Spinebreaker Posted May 16, 2013 #1926 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Can just ask Chrisz, have you been particularly angered by some Apollo deniers before? To the extent that you are coming across as slightly aggressive toward someone just interested in a discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted May 16, 2013 #1927 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Can just ask Chrisz, have you been particularly angered by some Apollo deniers before? To the extent that you are coming across as slightly aggressive toward someone just interested in a discussion... Your first portion of your post already stated you didn't read through the thread. Then you post obvious conjecture and stated a theory that photographic evidence is "anomalous" in your own opinion without posting a photograph that includes an explaination why you feel that way. And you wonder why the veteran posters on this topic posted the way they did? Amazing... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinebreaker Posted May 16, 2013 #1928 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Your first portion of your post already stated you didn't read through the thread. Then you post obvious conjecture and stated a theory that photographic evidence is "anomalous" in your own opinion without posting a photograph that includes an explaination why you feel that way. And you wonder why the veteran posters on this topic posted the way they did? Amazing... There's an old rule from Stan Lee's days at Marvel. Every issue is someone's first. It's a good rule, ensured Marvel got new readers weekly. You expect everyone to read hundreds and hundreds of pages before making a comment??? Really? Every post might be someone's first. Not everyone might return for a second. Sorry I came I and started to join the discussion in a relevent thread... I'l leave it for the 'veteran posters'. Have a great evening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted May 16, 2013 #1929 Share Posted May 16, 2013 There's an old rule from Stan Lee's days at Marvel. Every issue is someone's first. It's a good rule, ensured Marvel got new readers weekly. You expect everyone to read hundreds and hundreds of pages before making a comment??? Really? Every post might be someone's first. Not everyone might return for a second. Sorry I came I and started to join the discussion in a relevent thread... I'l leave it for the 'veteran posters'. Have a great evening. Yet you came here with a relevant topic of discussion, not asked a single question, posted your opinion without posting why you feel that way regarding Apollo 11 photos and not even bother including photos that make you wonder... Tell me again how that is a discussion and not posting conjecture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted May 16, 2013 #1930 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Can just ask Chrisz, have you been particularly angered by some Apollo deniers before? To the extent that you are coming across as slightly aggressive toward someone just interested in a discussion... Try re-reading my post without an angry tone.. If you still think it's 'angry' then report it or alternatively, QUOTE the section that makes you infer my emotive state.. And explain why you would rather talk about your impression of my attitude, than post the images to back up your claims.. I see from your last post that it appears you wish to just post your 'theory' and then vanish without backing it up. I'm getting a strong impression of something here, but I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong.. So I'll continue to wait in hope for your best examples of fakery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted May 16, 2013 #1931 Share Posted May 16, 2013 What I sad was... " I consider absolute fact. 1 - In July, 1969. Edwin, Michael and Neil went to the moon. They collected data, rock samples, did other aspects of their job, and then came home. Basically, we have been to the moon." At no point in my post did I say otherwise. I believe we went to the moon. I am glad that we have found common ground in that respect. Yes indeed, we have sent men to the moon and returned them safely back to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 16, 2013 #1932 Share Posted May 16, 2013 That's not my post. You really do have this problem with facts, don't you? You're right, it was Waspie's post. As such, he should answer for the false claims within it. So that part is his responsibility. Hoever, you DID query me about the quote - AFTER I'D ALREADY EXPLAINED THE QUOTE WAS MEANT IN JEST! So you made a false claim here, and you've totally failed to admit to it. I don't think you ever will own up to your part in all this, somehow... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted May 17, 2013 #1933 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Good So Now We can Sleep ! We Went to the Moon and returned in safety ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted May 17, 2013 #1934 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Spinebreaker, You have to understand that some of us have pretty in-depth knowledge of this subject and that sometimes being asked - what appears to us as - silly questions, can make a person become a little terse in their replies (not to mention that text often can be taken different way, interpreted as different moods). You've come here and started to go down a certain path (film should have been affected by radiation). That's old stuff to us, and probably has been answered at least once, if not many times previously. So I hope you'll understand and be forgiving when people can sometimes appear to be a little hostile; it's certainly not meant that way. Likewise, I am sure everyone here will be tolerant and understand that sometimes a person will hold a viewpoint and ask questions that to them are new and relevant, when to some of us it is "Apollo 101". Cheers and look forward to helping you out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinebreaker Posted May 17, 2013 #1935 Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) If the concepts been done to death, I do not wish to waste anyone's time. My personal issue with the photographs is a couple of them with identical backgrounds, but different foreground elements, I've seen them explained away, but not to the extant that makes sense to me. Regardless, while I probably should have made it more clear