From the now-closed thread at Other Conspiracy Theories.
That's what I would tend to think to but the glints are there.Circular reasoning. You have no answer for why NASA inexplicably and stupidly used shiny wires when dull ones were available and are commonly used in this application. Therefore your theory is incomplete and ill-fitting.
According to what I've seen they went higher than they'd ever gone before and encountered the radiation for the first time.No, Bart Sibrel has it wrong. He says the first example of eye flashes is the high-altitude shuttle mission. He accepts that mission as valid, and their experiences as the appropriate yardstick. Based on that, he says that Apollo crews should have reported eye flashes if they had really gone into the Van Allen belts as they claimed. Only they
did report it, and it was studied scientifically at the time!
So if the shuttle astronauts had a legitimate experience with eye flashes in the Van Allen belts, how did the Apollo astronauts (whom you say did
not go there) know ahead of time that the previously "unknown" light flash effect would occur?
In fact the light flashes the Apollo astronauts reported are clear evidence that they
did go into the Van Allen belts as they claimed. They reported something that could only have been discovered by having been there.
My allegation is that the official government data are bogus.But you have only conjecture to account for the implications of that claim. Conjecture is not proof, therefore your allegation is implausible.
Maybe they have...
Maybe the US government paid them...
Maybe they're blackmailing the US...Speculative excuses for why the evidence doesn't fit your beliefs.
There are lots of plausible scenarios to cases like this.Which is
more plausible? That you are simply wrong, or that the entire rest of the world is somehow not as it seems to be?
It reminds me of the story of a mother watching her soldier son march with his platoon, obviously out of step. She turns to the spectator next to her and says, "Look, they're all out of step but my Jim."
Why do you think that all you have to do is come up with some speculative possibility, without any proof for it, and think that justifies rejecting the prevailing explanation for which there is all kinds of proof? The prevailing explanation doesn't have to be the only
possible one, just the one that best fits the evidence. You're trying to set the bar absurdly low for yourself.
I suppose you're referring to this.No. I'm referring to my windshield photos that you discuss below.
I admit it's a failing on my part not to go buy a camera and do an experiment...Then kindly concede the point. If you're going to be lazy then you don't get to bluster too.
...but there is so much evidence in other areas that convince me that Apollo was a hoax that it hardly seems worth it.Irrelevant. You won't do any experiments in those other areas either. You don't seem interested in doing anything but Googling, cutting, and pasting. I have no respect for such laziness. If you can't be bothered to learn for yourself then you don't deserve attention.
Not to my satisfaction.Stubborn denial is not a rebuttal.
I wouldn't say you proved anything conclusively here. You're claming victory before you win.We've explained every example of alleged wire glints you've provided. We've asked you why they should appear at all, which you admit you cannot answer. Your only response to these explanations is the speculation that NASA eliminated all the evidence that would prove you right and us wrong.
I don't know how to make glints disappear from film...First, this is video -- live video -- not film. Second, if you can't tell us how to do it, how can you be so sure it was done?
...but if there's a glint on a support wire, they must have had a way to eliminate it.Circular reasoning.
I see a difference in the body movements.Subjective opinion. That's not proof.
You always fill your postsd with self-righteous rhetoric...Cry me a river. We are ever subject to your clumsy attempts at impeaching our opinions using puerile high-school debate tricks. Further, you admit ignorance of the sciences that pertain to arguments you bring up, yet continue to maintain that you must somehow be right and that the only reason we, who are better informed than you, disagree with you is because we are ideologues.
I can think of no more arrogant approach than yours, so kindly spare us the drama.
You seem to be very closed-minded about this.It is not the least closed-minded to reject an argument that merely begs the question.
If it really happened, it says a lot.Ralph Rene won't provide the details, so we'll probably never know. Nor does he explain how he (a retired construction worker from New Jersey) is able to so expertly diagnose mental deficiency in someone he's never met, based on an experience he did not witness, and attribute it to some specific arbitrary hypothetical cause that just happens to fit his conspiracy theory.
It says
nothing. It's just more of the same question-begging and innuendo that passes for evidence in conspiracy theories.
The reflection on the visor doesn't have any rays coming off of it.Irrelevant. Rays are not a sole determiner of glare versus reflection. The visor image was recorded on a vidicon, which has its own peculiar saturation behavior that have been ever-so-thoroughly discussed. Your inability to understand that discussion does not make it go away.
Vidicon bloom is a fact. If your theory does not address vidicon bloom, it cannot be a viable theory.
Look at this reflection of the sun on the car windshield here.I took those pictures. Thank you for acknowledging them, because from now on it's a bald-faced lie for you to say you've never seen photographs that exhibit the varying hot-spot size we predicted. And I've described how those photos were taken so that you (or anyone else) can do it too -- but of course you can't be bothered.
There are no rays of light coming from the reflection of the sun on this visor.Why do you believe the absence of rays allows you to determine that there is no glare?
It looks to me like the reflection on the visor has very little if any glare and what we see is the actual reflection. The actual size of the reflection in the car windshield can't even be seen.Exactly my point. You can't tell the difference between glare and reflection in a photograph. Therefore you can't attribute solely to reflection that which you cannot separate from glare. Your argument is based on a premise of seperability that you've now admitted is false. So kindly concede that you are wrong so we can end this silly argument.
David Percy presents two examples of "correct" reflections: a photo from a shuttle mission and a photo from Ed White's space walk. Both those photos have rays. Now you're telling me that if there are rays, then there must necessarily be glare. And that means there must be glare in the shuttle and Ed White photos. But Percy says those are reflections only. Can you show me in those photos exactly where the glare stops and where the reflection ends? And how can you agree with Percy that those hot spots represent
only reflections?
Now that it has been amply proven that glare mixes with reflection to form the hot spot in a photograph, we can see that things which affect glare will affect the size of the hot spot. The windshield photo shows the effect of distance. Focal length has an effect. Vidicon versus film has an effect.
Until you can show that you've identified, quantified, and eliminated those varying effects, you can't go around saying assertively that some hot spot is
only a reflection. You can't know that.
Here's something I just came across.David Wozney is no expert on space. And Dr. Van Allen himself has specifically repudiated Wozney's interpretation. I trust Van Allen to interpret Van Allen better than David Wozney.
My response to Wozney is here.
www.clavius.org/envsun.html He's been invited more than dozen times to deal with that response, but has said absolutely nothing.