|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2007 20:18:47 GMT -4
[There's so much info in those videos that it would take hours to summarize it. I don't have the time. There's no point in it anyway. What does it matter if you get the same info from my summary or the video itself? Because I don't watch videos online. Full stop. I don't trust the source material. I'm not going to expose my computer. This is almost certainly paranoid of me, sure. However, it is my right to be paranoid about my computer as surely as it is yours to feel paranoid about everything else. As to what it matters . . . . David, do you understand the information you're presenting? Do you? I don't know. I've never seen evidence that you do. What I've seen evidence of is that you know what people say about it. Why should I trust the average man on the street in Mexico or wherever about what happened in Jonestown? Why are they more reliable than people in San Francisco whose families were there? I've seen evidence, based on past discussion, that you don't understand physics, how cameras work, the US governmental system, how the press works, or about a dozen other things. Can you at least show me that you understand what the videos are saying? Please?
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 15, 2007 13:28:54 GMT -4
He has shown himself to be logical and objective and a good detective when it comes to the 9/11 issue. Watch "Painful Deceptions". www.question911.com/linksall.htmHe knows the Apollo moon missions were faked. He has a good idea of how corrupt the US government is. He seems to know how to come to a logical conclusion. He seems to be a level-headed, hard-to-fool person. I haven't had time to read all of his works so maybe there is something I will find fault with. Why don't you find something he said that you think is wrong and we can talk about it? www.erichufschmid.net/
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 15, 2007 13:43:33 GMT -4
He knows the Apollo moon missions were faked. I've seen his Apollo arguments. He is supremely ignorant of both the scientific and engineering aspects of Apollo. He is also dishonest: he claims Apollo astronauts should have seen stars because a quote from a U-2 pilot mentions how bright they are. If you check the actual quote, you find the pilot was referring to flying at night, but Huf cut that bit out. Anyone who is still using "no stars" as an anti-Apollo argument is wilfully ignorant of photography, because anyone who has ever tried to photograph stars knows how difficult it is at night, let alone in sunlight. Edit to add: There's also this, which I posted in the "HB contradictions" thread last September:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 15, 2007 17:25:28 GMT -4
Why don't you find something he said that you think is wrong and we can talk about it?
So you're okay with his being a Holocault denier and proud Jew hater?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 15, 2007 22:28:40 GMT -4
Why don't you find something he said that you think is wrong and we can talk about it?So you're okay with his being a Holocault denier and proud Jew hater? Last time I checked he'd removed that crap from his site. I read elsewhere that Steve Jones insisited he do so if he wanted to join S911T. But now that Jones has gotten the boot and most of the reasonablly level headed people left perhaps he'll put it back. Fetzer said he thinks some anti-Semetic stuff is "interesting".
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 15, 2007 23:19:11 GMT -4
Last time I checked he'd removed that crap from his site.
There is still enough there to show his beliefs on the matter.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jan 16, 2007 13:19:44 GMT -4
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 17, 2007 15:02:23 GMT -4
Please give a specific example of a case in which I didn't understand something. Are you referring to the discussion in this thread? www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507You guys said the object on the right of this picture was smoke. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgYou said the plane was in front of the object and the camera was incapable of picking up the plane as it was traveling too fast. Look at the first frame of this series of pictures. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmThe tail can be seen. Evidently the camera was able to pick up the fast-moving object this other series of pictures. Even the CNN news anouncer here says it's the front of a plane. www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.htmlWhen you guys are cornered you say incredibly silly things in a very condescending manner and accuse the other person of unclear thinking. There's only one problem with that strategy--objective viewers believe the pictures and ignore rants by unobjective people like you guys. You guys already have your minds made up and you torture the evidence to fit your foregone conclusion. That's the way creation scientists work. That's probably why hardly any objective truth-seekers bother to post here or at the Bad Astronomy forum. www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19I wouldn't bother debating with you guys but sometimes I wonder if you're actually having an effect on some of the viewers; I feel I have to post something very simple from time to time so that you guys can make fools of yourselves trying to explain it away so that it'll be quite clear that you're not objective and your opinions count for nothing. When you guys tried to explain away the picture of the front of the plane that hit the Pentagon as smoke at the Bad Astronomy forum you pretty much destroyed your credibility in the eyes of thinking people. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgLook at post 914 on this page. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=31Please go into more detail. These general statements don't prove anything. I did notice that a while back and I was a bit disappointed in him for doing that. What convinced me that the Apollo moon missions were a hoax was not Eric's work. I explained it in post #37 of this thread. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=49674&page=2(There are links to the only three remaining on-line moon hoax videos that I know of on that post) I wish "What Happened on the Moon" were still on-line. I stopped discussing the moon hoax because I don't have any evidence to show any more. I've seen a lot of good evidence and proof that Apollo was a hoax. The one thing the pro-Apollo people on those forums could never adequately explain was the issue of the reflection of the sun on the Apollo astronauts' visors. It was more than a hundred times bigger than the reflection of the sun on the shuttle astronaut's visor. The convex curvature on both visors was not significanty different so the only possible explanation is that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor was of a gigantic artificial light. I know you guys gave your explanations for it with your patronizing attitudes but your patronizing attitudes added nothing to your lame arguments. You might as well have argued that two plus two is five with a patronizing attitude. You would have looked just as silly. He did make a point I hadn't thought of before--in a vacuum light is not scattered. He said that light just going in one direction doesn't block light coming from another direction and the stars would be visible. I don't know how to go about verifying that. It may not be true. www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.htmlMaybe he wasn't lying when he talked about seeing the stars. Maybe he was just being a bit unclear about what he was thinking. All his moon stuff can be seen here about 70% down the page. www.erichufschmid.net/I haven't had time to read all of his stuff. From what I can tell so far he just wants to investigate the holocaust and is complaining about the blocks people encounter when they try to investigate it. (I don't know if that's true or not; I've only read part of Eric's works--nothing by anybody else). www.erichufschmid.net/Separating_truth_from_lies.htmwww.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html I didn't see where he actually said the holocaust never happened. Maybe he did and I haven't got to that part yet. I'm a bit busy now and can't read everything I want to. I know he talks about how Israel influences the US government. I agree with him on that. I haven't read all of his works. Please find something specific that shows he's a racist or something and post it. I haven't had time to read all of the above links as I'm a bit busy now. I replied to post # 24 on this thread but it didn't appear. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1167837322&page=2Sometimes I post stuff on this forum and it doesn't appear until the next day but this has been about three days. Somebody post something so I can see if my post appears before it. This forum seems to have some technical problems--sometimes I can't even log in and I can't do any posting until the next day.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 17, 2007 15:53:51 GMT -4
He did make a point I hadn't thought of before--in a vacuum light is not scattered. He said that light just going in one direction doesn't block light coming from another direction and the stars would be visible. I don't know how to go about verifying that. It may not be true. www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.htmlLight "blocking" light and the fact that vacuum can't scatter light have nothing to do with whether you can photograph stars on the moon. If you're trying to photograph stars from the moon's surface you certainly can. The astronauts, however, were photographing each other, the moon's surface, and their equipment. Their cameras were set to photograph bright, sunlit objects. With such settings it is impossible to photograph dim objects like stars.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 18, 2007 1:25:30 GMT -4
Please give a specific example of a case in which I didn't understand something. Okay. Let's start with bookstores. You said that Noam Chomsky's books weren't available in American bookstores in the 90s. However, the earliest publication date Amazon shows for a Chomsky political book is 1969. By an American publishing company. In fact, all of his political books are initially published by American companies. Therefore, logically, they were sold in America. Actually, my best friend informs me that she's been reading Chomsky's political stuff since the 90s. While she has left the country a few times, she's lived in the US her entire life. Let's look at cameras. In the various BAUT threads, you were told exactly how the camera worked. You were told an actual physical reason it was impossible for it to take a clear picture, and that you were, therefore, seeing things. This was, again, not an opinion. This was a statement of scientific fact. You choose to disregard it, but you are wrong. Oh, sure, you think we're patronizing. But we're also frustrated. It does get various tedious explaining the same things over and over again, even when it's to different people. But to explain the same thing over and over again to the same person, because he refuses to understand what's going on, is even worse.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 18, 2007 4:23:26 GMT -4
