|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 20, 2007 12:07:34 GMT -4
DataCable increased the contrast and found Venus in NINE different apollo photos. So if you want to believe in the hoax now, you have to believe that:
1. NASA was smart enough in 1969 to calculate where Venus should be and put a little light-brite on the moon set background - however, NASA was too stupid to fix rover tracks and waving flags.
and also 2. NASA took pictures as part of this moon hoax in which their clever little Venus calculation wasn't even visible until, 40 years later, some anonymous guy named DataCable turns the contrast way up and creates an animated gif.
or on the other hand, you could believe that 1. NASA went to the moon.
your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by showtime on Apr 20, 2007 12:44:05 GMT -4
FINE IF YOU DON'T WANT ME AROUND, THEN GOODBYE
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 20, 2007 12:56:02 GMT -4
I'm so sad... but for some reason I doubt he'll be gone for long.
Is it too much to ask that if you make a claim you support it?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 13:07:22 GMT -4
LOL, quit grasping at straws...
You're the one grasping at straws, trying to draw a parallel between Venus and a star that you can't substantiate. No one here did that; that was all you. And you did that because Data Cable yanked the rug out from under your claim, and you're too immature to admit you were just plain wrong.
You know what was meant by that.
We expect that you intend the parallels you draw. If you don't intend them, don't draw them. We have no obligation to interpret your remarks in the same way you need to redefine them frantically later while weaseling out of a tight spot.
you guys have the nerve to call me a troll...
Believe me, it doesn't take much nerve.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 13:18:05 GMT -4
Is it too much to ask that if you make a claim you support it?
Yep, some people would rather stomp and whine than answer a question. That's how you can discern people who have deeply ideological attachments to one of the possible answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Apr 20, 2007 13:22:59 GMT -4
And so another kamikaze HBer goes down in flames.
Good shootin', Data Cable.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 20, 2007 14:35:08 GMT -4
Congrats, Data Cable. A very neat piece of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 20, 2007 15:24:39 GMT -4
Yep. Very good show Data Cable. You've earned a "star" on your record for this one
(sorry, couldn't resist)
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 20, 2007 16:05:21 GMT -4
...or a planet on his record. Or are we just mixing up stars, planets, and planetoids?
|
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 20, 2007 16:35:26 GMT -4
?? it's a pun. It's supposed to be phunny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 16:47:57 GMT -4
Lets just call it an unspecified celestial body and leave it at that.  |
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Apr 20, 2007 17:51:05 GMT -4
Lets just call it an unspecified celestial body and leave it at that. I've dated girls that fit that description. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2007 18:27:18 GMT -4
Let's hope the star on Data Cable's record is bright enough for people to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 18:35:46 GMT -4
[Looks at watch] Wow, only 13mins. left... how the time flies.
Hey, at least I got another silly sig quote out of the deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Apr 22, 2007 4:30:51 GMT -4
Whoa, talk about a self-immolation.
I'll just close out by noting that:
a) The reason why the photos don't resemble our current lovely views of Venus is that the brightness difference between the crescent Moon and Venus on one hand, and a crescent Earth and Venus on the other are pretty substantial.
b) Celestia gave a much more convincing result if you set it for the correct time. I couldn't find a time code for the picture when I checked the first time.
It's also interesting that even an object as bright as Venus can only leave a barely visible speck on the photos. Might be worthwhile to file that animated picture away as a counter to the "no stars" argument.
|
|
