|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 3:05:15 GMT -4
Heck, there's a reason unsupported eyewitness testimony isn't sufficient for a conviction in any court. Is that really true? I sure hope it is, because I frequently worry about people being falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit because juries give unwarranted emphasis to eyewitness testimony. One personal experience in particular drove home for me just how unreliable an eyewitness really can be... specifically me. While driving on I-5 in central California I witnessed a horrendous head-on crash that occurred right in front of me. A bus sideswiped a SUV, which lost control, crossed the median and hit a pickup coming the other way. Only I never saw -- or remembered seeing the bus. It had to have been there in my field of vision because other witnesses consistently described it to the policeman who took our statements. But I couldn't remember seeing it. I think my own mental recording of the incident simply did not start until I realized that something very non-nominal was going on. By then the bus had already gone on by. This was a stressful and eye-opening experience for me. Not just because it's extremely unpleasant to witness people being badly hurt, but because it drove home to me the very real limitations of my own human senses. I wish there was a way to get everyone who's ever called on to evaluate testimony in a court to understand this without having to go through a similar experience.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 9, 2011 4:30:56 GMT -4
I have mentioned this before but a UK TV crime show staged an incident infront of unsuspecting witnesses. They interviewed the people after the event, usual police way and when they let them in on the incident and played back the scene and compared testimonies they were a bit surprised. Red balaclava instead of blue, four people not three and so on. The show was highlighting issues with witness statements.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 5:00:17 GMT -4
...I have hypertension [...] if you were my doctor I'm convinced you might prescribe me drugs for hypotension. e and o are both vowels, so what's the big deal? Picky, picky. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 9, 2011 5:37:53 GMT -4
The substance of all my posts in that thread deal with the astronauts finding themselves on the moon using their navigational gear and part of that would include making altitude and azimuth measurements of celestial bodies from the moon's surface What navigational gear? Did they have hand-held GPS receivers? I've already tried to explain some of the basics of Apollo navigation, in particular its inherent limitations and error sources. You've refused to acknowledge a single one. Once again you go on about sighting stars from the lunar surface as though it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted Apollogist that this would have nailed their position to the centimeter in a matter of seconds. It just didn't work like that, and I even told you why -- the lack of an accurate detailed lunar gravity field meant that any star sightings, no matter how precisely made, simply could not be turned into an absolute position on the lunar surface with the precision you demand. If you disagreed with my analysis you would have been welcome to say so and explain why. But you didn't even acknowledge the point at all. Do you understand why everyone is getting so annoyed with your propensity to answer questions with irrelevant questions?
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Jul 9, 2011 9:00:59 GMT -4
I forgot who said reaching the end of his ability to deal civilly with Fattydash. I can imagine vividly. That is the primary reason I'm just reading. I have learned a myriad of things here by all the comments, explanations and facts about physics and logic answered to this doctor (...), really. Thank you all for that. The primary thing Fattydask seems to do is playing that broken record over and over again and I seriously doubt if he's reading all the contributions here at all. His arguments, assumptions and 'facts' are hurricaned on a daily basis but he seems to ignore his failures completely.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 9, 2011 13:02:22 GMT -4
Is that really true? I sure hope it is, because I frequently worry about people being falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit because juries give unwarranted emphasis to eyewitness testimony. They do give unwarranted emphasis to it, and it does result in false convictions more often than I'm comfortable with. On the other hand, eyewitness testimony alone isn't worth anything. There has to be, at bare minimum, physical evidence that a crime was committed. Obviously, there have been plenty of lynchings where that wasn't the case, but in the legal system, there is a minimum standard of evidence before a case is even brought, and eyewitness testimony by itself does not meet that standard.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 12, 2011 13:14:41 GMT -4
Deleted - posted in wrong thread.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 12, 2011 18:21:15 GMT -4