Please go into more detail. These general statements don't prove anything. Engineering: page 3 of his pdf, lots of questions about the LM ending "Is NASA keeping this info a secret? If so, why?". All this data is easily found, both in hardcopy sources dating back to 1969 and on the net. Science: Page 8 "Dry dust in the Earth's deserts does not leave crisp impressions, so why does lunar dust?" He then presents a Surveyor picture (p9), which he appears to think genuine, showing a crisp footpad impression. He appears unaware that other dry powders - cement, flour - take crisp impressions. Also the whole stars, lighting, reflected light from the surface stuff which has been done to death on this forum and elsewhere. Operations: page 15 "The astronauts also had a perfect opportunity to demonstrate lunar gravity and physics to the TV audience. For an example..." What was the hammer and feather demo if not exactly the sort of thing he asks for? The jump salute? Throwing experiment covers, hammers and poles? I could debunk the rest of the document as easily.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 18, 2007 4:38:12 GMT -4
The one thing the pro-Apollo people on those forums could never adequately explain was the issue of the reflection of the sun on the Apollo astronauts' visors. It was more than a hundred times bigger than the reflection of the sun on the shuttle astronaut's visor. The convex curvature on both visors was not significanty different so the only possible explanation is that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor was of a gigantic artificial light. The sun reflections are big because they are very overexposed. Light scattering in the camera, not noticable for a normally exposed scene, spreads the image and saturates the emulsion over a much bigger area than the actual size of the object's image. In this situation, the size of the sun's apparent image is related more to the lens type and exposure setting than to the size of the true image. This is easily seen in any normally exposed earth picture that includes the sun, and also in Apollo photos, eg Hufschmid's p19. Hufschmid is correct in saying that light is not scattered in a vacuum, but neglects the fact that it is still scattered in a camera lens, particularly one that has some dust on the front element..
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 18, 2007 13:30:13 GMT -4
Overexposure does not make an object one hundred times bigger. www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/atget/atget_parc_de_sceaux.jpgThis hot-link didn't work during the preview. You have to copy and paste it) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)aainter3-net.fromform.net/kevin/bright-clareweb.jpgOverexposure can cause glare but it doesn't increase the actual size of the reflection of the light source. horizonmark.com/album/landscape/GLARE.JPGUnless I can find a picture of what I'm referring to, it's hard to make my case. the picture I was using before was on "What Happened on the Moon" which is now off-line. I started talking abot that on this other forum a while back. z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4560&st=2910It starts on post # 6 of that page. There are some more links in the discussion. It's really strange that so many videos that allege the moon landings were a hoax are going off-line. We can hardly debate about that subject any more. The hammer and feather drop was fakable. It could have been a paper hammer and a lead feather. I saw the jump salute. the astronaut was probably on support wires. I never saw anything thrown that didn't look like it was thrown in earth gravity. Without any visuals to show this is pretty difficult to debate. I'll try to look for some stuff when I have time. The reflection of the artirficial light in the apollo astronauts' visors is proof that the landings were faked though. The problem now is finding a picture of it to show the viewers. What I said was that I never saw one. I used to go into bookstores in malls such as Walden Books. There might have been some in some other stores. I go into Bookstores here in Madrid and I never miss seeing the books by Chomsky and William Blum. They are right where they can be seen by everybody. Of course I understood what you guys were saying but I knew it was wrong. You guys said that there was a plane in front of the nose of the plane that you said was smoke in this picture but it was moving too fast for the camea to pick it up. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgIn this picture the tail was picked up by the camera. 0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htmThat belies your argument. As I told you at the other forum--if you say something ridiculous in a condescending way, it's still ridiculous. People believe what they see and don't consider the attitude of the person putting forth the argument. You guys destroyed your credibility when you said that the object on the right of the first photo was smoke. That is absolutely laughable. You must not think the photo has been doctored because you're not arguing that. If this is the actual photo taken by the camera at the gate, the whole issue is closed--9/11 was an insie job. That's why you desperately insist that the object in this photo is smoke. www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpgThe whole debate is over. What we have to do now is show this photo to as many people as we can.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2007 13:52:31 GMT -4
It's really strange that so many videos that allege the moon landings were a hoax are going off-line. We can hardly debate about that subject any more. I don't find it strange at all. Websites require time and money to maintain, and unless you're directly selling hoax books and videos you can't make any money off of promoting the idea that the Apollo landings were hoaxed. Assuming the point is whether this was done in vaccuum or not, that wouldn't have helped. A hollow paper hammer would then fall slower than the lead feather, as it would have greater surface area and greater wind resistance with less weight. And how do you make a convincing lead feather?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 18, 2007 13:53:42 GMT -4
Naom Chomskey is not being surpressed in America. His books don't sell as well here as they do in Europe because we don't generally like books full of anti-American hatred.
|
|