Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Moreover, how could you get parallel shadows in a photograph no matter
> what you do? The concept of *perspective* should be rather clear to
> everybody. If you photograph a pair of train tracks, aiming at the horizon,
> the tracks will seem to converge at the horizon, ie. they will not be
> parallel in the image even though they are in reality. Every single person
> with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
> this.

..... unless they refuse to open their eyes and see.

To say it with Bill Kaysing's own words: "I decided I did not believe that
Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin or anyone else was going to the moon"

Seems like he has stuck with that decision ever since... or *is stuck* with it
may be a better term...

It is interesting and might be an explanation, to think that "Moon Hoaxers" were
actually kids back then, and the idea that people might actually be walking on
the moon shattered their - literally - childish beliefs about the universe to
such an extent that they simply refused to believe, and continue to do so to
this day.

Which would explain why they are so eager to prove their theories, and so
stubborn to accept any evidence to the contrary.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
>
>   Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?

Naah. Just good high-res HDR output and some simple postprocessing :P

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
> >
> >   Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
> >
>
> Why emulate a substandard lens? :)

Why, to make the hoax more credible of course :P

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> > every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do?
>
> Oops.  Maybe you should heed that notion.  It was only intended as
> entertainment, not trolling...

No problem, I sure was aware of the fact.

Just jumped on the occasion to let some steam off for which I never found the
right place before (and for which this forum, of course, is not the the right
place either, as I bet we don't have many people here doubting the lunar
landings -but what the heck... sometimes a man's gotta say what a man's gotta
say, no matter where he is ;))

> > True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers.
>
> Yeah I have one of those Dover textbooks on orbital dynamics.  A large portion
> of it is obsolete high-order approximations because these days you can either
> integrate it numerically or use a program someone else has developed.  A bit of
> a lost art, really.

.... which, I guess, may be the reason why NASA can't just simply build a few
Saturn V again and burn off the fireworks.

Nobody on the world would know how to operate that outdated once-high-tech these
days.

> The sign of an idiot conspiracy-theorist is that they find fault with
> *everything*.  Not just on one topic either.  Conspiracy is a lens through
> which they view the whole world.

There's one word for it: Paranoia.

The official definition of which is not that a person fears everyone and
everythig, but more generally that he tries to relate everything he percieves
to one central idea.

Which *can* be the idea that "they" are out to get him, of course.

I once read an article by someone who did some maths on the lunar lander fuel
capacity and such; he went into great detail about how he asked some
information from a university professor while avoiding any hint that he might
be after the Apollo project - because of course all university professors would
be briefed to not tell the truth about anything related to the Apollo program...

.... heck, he didn't even give that professor a *chance* to try convince him
where his math was systematically wrong - all out of sheer... well, Paranoia.


If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
allow you not to.


---
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out to get you...

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
> allow you not to.

And vice versa.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
> > allow you not to.
>
> And vice versa.

I don't believe *that* :P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Which *can* be the idea that "they" are out to get him, of course.

"Don't you think that's a little paranoid?"
"Is that what they're saying about me now? That I'm paranoid?"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:8f92t452hao9qstqqg5i53dpv5bmt9qq6i@4ax.com...
> Where is "here", Jim?

prince edward island

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:15:25 -0400, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:8f92t452hao9qstqqg5i53dpv5bmt9qq6i@4ax.com...
>> Where is "here", Jim?
>
>prince edward island
>

It is not that much more southerly than the south of the UK but I suppose the
air is clearer than the cities that I've lived in. You need to go south to
really see the Milky Way.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> 
> Why, to make the hoax more credible of course :P
> 

That's an awful lot of work to get the aberrations of an optical system 
just right, imo... But, hey... when your primary job is to perpetuate a 
government conspiracy, anything's possible, right? lol.

They need to take the conspiracy nuts to one of the telescopes that has 
a laser attached, then aim it at that corner reflector on the moon.

Gee, how did that get there?
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message