|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 20, 2007 4:17:05 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. Was I cherry picking my quotes, showtime? |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Apr 20, 2007 5:50:55 GMT -4
Amazing what a scientific mind, and the application of a little research can do isn't it?
Nice work Data Cable.
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 7:27:14 GMT -4
Five pages of discussion with a troll who's just here to pull our chains. Now you know why I said "No." in the first response. This is exactly what he wants, and exactly what is given to him. Don't feed the troll.
And if I sound too harsh on calling this person a troll, take another good look at this person's behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Apr 20, 2007 7:35:30 GMT -4
Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Apr 20, 2007 8:18:57 GMT -4
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 So to find the truth you hide any evidence that could be used by your opponents? This is obviously some strange usage of the word truth I wasn't previously aware of. The truth is NEVER protected by hiding evidence, it is revealed by examining ALL the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Apr 20, 2007 8:19:55 GMT -4
If this was BAUT, Showtime would have been banned about four times by now...  |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 8:32:20 GMT -4
nope was trying to deceive you I'll be generous and assume this was one of those flipped boolean typos. Including a photographic exposure of the planet (!oid) Venus captured from the lunar surface. But it won't tell you how bright it would appear on ISO 160 film using a 70mm negative format and a 60 mm lens with the particular aperture and shutter speed settings used by Al Shepard on that cool, crisp Fra Mauro morning in early '71. By all means, please tell us how much brighter, and remember to show your calculations. And just think, back in the 70's, cameras cost thousands of dollars, filled entire rooms, and could barely crash a pocket calculator. Which you conveniently only point out after I brighten the images and put a big honkin' red arrow pointing to it. You'll pardon me if I consider this claim to be a fat, steaming pile of Bart Sibril. What's even funnier is that I found a planet (!oid), not a star. So funny, in fact, I thought Buddy Hackett had arisen from the grave. No, the lack of no stars is what your side claims should be in the photos. And as to the Troll Feeding issue, I prefer to think I'm feeding the lurkers, whilst providing the Troll with all the more rope to hang himself with. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 20, 2007 9:24:22 GMT -4
nope was trying to deceive you Correct, you were not trying to deceive us. For it to have been a deception you would have to know ahead of time that Venus really was visible in the photograph. It is clear you didn’t know it and are now lying about having known it. it is just question of how bright it should be No it wasn’t. You challenged us to explain why Venus was missing from the photograph, which we now know is not true. Only after your claim was defeated did you change the subject to a question of brightness. 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. Let’s add astronomy to the list of things you are totally ignorant about: Venus is not a star. Venus is three magnitudes brighter than the brightest star, which equates to 16 times greater brightness. 16 times equates to a four stop difference in exposure setting on a camera. A four stop difference means that while the brighter object is properly exposed, the fainter one lies outside the range of what can be recorded on the film. Venus can show up on film while even the brightest stars will still not record images. I thought the lack of no stars was one of the first things you guys debunked long ago Venus is not a star. |
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 9:49:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 9:59:43 GMT -4
In other words, there is no reason to take you seriously?
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 10:22:51 GMT -4
Well no, not if you guys keep making idiotic statements insinuating I said Venus was a star..Jeezz
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 10:29:37 GMT -4
Well no, not if you guys keep making idiotic statements insinuating I said Venus was a star..Jeezz Ahem: 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. [Emphasis mine] "One" and "it" clearly refer to the planet (!oid) Venus, which you identify as a "star." |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 10:31:03 GMT -4
Well no, not if you guys keep making idiotic statements insinuating I said Venus was a star..Jeezz
No insinuation necessary. We showed you that with a little enhancement, Venus was indeed visible in your photo right where it was supposed to be. You tried to make the connection from that to the "no visible stars" argument. The fault is entirely yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 10:50:16 GMT -4
LOL, quit grasping at straws... you scream at hoax believers when they pull that garbage... You know what was meant by that,...& you guys have the nerve to call me a troll...
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 20, 2007 11:10:05 GMT -4
Showtime, just in case you haven't read the rules:
You have certainly violated b) and c), and I'm sure people could make a strong case that you've violated a) as well.
You have been shown that Venus is in the image. Do you withdraw the claim, yes or no? If you answer no then explain why. You have also been asked to provide calculations backing up your claim that other stars should be visible in Apollo images. Provide the calculations or withdraw the claim. Your continued membership in this forum depends on this.
|
|
