|
Post by rchappo on Jun 17, 2007 19:01:48 GMT -4
Rocky,
Why would NASA even create a Rover in the first place if it was just faking the missions?
Why go to the extra bother of trying to make it look convincing when they could have just used the same old "astronauts on wires" stuff that they faked the earlier moonwalks with? (seeing as though this has had everyone, except intellectuals like yourself, fooled for the last 30 odd years?)
Never mind the fact that they felt the need to repeat this audacious and complicated hoax five times.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 19:26:11 GMT -4
No, there's a difference between having made the same statement elsewhere and having agreed with you here. The latter includes buying into your gradually-diverging yet clearly-non-parabolic trajectory hair-split as well as the magic sand that creates no dust and is affected by air in only one dimension.
As a matter of fact the dust-hitting-air argument is part of everyone's expression of the hoax theory. Every book makes the same claim and every video shows the same clips from the Grand Prix with the same question-begging assertions. It's nothing new nor at all unique to you.
We know you didn't come up with this theory all by yourself. We know you simply read it somewhere and believed it. Finding someone else who likely also read and believed it is not really what I had in mind. That's not strictly agreeing with you. What I hope for you is someone who will come along and read everything you've written and everything we've written (not just express your same conclusion from afar) and agree that you've made the better case.
Finding other references to where others have repeated the same claims is not really what I had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 17, 2007 21:33:43 GMT -4
If you do some bogus calculations, the viewers with science backgrounds will see it. The funniest part about this statement Rocky is you are arguing with the viewers with science backgrounds. How can you not get that? It is so very obvious that they know about the science behind the Moon landings and you don't. All you can do is blindly repeat someone else's flawed arguments. You have not come up with one single original thought since you started. And for the record, I have shown your rantings to two others that are not regulars of this board and they think you're nuts too.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Jun 17, 2007 21:44:42 GMT -4
They weren't trying to fool anybody; Odd, I thought your whole point was that they were trying to fool everyone...
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 17, 2007 22:11:15 GMT -4
I think it is outrageous that Jarrah White can quote Van Allan as one of his sources for support for his Hoax Theory! This is his one of his comments on someone else's comment about the above video link Rocky posted:
JarrahWhite (1 month ago) Marked as spam "There are thousands and thousands of very smart scientists around the world. 99.9% of them think Moon Hoaxers are Fruitloops." (this is a viewer's comment)
And what portion of that percentage makes up the scientists conspiracy theorists actually quote for as a source, as such Van Allen and Mauldin? (this is Jarrah White's comment to the viewer's commet)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 17, 2007 22:47:45 GMT -4
Are you saying that the fact that they didn't sift and wash some sand to make it dust-free to make a movie means that it's impossible to make sand dust-free?
I find it suspicious considering all the other difficult and expensive processes used in high-budget feature filmmaking, and the practical problems caused by the aerosols. Can you identify any industry or project that has managed to remove all dust from sand, then place it without creating more dust? Yes or no.
So how long does it take and how much does it cost to completely remove all the dust from 1 kilogram of sand? Please give a specific time and dollar amount.
You people are really making yourselves look silly by insisting that it's impossible to treat sand to make it dust-free.
Yawn.
If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they could come up with a way to make sand dust-free.
Begging the question. If a group of scientists put their minds to it, they can come up with a way to go to the moon.
Why did you refer to it as doing my legwork?
Legwork means the unexciting but very necessary detailed work to substantiate an argument.
You're between a rock and a hard place so you just keep insisting that I do them.
We insist that you do them because that's how an argument is made. No one is obliged to address arguments without evidence, solely because their proponent insists it's "obvious."
The trajectory is obviously non-parabolic. Calculations are only necessary if it's not obvious.
Calculations are always necessary when the argument is mathematical. Identifying the basis of measurement and calculation is always necessary in empirical arguments because it's never straightforward.
If I put my mind to doing it, I suppose I could do the calculations but it would entail several hours and I'd have to ask several people for help.
Yep. Welcome to the world of quantitative photographic interpretation. What you describe is what would be necessary to achieve credibility for such claims. You instead want the credibility without doing any of the work. Not gonna happen.
I can follow a section of the dirt...
I dispute that you can. I require proof of your ability to do so with sufficient precision and rigor.
...it deviates from the parabolic trajectory
Prove it. Compute the parabolic trajectory that it should have followed, rectify the video image with it, and identify the points of divergence. Since you say the difference is obvious, the computations should bear out your claims.
...that it would have followed in a vacuum.
Did you show that it followed an aerodynamic trajectory instead? Or are you trying to lower the bar?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 25, 2007 17:05:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:26:08 GMT -4
Those two pictures say exactly what we have been saying all the time. At one point I and someone else even posted very similar graphs with arrows to show you the direction. Why didn't you believe us, but do you believe whoever made that? What made you so hesitant in believing us.
