|
|
Post by ineluki on Jun 5, 2008 7:56:29 GMT -4
My apologies then. I am sorry. Got a little trigger happy there. Don't worry, Hoaxer make me trigger happy too... laurel and PhantomWolf Thanks for explaining my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2008 9:30:51 GMT -4
I ran across this one on one of my Apollo videos on YouTube:
Wait, what did he just say?
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jun 8, 2008 11:17:03 GMT -4
Tell me that is a joke?
Sherlock move over.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2008 11:32:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jun 8, 2008 12:22:59 GMT -4
I ran across this one on one of my Apollo videos on YouTube: Wait, what did he just say? Actually, this supports the reality of the Apollo missions to the moon. If there are many videos of the astronauts passing by a flag where the flag doesn't move, and there is only one video where the flag does indeed move, then there must be some other reason why the flag moves. Why wouldn't the flag move every time an astronaut passes by it? Because there is no atmosphere on the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2008 12:50:37 GMT -4
Yes, but somehow he comes to the exact opposite conclusion with the same two given circumstances. Astronauts pass by flags all the time, and they almost never move. "Conclusion; therefore a virtual certainty the cause of the flag move was atmosphere."
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2008 15:06:47 GMT -4
Yes, but somehow he comes to the exact opposite conclusion with the same two given circumstances. Astronauts pass by flags all the time, and they almost never move. "Conclusion; therefore a virtual certainty the cause of the flag move was atmosphere." That's what we call "critical thinking"...gosh Bert, stop being such a sheeple!!!  |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 9, 2008 3:59:17 GMT -4
Actually, maybe I spent to much of my life as a young earth creationist, but I think I can see what he is getting at. Most explanations WE have for the flag moving, involve interaction between the astronaut and the flag, whether static cling or brushing against it, or vibrations transmited to the pole through footsteps, etc. What he is asking is, if it moves here due to the astronaut, why doesn't it move elsewhere?
Of course we can ask the same question, just replace astronaut with atmosphere.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jun 9, 2008 6:01:29 GMT -4
If I were the head of NASA, and it was proposed to me the landings should be faked, and I had any idea the level of scrutiny the missions would receive over the coming decades, I'd probably throw them out of the office knowing that doing it for real would be way safer. Scientists, historians, enthusiasts and yes conspiracy theorists have been analyzing every minute detail of the missions for so many years that I shudder to think of what it would be like to attempt to fake them. Hollywood at its very best, with a ridiculous budget, excruciating attention to detail and only a few seconds of film to record, has come not even close to the realism of the many hours of Apollo footage.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 9, 2008 16:32:51 GMT -4
Not only that, but whenever I have tried to get a clear answer from the HB camp, I get the run around, whining about truth repression and goal post moving not to mention the usual insults. When I ask one of the engineers who worked on the TV camera to explain the competition between bidders (for example) I get a two page answer, links to additional documentation, emails of people who have more info, and a set of color engineering pictures. That certainly goes against my understanding of maintaining a cover-up.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jun 9, 2008 17:46:21 GMT -4
I agree, when the CIA doesn't want to say anything, they just don't say anything. "Plausible denibility" and all that. You don't do an O.J. and say "I didn't do it, but here's how I did."
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 10, 2008 6:06:18 GMT -4
Actually, maybe I spent to much of my life as a young earth creationist, but I think I can see what he is getting at. Most explanations WE have for the flag moving, involve interaction between the astronaut and the flag, whether static cling or brushing against it, or vibrations transmited to the pole through footsteps, etc. I've seen the A15 clip in question. The astronaut passes between the flag and the camera and because of the lack of perspective you can't tell how close he was to the flag. He could well have brushed it, or shaken the ground (he was hopping by). The motion seem to be mainly a swing of the free corner, leading me to think the brushing theory is the most plausible. Of course they will then try to trap you by telling you to prove that's what happened. Don't let them do that. Tell them to prove that it's none of these prosaic explanations. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 10, 2008 10:06:36 GMT -4
Someone else already did the photogrammetric computation and determined that we cannot rule out an actual touch; the astronaut cannot be shown to be closer to the camera necessarily than the flag.
The free corner is about all that can move, so it's difficult to rule in or out any mode of motion based on that.
And yes, the conspiracists will try to make it seem like their "It must be in air" explanation is the default, against which you will have to establish some other conclusion. But as always, if one argues that the "moving air" explanation best explains the evidence, then this requires a direct proof, not an indirect one. I have yet to see a demonstration from conspiracists showing that the flag can be affected this way by passage of a person, in air; much less any non-circular argument showing that this did happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 10, 2008 17:03:53 GMT -4
Of course, the "there must be air" arguement flies in the face of the same video, which a few minutes earlier shows the astronaut carrying the flag broadside-on to the direction of motion. It also shows his boots kicking dust which does not billow or blow, but flumps right back to the surface.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 10, 2008 19:35:36 GMT -4
Could someone please explain 'burden of proof' to me? The way I understand it so far it is based on precident, on what is already believed. I get this feeling I am wrong however. So many Apollo Hoax Conspiricy Believers go 'you prove it' back, and while that I know that isn't the way it works, I want to know why.
|
|
