|
Post by BertL on Jan 25, 2007 12:48:30 GMT -4
postbaguk - don't forget more information the sources so david can easily reproduce the 'experiment' himself.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jan 25, 2007 13:07:07 GMT -4
postbaguk - don't forget more information the sources so david can easily reproduce the 'experiment' himself. Dunnit
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jan 25, 2007 19:09:40 GMT -4
Postbaguk, those two photos illustrate nicely how media saturation affects image size.
Somebody may want to post an astrophoto with bright stars and then get david to explain why some of the stars are bigger than others.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 25, 2007 19:28:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 25, 2007 19:42:20 GMT -4
Should I mention I just ran into a thread at Godlike Productions where someone went to THIS page (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth/action?opt=-s) and decided on that evidence that the sun is actually small than the Earth? (Because, obviously, that picture is a lot larger than what you get when you photograph the sun.......!)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2007 20:20:03 GMT -4
Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 25, 2007 20:34:19 GMT -4
I swear you lie awake at night and dream up these things just praying to get a chance to use them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 26, 2007 16:32:19 GMT -4
Of course I know this.
So I pose my question again. Did any of these people give you objective reasons for agreeing with you? Reasons that would appeal to other scientifically-minded people? Or did they just agree with you and leave it at that?
I should have metioned that the people I asked had taken a few physics classes and had studied the properties of light.
Ad hoc revision. First you told us you had polled your friends and they had agreed with you, but that they were not "real experts". Now it seems you want us to believe that these same people really were knowledgeable. Which is it?
An important difference between experts and laymen is that experts are able to give detailed reasons behind their opinions. And they are able to address detailed criticism point-by-point. Telling me that your friends know the physics of light doesn't do anything for me unless they address what I say about the physics of light. Talk is cheap. They can try to show where I got something wrong, or show me something I didn't consider.
The glare obscures the size of the actual reflection ihn the two pictures.
That's the whole point! In photographs you often cannot distinguish between reflection and glare. So you can't point to something that might be glare and tell me it's a reflection without telling me how you know the difference.
David Percy wants us to believe that a bigger reflection can only be explained by a bigger light source that can't therefore be the sun. He does not even consider whether glare is a factor. Since we have exhaustively proven that glare is a factor, we have no obligation to accept any argument that doesn't discuss that factor.
I base my opinions on the evidence I see.
Then you must have some comments regarding what you have seen here. If you haven't seen the evidence here, then I submit that you base your opinion only on the evidence you choose to look at.
I don't worry about who presents it.
Utter hogwash. You've spent the last couple of pages doing nothing but poison the well. You've tried to trump up a line of reasoning that shows us not to be "objective", ignoring lots of objective arguments in the process.
Of course--provided that the person is not a con-artist.
Explain what you did to ensure that David Percy was not a con artist before advocating his findings. If I recall, you asked specifically for examples of Percy's untrustworthiness, which we provided. We can provide as many more as you wish. You have so far responded to none of them. For someone who expresses a fear of not being taken in, you seem strangely unconcerned with evidence that your author has been dishonest.
The first problem with many conspiracists is that they say they want to be skeptical and avoid being fooled, but we observe that their skepticism works only in one direction. They're quite aggressive in questioning people who disagree with them, but we often find they've done little or nothing to test the claims of the conspiracy authors. "Truth-seekers" cannot afford to be so one-sided.
Another common problem in conspiracist reasoning is that they often try first to establish that some critic is "biased" or a "con artist" before they look at anything he says. If they can dismiss a person as untrustworthy, then it seems they don't have to deal with what he actually says.
But unfortunately that's a well-known logical fallacy: the ad hominem fallacy. It's a pretty good example of it. Observing or surmising something about a person does not affect whether he has made a sound argument.
Let's resurrect notorious con artist P.T. Barnum and put him on a busy street corner next to you. You're on your cell phone and not paying attention. You start to cross, and he yells, "Watch out for that truck!" And there is indeed a truck coming, and it would have struck you but for Barnum's warning.
Now there can be little doubt that P.T. Barnum deserves his con-artist reputation. And how did he acquire it? By having said and done things in the past that were proven false.
But did that change the factual truth of what he said in our hypothetical scenario? Was he inaccurate in his observation of the truck? Was he incorrect in reasoning that it and you were on a collision course? The accuracy of his observation and the correctness of his logic were quite independent of any reputation he might have. A con artist has a habit of lying, but it does not follow that he then must be lying in some particular case. You cannot rely on the proposition that anything Barnum says must be false. Had you done so in our hypothetical example, you would have been squashed flat.
The ad hominem fallacy observes that the truth of some statements is independent of the trustworthiness of the speaker.
If a mathematician asserts that "1 + 1 = 3", his credentials don't make the statement true. The statement is either true or false independent of who said it.
