|
Post by BertL on Jun 7, 2007 9:39:58 GMT -4
Heh.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 21, 2007 7:56:17 GMT -4
What is it with all these Jay Windley attacks? Is it because he most effectively debunked most of the arguments?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 11:09:43 GMT -4
Looking at the actual debate, this is what happened so far. 1) showtime argued Sirius should be visible on photographs in the original post: Seems that a bright star like Sirius would show up, you couldn,t miss it along with Orion , on the western horizon.. 2) Others brought you to back this up, asking you for numbers and not assuming. Examples are replies #4 and #6, bringing up the point of assumption. 3) Also, the point was brought up that Venus is between 8 and 17 times as bright as Sirius, and even Venus is only visible on photographs very faintly. The calculations are in reply #7 but these were originally wrong. However, the calculations in reply #11 are supposedly right. Now, it's up to you to prove that Sirius should be visible on photographs, either by means of calculus or conducting controlled experiments. Until you do that, it is safe to assume Sirius wouldn't be visible. This being backed up by thousands of photographs, and the calculus in reply #11. I'm so bored.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 10:06:33 GMT -4
lol, it's hard to ignore you showtime. On top of that I really like digging up photo IDs.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 9:45:34 GMT -4
The photograph is AS17-134-20508. You can find it here. And hi-res here. Now, what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 8:51:47 GMT -4
No.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 26, 2007 16:58:23 GMT -4
reynoldbot, replace the colon (the : symbol) with %3A.
That should work.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 18:27:18 GMT -4
Let's hope the star on Data Cable's record is bright enough for people to see.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 9:59:43 GMT -4
In other words, there is no reason to take you seriously?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 7:27:14 GMT -4
Five pages of discussion with a troll who's just here to pull our chains. Now you know why I said "No." in the first response. This is exactly what he wants, and exactly what is given to him. Don't feed the troll.
And if I sound too harsh on calling this person a troll, take another good look at this person's behavior.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 19, 2007 8:09:38 GMT -4
No.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 8, 2007 5:40:51 GMT -4
So you did read Obviousman's links, who?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 27, 2007 15:02:19 GMT -4
Why even bother to ask? (I am referring to the thread title here, not the question asked in the post before this one)
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 20, 2007 16:49:32 GMT -4
This 'faked photographs' joke is getting old.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 22, 2007 10:35:10 GMT -4
Now this blog has many photos, i'd found answers to most, rest of the stuff he has is crap. Just this one i find a bit puzzling : When you show a photograph shot on earth showing the same effect, the counter argument from the HBs will probably be that it's not valid because of "atmospheric distortion". And for this time they are actually right (partly): because of the atmosphere on earth, a lot of light goes all ways and lights up otherwise completely shadowed surfaces. Obviously because the moon has no atmosphere and earth has, the photographs are incomparable. By giving the "Moon reflects 7% figure", the HBs try to give you the impression the Moon's surface is not reflective enough to light up the backside of the LM. So here's some more brainwashing psychology for you, only from the other side: the moon is so reflective that it can make shadows of objects at night. I know this from experience as I bicycle to school every day (no lights around me, only grass), and one cold winter morning when it was still dark the full moon casted a shadow of me bicycling. It was actually a very surreal and awesome experience. So basically, what I'm trying to say that the 7% reflection of the moon is able to cast shadows on earth. So why wouldn't that 7% be enough to light up the back of an LM that's on the reflective surface itself? (This might be seen as a sloppy argument, but it's not half as sloppy as the HB argument)
|
|