|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 12:09:37 GMT -4
You "evidence" is strings on rocks, and washed and sifted sand. That gave me a laugh, which is sad because it's true.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 9:45:14 GMT -4
I'd seen that before. That looks like earth gravity. Prove it. Handwaving. Prove it. Making something plausible. Prove that it is plausible. Replicate. Ad hominem, plus a statement without (again) evidence to support it. Not until you at least prove the stuff to which I said "Prove it" in the above paragraph. Two theories: 1) The footage was shot on the moon. Data compression is what caused the glint. Glints like these can be seen everywhere in the Apollo 16 footage. 2) The footage was shot on earth. Magical transitions between slowed down footage and live speed footage with cables to fake high jumps and low gravity, were used to fake it. A reflection from the cable is what caused the glint. Which one would sound more plausible? "Shot on moon" or "Magical framerate transitions"? Alright, point taken. I should've quoted him literally. He does say that it is not incorrect, followed by a complete ad hominem. Savvy?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 5:24:29 GMT -4
I think this is more than enough material for rocky to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 1, 2007 13:09:16 GMT -4
There are several things which you people have never been able to refute satisfactorily. The catch here is "satisfactorily". It shows that we (the 'debunkers') have refuted it, but that you have not been convinced (by whatever reason). It does not at all mean that the refutation is not good enough; it's just not good enough for the standards of somebody of whom it took weeks to realize how dust particles really behaved. Wrong. You have been shown, through calculations, that playing lunar footage at double speed would naturally make the lunar gravity look like earth gravity. Thus, it does not prove anything. Distortion of data and further compression are what caused the glint. They're actually all over the place in the Apollo footage: if you take a look at all of the footage you can see glints like these popping up all over the place. I think that's called objectivity, as opposed to taking one small clip where the glint is only shown once, and saying "I don't accept your refutations". Reflection of Armstrong's sun-lit arm. Also, do you agree with Spasmo's statement "It's completely correct, but only a moron would accept it"? Because that is an ad hominem, and is not really an argument at all. It's oftenly used when the person is out of real arguments. Thanks for demonstrating that. It's fun to see how high your standards are on accepting proof of the moon landings being real, but how low your standards are on accepting proof of the moon landings being fake. It's even more fun considering how your high standards are actually met. It shows how you lack knowledge on the Apollo missions. Just like the rest of discussion in this topic shows your lack of knowledge on science. Now you may accept it all you like. Just remember what lies on the base of these arguments, and what lies on the base of your arguments. M'kay? To the others: In one of the Hot Spot discussions, I've seen a screenshot from the lunar TV footage where Armstrong seen in sunlight. Does anybody know where I can find that?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 1, 2007 10:45:48 GMT -4
I'm not just going to take your word for it. I know you've got an accedemic background but the theory is that you are capable of saying things you know to be untrue. You are aware of what the hoax believer community thinks of you and this whole site, aren't you? Wow, what a horrible argument. You respond to "Nobody has ever done it yet" with "I don't believe you". Has anybody done it, rocky? That's the whole point. You're trying to shift around that. Nobody has done it until you have found proof of someone who has done it. All it takes is one case of footage that was obviously filmed on earth that everything else falls by the wayside. Somebody post just one thing that you consider to be conclusive proof that they went to the moon. I haven't seen any conclusive proof yet. What would you consider "Conclusive proof that we went to the moon"? What would you consider "Conclusive proof that it was faked on earth"?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 1, 2007 7:05:56 GMT -4
There's a U2 video along those lines. Do you mean Numb, where The Edge is just sitting there and getting feet in his face at one point? I thought it has one cut, panning down from a dripping water tap back to The Edge. Interesting video.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 27, 2007 11:33:02 GMT -4
10 to 15 seconds is actually a lot for modern day movies. Gotta keep the pace up these days.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:40:37 GMT -4
Bert I thought your diagramme demonstrated the idea quite clearly, but showing the area of footage where there was clearly little or no horizontal motion was what clinched it for Rocky. To be honest I thought I was wasting my time with those stills, but to his credit Rocky has accepted that he was wrong. I actually did start doing the same thing you did (drawing arrows to show the way the particles travel) for a short YouTube film I was making, but I figured it would be a waste of time. It's a good thing you did it though. Not sure why, but it's a good thing alright.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:38:27 GMT -4
On the 'sped up' thing: Of course it looks like it's on Earth when you speed it up. Speeding it up will change the perceivable gravity in the video. With a certain factor, the perceivable gravity will be equal to earth's gravity. This is even calculatable. take the square root of (g_earth / g_moon), and the number you'll get approximately 2.47. This means that if you speed it up to 247% of the original speed, things will look like they're shot on earth even more. However, if you speed the clip up to 393% of original speed, the gravity will act like Jupiter's gravity, because things "fall down faster" from the same distance in the perceivable clip!
I would normally say "bring in the numbers", asking you for calculations of the gravity when things are sped up twice, but it's not really of use. Essentially, calculating the perceived gravity and comparing it to the gravity there should be, is useless as a different framerate will lead you to a different perceived gravity (at least, if the number of frames of a certain action stays the same). However, gravity isn't the only "clue" that the clip is taking place on the moon. This is where other people on the board should fill me in because my knowledge on that doesn't reach that far.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:26:08 GMT -4
Those two pictures say exactly what we have been saying all the time. At one point I and someone else even posted very similar graphs with arrows to show you the direction. Why didn't you believe us, but do you believe whoever made that? What made you so hesitant in believing us.
EDIT: I see it was postbaguk. I guess you just have to get these things shoved in your face as obvious as this before you believe it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 16:52:54 GMT -4
Yeah, if they had faked it NASA could just have said "Oh, well to hell with dust we're gonna make it cemented, nobody will know anyways".
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 10:05:14 GMT -4
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Please go into detail. You people keep talking about dust billowing. Of course it's billowing; they didn't remove the dust by sifting the sand and washing it first. Rocky, for Christ's sake, will you stop ignoring my short and to the point posts?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 17, 2007 8:09:21 GMT -4
Show us it's not impossible, then. Show us. Just show us.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 15:25:23 GMT -4
Lots of grains of sand thrown in the same direction would hit each other from the side but that would not affect the trajectory the way it's being affected in the footage. Only hitting something head-on would cause it to vary from the parabolic trajectory the way it's doing in the footage. And this is the fundementals your argument is based on, where your reasoning is wrong. The sand isn't 'thrown' in the same direction. Every grain is 'launched' with a different angle, speed and given a different kinetic energy.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 15, 2007 14:49:18 GMT -4
If I recall correctly, you refused to respond to the explanations of why your theories are wrong the official theories are right apart. You seem to ignore them.
|
|