The argument as regards a watered down explanation for public consumption is weak, but granted that, say that was the motivation, dark/light concerns were never discussed appropriately in the non public contexts, such as in the debriefing reports, and as all are well aware, the astronauts purported consistently had problems visualizing stars via the scanning scope because of the alleged effects of the bright cabin. That said, Aldrin himself mentions that they sighted stars in a dark cabin. That was his motivation for modifying the star charts and having them viewed through a special dark environment friendly box. Why would they be? "We've discovered during the Apollo missions something we are calling 'inertia.' Let's have a long technical discussion about it at the highest levels, then call a press conference to announce our findings." Seriously. Are you thinking the conditions around visibility of stars during the Apollo missions were an uncharted unknown before the missions? Are you seriously suggesting no-one had an inkling of if it was possible, or even WHY it would or would not be possible?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 12, 2011 18:35:30 GMT -4
It is a convenient way, an excuse that would be understood by the public in general, accounting for the astronauts not seeing what everyone knows they should have seen, stars. "Everyone knows" /= "True" The expectation is in error. Just like a great many other things that seem obvious and intuitive are wrong. The goal, the intention of the lie, has to do with getting people to not even begin to think about questioning the astronauts with reference to the visibility of stars. One cannot answer a question about something one does not see. The advantage to the hoax is what, now? "Mr. Collins, please describe the starscape you saw at 12:40:01:00023 GMT." "I saw Antares 3' 60.000345244 seconds from the crescent Venus..." "Wrong, wrong! Antares would have been no more than 3' 60.0002" away from Venus. Plus, you misidentify a waxing crescent as a mere 'crescent.' The Apollo missions were a fake!" "You got me there!" (chuckles.) "I knew that drunken astronomer we hired to plug in the numbers was gonna screw up somewhere." The best bogus story, the one most easily digested by an unsophisticated public, which surprisingly, includes professional astronomers who also buy into this ridiculous explanation, is to throw this nonsense out there. And sure enough, most people bought it. Alternatively, professional astronomers know what the frack they are doing when it comes to observing in less-than-optimal conditions. And so do a great many amateur students of the night sky. It is watered down physiology, an expedient way to dispense with the not seeing stars matter. Had real physiology been acknowledged, then it would be clear to many that in some situations stars would, could and should have been seen. Who wants stars if the trip is fake and the astronauts could be easily caught in a lie as regards them. Which they were. Your quote-mining does not disguise the fact that stars were sighted in the appropriate conditions, and had the visibility a reasonable and experienced observer would expect. This is nothing more or less than a tired old borrowed argument by Bart Sibrel, references and all, dressed up with a little first-year physiology to make it seem more science-y. Assume the thing is fake. How would Collins answer the question, "So Mike, did you see the Southern Cross? What did Venus look like? Did you try and photograph Venus? Will the Apollo 12 astronauts be able to take better pictures of Venus knowing now what you and NASA photographic experts learned on your trip?" Like it would be a challenge to figure out if the Southern Cross, or Venus, would be visible from that location! You think there are only four astronomers in the world, and all of them refused to work for NASA? Your average scout leader could answer those questions. Better pictures than what? Than from a large telescope? Than from a dedicated space observatory or satellite designed for the task? Sure...let's forget the geology, let's forget all questions about the formation of the Moon and the Solar system, let's ignore the Moon entirely, and use the entire mission as an excuse to drag huge expensive optics much, much further than they need to go, soft-land them in a gravity well they have no business being in, and use them for a mere handful of hours. THIS IS STUPID. There is no compelling reason to do basic astronomy from the lunar surface (not, that is, within the context of the missions. Setting up a 100 km radio telescope on farside, now THAT might be worth doing....but the Apollo missions were hardly up to that task!)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 12, 2011 18:49:34 GMT -4
What about the reflectors? Why did they have so much trouble targeting the reflector that night/morning, 07/20/1969? They shot the lasers at the reflector right away. Why wasn't there a report, a reflection? Why did it take so long to locate Tranquility base? If they tracked the Eagle so well, why didn't they know precisely where the Eagle had landed on that eveing? Other thread. But you still get this wrong. They knew where the Eagle was...at least, close enough to allow the crew to get home. They did not know where the MOON was in relation to that position. Over-simplified, but that's the idea. I was talking about this with a friend over dinner and he compared it to getting around Paris. If you are trying to get to the Eiffel tower, and you know you are at the bend in the Seine, all you have to do is look in the right direction. See the tower, walk towards it. There is absolutely no need to know what street you are standing on at the time.
|
|