|
Post by sts60 on Aug 22, 2005 13:26:21 GMT -4
He often posts just to claim that people are using ad hominem attack . Often? Dishonesty does not help to bolster your case. Thanks for an illustrative example. You haven't posted much lately. Maybe you're just busy - which is fine; everyone can understand that. But when you do post lately, it's usually to argue about alleged ad hominems (hominae?) or in this case someone's honesty. It's never to actually defend your claims or to discuss the explanations or evidence offered you. Well, occasionally you make a new claim without defending it either. The closest you come is to repeat your original statement, thus: "I can clearly see he's being jerked upwards on a wire." Never mind that you don't see a wire; you see a motion on a fuzzy clip which appears to you like someone being pushed pulled (edited) up on a wire. But when better evidence, with context - something Sibrel and company is careful to hide from you - is shown, and supports the conventional scenario, you simply ignore it. When someone gets annoyed at that, however, you are certainly quick in responding to upbraid them for their dishonesty or ad hominem style. If that's what you're interested in doing, we can do that too. Let's talk about your use ad hominem attacks on Werner von Braun, or Sibrel's and other HBs' ad hominem attacks on Apollo astronauts, or against a large number of NASA and contractor personnel they accuse (edited for grammar) of conspiracy, fraud, and murder without a smidgen of evidence. Let's talk about the dishonesty in Sibrel and other HBs selling people a product carefully tailored to conceal the context of an event, or representing as new and exclusive images which have actually been in the public domain for decades, or in censoring discussion on their message boards. Let's talk about the dishonesty of HBs misrepresenting their credentials, and that of their sources. Yes, indeed, let's talk about ad hominem arguments and dishonesty.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 22, 2005 14:09:27 GMT -4
Here`s my pennys` worth. I`m a big boy now and margamatix offensive (though invalid) remark is "water off a ducks back",but most offensive of all is the fact that surely when posing questions,one then reads the replies given by those with more knowledge.Then the answers are thought about and a deduction is made as to whether the answers show a logical and reasoned response to the original query.To just ingore an analytical and detailed response which thoroughly puts in its` place the concerns of Aulis/HBs is a ludicrous stance.One cannot reasonably just thumb ones nose and say "yah boo".It`s not rational,reasonable or valid and those who do so don`t merit a response. Mind you,it is entertaining and I don`t supply the replies. This is not to say that questions should not be asked or anti the right a person has to feel or believe whatever they choose,but to do so without debate or any sort of thought process being applied is not legitimate. I`ve yet to read an HB site which offers detailed reasoning/logical argument in relation to their queries or anomaly assertions.All of their arguments appear to me to be quite superficial and adequately responed to in this forum and in other sites.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 23, 2005 11:15:11 GMT -4
...I then posted a link to a video showing an astronaut being jerked upwards on a wire. Again, users tried one evasion after the next, citing poor compression (irrelevant) and then lack of sound- as if this would make any difference whatsoever to the visual aspect of this blatantly and poorly hoaxed footage. So I gave up. What else can I do? No doubt I will give up on this too- Buzz Aldrin is clearly standing in artificial light on a relatively flat surface which would not produce the variation in lighting which you suggest, but for whatever reason you refuse to see it... Once again, Margamatix considers himself the only one to be talking sense here and that it is everyone else who is talking nonsense. I'm not sure whether to call that arrogance or stupidity, but the poor sod is obviously incapable of understanding the many explanations he has been given and dismisses them as mere evasions. He thinks he sees anomalies and refuses to pay attention to well-thought and logically reasoned arguments to the contrary. He's also quite incapable of producing any decent, logical arguments to support his assertions, and on one occasion covered up his inadequacy by stating that he was merely stating his opinion. Yeah, right! Is it an intelligence problem, or what? Perhaps he just adores the attention and can't be bothered with alternative explanations. He has been given very clear answers to his enquiries but usually just ignores them. As an experienced photographer, I do not "refuse to see that Aldrin is standing in artificial light." Long experience tells me, and the other experienced photographers here, that he is standing in sunlight in an environment that is very different to what we are familiar with on earth. Certain things may indeed appear "obvious" to Margamatix, but only because of his very obvious ignorance and inexperience. Considering his lack of attention, his inability to understand, his continual repeating of himself without advancing the discussion and providing proper counter-arguments, his refusal to answer questions, his lack of logic, and his overall behaviour here, I feel I should more directly ask him a question I alluded to in the "Rocks" thread, and which he, as usual, didn't answer. Margamatix, are you a drunk?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 23, 2005 12:33:22 GMT -4
To get back to the topic...
Several people have put up parts of the answer, but I think the full answer is as follows:
Aldrin is standing with his back to the sun and with the LM to his left. The lunar surface is dark looking up-sun, because you are looking at the shadowed side of every bit of surface uneveness. However, the back of the LM is large, metallic and in direct sunlight. It is reflecting this light on the lunar surface behind the LM, filling in the shadows and making a large difference to the apparent surface brightness. This region lit by the LM is the main contributor to the "spotlight" effect, as is confirmed by the brighter surface to Aldrin's left, the side where the LM is. An additional but smaller spotlight effect is due to sunlight refected from the back of his white suit.
Aldrin himself is not spotlit, his front is in sun shadow, dimly lit mainly by light reflected from the surface of the moon. The exposure is set for shadow, showing detail of the front of Aldrin's suit, but being overexposed for the rim of the suit that is in direct sunlight.
The inaccuracies in the original post are: 1. Aldrin is not spotlit, the bright area is behind him. 2. The Sun is not the sole source of light, there is reflected light from every sunlit object, including the lunar surface and the LM.
I think the indistinct bluish blob at the top of the visor is indeed a reflection of the Earth. With his back to the sun, Aldrin is facing west from Tranquility towards the centre of the Moon's face as seen from Earth, so the Earth will be visible to him if he looks up, which is in keeping with the position of the blob.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 23, 2005 22:11:14 GMT -4
What could make those shadow fall? Lighting on the moon. Why's that bright spot on the ground? Lighting on the moon.
(Apologies to Sting)
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 23, 2005 23:34:55 GMT -4
Nah, the HBers (and CTers) are the masters of ad hominem attacks, not anyone here. I'm just a layman, with no more than a H.S. education (and some vocational training, but the only pertinent field that would relate to in any way to Apollo would be my time as a commo tech in the US Army), but I just can't understand how it's not obvious which side of this debate has the evidence on their side. TURN ON YOUR BRAINS, FOLKS! That's not an attack, it's a plea!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 24, 2005 6:12:54 GMT -4
In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so. I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up- what else can I do? Margamatix -- this statement is completely untrue. Here is the link so that anyone can check: Moving in 1/6th gravityNo-one posted a "stream of nonsense." They posted perfectly sensible, factual and logical answers to your query. Bob B. and JayUtah are simply not known to post "streams of nonsense," either here or on other bulletin boards. We regulars have far more respect for them and their considerable knowledge than you obviously do. You merely see fit to insult them. Just because you were incapable of understanding their posts does not mean that what they posted is nonsense. You lie when you say that you "tried to explain it again, then again..." You never once tried to explain in that thread how an astronaut should have been able to jump higher or step further than they actually did. In your first post you claimed that the highest any astronaut jumped was 19 inches and it was pointed out to you that some jumped much higher than that at times. You were probably referring to John Young's two jump-salutes, where it can be clearly seen in the video that he only bent his knees a very small amount. But beyond that first post, you never explained anything else about it at all. In fact you behaved like all typical hoax-believers and promptly changed the subject without coming to any conclusion regarding your first enquiry. Now, as you don't even know what you did in your first thread and furthermore lie about it, do you wonder why I asked the question at the bottom of reply No. 77 above?