If a hardened career criminal says "If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C," then his checkered past does not make that statement false. That proposition is also true or false independent of who said it.
Of course in matters of expert judgment the qualifications of the person making the judgment apply. And if an allegation cannot be tested independently, then the character and trustworthiness of the claimant has to be considered pertinent. But it is inappropriate to rely on a character assessment when objective means can be brought to bear.
If Barnum said the truck driver was a 7 foot tall chicken, his reputation would certainly bear on whether you believe that initially or not. Barnum had a habit of creating "chickens" where there weren't any. But until you see the driver yourself, you can't know for sure whether Barnum is really lying. Unlikey as it may be, the truck might have been a basketball player in a chicken costume. When people give us no choice but to take their word for something, believing them will obviously and rightly be a matter of whether they've given us reason to trust or distrust them in the past. But when there is an allegation of fact, you're always better off trying to test the fact than trying to surmise something about the claimant.
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.
You aren't quite getting the point. The premise to Percy's claim is the "rule" that the sun photographed in a convex reflector should always appear the same small size if the photo is genuine. If that rule is true, then any photograph showing a significantly larger white blotch would be suspect. So the question is whether the rule is true, not how many photographs obey it. It doesn't matter how many photographs you can reference that appear to agree with the rule. If you find even one photograph that breaks the rule, then the rule isn't a rule.
If you say that all canaries are yellow, therefore any bird that isn't yellow cannot be a canary, then pointing to eighty gajillion yellow canaries does absolutely no good when I can show one blue canary. The rule isn't an absolute anymore.
We've found many such photographs, and can find and produce many more. And we've gone even further: we've researched and tested the underlying causes for those photos that don't follow the rule. We've done everything that is possible to do to show that Percy's "rule" is simply not true. And if that's the means by which he proposes to test whether photos are real or fake, then he will inevitably be wrong. Being wrong in that way will lead him to inappropriately reject some real photos as fakes.
The one from apollo 15 is quite different from the one from Apollo 12. I know you've explained it.
Yes we have. And because we have, you need to either accept the explanation and revise your claim, or tell us what's wrong with the explanation and why your claim is still valid. Simply restating the original claim doesn't get us anywhere.
Nor does it do any good to show any other alleged confirmation of your belief. The exception tries the rule, and we've provided the exception. If you continue to assert the rule, you can only do so by disproving the exception.
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.
Of course. And I'll explain how you too can do it with cameras you might have yourself. Then you can verify whether we've doctored the evidence. One caveat: my vidicon cameras have all died a natural death.
And I have some family matters to attend to beginning tomorrow, so let's agree to be mutually patient.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 27, 2007 23:08:16 GMT -4
Rocky, I have questions for you. I posed them to you earlier in this thread.
Now...
Was there a problem with the Saturn 5 rocket that meant it couldn't be used? Was there a problem with the Block 2 Apollo capsule that made it an unworthy spacecraft? Was there a similar problem with the LM or it's computer system? Is there some factor about the lunar environment or cislunar space that prevented Apollo from happening?
I don't want links or videos. I just want your answers. I want that, because it shows whether or not you speak your own mind, or just parrot what hoax sites and videos tell you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 29, 2007 17:01:29 GMT -4
I won't have any time to any serious posting until the weekend after next. David/rocky, You seem to have plenty of time to discuss 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jan 29, 2007 19:41:18 GMT -4
I won't have any time to any serious posting until the weekend after next. David/rocky, You seem to have plenty of time to discuss 9/11. Be fair, he did say serious posting.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2007 19:17:44 GMT -4
I've been away attending to family business. Today is my first day back in town, and the sky is overcast. Example photos when the conditions permit.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 3, 2007 20:56:17 GMT -4
I've been away attending to family business. Today is my first day back in town, and the sky is overcast. Example photos when the conditions permit. I'm probably going to shoot some photos too, tomorrow, if the weather allows it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 4, 2007 23:25:54 GMT -4
A friend of mine just sent me this picture of his ongoing remodeling efforts. i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/SNV30194.jpgIgnore the atrocious pink bathtub for a moment. The important feature is the huge flare obscuring my friend's head. This feature occurs in nearly every flash photograph taken in a mirror. If our Davids (Percy and "rocky") are correct, then the highlight in the mirror should appear no larger than the flash -- a postage stamp sized device. But instead we see the combined effect of the light source directly and the scattered light from it. It's scattered by the mirror and the camera lens. And it saturates the CCD so that we can't distinguish it from the flash directly. This inability to distinguish the glare created by the reflector and the lens is what makes it impossible for Percy to declare that the highlights in the TV images are inevitably from a large light source.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 5, 2007 4:28:31 GMT -4
That's a hard bathtub to ignore, Jay.
|
|