|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 2, 2007 9:27:56 GMT -4
All of your plausible explanations fall by the wayside if there is some good solid proof that the footage was filmed on earth. All your evidence in its entirety means nothing if it's all mere plausibilities and none of it is conclusive proof. You're still not getting it, are you? There is not one piece of conclusive proof, but there is a preponderance of evidence. I repeat, many hoax theories are predicated on the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to send men to the Moon. If just one piece of video shows them on the Moon that all falls apart. You cannot provide a sensible coherent story for how it was all faked. You hide behind 'probable' scenarios with not one shred of evidence behind them. A hammer 'probably' had a cord attached. Sand can 'probably' be made dust free. They 'probably' only put the dust free sand where the rover went (which is cobblers, because there are many many pictures and video of the rover surrounded by footprints that can't be made in sand). They 'probably' used a whole variety of different techniques to fake it. Qualified scientists who think it was all faked are 'probably' afraid to speak out. Why are they afraid? Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel speak out all the time, and Bill Kaysing died of old age, not through some MIB attack on his home to silence him. You're speaking out right here right now. Why can't anyone else? It doesn't add up, and you don't know enough of the technical aspects to form a decent understanding of what you are looking at anyway.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 2, 2007 9:44:20 GMT -4
... all we can do is consult an objective third party. I am an onjective third party, who just happens to post to this site.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 9:45:14 GMT -4
I'd seen that before. That looks like earth gravity. Prove it. Handwaving. Prove it. Making something plausible. Prove that it is plausible. Replicate. Ad hominem, plus a statement without (again) evidence to support it. Not until you at least prove the stuff to which I said "Prove it" in the above paragraph. Two theories: 1) The footage was shot on the moon. Data compression is what caused the glint. Glints like these can be seen everywhere in the Apollo 16 footage. 2) The footage was shot on earth. Magical transitions between slowed down footage and live speed footage with cables to fake high jumps and low gravity, were used to fake it. A reflection from the cable is what caused the glint. Which one would sound more plausible? "Shot on moon" or "Magical framerate transitions"? Alright, point taken. I should've quoted him literally. He does say that it is not incorrect, followed by a complete ad hominem. Savvy?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 9:47:14 GMT -4
I could have thrown that object in that manner and it would have travelled about the distance that the object in the video travelled.
Then prove it.
You people are good at having a patronizing scornful attitude even when you're evidence is nothing.
I'm always scornful of people who insist they're right without studying the phenomenon they're talking about in any way whatsoever. Your laziness and ignorance deserve scorn, Rocky.
This guy puts it pretty well.
How would you know? You gladly quote fools.
This is empty rhetoric.
No, it is not. If you say something was done, you are responsible for describing how it was done. This is even more important when the thing you say was done, had never been done before or since. Your answer to that dilemma is simply to declare that NASA had some sort of magic machine for doing exactly what you say was done, and that we're responsible for proving they didn't have any such machine.
I am not using empty rhetoric; I am correctly pointing out that you're begging the question.
You haven't said anything that would convince anybody with any brains that it's impossible to make sand dust-free.
Find me someone with brains who agrees with you.
You've only spoken authoritatively.
I am an authority because I've done this and I know how it works. That's how I'm able to say how it will or won't work elsewhere. You refuse to do any study or experiment to show that what I know empirically to be impossible was actually done as you say it was.
I told you how it could be done--sift it and then wash it as many times as necessary until there is no dust.
That' has never been done in the history of man. You're name a process, yes, but you've done nothing to verify that the process you name would result in the outcome you say. It's like saying, "All you need to do in order to levitate is raise off the ground a few inches."
...it can be transported and put in place carefully.
Never been done in the history of man. Describe exactly how to do it and demonstrate that it works.
their explanations of the anomalies in the footage make sense...
"Making sense" is irrelevant. What did you do to assure yourself they were correct? You've done absolutely nothing. You've not studied the relevant science. You've simply decided that's what you want to believe. That's exactly taking their word for it.
...and those of you people don't.
When you cease to be ignorant and lazy then you can make that statement without incurring more scorn.
They think that this whole site was set up by and run by people who know Apollo was a hoax as a damage-control measure.
Of course I'm aware they think this. I'm also aware that they have not one shred of proof that this is actually the case, so it amounts to nothing more than a presuppositional dismissal of criticism.
We hoax believers take that into account when you give us your explanations.
Exactly. You invent reasons why you don't need to listen to people who disagree with you, and you suppose they don't have any good reason for that disagreement. That's about as entrenched as you can get.
If you give highly techincal explanations, all we can do is consult an objective third party.
No, not we. I need no such consultation. You have repeatedly said that you need one, but you've done absolutely nothing to arrange for it after weeks upon weeks of debate. So clearly this is just a stall tactic so you don't have to admit that you're all out of arguments on that point and that you really don't understand the sciences behind your own belief.
It would be naive to just take you word for it.
