|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 3, 2007 16:28:34 GMT -4
Nobody would be impressed by the position you people are taking. Objective truth-seeking scientists would just prove it to settle the issue instead of avoiding proving it. Rocky, as I've mentioned at least twice, and maybe even before those times, you yourself are not showing yourself to be objective. Nor do you show yourself to be interested in the truth, hence you are not a "truth seeker", but rather a person that has no knowledge about space science and has anti-American attitudes, which you allow to influence your judgement of Apollo. More than one user has asked you why Apollo had to be faked. I myself, in case you missed it (or more likely ignored because you couldn't answer), have pointed out that so-called anomolies with Apollo can be seen in other images from other space missions. You say the Apollo footage "looks like" Earth gravity. Well, looks aren't everything. You need empirical evidence. You are being asked to prove your claims, because, as the phrase goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Apollo is accept by scientists worldwide because of the evidence at hand; moonrocks, tracking data, data from the spacecraft, ect. Also, the principles behind it are sound; rocketry, physics, ect. That you present a video that a limited number of people claim is evidenec of a hoax in no way is sufficent to disprove Apollo. You claim to know the opinions of viewers. How do you know it is you that is not being scoffed at for your failure to prove your claims? All you have, Rocky, is speculation. People like JayUtah had experience and knowledge in relevent fields of Apollo. I suggest that your first goal is to show, with irrefutable evidence, why Apollo had to be hoaxed. Since you have time to look at videos that are a half hour long or so, you certainly have time to read online articles about space (and I don't mean articles by pseudoscientists). Look at books too.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 3, 2007 16:39:06 GMT -4
You're really impressing the viewers here.
According to them, I am.The viewers have unanimously (11-0 vote as of the latest contribution (13 June '07)) and soundly rejected rocky's arguments (calling them "ludicrous" and his thought processes "bizarre"). I don't recall if they were impressed by Jay, but they were very much unimpressed by rocky's handwaving, backpedaling, distortion of claims, unsupported allegations about other users being liars and paid disinformationists, goalpost-shifting, refusal to do any work to back up his claims, unsupported allegations of worldwide conspiracies among entire branches of science, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 3, 2007 16:53:26 GMT -4
Well Rocky, the viewers appearently are giving their answer. Too bad it's not the one you wanted, huh?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 3, 2007 17:19:19 GMT -4
Thanks, BertLs, I couldn't view the originals either, something about incompatible with my player.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 3, 2007 17:38:37 GMT -4
I have a feeling the rocky thinks that if you throw something on the moon it should go 70% faster then on Earth. Of course this is showing a total lack of physics knowledge as the wieght of the object might change, but the mass does not.
BTW rocky how do you explain seeing them remove the Mylar wrapping, seeing that it is very flexible, and then seeing John throw it away without any atmospheric effects? Even cardboard would be affected by air, and the mylar they are taking off the experiments is obviously a lot more flexible than cardboard. Instead of just saying "but they could have used..." try repicating what they did yourself using materials you think they might have used. Don't bother coming back till you have either found something that does act the way the mylar does on the video, or you are willing to conceed that you can't get something to act that way in an atmosphere.
eta: Watch BertLs' clip 2. Look at the way the material reacts when it is picked up with the scoop. See how flexible it is. Watch what it does as it lands. See how easily is deforms as it lands. Now look at how it moves in flight. Why is there no resistance to it? Try it with a plastic shopping bag and see what sort of result you get.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 3, 2007 17:39:55 GMT -4
There's absolutely nothing you could calculate from that clip.
Yet you seem to know for a fact that it's not enough. On the one hand you say there's no basis for computation and on the other hand you say there's no need for it. Make up your mind. You can't look at the same problem and say there's no way you can prove yourself right, but that there's a basis for us to prove you wrong, so we should.
You say you need perfectly aligned photographs in order to compute your proof. Real photographic analysts do not. So the problem, once again, is that you don't have the expertise to determine whether your belief is right or wrong. But you won't accept the possibility that it's wrong. You simply declare yourself right, end of story.
The first part of the trajectory can be seen. It's enough.
For what? Another hair split?
They had wire supports.
Have you ever worn a flying harness? Yes or no. Have you ever worn a professional-grade space suit costume? Yes or no. Have you ever been on a set where such costumes were worn? Yes or no.
My answer to all those questions is yes. If you cannot answer yes to any of them, I submit you are not qualified or experienced enough to make a determination.
Nobody would be impressed by the position you people are taking.
