|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
31st December 2012, 01:14 PM | #1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread
Specifically in one case, he offers the prize for someone who can prove that Apollo carried enough fuel to perform the advertised orbital maneuvers. Of course that was done, but Anders objects because it wasn't figured according to his broken model of physics.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not only did he refuse to acknowledge the error he corrected, he blatantly libeled a member of Apollohoax in the process. It's an epic ad hominem that would be appropriate only in the Stundie thread, if even there. |
24th January 2013, 12:14 PM | #2 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm |
24th January 2013, 12:23 PM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The photographers in question used the wrong type of film, a lower ISO, the wrong lens, and did not give us basic information such as exposure settings.
They purport to have duplicated the Mythbusters results and, by extension, the Apollo results. But they have deliberately withheld important information that they know would be crucial in letting others judge the fidelity of their results, and have shown in the information that they did reveal that they have changed important parameters in their favor to affect the outcome. As with most of what you see at Aulis, impressive looking at first glance but ultimately highly dishonest. |
24th January 2013, 12:34 PM | #4 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.
Originally Posted by www.aulis.com
Originally Posted by www.aulis.com
So why such a difference when the nuts did it? I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle. It could be something different about the camera as well, wrong lens, wrong film, wrong exposure, or a dozen other things. |
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
24th January 2013, 12:42 PM | #5 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
To the viewers-
When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7990 to this. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=7907 |
24th January 2013, 12:52 PM | #6 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
I'm going to go with the additional factors of the model photo having a ridiculously low f-stop (see how the astronaut is about the only thing in focus), and spot metering on the brightly lit area of the photograph making the shutter speed very fast. This means that the background is lit normally, but the astronaut is in the dark. Even with that, the model is still visible. The depth of field in the Apollo image is suggestive of a higher f-stop.which would have required a slightly longer exposure, which is would explain why it is less sharp.
Broad daylight on the moon and you can see stuff. Who'd have thunk it. |
24th January 2013, 12:59 PM | #7 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
24th January 2013, 01:07 PM | #8 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis |
|
24th January 2013, 01:24 PM | #9 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info. |
24th January 2013, 01:30 PM | #10 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
My first thought is that we can't see how much light is cast between the model and the camera.
The astronaut is brightly lit by diffuse light scattered from the forground and from the whole landscape behind the camera. It's anyone's guess how much light was allowed to fall to the nearside of the model. Likely very little. |
24th January 2013, 01:31 PM | #11 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
|
24th January 2013, 01:38 PM | #12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The Mythbuster producers consulted an astrophysicist, an astronomer, an engineer, and a lighting director -- all professionals -- to determine how to establish a properly reflective lunar surface and to confirm that they had done so. These people are all named in the credits.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm enough of an expert in photography and photo analysis to see most of their mistakes and deliberate misrepresentations. Another error is blacking out their photographer. It makes sense in a way because the scale of their model would lead you to interpret that as a confounding variable. In their case it may be an innocent mistake. However in this case ironically it leads to a less faithful reproduction. Armstrong was standing in full sunlight when he took that picture, and was actually quite close to Aldrin. (Don't be fooled by the wide-angle lens; it tends to amplify distance along the line of sight.) The space suit has a non-geometric albedo of something like 0.8, so it's going to be highly reflective. It's meant to be. And that contributes to the lighting environment of the Aldrin egress photos. They needed to have accounted for that in their reproduction. |
24th January 2013, 01:55 PM | #13 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
Again: would you care to explain exactly what you are referring to, and why Jay is, in your view, wrong? A funny thing to say, since rhetoric seems to be all you provide, while Jay frequently provides information which supports his arguments. |
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis |
|
24th January 2013, 02:31 PM | #14 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Debunking Linkbarf
Posts: 761
|
It wasn't damage it was a badly constructed strawman that you couldn't even knock down.
Quote:
Your standard response to this is that you haven't seen such an example. When given the examples, your standard follow up is that the print isn't sharp enough. You are as predictable as you are persistently wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
The less they know the more they blow. |
|
24th January 2013, 02:37 PM | #15 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
FatFreddy88/DavidC/rocky/cosmored/etc., please don't think that you can continue to dodge
your dishonesty in your Magic Sand claims, and avoiding the rebuttals thereto, and the fact that according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite. You can hide from it like any other anonymous coward, but you will continue to be called in it. |
24th January 2013, 03:15 PM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
And of course even if by some miracle F88 could come up with evidence such sand sifting was possible, which despite his claims to the contrary he has yet to do, that would in no way demonstrate that any part of the Apollo record was false.
|
24th January 2013, 04:34 PM | #17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
24th January 2013, 05:00 PM | #18 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
|
|
__________________
"Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was." |
|
24th January 2013, 05:54 PM | #19 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
|
As Jay was expanding on a question I posed to you, which you ignored, I'll re-pose my question, and I request that you answer. What part of "this is an engineering question, rather than a science question" did you not understand? And as for the "viewers," I think, as this thread has been split, that it's time we asked the lurkers to weigh in again. So, lurkers, please tell us, do you accept Freddy's claims about Apollo, or do you reject them? |
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
24th January 2013, 06:10 PM | #20 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
I did not know that, thanks for sharing it. I should point out that it doesn't negate what I posted. If anything it amplifies it.
