|
Post by fiveonit on Jul 18, 2011 1:04:33 GMT -4
Silly, really; he gets banned permanently either way. Can't one of the moderators find what IP(s) he's posting from and just block them? That way it doesn't matter what account he's trying to use.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 18, 2011 1:50:20 GMT -4
Well, "one of" the moderators implies that we have anything but LO. And personally, I'd rather (sorry, LO) have him have to put in more work shooting the guy down one at a time than risk shutting out people who might actually be capable of learning.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 5:19:43 GMT -4
...But earthshine is not seen in the moonscape photos from Apollo 11, no earthshine anywhere. If landing was real, earthshine should be obvious in many pictures.This is a silly argument - saying that one should notice Earthshine in broad lunar daylight. A moment's thought would tell you why, but that would require you to actually think about the issue. Actually, depending on your definition of 'earthshine'... light from the earth is in fact a rather notable feature of the most famous Apollo picture ever... I shall leave it to the avid reader to work out what I am referring to (a little mental exercise so that these threads are not a *total* waste)... (If you know what I mean, may I suggest you don't post it immediately and be a 'spoiler'..) Au contraire, fatty, and it's not just the one I mention above, as anyone actually familiar with the Apollo missions would know. I'm surprised you know this little about the lunar photography! As sts60 stated, there are multiple pictures of the Earth taken from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews. Fatty, that lack of knowledge is inexcusable. And there is more to it, regarding the fact that Earth (and Venus for that matter) were captured on film exactly where they should have been. I won't post the comprehensive refutation of that ignorance just yet, as it is part of the trivia exercise I asked above...
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 18, 2011 5:55:17 GMT -4
Actually, depending on your definition of 'earthshine'... light from the earth is in fact a rather notable feature of the most famous Apollo picture ever... I shall leave it to the avid reader to work out what I am referring to (a little mental exercise so that these threads are not a *total* waste)... I never noticed it until I first came across the hoax theory, perhaps 15 years ago. The "most famous picture" featured prominently in the claims, and that led me to digging out an old copy of Life magazine with a big enlargement of the area in question on the cover. Once I started looking at it, the fact that the Earth was there rather leaped out at me, and some examination of the geometry of the landing site and the photo convinced me that it was right where it should have been. Either Apollo was real or there had been a simply amazing attention to detail on the part of some faker.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 5:56:40 GMT -4
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of people who try to use deception in a debate? Oooh, ooh, me, me!!! Er.. may I? I think they are gutter slime. Deceptive, callous, preying on the gullible. It is also a strong indication of some form of diagnosable personality disorder or even psychosis, in that they genuinely believe they are justified in using deception to try to convince others that their opinions are more worthy and highly regarded than they actually are. There are numerous factors involved: - the wish to portray, completely falsely, that they have popular support when little or none exists - the wish to misrepresent their qualifications, current employment and other personal circumstances - the need to invent imaginary friends as they have few in reality - the need to imbibe those 'friends' with equally 'impressive' but completely false credentials - the need for praise from the invented 'friends' (even when self-given, to them it counts..) - the desire to mislead or misrepresent (be that for the '15-minutes syndrome', or simply to troll) - to create 'strawmen' puppets that advance weak support for the other side, so they can then refute the issues and appear to be 'winning' - the desire for revenge against those who are better informed or have successfully refuted their claims - the simple desire to 'hear themselves speak' (ie to read back their words over and over and congratulate themselves on how clever they are) ..and so on. The sad part is that some people who do this may believe that their socks are in fact real... Anyway, all in all... I think that sock puppetry gives an extremely accurate indication of the type of person you are dealing with.. BTW, sockpuppetry can end badly... If I wuz you, fatty, I wouldn't name the doctor you are pretending to be...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 6:17:00 GMT -4
I never noticed it until I first came across the hoax theory, perhaps 15 years ago. The "most famous picture" featured prominently in the claims, and that led me to digging out an old copy of Life magazine with a big enlargement of the area in question on the cover. Once I started looking at it, the fact that the Earth was there rather leaped out at me, and some examination of the geometry of the landing site and the photo convinced me that it was right where it should have been. Same here, same timeline.. I think it goes without saying that there are many new examples of stuff that even the smartest NASA folk of the late 60's simply could not have envisaged as being 'checkable' in the future. The simple fact is that everything passes all these new tests perfectly - the Apollo record is faultless.
|
|
|
Post by redneckr0nin on Jul 18, 2011 7:47:40 GMT -4
I feel slightly depressed I missed this!