Wishful thinking. You've been invited several times to give evidence that anyone agrees with you. You cannot.
Objective truth-seeking scientists would just prove it to settle the issue instead of avoiding proving it.
You are not any sort of authority on what objectivity or truth-seeking means. You have made a claim and have once again abrogated your burden of proof for it. You may not simply demand that others prove you wrong. You are responsible to prove yourself right.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 3, 2007 17:46:55 GMT -4
Wishful thinking. You've been invited several times to give evidence that anyone agrees with you. You cannot.
Strangely enough even his fellow HB's on the board (Turbonium, lionking, inconceivable) have all been rather quiet on the matter as well. Could it be that he's managing to even embarrass them?
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Jul 3, 2007 18:02:37 GMT -4
You people are good at having a patronizing scornful attitude... Why, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 3, 2007 18:10:44 GMT -4
That means there's a sixfold difference in height and range between objects thrown on the moon and on earth.
So if I hurl something with all my might on Earth, it will only go one-sixth as far as something I lightly toss on the Moon? That's some pretty cool math. When I said there were other variables to consider, I meant that seriously. Not everything that describes what you see is dictated by a 6X difference in gravity. There is no substitute for measurement and computation. If you intend to imply a quantitative difference, you must provide a valid quantitative argument.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 3, 2007 19:29:24 GMT -4
rocky would you like to calculate any of the throws exit velocity or angle on this video or the events that they portrayed www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEcY24YAWykIt's on you tube, but I am sure you could check the iaaf sites as well for stuff. BTW STP and Earth Gravity acceleration can be found on a wiki if you like as well... woo for t'interwebs
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 3, 2007 19:49:53 GMT -4
OK I am now reproducing with vigour a nearby Egg-Milk Vanilla non-Newtonian liquid dessert You have repeatedly stated how much you are not a scientist and how much you hate/disapprove of science, and yet you call on scientific principals (which you state you do not understand) or call for scientific proof (of which you plead ignorance or claim it could all be lies) or call for 3rd party scientific backup (and then ignore it) I try my best to get young people with no interest in science, often those with a distinct hate involved in the basic sciences, with table top kitchen/bucket science, making rockets bangs and smells, allowing all conclusions to be self measurable (? Word) and allowing themselves to explore physics chemistry biology electronics mechanics computers to discover the basics of how sh*t works. I can teach a 7 yr old how to make a battery out of a lemon, and even more importantly WHY a battery can be made out of a lemon. which level of truth seeking scientists do you dispute, myself or the 7 year old?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 4, 2007 4:17:56 GMT -4
The viewers would be pretty impressed if you simply proved it--especially the ones with math backgrounds. Which viewers? You mean all the ones that already spoke up saying you were full of it and we did in fact go to the moon and the evidence proves it? Or the imaginary ones that only you seems to think exists?
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 4, 2007 4:44:43 GMT -4
The Voices tell him he's right.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 4, 2007 14:15:13 GMT -4
You joke; I am seriously concerned.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 4, 2007 14:53:45 GMT -4
It was only a rough estimate. I said "About". I should have made it clearer by saying, (I estimate that...). I didn't do any calculations. There's nothing wrong with making estimates if it's made clear that it's just an extimate. I plead guilty to not making it clear enough. There is only one frontal shot of a throw here. I tried to print it so I could do some measurements but I can't print it at this cybercafe. www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxMI know you people are going to deny everything hell-or-high-water. All I ever hoped to do was post something that was so obvious that when you denied it, you'd look silly. There are several things you've said that make you look silly. You said it was impossible to make sand dust-free by sifting it and then repeatedly washing it. There's this issue. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181164839 There's your explanation of the flash on the support wire above the astronaut. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=There are similar flashes in these two clips. http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1193156.movAll of the flashes are reflections off of wires whether they are antennae or support wires. They are all of the same nature. Once a few irrefutable things are found and you people make yourselves look silly trying to refute them anyway, there's really nothing more to do--the case is closed. You haven't been able to come up with one single piece of proof that they went to the moon. Everything that you say is proof has one or more other plausible explanations. Your insistance that the sum total of evidence that they went is proof is ridiculous. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall for the above statement. There are several things that are irrefutable proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. If some of it was taken on earth, it's quite probable that all of it was taken on earth. This makes all of your evidence with other plausible explanations moot. I'm getting a bit tired of this; since we're having a moot discussion anyway, I'm going to take a break. I think most people reading these threads know what's going on here. You people know the moon missions were faked and you don't even believe your own arguments. You're just doing your jobs. www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|