|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 26, 2007 14:55:50 GMT -4
Do you really think a few scientists couldn't come up with a way to... ...send men to the moon?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 26, 2007 15:15:27 GMT -4
Do you really think a few scientists couldn't come up with a way to make sand dust-free? I think that thousands of scientists and engineers could figure out how to land men on the moon. Besides, you still ignore the fact that the clean coarse-grained cohesionless material that would be needed to eliminate aerosolation would not form sharp impressions. Your washed sand theory cannot explain the examples of astronauts kicking up dust with their boots without any sign of aerosolation, while simultaneously forming footprints. Your continuing to ignore this point does not make it go away. I'm not your lackey, go find an example yourself. The only examples of sped up footage I've seen are on the video I posted and the movemonts looked natural. Your lack of thoroughness is not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 26, 2007 15:21:58 GMT -4
Well, Rocky, you're likely to get a little ribbing for stubbornly clinging to a belief that no one else believed had any substance to it. But in the long run you're usually better off changing your mind and suffering the momentary pain than persisting forever in error. People are more credible when they demonstrate they can be swayed by arguments and evidence, not when they dig in and try to maintain the illusion that they're right.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 26, 2007 15:38:17 GMT -4
... But, for example, it does you know good to know sordid details of your significant other's past. In that case, it's foolish of you to go track down meaningless information. You mean no good, presumably? Sorry, Gillian, just couldn't resist. I have never objected to other people pointing out my typos. However, in this case, I blame the current drug interactions I'm experiencing. (I hate my new doctor.)
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 26, 2007 15:39:52 GMT -4
Just say no, Gillian.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 26, 2007 15:40:03 GMT -4
Do you really think a few scientists couldn't come up with a way to make sand dust-free? and dense and aerodynamic and frictionless, wouldn't it for the sake of all of this be easier to build a giant pressure vessel and evacuate the air out of it, or do you realise the impracticalities of that. Luckily rocky nearly all video file players, DVD players and VHS machines can play at 2x, windows media player, Nero showtime, Irfan etc can play at selectable speeds in increments, I even believe the annoying crud that is Realplayer and Quicktime (gag!) do. So you can speed up slow down to your hearts content, if you happen to have a little video editting software, you might even have shuttle and jog controls as well as full time control. so you can watch nearly all nasa footage at 246% speed I also didn't realise that all Astronauts where choregraphic trained actors that could remember all there speed up and slow down sections to do, and could also remember to speed up EVERY action and motion by exactly the right amount, that sort of mental and physical muscular control is almost a greater technical skill than a test pilot or astronaut
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 26, 2007 15:40:25 GMT -4
Do you really think a few scientists couldn't come up with a way to make sand dust-free?
Nobody has been able to do it yet.
And as others have noted, you keep walking into this particular circularity. You can't say that smart people "would have found a way" to accomplish some particular thing unless you're willing to allow that for every particular thing. First, it's begging the question. You can't just say that "somehow" a miracle might have happened. That's just wishful thinking. The inability to describe how something was done and to show evidence that it was done is the perfect rational reason for rejecting a hypothesis.