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 18, 2011 8:14:48 GMT -4
Well, the only thing that made sense to me regarding "earthshine" was that fatty meant there should be evidence of two light sources (double shadows, etc.). Of course, if there were, fatty would be arguing that there were two studio lights.
As far as it being "impossible" to fake an earthshot from the moon, that sounded too trivial to be worth arguing, although I suspect I'm overestimating the arguer.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 8:49:29 GMT -4
Well, the only thing that made sense to me regarding "earthshine" was that fatty meant there should be evidence of two light sources (double shadows, etc.). Of course, if there were, fatty would be arguing that there were two studio lights. Problem is, compared to the blazing sunlight, the contribution of earthlight is far, far too small to cast an additional shadow or be visible in any obvious way except directly (there are plenty of examples of that), or as a reflection (and some of those too). It would take a bit of doing (ie working out Earth's precise location and phase) but was certainly *possible* back then (it's MUCH easier today). This is a good example of fatty presenting a very weak pro-Apollo argument, with the likely intention that he would refute it himself later. Where it would become absolutely impossible to fake, would be shots of earth taken that show its weather patterns. Those patterns could then be checked against the actual weather patterns that existed at the time... Oh wait...
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 18, 2011 11:56:41 GMT -4
I agree, which is why I'm rather confused as to what he was trying to argue. Was it (1) the shadows should have shown the effect of the earthshine on the lunar surface, or (2) the photos should have actually shown the earth in the sky?
Both are pretty easily addressed, but it certainly wasn't clear in his post what he meant.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 18, 2011 13:04:10 GMT -4
I think they are gutter slime. Deceptive, callous, preying on the gullible. It is also a strong indication of some form of diagnosable personality disorder or even psychosis, in that they genuinely believe they are justified in using deception to try to convince others that their opinions are more worthy and highly regarded than they actually are. You must think an awful lot more people are psychotic than really are.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Jul 18, 2011 13:12:11 GMT -4
I feel slightly depressed I missed this! As Fattydash/Doctor Tea has now been banned by BAUT and ApolloHoax, I'm guessing he'll pop up on JREF next.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 18, 2011 13:26:17 GMT -4
Silly, really; he gets banned permanently either way. Can't one of the moderators find what IP(s) he's posting from and just block them? That way it doesn't matter what account he's trying to use. Lunar Orbit, the only moderator is all over it. He was using some proxy servers so his IP was never a singular item. IIRC he did have the same IP as some of his banned personas at BAUT.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 18, 2011 19:52:50 GMT -4
Yeah, it's difficult to actually ban someone. I can block the IP (or range of IPs) that they were using, but they can use a proxy server to get around that. And there is always the possibility that I will accidentally ban someone who doesn't deserve to be if I block too many IPs.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2011 2:55:54 GMT -4
I think in Fattydash's case the conspiracy theory provides his alternate reality in which he is the hero. This is often an escape mechanism from a life that has failed to live up to its owner's expectations. Naturally in order to satisfy, that fantasy world has to have a population, even if it is an imaginary one.
As for Earthshine, I recall doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations many years ago that showed Earthshine to be photographically insignificant for most of the Apollo lunar surface photography. Naturally Fattydash is wrong when he says we don't have photos of Earth from the Moon. In fact, several other conspiracists have tried to show that the Earth is in the wrong place in these pictures.
The accusation that Earthshine couldn't be simulated is entirely bogus. We know its apparent magnitude and we know its apparent size and location from any point on the lunar surface. As noted, this is in the same category of contraction that says NASA can't get it right, but that it's simple to detect how it would be wrong.
|
|