|
Post by nomuse on Jun 22, 2006 16:12:28 GMT -4
I wonder a bit about long exposure by the feather. Not to sunlight or radiation per se...but combination of vacuum and UV is not going to be good for organic materials, even the filamentary keratinous outgrowths of an avian epidermis.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 22, 2006 15:59:48 GMT -4
So here's a hint.....what happens to a falcon feather if you go outside on a sunny day and hold it up?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 17, 2006 4:55:13 GMT -4
Doesn't anyone know how to read anymore?
I particularly like the "any independent organization." You think he's a little uncertain about who runs large scopes, or even what forms they take these days? Next thing you'll know he'll be asking Dick Rutan to just take a look-see.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 15, 2006 13:45:43 GMT -4
I sometimes describe it as the "shotgun fallacy." The CT's come up with a number of "points" or "anomalies"; observations they ascribe significance to. Their fallacy is that sheer weight of numbers counts. Five weak explanations for how low gravity movement was simulated are stronger, in their view, then one good explanation. The fact that the explanations may be contradictory is not important. All that is important to them is that they add one more bit of weight to the idea that a hoax was possible -- or that they chip away one more little bit at the official story.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 13, 2006 15:41:13 GMT -4
After spending some time at lurking in the ATM forum at the BAUT (now there's a mouthful of acronyms!) I decided that no-one there had one theory. They had a scientific theory -- which did not agree with observation -- and they had a conspiracy theory -- to wit, how observations were systematically falsified to support the current theory. The one was not viable without the other.
This happens with Apollo Hoax believers and 9-11 conspiracy believers as well, if you can drag them out that far. At some point you'll find them arguing that Apollo as described was impossible, and mainstream science has been methodically and thoroughly manipulated to hide that unpleasant truth.
For some reason it seems impossible to get most hoax believers away from the image of academic theorists in long robes chattering away to each other in some remote ivory tower. Perhaps the hoax believers lack the basic understanding of science and technology that unveils just how connected what they see as rarified academia with the concrete and viable; that is, what links the most abstruse papers on quantum chromodynamics with the engineering that put an Intel chip into their desktop PC.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 12, 2006 14:13:32 GMT -4
Terminology itself is a potentially interesting area of discussion.
Often, the one side is described in terms of belief (aka "hoax believer"), whereas the other is described in terms of motive (aka "debunker.") This is because, oddly enough, the anti-Apollo veiwpoint is in many places the mainstream of thought, and the pro-Apollo arguer is an outsider. This board is in the minority, where the board's regulars are in the "pro camp" and hoax believers are put in the position of outsider. This is how so many of the hoax believers who come here end up describing themselves in terms of skepticism and free-thinking, and try to cast the board as straightjacketed and blinded by "mainstream" belief.
Outside of Apollo, each side prefers to see itself as informed, and the other side as deluded. Still, again, there is a shading; one side's belief is explained as the result of massive brainwashing by the military-industrial complex (or whatever we are calling it today,) the other is more usually cast as a personal credulity (that leaves its victim open to exploitation by hucksters).
Although each side prefers to see itself as better informed than the average, what they consider information is very different. For the hoax believers, they have discovered ideas suppressed by the mainstream, and links of communication (once, mimeographed newsletters and small-press publications, now, internet and mainstream press and best-selling books), that are unknown to the general public and fly below the radar of the nebulous powers-that-be. This puts the hoax believer in an interesting position; where they not only can but are urged to disbelieve what they identify as mainstream or official. Given the dumbing down and the growing psuedo-science content of the mainstream press, however, the hoax believer is increasingly forced to identify their enemy as being specifically government or the scientific community.
The skeptics, on the other hand, generally trust to science; not as a nebulous god, but as a method. Skeptics are from Missouri. They tend towards backyard engineers. To them, what is convincing is that Apollo, for instance, can be described in terms of basic science, which in turn can be tested empirically. For the skeptics, what convinces about science is that it is internally consistent, and that it generates hard predictions in numbers which can be satisfied with observation. (My view of the skeptic community may be weighted by the fact that this board is filled with engineers and Randi's board tends towards practical stage magic and Myth-buster type experiments).
What is hard for the skeptic crowd to understand is how unimportant this structure, method, and prediction ability of science is to the hoax believers. In their universe, their needs are satisfied with emotional connections; they react to facts on the basis of trust, personal connection, and whether they go in the same direction as beliefs already held. I can't recall more than one hoax believer who actually saw it as worthwhile to get up from his computer, go outside, and make a simple observation (such as seeing if they could cover the Moon with an outstretched thumb.)
So in short, there isn't a single language that describes both "camps." I do not believe one can even describe both groups in a neutral manner, as both have world-views that diverge radically at the most basic level. Myself, I would tend to operate from the "skeptic" point of view if I wanted to write an essay. For one thing, the skeptic accepts logical thought and presented argument and cited facts -- all which tend to be emphasized in formal essay-writing! For another thing, the skeptic believes that everyone is educate-able (with the exception of the hucksters and con-artists and snake-oil salesman like Bart Sibrel, who know very well they are selling tainted product). Skeptics do not hide their method or intent and are willing to give away their "secrets" to anyone if asked (and often when unasked as well!)
