|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 14, 2009 12:42:33 GMT -4
I'm quite familiar with Foy -- I'm a certified Foy flying technician.
This is news to me. If such a contingency was planned, why wasn't it invoked for Apollo 12 when the signal was lost?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 14, 2009 10:57:27 GMT -4
No, I'm not ignoring it. But because my method for updating the site is different now, I batch up these small changes and do them periodically.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 13, 2009 11:38:07 GMT -4
My hypothesis: The Apollo images were taken using a camera lens with 5-leaf iris. I can confirm that the Zeiss Biogon lens has a five-leaf iris.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 12, 2009 17:39:02 GMT -4
You are saying that the moon landings are true because they got away with itNo. See, you're trying a deductive approach -- noting that a certain thing occurred, and that this suggests that some other proposion "must" therefore necessarily be the case. That is generally a poor line of reasoning when more direct lines exist. Not limiting one's scrutiny to the amount of pre-Apollo data, but looking at the evidence more directly attached to the Apollo missions, one finds an enormous and easily-accessible mountain of reasonably consistent evidence. If you consider the proposition, "Apollo was genuine," you're trying to undermine that statement deductively by saying that insufficient research was conducted. But there is other evidence supporting that proposition. It's not enough to find one line of reasoning that undermines or seems to invalidate the proposition; if you argue that the proposition seems unlikely, you have to refute all strong lines of reasoning leading to it. Finding the weak one and making that case only is the straw-man fallacy. Since there is a vast, consistent, and easily-accessible body of evidence supporting the actual missions, it is simply not convincing to say that because there wasn't a certain arbitrary amount of prior research done, the missions may have been faked. That argument still has to explain away the evidence of the missions themselves. but a hoaxer would say that they are a fake because they didn't truly get away with it.That one is indeed circular. The hoax believer admits that evidence exists in favor of the missions, but tries to think of other ways besides missions in which that evidence came about. That is an affirmative rebuttal. An affirmative rebuttal says, "Your proposition A can't be true because my proposition B is true instead, and contradicts yours." That method of rebuttal (unlike many others) incurs a burden of proof. You must prove Proposition B. In law this is one of the few times in which the defense will have the burden of proof. But it's not circular to say that one may find a mountain of evidence convincing.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 8, 2009 12:23:07 GMT -4
I invited David McGowan to BAUT personally to defend his claims. We'll see what he's really made of.
I've spent an hour or so reading through excerpts of McGowan's books and the offerings on his "Center for an Informed America" web site. McGowan certainly seems to think he's uniquely qualified to save American from disinformation. It makes it rather ironic that he ignores a lot of what I say on Clavius, yet dismisses me as "a rather self-important gent."
At least I have the qualifications and experience to back up my statements. All McGowan seems to be able to bring to the table is a recitation of all the things he can't figure out. He can't figure out how the space-suit environmental systems must have worked, so "naturally" they were fake. He doesn't consider that there is knowledge and technique outside his personal realm of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 7, 2009 17:21:34 GMT -4
I scrolled down the site quickly, grabbing a line or two here and there. Everything I skimmed by that method was either factually wrong or simply the author's gainsaying assertion. I didn't read anything that was correct.
I don't even know where to begin correcting the massive number of misconceptions on that site.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 7, 2009 14:37:55 GMT -4
Yes, a link to that site has been posted recently to BAUT, where it has generated a bit of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 6, 2009 18:45:33 GMT -4
He actually thinks I am you, or is that you are me? Anyway, can you confirm that you are indeed not me, and I am not you.I'm pretty sure that I'm not you and you're not me. That seems to be a common delusion over at YouTube: that all their critics are really just one person with many sock puppets. I'm not sure why they believe that or what it has to do with any of their claims. I think it's just one more symptom of their unabashed ad hominem approach.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 6, 2009 16:50:33 GMT -4
Aron Ranen is little more than a publicity hound, it seems. And for some reason he can't leave the notion of racism alone. His previous film kept trying to scrape up evidence of racism and just couldn't find it. Who cares how many African Americans live in Ohio? What does it have to do with anything?
Of course his handling of the facts surrounding the missing tapes is deplorable. His argument (which omits most of the facts) is simply that NASA should have handled the tapes the way he believes he would have. Not compelling.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 5, 2009 16:27:39 GMT -4
Dunning and Kruger were right.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 2, 2009 10:21:31 GMT -4
I believe it's a monitor number, or a video circuit number. I don't think it's meant to have any significance other than to fall neatly between 50 and 52.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2009 12:46:34 GMT -4
The point is that compressed video when displayed with a regular player will run in natural time.But at what frame rate? One of the techniques used to send a lot of video in a short amount of time is to change the effective frame rate. You don't need a constant or standard frame rate to achieve acceptable playback on a computer. Hence you cannot be sure, in an internet-delivered video, that your frame rate is either constant or conforms to some other video standard. It may have been changed, or have gone through any number of frame-rate conversion steps. Using frame rate as a timing mechanism on a compressed video intended for computer playback will pretty much get you laughed at by any competent photographic analyst.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2009 12:32:03 GMT -4
I meant the same program" Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? " which was aired on February 15, 2001 in the FOX television network. Yes, that program claimed that 20% of Americans believed the Moon landings weren't real. Bob's point, which I echo, is that the program didn't say how they got that number. Did they read someone else's survey? If so, what survey was it and can we look it up? Did they do the research themselves? If so, what methods did they use and thus how accurate was it? You can't simply throw out a number and say it's a fact. You have to say where you got it, or no one is compelled to believe it. In 1996 the Gallup organization found that 6% of those they surveyed said they doubted the Moon landings. I verified the results with Gallup. If you go to the Gallup web site, they describe their methods. That's a properly backed-up claim.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 1, 2009 12:16:04 GMT -4
How many hoax theorists really have the qualifications(in science) to actually claim their theories to be true? None.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 30, 2009 13:30:50 GMT -4
Is there a visible astronaut footpath between the LM and Little West crater in that image or am I seeing things? Yes, those is likely Armstrong's footprints; they lead to the point on the rim of Little West from which Armstrong is known to have photographed the interior of the crater as well as the LM from a distance. Armstrong took a partial pan there that includes the small craterlet on the rim of Little West, that is also visible in the 16mm descent footage.
|
|