|
Post by BertL on May 29, 2007 16:30:02 GMT -4
So, rocky, am I right when I say your argument is "The way the dust particles behave in this clip looks like it's not on the moon to me, it's in the earth instead. There's no dust cloud because NASA sifted all of the sand so that all the smallest particles that would create a cloud are sifted out. Only bigger sand particles are used." ?
EDIT: Rocky, your theory "The way the particles behave is not in a perfectly symmetrical parabole" is based on the assumption that air is the only factor changing the 'shape' of a 'cloud'. ('Shape' and 'cloud' are not meant to be taken literally. I am not a native English person and can't think of better words to describe it due to an incomplete vocabulary.)
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 24, 2007 13:46:32 GMT -4
Lionking, I hope you can see that all he does in this e-mail is try to insult those who he was (indirectly) discussing. Trying to make them look bad. Saying "oh they're with the evil side don't trust them". nstead of addressing the arguments he chooses to avoid doing that and attacking the person. This is called ad hominem, and is more often used by Hoax Believers. It is one of the techniques to use to avoid having to answer the argument. Now ask yourself this question: Why would Sam Colby not just further explain himself or try to debunk the points brought up by the other discussing people? My personal opinion is that if he does try to explain or debunk, his 'flaws' will become more obvious and discussion will be lost. Perhaps Sam Colby has good reasons for not addressing the issue, but "I live in the REAL world and those people are NASA conspiracists" are not good reasons addressing the issue at all. Making outlandish claims ("outlandish" as in: totally disagreeing with 'general science') and then not be willing to defend them can certainly be called cowardish. If you attend a discussion, don't run out with excuses like "I live in the REAL world". I hope you understand what Sam Colby seems to be doing and also why he seems to be doing it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 19, 2007 10:09:29 GMT -4
Because you're "enhancing" a compressed JPEG. I could make a picture of the sun right now, do some weird effects with it and say "Here's my proof that the sun is artificial".
EDIT: The "Rectangular thing" has shown to be part of a footprint in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 18, 2007 9:57:17 GMT -4
Wow @ mr Colby. Way to take quotes out of context and mislead readers.
EDIT: Does he seriously think it was faked in a desert? Dude, even the "faked in a studio" sounds more plausible than that.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 18, 2007 18:43:15 GMT -4
I have a copy, should anyone have a dire need to see Jay voice-overed in German. Yes, please.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 15, 2007 15:57:48 GMT -4
When is the program?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 17, 2007 11:09:48 GMT -4
Heh, he called the video "Pathetic".
EDIT: I think he won't respond to my response to his response to my response to his response as I told him exactly what the video shows. "the argument 'These shadows converge so much, it can only be done with studio lighting' is proven wrong [by this video]." I guess he needs to think what to say to that.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 17, 2007 4:12:01 GMT -4
Count Zero's link links me to a man and a woman walking down the street (Pretty woman). JMV's link gives me a 404, and so does Tanalia's. I'm talking about the links given in the last three posts. Weird stuff. I never liked photobucket that much anyways.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 16, 2007 15:38:41 GMT -4
You could always switch to maj.com for hosting your images. No restrictions over there.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 16, 2007 14:58:22 GMT -4
Hmm...
then why don't the rocks at the top right corner line up at all? (Sorry Jarrah, already stole that question. You must like me for bringing that up.)
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 15, 2007 2:23:57 GMT -4
I'm not an avid photog, but I know enough to realize that a 60mm lens on the Hasselblad and a 60mm on my old 35mm Pentax are completely different fields of view. Jarrah also recommended a 24,000mph orbit, so this latest faux pas is no great revelation. Sorry JW, keep swingin'... He'll probably be mad at me for saying it, but... 500 kilogram hammers, anyone? Yeah, he's quite pissed off at me alright.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 13, 2007 8:30:57 GMT -4
I'm not an avid photog, but I know enough to realize that a 60mm lens on the Hasselblad and a 60mm on my old 35mm Pentax are completely different fields of view. Jarrah also recommended a 24,000mph orbit, so this latest faux pas is no great revelation. Sorry JW, keep swingin'... He'll probably be mad at me for saying it, but... 500 kilogram hammers, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on May 11, 2007 19:17:15 GMT -4
I remembered when David Greer posted a photograph showing the same phenomenon as the Apollo photograph with the very converging shadows (20744/20747). www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9NJqPqH04Here's Jarrah White's response. Basically, JW assumes the photograph made by David Greer is has a much wider angle than the Hasselblad's photograph and therefore is wrong. Sorry, I couldn't find the original thread. EDIT: And for some unexplainable reason Jarrah gives a Special Thanks to Straydog.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 11, 2007 8:42:38 GMT -4
It's easy to turn off a brain. Turning it back on is much harder, for some certain people. *wink wink, nudge nudge* Of course, just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2007 11:52:00 GMT -4
I was doubting until furi said "It's on YouTube so it must be true".
|
|