that my question was mostly hypothetical. I did, repeatedly say 'possible', not probable or likely. Obviously this sort of discussion is boring or in some other way unwanted/unwarranted, again, I have no interest in wasting ANYBODY's time. Chrisz, you go back and read your responses and tell me that those sentences do not sound at least slightly antagonistic to someone you have never spoken to? Again. Have a splendid afternoon. Edited May 17, 2013 by Spinebreaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted May 17, 2013 #1936 Share Posted May 17, 2013 FTR - I received a rather more 'vocal' version of this in a PM. As I prefer to make comments in public, I shall only reply here.. If the concepts been done to death, I do not wish to waste anyone's time. How odd. First he said he had photos, and stated: Some of the photo's taken by Apollo 11's crew are incredibly odd/anomalous. yet now, despite being ASKED by others (politely) and me (supposedly angrily) to post those images, and despite, presumably, not knowing which concepts have been done to death, he doesn't want to waste anyone's time... Could it be that in fact he does not want to actually discuss the images? Could it be that he doesn't want to admit error? My personal issue with the photographs is a couple of them with identical backgrounds, but different foreground elements, I've seen them explained away, but not to the extant that makes sense to me. So even though he doesn't want to waste our time, he wants to hint at (but not cite or show or discuss or debate) the 'evidence' he has.. Gee, I've never seen this tactic before.. The only reason anyone does this, is to avoid scrutiny. I think he should either post the images or stop wasting our time like he just did again by making the claims again... Regardless, while I probably should have made it more clear that my question was mostly hypothetical. I did, repeatedly say 'possible', not probable or likely. Oh, I think I get it now. When he adds the word 'possible', then we should just ignore it and not ask for any form of backing up. It's not a claim, and isn't to be challenged. Ri-i-ight. Obviously this sort of discussion is boring or in some other way unwanted/unwarranted, again, I have no interest in wasting ANYBODY's time. Repeating this seems a bit of a waste of time.. Would have saved a lot of time by just posting the images... Chrisz Who is this Chrisz person? you go back and read your responses and tell me that those sentences do not sound at least slightly antagonistic to someone you have never spoken to? Oh, he means me, Charles S, acro-breviated ChrLzS.. Yes, I re-read my responses, in a polite tone of voice - they were challenging but not antagonistic. Maybe I'm just too tough from my years of working with sciency/engineeringy folk who talk straight and know their stuff.. If you were 'antagonised', then why didn't you either report the post, or quote the words that so upset you.. or just ignore me and talk to the other nicer people? And I'm curious - would someone involved with Apollo be a bit antagonised by anyone suggesting the program he worked on was fake? Or does it only work one way? Anyway, if this was me, I'd take responsibility for my words and post the images, and then engage in a proper debate and analysis. If I was shown to be wrong, I would have learnt something. It's good for the soul to admit error, and even better to learn stuff. I find it hard to understand people who would instead prefer to just run away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinebreaker Posted May 17, 2013 #1937 Share Posted May 17, 2013 FTR - I received a rather more 'vocal' version of this in a PM. As I prefer to make comments in public, I shall only reply here.. Post anything you like. I have no problem with that... You received a reply to your, if I may say, equally 'vocal' PM. How odd. First he said he had photos, I don't 'have' any photo's. I've never been to the moon to take any. Oh, I think I get it now. When he adds the word 'possible', then we should just ignore it and not ask for any form of backing up. It's not a claim, and isn't to be challenged. Ri-i-ight. No. It simply means that you should read the word 'probably' or 'possibly' and take it for what it means. No subterfuge, noo subtext. The words I use anywhere on this (or any other) thread are the precise words I mean to use. Who is this Chrisz person? A typo/mistake. On the internet. Take me to the public square and have me flogged. Maybe I'm just too tough from my years of working with sciency/engineeringy folk who talk straight and know their stuff.. Perhaps so. Though I know several people in engineering and science (microbiology specifically) who've held those positions for years yet can hold a civil conversation with people without training. Come the meriitocracy eh!? Anyway, if this was me, I'd take responsibility for my words and post the images, and then engage in a proper debate and analysis. If I was shown to be wrong, I would have learnt something. It's good for the soul to admit error, and even better to learn stuff. I find it hard to understand people who would instead prefer to just run away... OK, I don't know how to actually put a picture 'inside' my post I'm afraid. Because of this pic... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22521.jpg Let's not say anomaly then... Let's say, because of that picture, I personally don't understand why the module isn't partially in either of these... http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20437.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20440.jpg There's a couple more, but it's exactly the same thing. My eyes are telling me that the module (or in the other pitures a rock or crater) should be vsible but they aren't. Moving onto a slightly less contentious topic, (still relevent though) Chrizs : What, if I my ask, were you using a Hasselblad for? I know about 6 or 7 professional photographers who'd be jealous as hell! How far into the eighties were they still being used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karrde Posted May 17, 2013 #1938 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Spinebreaker, If you worry that foreground is changing too much but background not, here is a good example on earth: On the moon the lack of air will not cause object haze/fading, so it is impossible to determine the distance (it could be 5 or 20km), but the effect is the same. