|
Post by randombloke on Feb 17, 2010 20:05:14 GMT -4
What amuses me about all this is that, to a True Hoax Believer™, the totally different approaches you both used to throw doubt on Pokrovsky's hypothesis indicate that you (the CIA/denialist hegemony) can't decide which story to use; as opposed to the actual case which is that Pokrovsky's paper is so full of holes that multiple approaches to the same problem keep finding their own sets...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 15, 2010 19:46:27 GMT -4
Also, it should be remembered that the lunar soil is basically grey all the way down; without a pre-landing reference shot to establish the precise shade of the "pristine" soil, it becomes very difficult to determine that the subsoil has been exposed or disturbed. Excepting, of course, the obvious radial striations caused by scouring etc.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 12, 2010 10:51:28 GMT -4
Talking of moon rocks, one thing I've never seen any hard-core HB address (at all, never mind satisfactorily) is how much the samples returned by Apollo changed our theories about the formation of both the Earth-Moon system and the Solar System as a whole.
Seriously, if you were faking a sample of rock, would you not fake it to match the expected result based on current knowledge? Why would you go to the trouble of creating a bunch of rocks that match none of the established possibilities? Surely that would lead to increased scrutiny of your hoax by interested parties (such as the authors and/or proponents of existing theory) as they attempt to figure out if you made a mistake and what it means for their theories if you didn't? That is the last thing a fledgling conspiracy needs; someone rocking up and going "hang on, that can't be right, let me have a closer look."
Especially if your conspiracy is predicated, as some HBs claim the Apollo landings were, on a false sense of openness to misdirect suspicion - as soon as someone starts asking awkward questions you either have to answer them or drop the "openness" façade, leading to further inquiry.
So, given that it would be infinitely more sensible for a fake moon rock to look like what the learned few expect a moon rock to look like, why then did this hypothetical conspiracy come up with the wrong sort of rocks?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 10, 2010 19:14:15 GMT -4
I think I figured out what the moderation problem is: It's that the moderators here won't ban someone for providing evidence that the Apollo missions were real.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 9, 2010 12:08:02 GMT -4
Also, it would be completely pointless because an extra quarter-million klicks will do nothing useful to the star positions.
Does anyone who has the requisite knowledge feel like charting the lunar orbit around the sun compared to earth's orbit?
I imagine it as a sort of green sine-wave curved to follow a blue path against a black background, with the sun in the centre. If it were to scale , I think it would be quite useful for impressing on people just how tiny the lunar orbit is compared to the earthly one...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 9, 2010 10:33:33 GMT -4
I'd still like to see someone who can take a 30s exposure by hand without blurring the whole field beyond use.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 7, 2010 9:23:28 GMT -4
The true HB would, of course, immediately point out the absurdity of finding penguin turds anywhere in Antarctica, as all the Polar Bears would have eaten them already, then claim absolute victory. P.S. Can we leverage some totally biased moderator power to change the thread title to "Von Braun's antarctic vacation" please?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 5, 2010 8:14:14 GMT -4
Anyone who grew up playing Asteroids knows that the orientation of your spacecraft can be completely different from its direction of travel. As does anyone who ever watched an episode of Babylon 5 with Starfuries in it. Yes! This. This is why I continue to like B5 despite the CGi aging terribly and the messiah plot being a little lot hackneyed; they got the bits of physics which they didn't explicitly change mostly correct. Same goes for early new!BSG, though I couldn't follow it after the first season.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 3, 2010 18:16:29 GMT -4
Jayson, the peer review question is very timely. In the "global warming" dispute it's well known that there are many qualified scientists who dispute the global warming thesis, but now it's emerging that the peer review process has been systematically manipulated to exclude one side from the debate. No it isn't. What is emerging is that you copy and paste your opinion from populist websites and don't bother to do any fact-checking or even basic analysis. for instance, your famous clip of the 180° yaw manoeuvre is taken from the site of a man who states as fact that "rockets can't be controlled" yet you apparently trust his analysis of the footage implicitly. As for the AGW debate, what has emerged is that one supervisor encouraged his colleagues to do something illegal, which they promptly turned around and refused to do. All that says is that that one guy should be investigated and disciplined as necessary. Which he has been.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 3, 2010 17:05:53 GMT -4
Laurel and Jason, Over the long run, the quality of moderation has a huge effect on the quality of discussion. If people feel they aren't being treated fairly, they leave. Or in a moment of anger, someone might say something outside the rules, and wind up banned. Maybe that's why there don't seem to be any "HB"'s here. I feel lonely. There aren't many HBs here because they either come in genuinely concerned with the truth and learn something and stop being HBs, fade quietly into the background after two or three posts with little to no content and even less originality, or they deliberately and loudly set out to get themselves banned at the first opportunity. If this board really banned HBs just for being HBs, as you are so desperate to imply, what the hell are you still doing here?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Feb 3, 2010 13:16:58 GMT -4
I got this far down the page before I had to give up:
Whoever this guy is, he clearly needs serious medical help and about twenty years of remedial education.
