|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 31, 2012 12:16:17 GMT -4
As it is a hoax they would want to have the films and photos all taken care of beforehand. The risk is that the hoax would be discovered. How does that risk go away by having the photos and footage made early? That risks someone discovering or leaking the 'Apollo 11' photos before Apollo 11 flew, thus exposing the hoax. And how exactly did they fake up those pictures and footage?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 30, 2012 19:17:30 GMT -4
Agreed. Any frustrated outbursts on our part were clearly well earned prior to his banning.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 30, 2012 9:21:27 GMT -4
I cannot find a single photo taken from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 moon walk with a landmark identiying the site as unique. Generic nothing if you ask me. It's a bit petty to pull that out as a complaint when there were sound reasons for the first landing being in a 'generic nothing' kind of place. Lack of mountains and huge holes for one thing! First landing = simplest place to land, i.e big wide flat plain. If there are 'so many problems' would you please explain why they have not already been proven to be forgeries in the last four decades? Either they have problems that already prove it or else they were created with such amazing precision that the techniques for detecting the forgery still have not come up despite four decades of continual development of the field of photography and photographic interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 30, 2012 8:35:46 GMT -4
I agree with the ban, and I was also uncomfortable with the thread name after the initial amusement had faded.
For the record, I also think we should be careful with describing people like Playdor as 'chew toys'. It doesn't do us any favours in the eyes of any impartial observers or fence-sitters. I think the issues with Playdor's understanding and attitude are perfectly displayed in the threads he participates in.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 25, 2012 11:22:25 GMT -4
Hell, a risk-averse test pilot is a contradiction in terms. These guys voluntarily get into new untested aircraft and fly them to and beyond their design limits. Once they get off the ground they most definitely are coing back to it, but until they do so they don't know for sure if that will be in the form of a smooth landing in their aircraft, bailing out at altitude or burying themselves six feet under with the aircraft. This uncertainty does not stop them getting in the aircraft and taking it up, though.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 25, 2012 7:48:57 GMT -4
I am an Apollo conspiracy theorist, and have devoted most of my research on this subject to the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing rather than the scientific aspect. Unfortunately it is to the scientific aspect that one must look to determine if it was indeed a hoax in the first place. Social and cultural aspects may furnish you with potential motives or ideas, but only the technical side can furnish the data required to assess the veracity of the Apollo program. After all, motives and implications are meaningless if no hoax actually took place. The supposed moon mission? Which one? This is the problem with many conspiracy theorists: they don't know that there was more than just the one landing with Neil Armstrong. The manned element of the Apollo program consisted of eleven manned flights: two in Earth orbit, two in lunar orbit, and seven planned landings of which six were successful. On which of these was the flag supposed to have been taken up? Not unless the flags of other nations that were also taken are similarly indicative of a worldwide hoax, but then if all those nations took part in the hoax, who is there left to fool? I did so, and I cannot make any possible explanation besides the offical one fit the facts. I have been considering aspects of the Apollo hoax for over a decade now. None make as much or more sense as the official record of events. Frankly most make less sense than a Japanese VCR instruction manual...
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2012 8:01:04 GMT -4
I think the guy is a genius. Then I think you're either another sock or you have seriuos problems with reading threads before you respond to them. That post you responded to was over fifty pages ago....
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2012 7:58:02 GMT -4
I have a theory that I think must be correct. I believe that they did the mock footage for Apollo 8 on Apollo 7. Or maybe Apollo 6 sneaking people on board. Something sneaky like that. They put the astronauts for 11 in 9 or 10 and then they have the mock footage. This can only be a joke, right? If you're going to fake the footage anyway, what difference does it matter what flight you do it on? And again, another thread over thirty pages long that you have totally and utterly ignored before presenting your ridiculous claim.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2012 7:56:14 GMT -4
The only contradictions that I have been able to find are with the official story. since that cannot be right. The hoax must be true. I can only assume you are pulling our collective leg on that one, given that the previous thirty pages are of nothing but contradictions in the hoax theory.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 21, 2012 8:46:03 GMT -4
There really is no point, is there? Playdor, despite his claims to 'multiple degrees in science' demonstrates not a single iota of actual scientific understanding.
A good scientist understands how to construct a good experiment by isolating the relevant variables and setting up an analogous situation. Obviously we can't go and shoot someone in the head to see how their head reacts, so we have to use substitutes, and the principle is still just as nicely illustrated, whether that substitute is a melon or a ballistics dummy. And that still leaves the things like neuromuscular response to trauma unaccounted for.