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 17, 2013 #1939 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Chrlzs - not taking sides here at all but there are times when your posts do have an antagonistic / aggressive tone to them. I'd wager its usually unintended, but its there nonetheless. Having said that, I do realize that I am guilty of the exact same thing at times. Chance are we're all guilty of it at one point or another... Cz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted May 17, 2013 #1940 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Chrlzs - not taking sides here at all but there are times when your posts do have an antagonistic / aggressive tone to them. I'd wager its usually unintended, but its there nonetheless. Having said that, I do realize that I am guilty of the exact same thing at times. Chance are we're all guilty of it at one point or another... Cz Happily conceded. And yes, I do get a bit annoyed when my time is wasted, and especially when claims are made by folks who have little or no intention of doing the right thing, namely elaborating and being prepared to engage properly in debate. But at least we got some image links posted - so kudos to Spinebreaker for finally doing that and not using the usual troll- or flounce-. So I'll be back later to (politely!) address the perspective issue in those images. One thing I will mention now, as I'm pretty sure I know what 'issue' is shown in those images.. there are MANY aspects to photography on the Moon that are nothing like what is experienced here on Earth. One of the weirdest, and something that I don't think the astronauts or NASA were prepared for, is the completely different perspective that is caused by being in a vacuum. Apart from the obvious weirdness of a black sky in broad and bright daylight, there is absolutely no atmospheric haze. Without realisjng it, we use haze as one of a number of distance cues - as things get to about 500m or more distance here on terra firma, inevitably they become slightly affected by haze, and as the distance increases to km, the effect becomes very obvious. But on the Moon, that distance clue vanishes. Things that are 10, 50 or more kilometers away are just as clear and bright and in focus as things just cm away. So, both from a visual point of view and in photographs, distant objects look very close. That completely throws our sense of perspective - the juxtaposition of objects that are near - which of course move out of our field of view as we move slightly left or right - versus objects like distant mountains looks completely odd. Because those distant objects do not change their appearance in any measurable way with local movement - the astronaut can move, say, 500m in any direction and the foreground will completely change, but the distant background will look exactly the same, and just as close. To our minds, the background should have changed BECAUSE we are tricked into thinking it is close, when it is not. Make sense? Anyway, I shall be back to elaborate (although I'm sure others will chime in, as karrde already has) a bit later - right now, I'm off to the library and supermarket for a few weekend preparations, and that's more important! Oh, and Spinebreaker, I used to work for a large photographic studio in Adelaide starting in the 70's, shooting mainly weddings and portraits (the high end, snobby sort of stuff!). We used a range of cameras (all medium format film) including Hasselblad 500 C/CMs (iirc) along with Bronica SQs and a wide range of lenses (not inc. the exact lens used for Apollo, but very similar ones). I personally preferred the Bronicas (my weapon of choice being the SQ plus 80mm/f2.8 PS lens - a great combo) and only used the Hasselblads a few times - there was little difference in quality, and I just preferred the feel and operation of the SQ system. Ah, the days of carrying a bulky camera and lenses, a big tripod and 20-40 rolls of film, swapping and reloading cartridges, and then the 2 day wait for them to be processed and returned.. Yeuch. I no longer shoot professionally, now only do it for fun (check my gallery for examples if you like) and when I get talked into doing friends/relatives weddings.. When I stopped in the early 80's, those cameras were very much still in operation for that end of the market. Digital was pretty much irrelevant to the high end photography market up until the last decade and a bit - large sensors are needed for that level of quality and they were initially unavailable, and then later only at hideously high cost. Now, MF and LF digital is more affordable and is eating heavily into that market, but there are still many medium and large format photographers who use film and are clinging to those cameras. Film still offers some benefits and has a 'look' that some folks love. Anyway, gotta run.. bbl. Thanks for not getting overly upset at my veiled antagonism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenat Posted May 18, 2013 #1941 Share Posted May 18, 2013 If the concepts been done to death, I do not wish to waste anyone's time. My personal issue with the photographs is a couple of them with identical backgrounds, but different foreground elements, I've seen them explained away, but not to the extant that makes sense to me. Regardless, while I probably should have made it more clear that my question was mostly hypothetical. I did, repeatedly say 'possible', not probable or likely. Obviously this sort of discussion is boring or in some other way unwanted/unwarranted, again, I have no interest in wasting ANYBODY's time. Chrisz, you go back and read your responses and tell me that those sentences do not sound at least slightly antagonistic to someone you have never spoken to? Again. Have a splendid afternoon. None of them have EXACTLY identical backgrounds with different foregrounds. The backgrounds are similar but that is expected due to perspective with distant mountains. Many hoax believers will tell you the backgrounds are identical but small differences can be seen. The video posted by Karrde illustrates it perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DONTEATUS Posted May 18, 2013 #1942 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Spinebreaker, If you worry that foreground is changing too much but background not, here is a good example on earth: [media=] [/media]On the moon the lack of air will not cause object haze/fading, so it is impossible to determine the distance (it could be 