Author Topic: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?  (Read 119476 times)

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #270 on: November 11, 2012, 10:58:54 AM »
Diddums.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #271 on: November 11, 2012, 10:59:34 AM »
You don't report a comparison between looking with or without the streetlight in your field of view, Edward, so how did you determine what effect it had?

Furthermore, I don't believe you if you say it had no effect, because that is physiologically impossible.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #272 on: November 11, 2012, 11:07:35 AM »
if what I say is simply going to be regarded as 'blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES', not to mention 'falsehoods, deceptions, ravings, and attention cravings' (ChrLz), I agree with him that I be banned from the site.

Heck...I thought you should have been "booted" a long time ago...

...hope that "helps"..:D

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1637
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #273 on: November 11, 2012, 11:09:42 AM »
Aw, but I like having a pet conspiracy theorist.  :( It's like bouncing a hackysack back and forth.

Offline Trebor

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 214
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #274 on: November 11, 2012, 11:16:04 AM »
...Don't twist my words....

While we are talking about twisting words..

I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.

Exactly where do you think Armstrong stated this?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 11:23:01 AM by Trebor »

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #275 on: November 11, 2012, 12:02:05 PM »
All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars.  I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'.  Furthermore, Glom and Zakalwe, I am very aware of the location of Jupiter, as I have observed it many times through my reflecting telescope. At the moment it is on the opposite side of the night sky in relation to where I conducted my 'experiment'. The star I referred to was far, far dimmer than Jupiter's appearence. I suggest you desist from making assumptions.


Sorry old chum, but I wasn't making assumptions. If you care to read what I said again you will find that I was asking a question. Secondly, it's a tad rich of you to demand that people "stop making assumptions" now isn't it? Especially given your position in this "debate"


And if looking directly at a streetlight (for this is what you did say) has very little impact on your ability to perceive stars, then I suggest that you get yourself to the nearest University that specializes in ophthalmology for you possess unique eyesight. I am sure that you will be of interest to them.

Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision.  Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars.  The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light. 
What was the faint magnitude star that you speak of? What magnitude was it?

Again, I call B.S. on this one.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #276 on: November 11, 2012, 01:21:05 PM »
I suggest you desist from making assumptions.

Then don't claim the physiologically impossible.  You are unable to account for your abilities in a scenario that every human resorts to when asked about this particular problem.  You are literally asking us to believe that you alone are different from the rest of humanity, and on that basis that your stilted misinterpretation of astronauts' statements must be correct.  Special pleading is a fallacy.

Quote
...I agree with him that I be banned from the site.  It seems to be the only solution to putting members of this site out of their misery.

You may resign the debate at any time.  Compelling others to take action to shun you is puerile passive aggression.  You are the one making ludicrous claims, then stomping about in mock indignance when we naturally are not convinced by them.  Instead, take intellectual responsibility for your arguments even if they turn out to be poor ones.

You were caught misrepresenting and misattributing quotes.  You were caught claiming a physiological impossibility.  You are simply a poor litigant.  On that basis you may concede that you have failed to convince skeptical critics.  But I doubt that our moderator will acquiesce to making you the martyr you desire to be.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #277 on: November 12, 2012, 11:09:05 AM »
All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars.  I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'. 

While Edward is gone, this point needs a reply.  There is a significant difference between a quote, as in Edward's contention of what Armstrong said, and a paraphrase, what Glom used to characterize Edward's remark.  By the nature of using a quote, one is asserting that the quote is correct in word and attribution and is used as a reasonable representation of the source relative to the context of the users point.  A failure to meet these criteria opens the writer to just criticism.  A paraphrase is to recast the original phrase but still requires the writer to maintain a reasonable scale and scope of the original meaning.  A poor paraphrase also opens the writer to just criticism.

So the question is, does Glom’s paraphrase retain this scale and scope?  Does the recasting of 'had not had a great or very discernible effect' into “no difference” matter or is Edward quibbling by splitting hairs?

The majority of people who perform the experiment of observing stars while looking directly at a street light will observe a vast difference in the ability to see stars, the complete inability to see fainter or medium brightness stars, relative to a dark sky.  Yet, Edward notes a minimal effect in his observation.  So on a scale of differentiation, does the phrase “no difference” fall significantly closer in meaning to "not very discernible" than it does to the expected normal experience of a very large difference.  The answer is yes and Glom's paraphrase is a reasonable recasting of Edward’s words.  This conclusion is also supported by the fact that the paraphrase is done within the same conversation, where Edward could issue a collegial correction or amplification of his original meaning and the reader can easily compare the paraphrase with the original words.

By this reasoning, I contend that Glom's paraphrase is reasonable and Edward is quibbling in making an accusation of a double standard.  The quibbling is an obvious part of his suicide by banning tactic that appears to be engineered to get him out of an argument in which he cannot prevail.  I’ll leave the speculation on his motivation as an exercise to the reader.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2012, 11:28:07 AM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline inconceivable

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #278 on: November 13, 2012, 09:22:25 PM »
I agree that the shadows don't look right.  The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark.  Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right.  Even look at the PSEP.  It looks like it has a shadow on the opposite side as does the LEM.  *&25f

Offline cos

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #279 on: November 13, 2012, 10:02:42 PM »
So you make your ridiculous claim, then disappear for 3 months and reappear to simply restate your belief. You haven't read a single post in this thread. Anyone want to waste their time here?

It's amazing that in these recessionary times they still have the budget for an army of (incompetent) photoshoppers. Just as well there are eagle eyed vigilantes like you to catch them out.

Offline DataCable

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #280 on: November 13, 2012, 11:15:56 PM »
So you make your ridiculous claim, then disappear for 3 months and reappear to simply restate your belief.
Dude, it's inconceivable.  He almost never returns to a thread he's started.... ever.
Bearer of the highly coveted "I Found Venus In 9 Apollo Photos" sweatsocks.

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

DataCable2015 A+

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #281 on: November 14, 2012, 01:50:12 AM »
I agree that the shadows don't look right.  The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark.  Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right.  Even look at the PSEP.  It looks like it has a shadow on the opposite side as does the LEM.  *&25f

The "rest of the shadows?"  Are you talking about the craters?  Do you understand what a crater is?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #282 on: November 14, 2012, 04:53:43 AM »
I agree that the shadows don't look right.

Subjective view noted.

Quote
The LEM shadow looks photoshopped and way too dark.

Subjective view noted.

Quote
Why does the LEM have the shadow on the left in the photo and the rest of the shadows are to the right.

What are you talking about here? The shadows look perfectly consistent with a cratered surface with a few objects sitting on it all lit from the right hand side of the image. There are a number of boulders that clearly have shadows cast to the left in that image. Everything else is a crater.

Not that I expect you to actually respond to this. Your record of seagull posting is depressingly long.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #283 on: November 14, 2012, 08:08:30 PM »
The LEM shadow...

Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.


Is there some reason for the use of inproper terminology?, or is it just ignorance?

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?
« Reply #284 on: November 14, 2012, 08:14:57 PM »
The LEM shadow...

Pet peeve...people who call the LM, LEM.


Is there some reason for the use of inproper terminology?, or is it just ignorance?
Ignorance.  The hoax sites that they believe every word of use it wrong so they do too.  Using it correctly would require personal effort.
-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.