Second, you can't say that people are very good at problem-solving when it fits your belief, yet not good problem-solvers when it doesn't favor your belief. You're evaluating their skill based on what you want to be true. It shows a heavy bias in your thinking. It shows that you first drew the conclusion that Apollo was faked, and now after the fact you're trying to shoehorn the data to fit that conclusion. You don't seriously consider the proposition that Apollo was real, therefore you egregiously fool yourself into thinking your case against it has merit.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jun 26, 2007 18:21:00 GMT -4
Do you really think a few scientists couldn't come up with a way to make sand dust-free? If they could come up with ways to fake a lunar landing (or rather six landings, one failure, two lunar orbital flights and two earth orbital flights) why couldn't they come up with a way to ACTUALLY go to the Moon? No. Do your own research. That's because those clips have been specially selected because they look natural. Please get it through your head that you are arguing from a point of having seen some clips from a conspiracy theorist video, whereas we are arguing from the point of having seen all or most of the footage in broadcast quality on large TV screens. And what of sequences where they are both working with ther hands and being influenced by gravity? I can tell you these sequences exist. I can't post a link because I saw them on my DVDs, and right now I have not the time or inclination to dig out the DVD, find the relevant chapter (some missions include almost 12 hours of video), then mark out the mission, EVA and mission time, then go and find an online source. If you want to argue about how the footage was produced at least TRY and view the footage yourself, for heaven's sake. Handwaving to explain away footage that disagrees with your interpretation that you haven't even seen yet cuts no ice here as you should know by now.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 26, 2007 19:39:53 GMT -4
Just say no, Gillian. Heh. And my doctor asked me why I hadn't just stopped taking the meds if they weren't working. (For those of you who don't get the joke, every time you start medication with a new doctor, except this one, they tell you very firmly that you shouldn't stop taking the medication unless the doctor tells you to.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 26, 2007 20:22:49 GMT -4
...whereas we are arguing from the point of having seen all or most of the footage in broadcast quality on large TV screens.
Agreed. One can't draw a meaningful conclusion from data one knows has been cherry-picked.
Rocky's devotion to his sources is crippling his interpretation. I don't think he realizes that it's not only possible but also highly likely the conspiracy theorists aren't telling the whole truth. If one starts with a belief in a conclusion, and with the notion that those who first expressed the conclusion are invariably skilled and honest, then one simply doesn't have what it takes to hold that belief rationally.
And what of sequences where they are both working with ther hands and being influenced by gravity?
Examination of these scenes is not necessary. Which is more likely in the general case: a highly choreographed adaptive slow-down and speed-up session lasting hours in some cases, or simply the lunar environment? Posing intricate ad hoc adjustments in place of a single static context does not give a better explanation for behavior.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 26, 2007 23:57:50 GMT -4
Post an example of this. The only examples of sped up footage I've seen are on the video I posted and the movemonts looked natural. Not all the footage was necessarilly played at half speed. Scenes where they are just standing and working with their hands were probably not played at half speed so they will look unnaturally fast when played at double speed. Go to www.apolloarchive.com, go to its Multimedia section, scroll down to Apollo 15, and select an MPEG labelled "Scott photographs Hadley Rille then trips on a rock". Watch his arms flail as he falls, and ask yourself if he could flail twice as fast. Of course, you could always say that bit of film was recorded by some other means. But something you're yet to account for is that all this video footage (and see how much is there at Apolloarchive) was watched live by people in Mission Control, and these people included journalists, official guests and the astronauts' families. Are you saying that they're all in on the hoax too?
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jun 27, 2007 11:02:17 GMT -4
I think the problem is, most people are used to watching a film or TV show where the camera cuts ever 10 - 15 seconds to a different shot, I can only think of the Hitchcock film 'Rope' as an example of very long single shots.
Apollo has lots of very long sequences. I don't think HBs are aware of this.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 27, 2007 11:33:02 GMT -4
10 to 15 seconds is actually a lot for modern day movies. Gotta keep the pace up these days.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 27, 2007 12:15:19 GMT -4
Yes, average shot length is steadily decreasing. Talented editors make those cuts seamless, but they do exist in feature films. Shot length is often dictated by how difficult the shot is to achieve. Effect-heavy shots tend to be short, not only so that the effect doesn't have to hold up visually for long but also because shorter shots have a greater chance of succeeding without something going wrong. You simply can't do shots with visual and mechanical effects that last 30 seconds or a minute -- nevermind an hour!
And online resources are great for convenient access, but they misrepresent the data somewhat when they cut the continuous video into download-sized clips. The casual observer is quite likely to think the video originated that way and is thus a reasonable candidate for conventional effects photography.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Jun 27, 2007 14:08:00 GMT -4
Just checked, 'Rope' was filmed as one long take, there is only one 'cut' and that is dicguised by the camera tracking past a black area of dividing wall between 2 rooms on the set, this was done so the reel of film could be changed.
|
|