5 or 20km), but the effect is the same. Welcome to the Show karrde ! Great explanation ! You are very welcome in here we need more people like you ! THe Facts are right in front of us ! And when there not step to the side and Look again ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 18, 2013 #1943 Share Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying. Once again, flyingswan, I'm offering you the chance to retract your false claims against me. I've bolded the false claims in your post above. For those who haven't followed along, here was my post which was PREVIOUS to flyingswan's query of my quote.. Aw, MID. I'm disappointed in you. My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek. "Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said..... NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program. Now, that one should have clued you in!! You're much too serious these days, my old friend.... You and Waspie have falsely accused me for years. Do you both think you can just run and hide from it now? That's clearly what you're trying to do.... Edited May 18, 2013 by turbonium 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 18, 2013 #1944 Share Posted May 18, 2013 The irony and Turbs' hypocrisy have just reached astronomical levels... Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 18, 2013 #1945 Share Posted May 18, 2013 The irony and Turbs' hypocrisy have just reached astronomical levels... Brilliant counter-argument, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obviousman Posted May 18, 2013 #1946 Share Posted May 18, 2013 I think there is a very simple solution: get a moderator to adjudicate. If Turbo has been lying, then they'll say so. If Turbo has not been lying, the mod will caution Swanny about make false accusations. Simples. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted May 18, 2013 #1947 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Brilliant counter-argument, as usual. You arrogantly presume that I have any need to refute or provide any counter-argument to the willfully ignorant, kindergarten-level conspiracy theory tripe you continue to regurgitate here... ? lol... It was an observation, and a correct one at that, about the level of hypocrisy you present when you talk about other people running and hiding from dealing with you, when you, Turbs, are the master of running and hiding when the discussion gets to tough for you and your limited set of predefined answers is no longer relevant. How long has it been since you've addressed the questions you left unanswered at the Apollo Hoax board? 4 years? Longer perhaps? Please, Turbs... get over yourself. You're not that important, but you are still good for a laugh now and then.... Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted May 18, 2013 #1948 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Once again, flyingswan, I'm offering you the chance to retract your false claims against me. I've bolded the false claims in your post above.Here's my post with your bolding:flyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said: You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying. Here's the actual thread: http://www.unexplain...c=113834&st=405 You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406. I query the specific quote in post #407. You admit making it up in post #408. I accuse you of trolling in post #409. Waspie says you have effectively admitted to lying in post #410. Where in my bolded claim is there any inaccuracy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 18, 2013 #1949 Share Posted May 18, 2013 You arrogantly presume that I have any need to refute or provide any counter-argument to the willfully ignorant, kindergarten-level conspiracy theory tripe you continue to regurgitate here... ? lol... It was an observation, and a correct one at that, about the level of hypocrisy you present when you talk about other people running and hiding from dealing with you, when you, Turbs, are the master of running and hiding when the discussion gets to tough for you and your limited set of predefined answers is no longer relevant. How long has it been since you've addressed the questions you left unanswered at the Apollo Hoax board? 4 years? Longer perhaps? Please, Turbs... get over yourself. You're not that important, but you are still good for a laugh now and then.... Same old garbage - you say I don't answer questions, while never supporting that claim with any examples of it. You bring it up every time you see your side avoiding my questions, of course. Your juvenile tactics went stale long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted May 18, 2013 #1950 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Here's my post with your bolding: flyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said: You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA. Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up. I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying. Here's the actual thread: http://www.unexplain...c=113834&st=405 You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406. I query the specific quote in post #407. You admit making it up in post #408. I accuse you of trolling in post #409. Waspie says you have effectively admitted to lying in post #410. Where in my bolded claim is there any inaccuracy? You left out the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF POST #406!! Once more, I'll spell it out for you. Let's start with your recap of my post "You say "mostly tongue in cheek" in post #406." I did say that it was "mostly meant to be tongue in cheek", for sure. Now, what else did I say in that post? Do you know? I said it right after the part about tongue-in-cheek.. My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Now, read the following very carefuly... the most important part is in large font... ""Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said..... NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program. Now, that one should have clued you in!! You're much too serious these days, my old friend...." Okay, now. Do you understand what I said in the passage with large font? I'm pointing out the quote, do you see that? Do you see why I'm pointing it out? I was explaining how the quote was meant to be taken - as tongue-in-cheek. Not serious, in other words. Do you have any questions about what I've told you here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts