|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 20:24:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2011 20:38:33 GMT -4
Maybe you can argue in a way other than YouTube videos?
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 20:44:51 GMT -4
Doubtful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 20:48:41 GMT -4
Maybe you can argue in a way other than YouTube videos? Youtube is the easiest way for me to put out hoax videos and arguments. -Vincent McConnell |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 21:00:37 GMT -4
Maybe you can argue in a way other than YouTube videos? Youtube is the easiest way for me to put out hoax videos and arguments. -Vincent McConnell I think you are working from a different definition of "Argument." Around here, what we would like to see is a carefully and concisely presented case, with references if possible. YouTube is best suited for an emotional appeal, in which a single idea with perhaps no supporting facts at all is spread thin against a backdrop of emotionally compelling images and music. The latter is of no interest to this board. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 13, 2011 21:03:25 GMT -4
Vincent, did you come here to have a discussion or just to promote your videos?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:05:39 GMT -4
Vincent, did you come here to have a discussion or just to promote your videos? I wanted to see what people could say in counter to my John Young Jump Analysis... Apparently, more of the Pro-Apollo people are seeing my other videos. My biggest thing is to see what kind of counter-arguments anyone here can offer and what fellow hoaxers think of the analysis. Anything that can be fixed, I'd like more opinions. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 13, 2011 21:06:59 GMT -4
I think it's "awesomely stupid".
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 13, 2011 21:07:13 GMT -4
For people who don't feel like sitting through a YouTube video or aren't able to watch YouTube from their current computers, could you sum up your argument, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 21:09:58 GMT -4
Well, I gave it an attempt. Much unnecessary sidetracks taking up footage, a Gish Gallop style of presentation instead of laying out your points...but you did manage to at least describe some of your (erroneous) assumptions.
Suggest you learn about square-cube law, and why you can't make linear comparisons of persons of different weight (or jumping in different gravities). A little reading up on force and acceleration might also be helpful. Plus some more familiarity with the Apollo surface suits wouldn't hurt.
Might also behoove you to learn about image processing, and why counting pixels on a copy of a video tape is inaccurate ...and also about the original images and how the original image capture and transmission introduces error to the apparent positions. A little projective geometry/photogrammetry wouldn't hurt either.
Notice I'm not saying anything about what conclusions you may have reached. If your conclusion was consistent with the Apollo record I would still reject it; because what I am saying is that from early in the first video the number of uncontrolled errors you have allowed to slip into your method renders any result you might derive insufficiently accurate for any purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:10:37 GMT -4
For people who don't feel like sitting through a YouTube video or aren't able to watch YouTube from their current computers, could you sum up your argument, please? I covered 13 minutes of that jump. Basically lunar gravity analysis. Lunar regolith analysis. Photographic anomalies. Jarrah White's helping me smooth out two errors I made. When I get the video re-uploaded with the files he sent me, it should add more content. Basically an analysis of the jump to see if it was fake. Which it was... |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:12:22 GMT -4
Well, I gave it an attempt. Much unnecessary sidetracks taking up footage, a Gish Gallop style of presentation instead of laying out your points...but you did manage to at least describe some of your (erroneous) assumptions. Suggest you learn about square-cube law, and why you can't make linear comparisons of persons of different weight (or jumping in different gravities). A little reading up on force and acceleration might also be helpful. Plus some more familiarity with the Apollo surface suits wouldn't hurt. Might also behoove you to learn about image processing, and why counting pixels on a copy of a video tape is inaccurate ...and also about the original images and how the original image capture and transmission introduces error to the apparent positions. A little projective geometry/photogrammetry wouldn't hurt either. Notice I'm not saying anything about what conclusions you may have reached. If your conclusion was consistent with the Apollo record I would still reject it; because what I am saying is that from early in the first video the number of uncontrolled errors you have allowed to slip into your method renders any result you might derive insufficiently accurate for any purpose. I did talk about the A7LB's worn by the astronauts. Like I said, Jarrah White is helping me with two errors I made. Shane Killion was the one who analyzed a 19 inch jump. Take it up with him... he's pro-apollo. |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 21:15:10 GMT -4
I think it's "awesomely stupid". Yep... I did say that. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 13, 2011 21:16:10 GMT -4
Sigh. All of the work to prepare a video, and you didn't even write a script you could copy here?
I found the video annoying to watch, and I'd prefer to see the arguments in writing. As would most people with an analytical inclination.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 13, 2011 21:16:20 GMT -4
Basically an analysis of the jump to see if it was fake. Which it was... No, the jump just doesn't meet your expectations. You haven't proven it fake. |
|
