Well, we don' need no steenkeen COG/LOG calculations; and we don' need no steenkeen terrain assessment neither! All we need is common sense! Heck, you won't even show me where the COG is on your "total imbalance of weight and COG" yoga photo you posted as proof of my wrong statements. I'll give you one more chance (4th time?) or I will have to show you myself since I suspect you don't know... View attachment 41299
No, we need a COG/LOG assessment from you. We actually already have one and it blows your claim away - but your pathetic turtle picture was your diversionary crap response. Your "common sense" is no substitute for intelligent understanding. Blind and a liar. I answered this already and it was NOT posted as proof of anything other than misleading poses and balance. This was the actual phrase accompanying my pictures:- After all the pictures and videos showing how humans have the ability to use muscular corrective action(torque) to offset the pull from the extra weight, you still come back with your basic claim. I am so used to dealing with the very dishonest Cosmored, but it still surprises me that all you hoax people are cast from the same mould. All 3 of you are evasive, ignoring significant responses and just irritating human beings. You must be so proud to be a conspiracy theorist.
Can we have a meaningful reply to this? And you have the temerity to badger me on a side issue whilst ignoring major posts such as this. - - - Updated - - - And this! - - - Updated - - - http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=441083&page=10&p=1065896915#post1065896915 And this one above!
What have you got against "common sense"? The scientific term for "common sense" is called "empiricism". Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. You see, it does not matter how many calculations or theories or authority "truths" we have; the hypotheses, theories and supposed "truths" we have been told must all make sense in the natural world. For example: I asked you to explain this photo: OK - I rotated the photo 25 degrees ccw as per your instructions - and this is the result: What do you think of this empirical observation?
It is a euphemism for uneducated, used by conspiracy theorists to explain stuff they don't understand. Actual genuine common sense is fine when used correctly, but still comes up short in the real world against actual knowledge and full understanding. You have none of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense Irony:- "In the opening line of one his most famous books, Discourse on Method, Descartes established the most common modern meaning, and its controversies, when he stated that everyone has a similar and sufficient amount of common sense (bon sens), but it is rarely used well. Therefore, a skeptical logical method described by Descartes needs to be followed and common sense should not be overly relied upon." I think you are as blind as a bat, I have already performed the rotation. View attachment 41276 Once again you avoid whole swathes of requests and rebuttal.
What he actually said was this in the opening line: Common sense (bon sens) is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have... - Rene Descartes I think he was throwing in a little sarcastic humor there... and I think we could actually interpret that as: "Common sense aint common"
Here are some more images taken from Apollo EVA 3 station 9a. I have rotated the photos 25 degrees ccw (to the left) as per your instructions - and this is the result: My "common sense" once again tells me something is wrong here...
Yes. You clearly have no sense whatsoever, common or otherwise. Common sense dictates that in every direction one or more surfaces will be horizontal. The fact that this very simple and obvious fact escapes you is evidence that you have none of the above. As for your pathetic attempt at avoiding Descartes' totally obvious conclusion, he clearly laughs at people who claim their "common sense" is good enough, when it so obviously isn't. Where are your screen grabs from? Explain how you have assessed the direction and camera orientation - actually, don't bother. We both know you haven't and why. Sheesh, it went quiet, I thought trolls were otherwise engaged!
Beta? Is that really you? Thank goodness!!! I was going to report you missing but I didn't know NASA's phone number! You are the one who brought this up. Why don't you share your secret NASA information with us regarding direction and camera orientation and how you came up with your "20-30 degrees to the left" nonsense?
Don't flatter yourself. NASA couldn't give a crap about ignorant internet gossip. Explain in detail how you decided this was nonsense. It is so typical of the kind of useless research capabilities from hb types. I tend to peruse maps, google moon, the alsj, pictures taken at the time and visual evidence from the video. Your method is closer to butt ejecta.
It is "". Now explain in detail the method you have used to determine that 20-30 degrees is nonsense. Or shall we just assume that as with all things you don't understand(and there appear to be quite a considerable number), you simply refuse to see any sort of reason or logic and take the hoax path! As usual, you haven't got a clue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELorPwr6E68 Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance. Nonsense? Meh!