Originally Posted by JU
Originally Posted by JU
Originally Posted by JU
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
24th January 2013, 06:38 PM | #21 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
Thanks for providing this, FF, I can clearly see in it how fully Jay demolishes a point you made. Having spent time as a process engineer and having two science undergrad degrees, I can appreciate how on point Jay's comment is on this being an engineering and not a science question. Of course, since I disagree with you, I must of course in your eyes be a shill.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
24th January 2013, 06:38 PM | #22 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 991
|
|
__________________
Enough with your Apollo is true by virtue of an appeal to reason... - Patrick1000 probably my bad for trying to back engineer the lunacy -jaydeehess |
|
24th January 2013, 07:20 PM | #23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
Rejected utterly. I've lurked in this thread quite a bit, but rarely posted, because my expertise lies in computing, which hasn't really been mentioned in connection with the Apollo hoax claims. Nevertheless, even with my lack of expertise in relevant fields, I can see that Freddy's arguments lack merit due to a lack of concrete evidence.
|
24th January 2013, 09:56 PM | #24 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 482
|
|
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension. -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory. -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong. |
|
24th January 2013, 11:12 PM | #25 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
|
Seems pretty clear to me.
The photograph on the left, why aren't I seeing light on the surface in the foreground? It looks very much like their light source was focused on to the terrain BEHIND the model astronaut. That leaves almost nothing falling on the useful reflective area IN FRONT of him. |
25th January 2013, 12:57 AM | #26 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
I believe it is at this point in any "fake appollo" discussion we are obliged to reference Mitchell and Webb doing their skit where the cost of fakery is compared to actually reaching the moon and the difference is the catering.
Normal service (or as normal as can be expected) may now be resumed. |
__________________
@tomhodden Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW). |
|
25th January 2013, 07:57 AM | #27 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8 The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud. Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust. I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed. The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous. Here's a relevant video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc |
25th January 2013, 08:24 AM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
25th January 2013, 08:47 AM | #29 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue. |
25th January 2013, 08:50 AM | #30 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
FF, do you have any proof, any whatsoever, of a conspiracy and cover up? Sworn affidavits, verifiable money trails to get all this faking stuff, verifiable pictures of the fakery in progress, anything that would be acceptable to prove a conspiracy in a court of law or before congress?
If not, I recommend that you read this article:The Myth of Sunk Costs. Take it to heart, maybe even do some more research on it's subject. It's not to late to make a real difference in the world. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
25th January 2013, 08:52 AM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Geologists do not have relevant backgrounds, for the reasons already discussed. Further, the geologists thought you were nuts. All the people you have talked to with relevant backgrounds have unanimously repudiated you. You simply dismiss them because they do not fit your criteria for an honest witness.
Quote:
We've been through all this many times before. |
25th January 2013, 09:03 AM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
25th January 2013, 09:03 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
|
|
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail |
|
25th January 2013, 10:24 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
|
Ok. Both Dr. Hill & Dr. Kern think you're wrong FF. Now what?
|
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail |
|
25th January 2013, 10:33 AM | #35 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters/MythBusters08.jpg
Notice how close to the edge of the table the model is in this image. They put all of the reflective surface behind him, and hardly any on the side they're taking the picture from. Deliberate deception. |
25th January 2013, 11:25 AM | #36 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable. Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I (4:30 time mark) Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The sand would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this. You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic. |
25th January 2013, 11:30 AM | #37 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
25th January 2013, 11:48 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
|
|
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail |
|
25th January 2013, 11:48 AM | #39 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
Who are "all the people" you've talked to? You cited two people on some random geology forum, one of whom sort of agreed with you. The other one said your hoax idea was "stupid" and said you were "putting words in [his] mouth".
Why are you still hiding from these questions and misrepresenting your "evidence"? This has already happened and you have explicitly been proven wrong. This has been pointed out to you many times and you are lying about your "guarantee". You are not only willfully ignorant and incompetent, but you are transparently dishonest as documented above. This is hardly surprising, though, since according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite. |
25th January 2013, 11:52 AM | #40 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
You're not in a position to prove anything. What you are doing there is telling people what their argument is and telling that they're wrong, without having any kind of basis for either side of it.
Your so called issue is a fictitious one entirely of your own making. Run along now. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|