|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 20, 2007 0:49:51 GMT -4
You make it sound like it's our job to be activiely proving Apollo occured, it's not. NASA already provided the evidence, and if anyone wants to dispute it then it's their job to prove that the evidence is wrong. We just point out what's wrong with the arguments they bring up. Heck if all the HB's vanished tomorrow, all that would happen I suspect, is that the productivity in our real jobs might increase for a few of us.  |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 0:58:34 GMT -4
I was well aware of that abnormality, before I posted , & knew that it would eventually, be brought up.
So you were being intentionally deceptive when you implied it was missing.
But it does seem to be very dim for Venus...
Then we're back to you explaining exactly how bright it should be and why.
...it could be the result of a double exposure.
Or it could be the result of a single exposure, as claimed. If you propose otherwise, you have the burden of proof.
But as Apollo believers , you should also be providing some proof of your own & not just waiting to debunk...
Nope. The proof is already out there and is appropriately widely believed. You are the one disputing that evidence, claiming that it arose instead through some other means. You therefore have the burden to prove that other means.
But now that you seem to be admitting to intentional deception then I really don't see why you have a future here. You certainly don't merit any further attention from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 1:19:23 GMT -4
But it does seem to be very dim for Venus, it could be the result of a double exposure. Interesting claim. Would you care to elaborate on how a double exposure (or rather, nine double exposures) would cause a particular detail, in this case, a faint light spot, to appear in almost the exact same relative position to the earth in 9 consecutive photos, particularly when the earth itself changed orientation and position relative to the frame from one shot to the next? |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 20, 2007 1:25:38 GMT -4
Why would they go to the trouble of creating nine double exposures that are so faint that they went unnoticed by pretty much everyone until Data Cable took a good look at them 35 years later? What vital role in the hoax did that serve? If it was put there in order to make us believe we were looking at authentic images showing Earth and Venus wouldn't they want us to, you know, see it?
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 2:20:04 GMT -4
nope was trying to deceive you, it is just question of how bright it should be & why..that tiny speck could be anything. Go look at Venus & moon right now , if it hasn't set where your at, that will tell you how bright Venus can get, even brighter on moon with no atmoshere.. Don't worry, I salute the efforts of PhantomWolf   |
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 20, 2007 2:34:06 GMT -4
it is just question of how bright it should be & why..that tiny speck could be anything. Go look at Venus & moon right now , if it hasn't set where your at, that will tell you how bright Venus can get, even brighter on moon with no atmoshere.. Showtime Why don't you take your camera out tonight and take some photos of Venus as it sets. Let us know what sort of settings you need to use to ensure that Venus is visible. |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 2:45:09 GMT -4
you mean with my 8 dollar camera ? It can bearly take pictures in full day light, & >:(it crashes my computer when I load drivers for it  I sure wish I had one those fancy Hasselblads... how much are they?? |
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Apr 20, 2007 3:07:02 GMT -4
A good used Hasselblad 500 EL will probably run around $1000-1500.