Name the objective third parties you consulted before you believed the conspiracy theorists and quoted their material. Seriously. Name them. If you cannot, then by your own argument you simply took the conspiracy theorists at their word.
Everything you people have put forward has fallen short of conclusive proof that the moon missions were real.
Shifting goalposts. We don't have to prove Apollo was real in order to show that your challenges of it are hogwash, which is what our arguments intend.
If just one thing comes up that can't be refuted, all of your plausible explanations fall by the wayside because that's all they are.
Absolutely false. Inductive cases are made by a preponderance of evidence.
There are several things you haven't refuted well.
Only in your highly biased estimation.
Having the attitude that you have refuted them doesn't fool anybody.
You're welcome to produce legions of your own fans at your leisure. As it stands, you have convinced nobody. You simply retreat farther into your fantasy world when people express disbelief in your arguments.
I don't see any reason to believe that no astrophysicists doubt the authenticityof Apollo. How can this be verified?
Since there can be no burden of proof for absence, you have the burden to show that any astrophysicist agrees with you.
There are lots of plausibe scenarios here.
But from you we get only hypothetical handwaving for why the evidence differs from your belief.
How about the plausible scenario that the supposed astrophysical reasons why Apollo was impossible are completely wrong and are being propounded by people who demonstrate a deplorable ignorance of the relevant sciences? Is that possible? Is it?
Your explanations were pretty lame. I doubt you believe them yourselves.
I believe them myself. And here is where you keep calling us liars. Stop it.
Show something you think would convince a normal thinking person that they really went to the moon.
We have, and normal thinking people believe it. It's all that evidence you're trying to explain away with magic sand and classified magical movie-editing techniques.
Again I say this is pretty lame.
No, it's not lame. It's the way real investigations are done when getting the right answer matters. There is no one "smoking gun" that lets you disregard all evidence to the contrary.
The hoax believers made some mistakes when they made the documentaries...
Yet you keep believing them and telling us they "make sense." Clearly they don't, so your continued belief is mere wishful thinking.
None of that proves they went to the moon though.
Of course it does. The conspiracy theorists are trying to attack the evidence given for the Moon landings to show that it shouldn't be believed. If the attacks fail -- which they do -- then the evidence stands.
Post one thing that proves they went to the moon.
There is no one conclusive thing that by itself proves a conclusion beyond all possibility of argument. The evidence is a colossal mountain which, when taken entirely, satisfies the burden of proof. You must provide a better explanation for the entire mountain. You don't get to cherry-pick one thing and hold it up and say, "If I can prove this one thing might not be true, the whole mountain is irrelevant."
That's simply not how investigation works.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 2, 2007 10:02:16 GMT -4
Notice that Rocky made this statement, definitely and without qualifications of any kind:
There are no clear shots of an object being thrown in all of the Apollo footage. That in itself is suspicious.
When he was shown with multiple examples that this statement is definitely and absolutely wrong, he picks up the goalpost and carries it out of the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 2, 2007 10:09:21 GMT -4
Notice that Rocky made this statement, definitely and without qualifications of any kind: There are no clear shots of an object being thrown in all of the Apollo footage. That in itself is suspicious.When he was shown with multiple examples that this statement is definitely and absolutely wrong, he picks up the goalpost and carries it out of the stadium. I'm going to emphasise that, because rocky has made a statement that a) he previously indicated he was not in a position to make, having not seen all the Apollo footage, and b) was shown in short order to be utterly and completely false, yet he will not retract it. To use your own parlance, rocky, the viewers and lurkers are watching with interest.....