EDIT: I see it was postbaguk. I guess you just have to get these things shoved in your face as obvious as this before you believe it.
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jun 25, 2007 17:32:18 GMT -4
Well, it takes guts and honesty to admit you're wrong when you've been arguing your position so vociferously for so long, so you deserve credit for that. I just hope you learn from this though, and are willing to look at other explanations offered you in a similarly objective light. One quick thought to chew on - even if the rover footage played at double speed looks like footage shot on earth (and I'm not conceding this point, just playing Devil's advocate), why would you consider that proof that it must have been filmed on Earth? Could that not just be serendipity? Incidentally, if you do the maths I think the correct ratio should be 1:2.6 1:2.47, not 1:2. Thanks EDIT Changed ratio from 2.6 to 2.47 (cheers Bert!)
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jun 25, 2007 17:36:48 GMT -4
Those two pictures say exactly what we have been saying all the time. At one point I and someone else even posted very similar graphs with arrows to show you the direction. Why didn't you believe us, but do you believe whoever made that? What made you so hesitant in believing us. EDIT: I see it was postbaguk. I guess you just have to get these things shoved in your face as obvious as this before you believe it. Bert I thought your diagramme demonstrated the idea quite clearly, but showing the area of footage where there was clearly little or no horizontal motion was what clinched it for Rocky. To be honest I thought I was wasting my time with those stills, but to his credit Rocky has accepted that he was wrong. It did take a long time to get there mind: 28 pages on this thread!
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:38:27 GMT -4
On the 'sped up' thing: Of course it looks like it's on Earth when you speed it up. Speeding it up will change the perceivable gravity in the video. With a certain factor, the perceivable gravity will be equal to earth's gravity. This is even calculatable. take the square root of (g_earth / g_moon), and the number you'll get approximately 2.47. This means that if you speed it up to 247% of the original speed, things will look like they're shot on earth even more. However, if you speed the clip up to 393% of original speed, the gravity will act like Jupiter's gravity, because things "fall down faster" from the same distance in the perceivable clip!
I would normally say "bring in the numbers", asking you for calculations of the gravity when things are sped up twice, but it's not really of use. Essentially, calculating the perceived gravity and comparing it to the gravity there should be, is useless as a different framerate will lead you to a different perceived gravity (at least, if the number of frames of a certain action stays the same). However, gravity isn't the only "clue" that the clip is taking place on the moon. This is where other people on the board should fill me in because my knowledge on that doesn't reach that far.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 25, 2007 17:40:37 GMT -4
Bert I thought your diagramme demonstrated the idea quite clearly, but showing the area of footage where there was clearly little or no horizontal motion was what clinched it for Rocky. To be honest I thought I was wasting my time with those stills, but to his credit Rocky has accepted that he was wrong. I actually did start doing the same thing you did (drawing arrows to show the way the particles travel) for a short YouTube film I was making, but I figured it would be a waste of time. It's a good thing you did it though. Not sure why, but it's a good thing alright.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 25, 2007 17:42:03 GMT -4
It looks like there isn't much horizontal movement after all. I guess I was looking at it wrong. Great. It looks like you're making progress. {{sigh}} Never mind. The LRV footage played at 2x looks completely unnatural. If that were his actual ground speed, Young would've been subjected to g-forces in the turns which likely would've knocked him off his seat. Watch some actual footage of a road rally or autocross race, and compare the movements of those vehicles to the LRV at 2x. I used to race autocross and have videotaped and analyzed dozens of them, both in-car and out. They look nothing like the phony, sped-up footage from Fox. Yes, the infamous Fox special. Has there ever been a more thoroughly debunked load of crap in the history of television?
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Jun 25, 2007 18:22:22 GMT -4
Rocky There's LOADS of footage I could show you that looks TOTALLY unnatural when sped up to double speed. I just can't figure out how to record it yet. If anyone has the software to do this, and the Apollo 15 DVD set, look at DVD4, EVA2, Genesis rock - in particular the footage at 26:10 onwards. One of the astronauts is bagging up a sample near the rover. Sped up to x2 speed, it looks completely unnatural. I'll try and sort this if noone else can.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 25, 2007 19:18:18 GMT -4
It looks like I have to eat my words on this one. I've been talking about this over at "Loose change". <snip> It looks like there isn't much horizontal movement after all. I guess I was looking at it wrong. I guess you all are going to have a field day over this. I deserve it.
No, you'll find that most of us actually think more of you for finally admitting you got it wrong. That shows progress and actually means that further descussions may not be totally futile. Just a shame you added this part:
I still think it was filmed on earth though because of this video that shows the rover footage played at double speed.
|
|