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 3:30:46 GMT -4
Why would they go to the trouble of creating nine double exposures that are so faint that they went unnoticed by pretty much everyone until Data Cable took a good look at them 35 years later? What vital role in the hoax did that serve? If it was put there in order to make us believe we were looking at authentic images showing Earth and Venus wouldn't they want us to, you know, see it? OMG , you mean to tell me , None of you Apollo believers ever went to the trouble of checking some of this out?? LOL Then I guess you are true believers. I haven't been at this very long compared to lot of you & I saw it. I've ran across other shots that show what might be some unidentifiable stars/planets while playing around with these photos. But I dont see the point in pointing you in that direction cause it would just be used for your ammunition in debunking, & not towards achieving the truth & if it didnt fit into what should be there you blow of as lens flare or some radiation practical that hit the film while also saying the film was protected from radition.. It's funny how they there should be no stars because of camera exposures, & now you find one , & say see right where it should be. You would eat a hoax believer alive for having it both ways. I thought the lack of no stars was one of the first things you guys debunked long ago, now you admit you never really even tryed looking for them , how sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 20, 2007 3:37:41 GMT -4
You appear to be having some consistency issues, showtime. You title the thread "Missing planetoid", the "planetoid" you are referring to is pretty obviously Venus. In your first post, you say: Heres another chance to debunk " The No Venus " arguement.... This strongly implies that you thought that Venus was not where it should be in the images. On page 2 of the thread, you provide " some angles to work with for the trig guys ", again strongly implying that you feel that there is something in this that is amiss, that Venus is not where it should be. On page three, after it has fairly conclusively been shown that Venus is, in fact, visible and in the right place, you initially say " you data is still open for interpretation", and then: I was well aware of that abnormality, before I posted , & knew that it would eventually, be brought up. But it does seem to be very dim for Venus, it could be the result of a double exposure. Some people have found this hard to reconcile with your earlier statements. When they expressed their doubts, you responded: Normally, it doesn't bother me when someone calls me a lair, especially if I was lying..But since I am telling the truth, you should just ST-U... Strong words. But your indignation is hard to credit when you then go on to say: nope was trying to deceive you, it is just question of how bright it should be & why..that tiny speck could be anything. So you are a self-admitted deceiver. I guess you'll be apologising for telling atomicdog to STFU. You started off with diagrams and statements about angles and missing planets, and then changed horses in mid stream to questioning the brightness. This is pretty hard to swallow, as otherwise you would have mentioned it from the start, rather than after you have been made to look ill prepared. You take offence when your veracity on this flipflop is challenged, but then admit to lying. It is pretty plain that you are just trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Apr 20, 2007 3:50:23 GMT -4
Why would they go to the trouble of creating nine double exposures that are so faint that they went unnoticed by pretty much everyone until Data Cable took a good look at them 35 years later? What vital role in the hoax did that serve? If it was put there in order to make us believe we were looking at authentic images showing Earth and Venus wouldn't they want us to, you know, see it? OMG , you mean to tell me , None of you Apollo believers ever went to the trouble of checking some of this out?? LOL Then I guess you are true believers. I haven't been at this very long compared to lot of you & I saw it. I've ran across other shots that show what might be some unidentifiable stars/planets while playing around with these photos. But I dont see the point in pointing you in that direction cause it would just be used for your ammunition in debunking, & not towards achieving the truth & if it didnt fit into what should be there you blow of as lens flare or some radiation practical that hit the film while also saying the film was protected from radition.. It's funny how they there should be no stars because of camera exposures, & now you find one , & say see right where it should be. You would eat a hoax believer alive for having it both ways. I thought the lack of no stars was one of the first things you guys debunked long ago, now you admit you never really even tryed looking for them , how sad. So showtime, are you claiming now that Venus is a star? Also, by your reasoning, the sun shouldn't show up on photos either. Of course, if and when you undertstand cameras and how the light enters them, then maybe you'd know better. |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 3:54:18 GMT -4
Congrats, once again another Apollo believe has proving that he is adept at cherry picking quotes & twisting them into some warped self severing clap trap.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Apr 20, 2007 3:55:39 GMT -4
So you are incapable of answering the questions posed to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 4:05:52 GMT -4
Yes, I claim Venus is a star, & therefore reason the sun dosen,t exist, therefore a hypothesize the light from Venus would not achieve sufficient velocity to enter a camera lens... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 20, 2007 4:12:26 GMT -4
On the other hand, if you had a case of complete & overwhelming evidence that we did land men on moon, there would be no need to continue to debunk ..the conspiracy would of died long ago.
The conspiracy theory has died long ago, among people with the relevant training and expertise to understand the various technical aspects of Apollo. If everyone could understand everything about going to the Moon there would be no need to learn anything, and NASA could just hire any old guy off the street to build a lunar capable spacecraft.
A cursory examination of conspiracy theories relating to the Moon reveals a near total lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts, and as long as there are people in the world who don't understand that non-parallel shadows in pictures are completely normal, that extended periods of microgravity can only be achieved in space, or even that objects in Earth orbit can be seen by just looking up on a clear night, there will be conspiracy theories about faking lunar landings.
|
|
