|
Post by PeterB on Jan 24, 2007 10:05:34 GMT -4
david said:
David, just a thought.
Even if you prove all the Apollo photos are faked, you still haven't proved the Moon landings were faked. Strong circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but nothing more.
Who's to say NASA didn't send astronauts to the Moon, but decided, for whatever reason, to fake the photos?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 24, 2007 10:50:41 GMT -4
There's nothing rhetorical about my question. Why am I not surprised that after everything Jay wrote, this is the one thing you chose to comment on. I guess everybody was afraid to answer… Ask the question in the proper area of the forum and you’ll probably get all the answers you want. Since you seem so afraid to do so however, I've done it for you: Answers to David's 9/11 question...After seeing everybody's response I would say none of you are objective. Irrelevant, objectivity is not a prerequisite for being right or wrong. If the answers we provide are verifiably correct, what difference does it make if we’re objective or not? People are banned here only for rules violations. Read them, follow them, and you should have no problem. Are you Schwarzenegger now? (edited link to 9/11 thread)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 24, 2007 12:43:04 GMT -4
david said: David, just a thought. Even if you prove all the Apollo photos are faked, you still haven't proved the Moon landings were faked. Strong circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but nothing more. Who's to say NASA didn't send astronauts to the Moon, but decided, for whatever reason, to fake the photos? Are you Hoagland in disguise?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 24, 2007 12:49:05 GMT -4
david said: David, just a thought. Even if you prove all the Apollo photos are faked, you still haven't proved the Moon landings were faked. Strong circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but nothing more. Who's to say NASA didn't send astronauts to the Moon, but decided, for whatever reason, to fake the photos? Are you Hoagland in disguise? Heh. Hardly. :-) Still, Dave isn't the only person to make that leap of logic - that fake photos prove people didn't walk on the Moon. So understand this, Dave, when you get a chance to return to the thread. If you want to prove Apollo was faked, you have to come up with evidence relating to the hardware of Apollo, not just the photos.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 24, 2007 12:59:03 GMT -4
Are you Schwarzenegger now? He can't be Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger is a Republican, and therefore evil (yeah, I know, that's redundent) and also a part of the moon conspiracy cover-up.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2007 19:44:59 GMT -4
Keep in mind that our David is an Aulis protege, and that Aulis once published the following on their web site. It is common for Aulis readers to assume the authors meant the book to challenge the landings themselves, and is questionable how faithful Aulis has been to that hair-split, but if David intends to remain true to his source material he may easily decide that he's challenging only the record.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 24, 2007 21:25:44 GMT -4
David needs to get with JW, maybe the two of them can sort out the challenges of the LEO CSM conumdrum... If they didn't go to the Moon (where they were tracked), then where did they, and the hardware, go?
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 25, 2007 9:57:53 GMT -4
Of course I know this. I should have metioned that the people I asked had taken a few physics classes and had studied the properties of light. Concerning the pictures in reply #24 The glare obscures the size of the actual reflection ihn the two pictures. I base my opinions on the evidence I see. I don't worry about who presents it. Of course--provided that the person is not a con-artist. There are a lot of con artists who have more knowledge than I do. I only have an hour today. I won't have any time to any serious posting until the weekend after next. I've only had time to scan your explanations of the difference in the size of the reflections in the visors. Of course I'm going to spend some time and try to analyze them the weekend after next. All I can say so far is that the pictures and footage of reflections of light I've seen during the course of my life is not consistent with what you're telling me. Is it possible to post some photos of the phenomena that you've described? This is from Apollo 12. www.hasselbladfoundation.org/images/centenary_4.jpgThis is from the shuttle. a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/ig_65.13_sts51i_ox.jpgThis is the one in question. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1653238.rmThe one from apollo 15 is quite different from the one from Apollo 12. I know you've explained it. You sound like you have photography equipment. If it's easy for you to do, I'd like to see some photos of the phenomena you've described that explain the difference. I know this post doesn't begin to cover everything you've said. I'm just real busy now.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 25, 2007 10:23:02 GMT -4
I base my opinions on the evidence I see. I don't worry about who presents it. Then why do you care whether we are objective or not? If you base your opinions on evidence and not the person who presents it, then the presenter's objectivity shouldn't matter. So why this charade about testing our objectivity?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 25, 2007 11:07:41 GMT -4
Ah, now we are back on track!
As Jay explained, there's a difference between how the TV camera on Apollo and the films used react to a glare as seen. So, of course, we see a difference in the size of the glare in the visors. That is one of the points that was trying to be made (If I interpret the information that given correctly, that is).
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 25, 2007 11:10:48 GMT -4
I base my opinions on the evidence I see. I don't worry about who presents it. Then why do you care whether we are objective or not? If you base your opinions on evidence and not the person who presents it, then the presenter's objectivity shouldn't matter. So why this charade about testing our objectivity? Because he is fooling himself if he believes that. He has a long track record, both here and on other forums, of accepting any dubious assertion from a website that shares his worldview and ignoring or waving away any evidence he doesn't like, even if it is something he could check for himself with a little effort. For instance, instead of finding photographs to measure or repeating Jay's car experiment to see who is right about sun reflection sizes, he just goes around asking people he trusts, no matter if they know anything about photography or not.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 25, 2007 11:16:26 GMT -4
The one from apollo 15 is quite different from the one from Apollo 12. I know you've explained it.
Then why do you still insist we compare still photos to video images?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jan 25, 2007 11:24:25 GMT -4
I'd like to see some photos of the phenomena you've described that explain the difference. Page 2, post #24?
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jan 25, 2007 12:06:12 GMT -4
Re size of glare reflections in photos - you need to bear in miind that prints may have been pushed or pulled during development, or that images produced for the internert may have had some processing done that alters the apparent size of the glare. Take for example AS17/134/20387 From the LPI - hereAnd this one, which I've reduced from a 4400x4600 pixel scan for comparison. You can request it here, or FTP it from hereSame image, huge difference in size of glare.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 25, 2007 12:23:27 GMT -4
Ya maybe! But you can see the flag waving in the second photo. ;D
|
|