|
Post by chrlz on Oct 27, 2011 5:33:39 GMT -4
Need more clues..
I think the answers might be very, very different depending on whether there is an implicit offer of the experiment being taken up there (eg to a pressurised environment like the ISS), or as an attachment to a satellite, or does the process of getting there have to be included , eg a diy rocket or balloon...?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Oct 22, 2011 19:32:47 GMT -4
While it wasn't my first thought and I did think initially it might be some sort of crude programming technique, I still lean to the mapping device now. I agree that it is hard to see any obvious way the height is being controlled/measured, but there are a few reasons why I still think it's a 3d map.. 1. If you freeze frame it, there seems to be noticeable curves to the raised pins, in at least two separate directions (which means it can't be a perspective distortion) 2. If it is some sort of programming technique, why the need to draw the pins up so high? 3. If it is something other than a map, it seems a coincidence that there are quite distinct diagonal tracks at various angles across the rows of pins. 4. The device being used to draw them up seems to be made of some sort of transparent tube, with something inside that tube (perhaps the measuring thingy?). If all they were doing was drawing the pins up, why such a design? 5. The discussion seems to be about mapping appropriate trajectories well in advance of the missions, and I would think a different team might do the programming later.
But it's all pretty circumstantial, I agree!
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Oct 21, 2011 7:36:30 GMT -4
My ill-informed wild guess is that it might be something sorta like this: www.maproomblog.com/2010/03/relief_dynamic_3d_interactive_map.php..only manually 'driven' of course, to allow a crude 3d representation of a segment of trajectory for checking or comparisons. It's hard to tell, but the raised pins do seem to have a definite curve to them...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Sept 28, 2011 8:46:48 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder?... Umm.. Randombloke - just curious why you never returned to this thread..? You have posted elsewhere on this forum since. Have you given any thought to the situation, studied the video? Do you withdraw the claim? If not, I trust you are prepared to discuss and defend it.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Sept 10, 2011 21:43:59 GMT -4
Just an FYI for anyone following fattydash as he sockpuppets around the web.. he has returned (after his trek to JREF) as HighGain at BAUT, now offering his well-informed opinions on the new LRO images. HighGain, who until now has carefully avoided any strong commitment on Apollo denial, is, inexplicably, "beginning to have some doubts now"...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Sept 4, 2011 6:22:08 GMT -4
RnR, can I ask you ... In normal day to day life (ie not when following links at Youtube or conspiracy forums), do you encounter any of these CTists or their claims? If the answer is no, then one would have to draw the conclusion that you are seeking them out. And that by doing so, you are introducing a strong bias in your perception. It only takes a few (or even one) crazy folk with access to the Internet to create the perception that something is widely believed. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with seeking it out and fighting for the truth (while I'm not into 911 all that deeply, I still pop my head up occasionally when I see the worst of the drivel), but there's no point getting all uptight about it. Just relax, and try have fun! (That may sound inappropriate, but I think you know what I mean..) Accept that there will always be paranoid, gov-hating weirdos out there (sometimes with good reason!), that you will never change their minds, and simply aim your rebuttals at the odd fence sitter that may pass by. BTW, I find staying cool and calm helps me to argue, without descending to the CTists tactics of ad hom, etc. Well, mostly...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Sept 1, 2011 5:48:21 GMT -4
Bill Thompson says you edited his posts and even addes some that he never made. Then you used the faux posts to ban him. Why would he lie about that? Hi, Rick. This Bill Thompson? Da guys a genuous. How duz he nose so much abowt tellyscops and optiks!? Mazin. This same one? Respect, dood!!And ... you can't think of a reason he would 'lie'? Added - I just realised that while Rick's post immediately followed the info about fattydash, that he was probably not referring to his ban, just Bill Thompson's.. Oops. In which case, ignore the following text, which I have left for posterity and embarrassment (my own)... Let's cut to the chase - do you defend fattydash's conclusions and approach? And are you accusing Fattydash of lying - after all, he admitted he used sockpuppets. If you do support his claims, why don't you show that support and the depth of your knowledge by posting your views in the appropriate thread - starting with what you think was his best 'claim'...?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 29, 2011 7:35:34 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder? Because it looks like someone wearing eighty pounds of space suit made a standing leap of six or seven feet look easy. I don't know many specialist athletes that could manage the in terrestrial gravity wearing nothing more restrictive/massive than a leotard...sure the high jump world record is something like eight feet but that's using a run-up and the Fosbury Flop technique. A bad analogy is like ..a screwdriver made of jelly D'ya think having both hands on the ladder rails might make a teeny difference? Did you bother to follow the link and download the movie to look at what happened? It's very poor quality, but you can tell what he did.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 15, 2011 6:51:54 GMT -4
That would have to be the first sign of Nibiru. Comin' from the South, just as predicted.