As for the video- there is no reversal; as pointed out, no landmarks reappear. All I see is a simple change of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 31, 2010 17:30:31 GMT -4
Oh dear. I was at least hoping for a slightly more sophisticated "no-one uses nails to build spacecraft therefore this 'nail' is clear evidence that the whole thing is a prop" type argument, but I guess you can't beat the old "two-inch nail punctures three-inch suit" trick.
Speaking of which, wasn't the moon full of, what were they called now...ah yes, rocks? Of various shapes and sizes and a lot of them pointed, and very few of them directly under the landing gear where no-one would be moving about anyway...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 28, 2010 8:26:09 GMT -4
There is one thing a lunar observatory would do better than a terrestrial (or even MEO) one could; radio.
The radio environment down here is full of junk that interferes with large arrays, from RADAR stations, mobile telephones, satellites and microwave ovens.
The far ("dark") side of the moon, however, is shielded from us by the moon itself and may be one of the most radio-quiet regions of the solar system, when it's not being lit up by the Sun.
A large baseline interferometric array set up on the far side would be relatively cheap (for a structure on another planet at any rate) and allow for some fairly long-duration observations.
Beyond that though the moon is not a good place for an observatory, compared to Earth orbit, or even one of the Lagrange points as it is too far away to get to cheaply and not far enough away to get significantly different results.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 13, 2010 8:58:26 GMT -4
That should be OK... Of course that is one of the things that depends on the exact geometry of the airbrush, which means experimentation time...the brush you're using is a single action external mix, right? Try thinning the paint down to the consistency of milk as drewid suggested, stopping the mix nozzle down as far as it can go, and slowly increasing the paint draw until you get a the finest spray of colour your Aztec can make. Then find a clean sheet of copier paper and do some tests: Start close and move away from the page whilst drawing the nozzle across the surface until you get a nice semi-transparent coat with no dripping or splattering. Once you have the distance figured, test how long a streak at that distance takes to get to touch-dry; you can generally paint over it at that point without worrying too much about blending or smudging. Once you're at that point, go over one of your semi-transparent coats again to see how the colour builds up. This is the "traditional" airbrush method of laying down a colour. Finally check to see how long your brush can sustain a continuous blast at those settings.
Remember, with a SA/External type, the nozzle adjust controls both the paint flow and the spray dimensions - you want the minimum you can get away with, for reasons of control, unless you're working on a huge piece and simply need as much pain down as fast as possible.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 12, 2010 19:08:37 GMT -4
I'm not familiar with their product, but after a quick googling they seem to be aimed at scale modellers, so the problem is probably somewhere else...
You said you were waiting 30 minutes for a layer to dry? That seems like an awfully long time to me; most acrylics dry in a few minutes ad should dry even quicker when atomised by an airbrush, due to the massive increase in surface area. How close are you getting the tip of the nozzle to the surface of the model?
|
|