|
Post by gwiz on Nov 17, 2006 7:57:16 GMT -4
The Apollo believers have been going mad... Rich coming from someone who's belief in the hoax is by his own admission unfalsifyable and thus irrational.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 14, 2006 11:31:28 GMT -4
#159 qwiz >What evidence would it take >(available now on earth) to prove we really went to the Moon? We can never get evidence till we land on the moon oneself. So it boils down to this: the only evidence that you will accept is for non-US astronauts to visit the moon before the US returns. This is unlikely to happen. By your own admission, your opinions are unfalsifyable, meaning immune to the evidence, so there is no point in any further debate.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 14, 2006 10:09:01 GMT -4
On that basis you've got a pretty long wait. While we are on the subject of evidence, let's restrict it to evidence that is available now. Here's something I first posted a year ago:
Someone at BAUT has just posted a link to a debunk of the Fox TV programme that I hadn't come across before. What caught my attention was the "note to visitors" at the start, asking anyone promoting the hoax theory to provide an answer to:
What evidence would it take (available now on earth) to prove we really went to the Moon?
If the answer is "none", the hoax theory is unfalsifiable and thus irrational and unscientific, so there's no point in continuing the debate.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 14, 2006 9:48:41 GMT -4
>Because there is a mountain of >other evidence beside the >photos that the Apollo >missions really happened, >including the rock samples and >the tracking data, the burden >of proof is on you to show >evidence of fakery. These aren't evidences of 'manned moon landing'. I'm inclined to say "why not?", but let's play along. OK, in your opinion, what would be evidence of a manned moon landing?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 13, 2006 12:30:08 GMT -4
#147 postbaguk It's a funny story. nonsense!. because , there weren't evidence that these were taken on the moon. Because there is a mountain of other evidence beside the photos that the Apollo missions really happened, including the rock samples and the tracking data, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence of fakery. So far, you are not doing a very good job, even compared with the low standard of your fellow hoax believers.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 13, 2006 11:14:02 GMT -4
This subject's title is discussing a 'Faked Pictures'. I showed a few faked picture obviously. What should I show more than this? You showed pictures you claimed were fake. You have yet to prove they were fake. That is what we expect of you.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 13, 2006 5:48:07 GMT -4
Well KJ, you'll notice I'm breaking character from my usual "village idiot" ... Might as well give up on that, Dwight. KJ never an inkling that he understood those posts.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 10, 2006 9:51:55 GMT -4
Oh, is it our turn to play "No I can't see it" now? Where exactly on the visor are these spotlights supposed to be?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 9, 2006 9:43:11 GMT -4
I decide conclusion that there aren't tracks in this picture because there isn't a tread pattern to this photograph. Tyre tracks only show a tread pattern if there is no slip between the wheel and the ground, which in turn means no large accelerating or braking forces. The absence of a tread pattern does not mean it isn't a tyre track.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 8, 2006 8:13:13 GMT -4
He really is a one-trick wonder. Dwight had him down pat several pages ago: HB: This photo is faked. No tracks AN: Dust was kicked up obscuring tracks. See video from these missions. uncut. See photos as well. HB: This photo is faked. No tracks AN: See high res before and after pics. Dust kicked up. HB:This photo is faked. No tracks...some tracks obscured. Photo to lo res AN: See hi res pic HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks AN: See high res before and after pics. Dust kicked up. HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks AN1: I'm outta here HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks AN2: Ochhh I'm outta here HB2: Where are the bootprints at the back of the rover AN3: Try looking at THE FRONT HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks HB:_This_ photo is faked. No tracks
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 1, 2006 10:03:49 GMT -4
Why is it important? You have been asked several times why you think this is significant, and we are still waiting for a reply.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 25, 2006 9:23:00 GMT -4
Please give a proof "tracks were erased."
Look at the videos, the astronauts kick up dust at every step, and the first thing they do after stopping the rover is to walk round behind it to get their equipment off the rack.
Do you have any response to the rest of my post:
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 25, 2006 8:49:29 GMT -4
So rover tracks are sometimes hard to see or possibly erased by having dirt kicked over them or absent because the crew manhandled the rover. What point are you trying to make? If you think this is proof of a fake, could you please explain what exactly about the presence or absence of tracks makes more sense in a fake scenario.
Incidently, thanks for posting the Apollo 15 crater pics, which were new to me. Must have been a very bouncy ride at that point.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 23, 2007 15:36:35 GMT -4
Most of the time during trans-lunar or trans-earth coast, the spacecraft was in the PTC "barbecue roll" mode to even out the solar heating. The roll was only stopped for the scheduled TV transmissions, so that would also be the obvious time to get out the long lens and take the still pictures, too, without having to chase the earth from window to window.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 27, 2007 7:04:59 GMT -4
And you are narrowing down your 9-11 characterization to make a rhetorical point. The choice is not between a hijacking planned by (educated and well-financed) extremists and military professionals, it is between an outside attack and an unimaginably complicated coordination between hundreds of federal and local agencies. You aren't requiring your homegrown conspiracy to hijack planes; you are requiring them to hide planes, fake attacks, shoot down airliners, keep top people informed of progress in up-to-the-second reports, forestall any Air Force activity, subvert the FAA and all local traffic control, secretly wire major buildings with explosives, hide the evidence on a multi-acre crime scene in the heart of a major metropolis, and do all of this knowing there will be intense public scrutiny as well as investigation by outside professionals from architects and pilots to insurance investigators. Given that choice, I'll go with the box-cutters. Unless you have a simpler plan to propose? Given the way governments leak, the only way it could possibly have been a government plot would necessitate keeping it to a very small group within that government. The only plausible way to carry out such a plot would be to impersonate Al Qaeda, recruit the hijackers and the rest is as the official story. All the nonsense about controlled demolitions, etc, etc, is then completely unnecessary. I hasten to add that I see no evidence to make the above a likely scenario, but it is much more likely than anything the "truthers" propose.
|
|