|
|
|
Post by rchappo on Jul 2, 2007 10:29:57 GMT -4
*delurks to see another HBer's pitch being smashed out of the stadium*
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 2, 2007 10:49:30 GMT -4
As usual Rocky, you are agood for laugh. Not much else though. At least you're keeping everybody cool with all the handwaving though.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 2, 2007 11:36:19 GMT -4
Rocky, Believe it or not, you are being trounced here. You "evidence" is strings on rocks, and washed and sifted sand. Your reference sites, spouting seemingly authoratative numbers and data, have been shown as erroneous. Your arguments are full of "could have" and "might have" qualifiers. Besides, to demand such an elaborate hoax, there must have been a motivation, some reason that made it impossible to go to the Moon. You have yet to show anything that made it necessary to hoax the whole thing. Radiation wasn't an insurmountable problem, the rocket technology was available, the +/-250F temperature issue has been shown as folly of ignorance. You are flailing wildly now, and it shows. Claiming we don't believe anything we post...come on. That's just nonsense, unless you are used to being around such people, which could be the case in the HB community. We know your evidence, we study it carefully. We also know spaceflight, and the sciences that apply to it. You obviously don't. So you keep falling back to "liar, liar, pants on fire" arguments. Your determined ignorance is astounding. Your unobjective, anti-America prejudice is glaring. You will never accept the reality of Apollo, because you just don't want to, it's that simple.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 12:09:37 GMT -4
You "evidence" is strings on rocks, and washed and sifted sand. That gave me a laugh, which is sad because it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 2, 2007 13:36:02 GMT -4
The body movements are noticably different. Quantify your claim. What is different about the body movements? That's ok, you haven't said anything that would convince anybody with any brains that it's impossible to send men to the moon. You haven't said anything that would convince anybody with any brains that it's possible to make sand dust-free. You've only spoken authoritatively. Misquoting people is a tactic that desperate people use. Good thing Hoax Proponents don't give highly technical explanations then, isn't it. I know how it can be refuted: Present an astrophysicist who doubts the authenticity of Apollo. I have no idea. Ask the manager of your cyber-cafe. All of those clips are standard .avi files encoded with the xvid codec which contain no audio streams. No, they mustn't. Believe it or not, the entirety of TV and DAC footage from the lunar surface isn't available online. I got those clips from Spacecraft Films' Apollo 16 DVD set (disk 2, specifically). Post just one thing that you consider to be conclusive proof that the moon exists. [Edit: Bad tag. Bad, bad tag! No tag treats for a month! ]
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 2, 2007 13:51:04 GMT -4
Rocky, I point you to my post again. I gather that the issues I bring up are issues you can't easily reference, seek out a video to respond to, or simply say "probably", "could be" or "they're lying". I suppose if the Mythbusters debunk hoax claims, that's damage control. Do you not even consider that we have this site here to educate people about the mistakes that hoax believers make? Do you not consider that we are fans of Apollo, just as there are fans of football, baseball, ect? We know Apollo like sports fans know football and other sports. The situation with hoax believers is that they are people that show that know little or nothing of Apollo, and space science in general, and yet presume to tell others what's going on. To use a sports analogy, hoax believers are trying to tell fans of Apollo was the rules are, without having even looked up information themselves. Nor have they asked the right people, because they don't trust them, as is the case with you. The image you put forth Rocky is that you disagree with practically anyone that does not believe Apollo was a hoax. You also show an unwillingness to believe those that have the knowledge and experience in the relevant fields of study that involve Apollo. You claim those that are are either lying, disinfo agents, or damage control people. You hold a double standard. Despite all the videos you show Rocky, you cannot demonstrate that the science that made Apollo possible was faulty. You cannot show that the rock samples were faked. You cannot show why the Saturn 5 wouldn't have worked. I go go on. The point is, you cannot show a plausible, irrefutable reason why Apollo would have to be hoaxed. The videos you show obviously don't cut it, because they've been refuted, though YOU refuse to listen to the reasons why the video is wrong. That's another problem with you. Despite being told that info in a video is in error, you refuse to listen. And it's not because the people don't make sense. Its more because you do not, or refuse to, understand what's being told to you.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 2, 2007 14:21:48 GMT -4
Rocky you have been asked numerous times but I will ask again, what size particle due you consider to be dust, and bearing in mid your theoretical sand can take on whatever size and form you wish.
Define your dust. at what point does Particle.Diameter <= Dust
What is your min/max and mean particle size, material density and approximate shape of the particles (spherical, Teardrop, toroidal, Great stellated Icosahedron.)
given the frame rate and scale what is your estimate of the rovers speed. if it had been filmed on earth and slowed down,
any other info/theories you can give, possible chemical composition, Max slope angles, cohesive/adhesive properties hygroscopic properties, approximate atmospheric density perhaps, temperature, wheel material on the rover, mass of earthbound rover and driver, or did they use the rover as published data states.
I will entertain a physics model in my head of a surface filled of small PTFE coated depleted uranium 2 mm dia thin walled toroids that undergo instantaneous high lateral rotational acceleration if required,
however give me something to work on,a little bit more than "Dust free dust"TM.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 2, 2007 14:47:34 GMT -4
Present an astrophysicist who doubts the authenticity of Apollo.
I have a signed statement by Dr. James Van Allen -- a very well known astrophysicist -- who gives his informed, expert opinion that the Moon hoax arguments are "nonsense."
Rocky, can you provide even one qualified astrophysicist who doubts that the Moon landings succeeded? Or who endorses any of the conspiracy theories to which you have referred?
You make a big deal out of requiring third-party confirmation when we say something, but you simply take the word of whatever net-document you find so long as it agrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 2, 2007 16:04:48 GMT -4
Um...how exactly does tying a cord to a rock make it fly further? And what does this have to do with throwing a sheet of flexible material -- it will suddenly ignore the air it's hitting because "oh, I've got a cord tied to me?"
Oh, in some small measure of defense of all these "sped up/slowed down" film comments....was listening to the director's commentary for "Aliens" last night. Most of their effects were shot in-camera, not composited. In one shot a model of the mining vehicle drives across the foreground while two guys wrestle with a tarp in the background. To make the model look right they shot it overcranked...and that meant the two guys with the tarp had to move as fast as they could to try to make their movements seem close to the right speed.
|
|