{thinks}I better get the washing in.{/thinks}
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 13, 2011 20:39:25 GMT -4
Fifty pieces of evidence that have only in common that they point away from the accepted scenario are not useful. I'd prefer ten that pointed AT something. And on proper examination, all fifty turn out to be exactly consistent with the historical record.. I think fatty figures that if he finds a complex and obscure issue, even though it will all be explained in the end, he gains 'traction' from the intervening discussion. He hopes that similar CT'ers will think "Gee, there's obviously something to this - look at how the debunkers scrambled to explain it away.." He figures that is a 'win'.. Only problem is that it seems no-one, not here or at Baut or JREF has taken any interest in supporting him or his arguments. He remains ..er.. shouting into the hurricane. BTW, it is perhaps stating the obvious, but the profile of someone who: - denies Apollo - uses any and every CT methodology - has a history of lying - has a history of inventing complex deceptions - has a history of falsely representing people, inc. himself - is doing arts/english courses - is obsessed with Jay - is very careful with his use of language ... does seem to match at least one person I know.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 13, 2011 7:29:55 GMT -4
Yes, but what if it is in the process of 'falling? In other words, let's say it uses a brief pulse of thrusters to slow. I assume it will take a measurable length of time as it drops down to the lower orbit - what happens to its speed over the surface during that fall, and then as it levels out in its new orbit? Does it keep recording imagery as it descends? Oh, alright, I admit I'm just being a devil's advocate...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 13, 2011 7:23:26 GMT -4
The following comments are of course merely wild speculation on my part.. But yes, he seems to be keeping 'HighGain' more or less on the border of being banned/suspended. However he (or members of his chess club.. ) are (or were) still creating new characters. The one I saw was another 'MaryB' like character - directing childish insults at board members and stating how obvious it was that fattydash/DoctorTea/etc was onto something 'big'. It was removed after a very short time and the sock was deleted. I still haven't decided whether this is all just one large but lame troll, or whether he really believes this will achieve something good for his cause. If the latter, I think the complete lack of support from anyone except himself would probably have got through to most sentient beings by now, so I'm guessing it's a troll. But then you have to wonder about the amount of effort being put into it. The words 'no life' spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 12, 2011 9:52:05 GMT -4
The words 'self-destruction' come to mind, after that admission that he is indeed the same person, combined with his unbelievably stupid gaffe on optics, where he obviously hadn't the faintest clue that aperture size (aka light gathering ability) is what makes stars more visible... How embarrassment. But it was a pleasure to watch the jref folk 'take him down'.. am I a bad person for delighting in that? BTW, he is still, as late as yesterday, creating new sockpuppets at BAUT. I saw another of his messages briefly appear before the BAUT staff deleted it, and his new puppet. What a life he must lead...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 12, 2011 7:20:21 GMT -4
Speaking of photography, both my wife and I enjoy it, and we both feel we could benefit from some formal courses on the subject. We see photography courses listed at local community colleges and universities and I wonder how beneficial they'd be. While I think I understand the technical basics reasonably well, I could definitely use some training on the artistic aspects -- how to compose shots, how to light them, and so on. Is this something that can be taught, or is it really something you have to learn by doing? Absolutely!!! I can tell you that when I used to teach photography (at an adult education college), I spent maybe 30-40% at most on the technicalities, and the rest was on the aesthetics, using lots of examples, self-critiques, analysing the masters, etc. Indeed the whole course was based on using the technical knowledge simply as a means to achieve the sort of images that make people go 'wow'. I was lucky enough to be given free reign on the course content, so I can't speak for the content of other courses - I think a LOT will depend on the abilities and personality of the presenter.. And I would (very immodestly ;D) report that my students all loved the courses (as I loved giving them -we all had a ball!) Often in adult education, the course numbers dwindle as the weeks go by and people lose interest, but I never lost an attendee.. I still have some (poor quality, but usable) photocopies of the little course booklet I created way back then - I've stupidly lost the original file (well, more correctly it is somewhere in a large box of CD's that I'll go through one day..) but might put it online one of these days. ka9q, if you are interested, pm me a postal address and I'll send a copy over to see what you think. But anyway, the answer is definitely yes, you can learn this in the conventional manner - but doing it helps, of course... If you like, why not start a thread in General Discussion? I might do that anyway, given there are now a couple of folk who seem to have photography questions.. I don't claim to be a high level pro, but I can talk about photography for days without pausing for breath...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 7:27:42 GMT -4
I appreciate that, Vincent, and your new found enthusiasm for the cause is good, if a little over the top. I'm still considering the donation, but having seen this sort of thing... I'll be fence sitting for a while yet.
|
|