|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 22, 2007 5:49:41 GMT -4
In summary, the more I re-read this thread, the more impressed I am. Showtime, to give him his due, demonstrated his creativity by thinking up a completely new test of the reality of Apollo, getting round the usual debunk of the tired old "no stars" argument by picking on Venus, which can be seen in daylight from earth if you know where to look. He then also made the effort of finding an Apollo photo where Venus should have been present, actually doing more research that we've seen from an HB in a very long time.
Where it all fell apart for him was the usual HB problem - he stopped researching because he had found his "anomaly", rather than doing the extra work to really test it out. This left him in a very awkward position when Data Cable did that extra work and showed than the evidence supported Apollo rather than the hoax. A rational individual would, at that point, have begun to question his original hypothesis, but Showtime was obviously too emotionally involved in the hoax belief to do that, hence his subsequent ridiculous counterclaims and tantrums.
All in all, an excellent demonstration of the scientific method at work.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 22, 2007 10:45:55 GMT -4
Yes, it's the difference between looking for evidence and looking for ammunition.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 22, 2007 14:18:39 GMT -4
I'd call this a "slam dunk" for Data Cable and the entire Apollo record. Great job Data Cable for uncovering such fantastic evidence.
And I have to say, I especially enjoyed showtime's last little temper tantrum when he decided to quit. I could almost hear him stomping up the stairs and slamming the door to his room.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 22, 2007 16:03:35 GMT -4
Just to tack a footnote on the discussion... Something else that might have been throwing off Bob's angular analysis of showtime's software screencaps is where the "camera" was placed. Was it at the actual point of A14's landing site? Probably not. My guess would be he just used the moon's position as calculated by the software, which I'd think would be the moon's center. Since Earth is only some .0003% as far away as Venus is, from that particular lunar vantage point, and since A14's landing site was some 17° off the Earth-Moon axis (not accounting for libration), that could account for some significant shift due to parallax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 22, 2007 23:39:03 GMT -4
This was an absolutely brilliant bit of detective work, Data Cable, and we all owe you and showtime a great deal of thanks, becuase this is now a near perfect answer to the "no stars" argument. Venus is the third brightest object in the lunar sky, and if you know where to look, it is just visible after enhancement, so logically anything fainter won't be there at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Apr 23, 2007 0:22:40 GMT -4
The Apollo 14 photos Data Cable used are on black-and-white negative film, which has a greater exposure latitude. Venus has a better chance of showing up on that. JMV did post some color photos possibly also showing Venus. The exposure latitude of color reversal film is less, but the photos appear to be a bit overexposed, giving Venus a chance, I suppose, to make it on to the toe of the characteristic curve.
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41 
|
Post by JMV on Apr 23, 2007 14:26:04 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 23, 2007 14:58:49 GMT -4
Seems pretty convincing evidence of Venus being picked up in the colour shots as well, cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 23, 2007 16:19:58 GMT -4
This is all amazingly cool. Data Cable, why don't you send your findings off to the makers of Celestia and other software. They might be interested to know that Apollo photography corroborates their software.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Apr 23, 2007 16:45:26 GMT -4
You should send them to Eric Jones of the ALSJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 23, 2007 17:16:52 GMT -4
These images prove one of two things:
1) The Apollo missions took place as advertised.
2) The Apollo hoaxers were fully capable of determining the correct starfield as seen from the vicinity of the Moon and of including the appropriate objects in their faked images.
Of course, if you decide to accept (2), it completely demolishes the HB claim that the Apollo photos show no stars because it was impossible to fake them.
For these images to exist as part of a fake (and with no one in NASA even bothering to point at them and shout) means that NASA had to be ultra-clever. They were smart enough to not show the stars but to include subtle images of Venus. Wow! You know, guys that smart would almost be able to, um, land a man on the Moon!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 23, 2007 18:24:35 GMT -4
JMV, please! Not so wide, or large! Some of us are still on dial-up!
Fred
|
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 23, 2007 18:30:02 GMT -4
JMV, please! Not so wide, or large! Some of us are still on dial-up!You've got to admit, this particular image series is worth the bandwidth. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 24, 2007 13:02:56 GMT -4
Hmm. Showtime would appear to have just re-registered.
Seconds out.
Round two.
Ding!
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 24, 2007 14:31:47 GMT -4
Well, I have to approve new memberships and I have decided to reject this one...
|
|