If one were to write from the point of view of the hoax believer one would of course be allowed vague assertions and veiled allusions -- all fair game in a style more akin to poetry than formal essay -- but they would also find themselves having to write of the general public with the disdainful monicker "sheeple," and to defuse any determined or powerful arguer from the other side by expanding their conspiracy and labeling those others as "debunkers," or "paid disinfo agents."
Let not this little attempt at an essay indicate that I believe we really have two parallel camps here. If all we were talking about was beliefs with no real-world connection -- say, if Greedo really did shoot first -- there might be argument that these are opposed but equal philosophies. However, hoax believers have me scurrying inside from the deadly chemtrails. Science believers built me an airplane so I can visit Paris. As long as I can test the veracity of Apollo arguments with an outstretched thumb I'll consider the "skeptic/pro-apollo/scientific" viewpoint to be the more powerful and the closer to an abstract ideal of "truth."
And, if nothing else, science can describe (through social anthropology, for instance) the hoax-believer much more completely than the hoax believer can describe the pro-Apollo crowd. "Paid debunker" is factually untrue, and it gives you no deeper understanding of motive or methods and no way to investigate same -- all you can do is assume they are lying to you.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 11, 2006 17:20:09 GMT -4
"Rational?" "Informed?"
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 8, 2006 22:39:55 GMT -4
Hoo boy.
Nothing new there. Okay....I do like item #1, where he confuses mass with surface gravity!
Of course #3 is the whole "temperature of what?" problem. Lemme put it this way...if my oven is working on a roast at 350', how hot am I? It is just silly to equate the temperature of a rock lying in the sun with the temperature of a hand-held camera.
4 and 5 have not only been discussed on this board long ago, but they can be answered by ANYONE with a camera and a parking lot. (asphalt doesn't show a huge heiligenschein -- a street where they've just redone the crosswalks will, tho -- but a parking lot at night can also show you the intriguing things that happen when you have more than one light shining on an object.)
#6 is actually right. Of course the photo has been tampered with! The Apollo Hasselblad's took square pictures. This one is cropped. And that's not the only correction that was made to this Publicity Release Photograph either! No secret here, folks.
Basically, he's an idiot. He reminds me of Brumsen at the other board; prattling on about only being interested in open-minded discussion, but taking every opportunity possible to wriggle a little doubt into every argument -- especially the ones he has difficulty comprehending. I think he's showing signs of being convinced but the last page of arguments are simply lame -- a desperate snatch into Kaysing's archives after anything he thinks will fly.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 7, 2006 16:19:39 GMT -4
But....bogosity will still be carried by the as-yet undiscovered bogon, right?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 5, 2006 17:19:58 GMT -4
...anyone can see that that would not constitute a hoax.... One would think. But, no....the "missing fiducials" are held up as one of the more convincing bits of evidence by Kaysing and the other hoax-pushers. Appallingly, almost all of the hoax "evidence" also fails to survive even casual examination. It is the rare hoax claim that actually needs some detailed science and history to examine.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 7, 2006 3:09:54 GMT -4
My first camera was a big 'ol box camera. I didn't have a light meter so I shot everything in brackets. My next camera was an 8mm hand-wound film camera. I had a light meter then -- one of those cute ones with the graduated plastic strip inside. You'd hold it up and squint and try to figure out which numbers were too dark to see. The shutter speed was a little limited so I spent a lot of time trying to match up f-stop, distance to subject, and light meter (using the handy little chart on the side of the camera).
The one after that was a Minolta SLR. Manual everything, again, but at least you could look through the lens and see if f8 was still getting that flower into focus. The fun part was figuring out if your hand was shaking too badly to get away with a 1/100 shutter.
But enough reminiscing.
(I still drive stick.)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 6, 2006 0:53:27 GMT -4
Is it now going to be Jay Utah and the Viscous Penguins?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 30, 2006 20:57:11 GMT -4
In a remote, inaccessible place (well, actually, in a not that remote but difficult-to-reach place), in an old abandoned warehouse (actually, in a far-from abandoned former warehouse), right off a freeway onramp, I made the following discovery: www.renderosity.com/artistdownload.ez?fileid=25449&key=105567Although it might seem at first that the distinctive "C" might be a mere artifact of the photographic reproduction, or perhaps a relic of some simple physical process (perhaps related to the strange process that has left those odd whitish marks on the surrounding material), closer examination proves that this "rock" is, indeed, whole-ly artificial. Further evidence of this artificiality comes from an even more distinctive find not far away from the first: www.renderosity.com/artistdownload.ez?fileid=25450&key=941296
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 31, 2006 13:33:05 GMT -4
Or play a couple rounds of Space War -- or experiment with any one of the nice little orbital simulators out there for the home computer. Learning how to change then circularize an orbit (aka do a Hohmann transfer to a higher/lower orbit) is a good, fun, basic project on any of these. I used to mess around with this at, of all places, the old "Silver Ball" arcade (they had an old Space War game).
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on May 29, 2006 23:18:13 GMT -4
I think you've invented a new Olympic sport. I wanna see that.
|
|