|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 18, 2009 12:48:38 GMT -4
One could assume that the episode has been rehearsed before the mission to make sure that an optimal view is achieved for selected distance and zoom values being a priori fixed.Yes, one could absurdly assume an unnecessarily complicated and nonstandard process for just this one instance, for no apparent reason and at significant disadvantage. Fallacy of limited scope. Rejected. This was a demonstration of little technological significance intended for the ordinary TV viewers so it was important to conduct it with attention to details.Therefore the person who could best see those details is the person to whom control should be given.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 17, 2009 11:49:11 GMT -4
I do not point anywhere, just collect observations.Hogwash. You're clearly trying to advance the notion that the hammer-and-feather video was not necessarily shot on the Moon. You just won't go anywhere with that notion that requires you to actually provide and defend an argument. You dance only up to the point that allows you to seem intellectually justified in remaining "undecided." All the while you let slip these little hints about your true motives. You've piddled around for 30 pages without having the guts to follow up on any of your "observations," all the while complaining about how badly you're being treated. In case it's not obvious, no one is buying your hogwash. Within this framework, one could also consider an extreme alternative, if the second astronaut was waiting behind the rover, then a third entity could be involved... I will not continue with this one...Of course not. Just like you won't continue with any of the "extreme" alternatives which are the only ones you bother to mention. You won't consider any prosaic causes until you're fairly beaten about the head with them. In fact, you won't consider anything at all. You just drop innuendo and sit back to watch the fun. It's pretty clear you're just trolling at this point. Also, the disappearance of the hand and the white rod is immediately followed by the perfect framing of the free fall.Prove causation or withdraw the implication of it. Concerning the short white rod, it is obviously connected to a larger object as it can be seen in a few frames.You said it was part of the PLSS. Prove it or retract it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2009 20:26:41 GMT -4
A very tall tale indeed, filled with unsubstantiated claims and speculation.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2009 20:24:38 GMT -4
Unfortunately, "Cosmic Dave" Cosnette is very serious. Or more accurately: he takes himself very seriously. Hi supermeerkat. Dave Cosnette does indeed expect you to take his claims seriously. He isn't trying to be funny or satirical. He really is that clueless. If you look at the debates with him at Bad Astronomy / Universe Today forums, his aim is personal exposure. He wants his hit-count to soar. It's not about being right in his mind; it's about getting attention.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2009 20:20:29 GMT -4
Why someone would cut the vertical segment? Is there an agenda behind this?
Why would someone edit a video allegedly to remove objectionable content and then put both versions out for public consumption?
Is it possible this to be...
If you want to analyze the image, venture an identification and make a case. "Is it possible?" is useless from an analytical standpoint. It's pure intellectual cowardice. You want to advance ideas without having to support them.
Both possibilities could be considered and I am not suggesting anything at this point.
Of course you are. You just aren't willing to take responsibility for it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2009 14:26:15 GMT -4
Ed Fendell was supposedly zooming three seconds in advance on the basis of the audio signal...What is your evidence that anything in those stimuli were the motivation for Fendell's decision to zoom at a particular instant? I am just showing one more visual observation, it is open for interpretation.No, you're making more assumptions that, if true, would support your "indecision" that the footage was not produced as claimed.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2009 14:11:02 GMT -4
...most probably the right hand of the second astronaut...
"Most probably" compared to what other possibilities?
...and above it a white rod possibly a part of the suit or the PLSS which I am unable to identify.
You can't identify it, therefore you can't say it's part of the PLSS.