Someone who is not a scientist cries foul if anything is different. Something playdor has done on multiple occasions now.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 12:20:41 GMT -4
rhetoric, rantings, wringing of hands, name calling, ridicule and references to "the experts" is this all you guys really have? It appears to be all you have. Our experts seem to have names attached to them, and publications, and verifiable data. The thoughts are my own. I can recognise things like motion blur. I have also told you that I have seen some of the experiments that reproduced things like the movement of Kennedy's head from a shot coming from behind, as well as numerous other examples of the effects of gunshots. If you think all the analyses and experiments that actually go out and prove the physics of the situation are of no consequence, what are you doing? You have demonstrated no interest whatsoever in any of these, and I'll take an experiment involving a car with ballistics gel dummies with real human bone in them being shot at over a whole bunch of assertions that Kennedy was shot from in front, thank you. I'll take actually seeing someone fire off three shots in the same time as Oswald did over any number of assertions that the rifle was crap and so prone to jam that it could not be done. You, on the other hand, take anything that contradicts the official version as gospel and ignore the rest. You assert that people should behave in certain ways (reaching a new low when you decided Jackie Kennedy's behaviour was suspect, as if you have the slightest idea how someone would react after literally seeing their spouse have their brains blown out right next to them). You ascribe sinister motives to meetings for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Why? What is it that is so important to you that you will ignore vast swathes of verifiable material evidence and refuse to fulfil your burden of proof?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:36:52 GMT -4
this is z257 kellerman connally Jackie John F Kennedy do their actions mirror image in altgens6? are these two images a match? Should they be? The Zapruder film is motion picture, the altgen photo is a single image. What of the frames of the film bracketing the period in which the phot was taken? You cannot simply pull one frame from the film and say the fact it doesn't match a picture is proof of a conspiracy. You should analyse all the frames within the period during which the photo was taken and show that none of them match. In this case you can prove the negative, since you have a selection of images to search through in which there should be one that closely matches the photo. So get on and do that. It is not our burden of proof to search through the film for you to prove you wrong, it is yours to prove yourself right.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:32:44 GMT -4
Jason Thompson i am throwing every thing i can...in the hopes that you might see some of the anomalies. The problem is you're not verifying that what you see is in fact anomalous. Moving vs still people in different frames from a hand held film camera, for instance. Indeed, but your definition of 'honest' seems to be anyone who has concluded that it wasn't just a lone gunman. Why do you discount the ones who conclude that it was, and who support their findings with evidence that goes beyond 'doesn't this look odd?'? Why do you assume that the only reason people can disagree with them is because they do have such preconceived notions? I disagree with you because your arguments are often simply very very poor. It has nothing to do with having preconceived notions. I am arguing only where I see large flaws in your presented 'evidence'. I have little more than a passing interest in the JFK assassination. You also admit you did not watch all of it, specifically the relevant sections detailing how exposed motion picture film could actually be altered at all. I won't go off and do your research for you. Throughout the whole thing it is your burden of proof to prove yourself right. That means sitting through the 'boring technical bits' so you can actually support your assertions that you lift from such conferences. I did not. I argued for you to provide the evidence, and disagreed with specific examples which were easily explained (indeed to be expected) from film frames from a hand-held camera. No, the point is that you have to show that they are discrepancies, and that they cannot be explained without recourse to modification of the film. The fact that variable motion blur from frame to frame appears to have escaped you entirely until it was pointed out is one such example of where you fail to do this first step before demanding explanations and stating it is proof of alteration.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 20, 2012 4:21:46 GMT -4
Jason Thompson concerning the zfilm being altered, yes, i prefer to defend it being altered. Please learn the difference between defending and restating. Not my burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 19, 2012 9:15:58 GMT -4
i just got bored with the technical jargon when they were explaining and explaining how it was done and i fast forwarded the videos. should have guessed there was going to be a quiz on the information afterwards. Yes, you should. If you bring such arguments to the discussion it is your responsibility to support them. No, that is not acceptable. You claimed they were altered, you will defend or retract that claim. I certainly will not 'leave you alone'. You don't get to dodge your responsibilities as a proponent of the ideas that easily. How do you know they are not looking? Do you expect everyone to have their eyes front, all facing him as he passes? Why? Do you think they might be talking to each other as well. Do you think they might be looking at the other vehicles? Basically you are saying that a crowd of individuals must behave as you think they should or there is something suspect. Name them Then see how fast you can snap your head round. I know I can do it in considerably less than 1 second, and I'm pretty sure you cold too. No, it is not. You still fail to understand the difference between fact and circumstance. He did snap his head round quickly, he did not rapidly put his foot on the accelerator. That does not mean he could not put his foot down just as fast. And by the way, how would you react to hearing shots when in a convoy of vehicles and in the middle of a crowd of frigthened and confused people? Would flooring the accelerator realy be the best thing to do in those circumstances? Please prove that the background is stretched and not simply a result of the limo being in motion and the camera being in motion. This is a handheld movie camera. All sorts of motion effects will be apparent in it. If you follow a moving vehicle with a camera then the background will stretch in relation to the vehicle in the foreground as a matter of course. Then don't bring them to the discussion. So far you are just throwing everything you can in and hoping some will stick, then crying about how unfair it is when you are challenged on the points YOU raised. If you can't defend or discuss them, leave them out and concentrate on what you can defend. Show me one such example. So why did that not occur to you as an explanation for the example you posted of people in the background suddenly going from moving to still? You're just not thinking about what you're saying and just throwing all sorts of crap out, aren't you? That's why we're not taking you as seriously as perhaps you'd like, playdor. You may have some interesting points that require discussion and thought, but they are so mired in the rest of the obvious claptrap you throw in to bulk up your post count that no-one believes you have actually done any critical thinking about this at all, thus undermining you. I don't want to beat you up, I want you to be an adult and actually enggage in discussion, defending your arguments rather than just throwing crap at the wall. If you can't defend them don't post them. Tough. If you would rather talk about that then why mention anything else at all? You bring these points to the discussion, not us. If you don't want to discuss them don't mention them in the first place. If you do mention them, expect people to start discussing with you. You pick and choose your topics before you make your posts, not once you have posted them and then realised you might have made a mistake.
|
|