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 24, 2005 8:23:42 GMT -4
I thought I`d get back here and post an apology.I certainly did not mean to offend anyone with my remarks,not even margamatix;though I stand by my observations.Although I don`t contribute in the way of replies posted on this board I feel,as an observer,that it`s a duty to make such comments. I came across this site while trying to answer the question,did man go to the moon?I`d always thought it so but thought I`d check it all out.To be brief,all of my initial queries have been satisfactorily answered but because I don`t have an in depth knowledge of the relevant topics I suppose it could be said that there is still a possibility, not a probability,that it`s all a hoax.But,when one doesn`t possess the detailed knowledge in order to make an evaluation one then defers to those with a greater understanding of the points in question. Is this not so?It`s not justified to cling to a theory like some kind of religion if the weight of argument falls against your preferred belief. I`m going back to the spectators gallery now;adieu.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 24, 2005 9:19:21 GMT -4
In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so. I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up- what else can I do? Margamatix -- this statement is completely untrue. Here is the link so that anyone can check: Moving in 1/6th gravityNo-one posted a "stream of nonsense." They posted perfectly sensible, factual and logical answers to your query. It's been pretty quiet, so maybe I'll jump in here. margamatix, you made five distinct claims in that thread (counting the "horizontal" and "vertical" components of your jump claim as one): (1) short jumps only (2) sped-up film looks Earthlike (3) no further than 400 miles in last 30 years (4) 250 C dayside temp on Moon (5) no plausible spacesuit air conditioning (1) and (5) were directly refuted. (2) was refuted as well, and shown to be based on very selective use of evidence by HBs (3) was pointed out as irrelevant; the details have been discussed in other threads. (4) was shown to be much more complicated than represented - your idea that "the temperature of everything" was supposed to be 250 C demonstrated that you didn't understand the basics of heat transfer in a vacuum. And aside from that comment, and the "3 days" comment, you said nothing to defend or explain your remarks. You never acknowledged the direct refutations of some of your claims, nor with the bare exception above did you even acknowledge any of the explanations. And you presume to call those explanations "nonsense"? One feature of Internet-based discussion is that anybody can say anything, no matter how disconnected from reality. But you cannot expect such gross misrepresentations to go unchallenged in this little corner of the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 24, 2005 13:48:21 GMT -4
I don't think it's profitable to speculate about Margamatix's drinking habits or personal failings. It is clear that he is uncomfortable with facts and arguments that differ from his beliefs, and that discomfort may have any of several causes. The ineptness in debate may derive from simply never before having had to prove a point to a critical audience. This is likely why Margamatix draws no distinction between having stated his proposition and having proved it. People who receive information uncritically -- as Margamatix has received it from his sources -- are generally unaware of how further to present that evidence to someone who does receive it critically.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 27, 2005 13:07:48 GMT -4
Considering his lack of attention, his inability to understand, his continual repeating of himself without advancing the discussion and providing proper counter-arguments, his refusal to answer questions, his lack of logic, and his overall behaviour here, I feel I should more directly ask him a question I alluded to in the "Rocks" thread, and which he, as usual, didn't answer. Margamatix, are you a drunk? Oh dear. The short answer is that I neither drink nor smoke. I think this is a case where, as Spinoza so rightly stated .... "When Peter tells us about Paul, he tells us more about Peter than he does about Paul" Does that answer your question?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 27, 2005 14:20:32 GMT -4
So, in your clear-eyed and sober way, any answers to the various rebuttals made here?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 27, 2005 14:21:58 GMT -4
Personally, I don't care whether Paul drinks. I am still wondering, though, if he will back up his arguments, and acknowledge the explanations provided to him.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 27, 2005 14:27:19 GMT -4
Personally, I don't care whether Paul drinks. I am still wondering, though, if he will back up his arguments, and acknowledge the explanations provided to him. I think we already know the sober truth. For margamatix, things are the way they are because he thinks they are that way. After all, isn’t one opinion just as valid as another in a truly egalitarian society?
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 27, 2005 15:11:03 GMT -4
Personally, I don't care whether Paul drinks. I am still wondering, though, if he will back up his arguments, and acknowledge the explanations provided to him. I think we already know the sober truth. For margamatix, things are the way they are because he thinks they are that way. After all, isn’t one opinion just as valid as another in a truly egalitarian society? An important point to remember here is that:- opinions are like a***holes.....everybodys got one!
|
|