Again, rampant assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 23:59:58 GMT -4
The truthfulness of a fact is not affected by how many people believe or disbelieve it. I have no suggestions, only observations and some alternatives for discussion.Your "alternatives" are patently absurd. What discussion did you expect? When their absurdity (or, at best, their insubstantial nature) is pointed out, you take offense. More observations will be provided periodically.If these are mere observations to which you have no affinity, why does it matter whether I review them and your lines of reasoning critically? You seem all bent out of shape that I don't agree with your observations, and that I haven't provided "observations" of my own. For a guy who isn't making a point, you seem awfully offended by disagreement. As far as I know, the posted collection of observations has not been posted previously or considered systematically in this form by other investigators.Do you really claim to be the only one who has tried to dismiss the hammer-and-feather video by claiming the time scale was altered or that the feather was doctored? Good heavens, people have been doing what you're doing for ten years now. You aren't really considering anything "systematically." You're just throwing out one absurd proposition after another, all aimed at trying to dirty up the issue of whether the feather is falling correctly.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 23:23:27 GMT -4
For me, it is a viable possibility.Then you don't know what it means for something to be a fact. I believe you.Okay you've baited me twice over the same amphiboly. I have not made up my mind to the point at which I am intractable. You seem anxious to suggest that I'm pig-headed, and that's why I don't accept your lines of reasoning. However you don't seem to want to consider that the reason I don't change my mind is that your suggestions aren't very reasonable or convincing. I'm doing you the courtesy of explaining why they're not convincing. I'm frankly sick of you whining about how the response you're getting isn't what you expected.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 23:03:21 GMT -4
...I also have some doubts after seeing bubbles like in underwater video shooting, ... Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 23:02:45 GMT -4
By the way, I said multiple times that I present observations being open for interpretations but not results.Yes, you walk right up to the point of making a specific allegation and then decline to make it. It's a position calculated to raise innuendo without committing to anything for which a responsibility need be taken. You forcefully are trying to put me into your frame of thought which I do not feel obliged to follow.You propose that a feather should behave a certain way. I ask how you know that. You resist answering the question. What am I to make of that? Your passive-aggressive approach really does not spell you out to be an honest person. You reserve for yourself the right to be a reviewer.The role of proponent is already taken. Everyone else is a reviewer. For me, you are just a member of the forum as anyone else.Irrelevant. You want the privilege of making assumptions you don't feel you have to support. I don't understand why you think it's intellectually honest to do so. You say you are interested in logical analysis, but when that analysis is provided for your claims you get upset.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 22:57:48 GMT -4
But I do not have the answers to some logical questions yet.Your questions aren't very logical. You throw abstract doubt on things based on the flimsiest, most unsupported premises. This keeps me undecided.I get the distinct impression you want to be undecided. There are various ways to share information, there is not just black and white.Whether something happened is a proposition with a black or white answer. Just because you can't see it clearly does not mean there isn't an objective truth out there, nor does it mean you can't be wrong. Also, I do not feel an urgent need to decide.You just feel an urgent need to "keep an open mind" despite the absurdity of some of the things you propose to be open about. P.S. Considering the greatness of this lunar feat, there is at least one alternative point of view:If a billion people ignore a fact, it does not stop being a fact.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 19:03:36 GMT -4
I expected something like this, enigmatic and elitist.
It is not "elitist" to elicit a begrudging admission on your part that you have not tested your claims.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 19:01:29 GMT -4
How does identifying and emphasizing unfounded assumptions constitute an invalid method of rebuttal? Your inability to share and only ask questions (so that you very conveniently never provide any input) comes from the fact that you are unwilling.Another presumption of motive. I dispute your statements, which you roundaboutedly admit have no basis in fact, and you try to write me off as entrenched. Your agenda is showing. You are unwilling, because you made up your mind long ago and this was a point of no return.No. I have not made up my mind and am thus intractable. You merely assume (wrongly) that unfounded assumption should have the power to change minds. You clearly have no idea what happens in scientific or analytical peer review. An analyst presents his line of reasoning, his model, and his experimental results. The reviewer may say something like, "Your results are not reliable because you omitted a consideration of this or that variable." That is a sufficient review; the reviewer does not have to go back to his own lab and conduct his own duplication of the analyst's work in order to validate his criticism. You are the one making putative statements of fact that turn out to be unsupported. You seem to have this odd notion that someone who doesn't accept those unsupported statements must provide his own statement in order to make his disputation meaningful. That shifts the burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2009 18:38:25 GMT -4
I mentioned earlier that I would try to find a similar falcon feather, which is a future work.
So in other words: no, you have absolutely no data that tests whether that prediction is valid.
Meanwhile, consider the following analogy: if someone pulls a flat kite on a string horizontally, for example, does its longer part come in front of the kite?
Why does a thought experiment with a kite matter when discussing feathers?
Also, what would happen (most of the time) with an asymmetric almost flat feather being accelerated in air by the gravitational field?
Why are you trying to make more predictions when you haven't tested any of the ones you've made so far? Why do you insist on surmising what you think would happen, based on nothing more than a "common sense" understanding of aerodynamics?
How is that a scientific approach? How does that result in meaningful analysis? How does that answer any questions?
|
|