Bummer
Pete
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 12:33:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 22, 2007 12:37:16 GMT -4
Would you mind analyzing this picture for me?
Yes I definitely would mind, because this is neither the thread nor the board for 9/11 stuff, and you ought to know that.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 22, 2007 12:37:59 GMT -4
David, that has NOTHING to do with Apollo. Keep your 9/11 conspiracy garbage out of this section of the forum.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 12:58:49 GMT -4
Of course I know that. I don't want to discuss 9/11. I just want to see how objective you people are. Of course it has nothing to do with Apollo. I don't intend to discuss 9/11 here. A lot of the people who post on this thread showed a clear lack of objectivity in this thread on this other site. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507They pretty much destroyed their credibility when they said that the object on the right in this picture was smoke. There are some people who post on this thread who are either incompetent or insincere. I just want to check the objectivity of the others who haven't posted there. If this site is dedicated to truth, that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jan 22, 2007 13:15:04 GMT -4
Oh good lord, david is the infamous David C who went on... and on... and on.... on BAUT about 9/11.
Save your energy, folks.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 22, 2007 13:22:35 GMT -4
There are some people who post on this thread who are either incompetent or insincere.
Would I be alone in wanting david to specify exactly whom he believes to be incompetent or insincere and why? I don't see why we should accept indirect ad homs. If david has a problem with one or more contributors to this thread let him say so now so they/we can save our breath in future.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:00:27 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2007 14:03:54 GMT -4
Wrong thread, and you seem to use "objective" to mean "willing to believe conspiracy theories."
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:16:11 GMT -4
Stop avoiding the issue and give your analysis of that picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon which is obviously not the nose of a 757. As I said--all I want to do is see how objective you are. After the post we can discuss it on another thread if you want to discuss it further.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Jan 22, 2007 14:19:44 GMT -4
"If you don't agree with my assertion you're not being objective"
C'mon, folks. You have got to admire the beauty of that position.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 22, 2007 14:23:45 GMT -4
David, as you may be able to tell, a lot of people on this forum are also on BAUT (should be obvious, right?).
If you want to discuss that photo analysis, then zip on over to the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section of this forum, and start a thread there. If you want Mr. Windley to give his opinion on it, then ask him to do in such an appropiate thread. That option is preferable to wondering off topic in the current thread.
I like to note that your idea are remarkablely similar to a person I saw on a program yesterday; this person was detirmined to show that a lake monster like the Loch Ness exists in a certain body of water. In one portion of the program, he showed slides of what he claimed to be evidence of an object in the water. But no one else in the room could see what the man claimed to be seeing. You have demostrated similar behavior many times, David. It's not that we're not "objective". It's just that we don't see what you claim to see.
You reminded us many times that you are a layman. So, we discussed in that matter. Yet, you make your claims with absolute authority, dismissing the explainations we gave to you. So, consider that before you claim people destroy their credibility and make straw-man accusations.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 22, 2007 14:26:35 GMT -4
Stop avoiding the issue and give your analysis of that picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon which is obviously not the nose of a 757. As I said--all I want to do is see how objective you are. After the post we can discuss it on another thread if you want to discuss it further. As LunarOrbit said, this isn't the thread to discuss it in. We do not have to honor your request. Discuss it as I suggested to you. Stick to the issues of Apollo in this thread.Simple request, really. This is not the "Objectivity Test" thread, after all. You can start a thread on that elsewhere as well.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 22, 2007 14:30:29 GMT -4
Stop avoiding the issue and give your analysis of that picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon which is obviously not the nose of a 757. Last warning. If you continue to discuss 9/11 in this section of the forum you will be banned for one month. Your definition of "being objective" seems to be based on how willing we are to agree with your crackpot theory. That has nothing to do with being objective. To be perfectly honest, I think you are the last person who should be a judging other people's objectivity.
|
|