I thought your position was that the LRV rover is not level, so the video camera is not level, and as a result we have the astronauts tilted to the right (clockwise) in the images. To compensate for this you stated that we need to rotate the images to the left (counter clockwise) 20-30 degrees: This is your position now isn't it? This is exactly what you have stated and demonstrated in the discussion. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice...
I really appreciate you, Beta, I really do. You have made me think about things that I would not have done without your arguments. You are very observant, but your observations lack rigor. Most of your arguments do have some truth to them even if it is a truth twisted to fit your view of things. And your view is that we went to the moon and any evidence to the contrary must be wrong. I find it somewhat humorous that you are unable to admit to statements that you have made throughout this discussion even thought they are right there in print! I will ask you again: You have stated your postion that the LRV rover is not level, so the video camera is not level, and as a result we have the astronauts tilted to the right (clockwise) in the images. To compensate for this you stated that we need to rotate the images to the left (counter clockwise) 20-30 degrees. Do you agree with this? You can give me a "yes" or "no" and you can elaborate if you like.
I actually hold the opposite opinion of you. Your hypocrisy, evasiveness and double standards are noted. The arguments put forth to claim a hoax are blatantly dishonest, useless, inept and a whole host of equally derogatory descriptions. The thread about "Apollo photography" contains some of the most unscientific crap observations you could get, yet you make no such comment on this. Equally, the thread about corrupt film makers also shows appalling dishonesty. You avoid agreeing with this indisputable fact. Rigor? You don't even know what it means! I find it mildly irritating that something so obvious confuses you. Numerous times this happens, so I can only surmise that you're not that bright. Answer my post and I'll answer yours. You said it was nonsense, which must have a basis on more than your biased inept opinion. Just say "it was only an opinion" and we can move on.
All we need is some empirical observations. In post #104 I asked you to explain this photo: View attachment 41567 I rotated the photo 25 degrees left (ccw) as per your instructions - and this is the result: View attachment 41568 And you said: So you don't see anything wrong with this rotation? Here is another photo from the same location: And here it is rotated 25 degrees left (ccw) as per your instructions: I suppose you don't see anything wrong with this one either? You are absolutely wrong about this and that is why you don't want to admit to another error in reasoning even though it is right here in this thread in print!
I think your ability to understand this is laughable. Your idiotic altering of that picture makes me wonder whether you are doing it deliberately to be contrary. Nobody can be dumb enough to think a slope in one direction means you apply the same correction in every direction! Quite clearly he is coming from a reasonably level direction as per his stance. Your continual avoidance is noted yet again, you irritating person.
As you have stated: The video camera is mounted on the LRV and the LRV is on a slope, therefore the resultant video is tilted to the right. Your fix for this was to rotate the photo to the left (ccw) 20-30 degrees. You said that right here: We have another video image from the same location and this image would also be affected by the tilted video camera on the slope just as the one that you "fixed" by rotating to the left. When I apply your "fix" by rotating the image to the left 25 degrees NOW you claim that this is idiotic. I think you understand quite well that you have made a mistake in reasoning and now you are trying to wiggle out of it... Also notice that in this image from the same location there are two astronauts. And when we try to straighten out the one using your "fix" the other goes catawampus! View attachment 41580 Ever hear of "obfuscation by disorientation"? You are a master at it.
You annoying troll. A slope in one direction doesn't require a tilt when looking upslope or downslope. The terrain is extremely varied and undulating, as can be determined from the panoramas. If you are too low in IQ to not understand this, then tough. The adjustment applied to the cross slope view for that sequence is correct as stated. I don't need to "wiggle" out of any claim. So far in this thread, you have failed to identify correctly any view that compromises the astronauts' balance, you have assumed a cog/log which was hopelessly wrong you have made repeated side issue claims that show your complete ignorance and understanding of basic stuff and now you resort to yet another side issue about a view from a slope. If you turned the camera around 180 degrees from the slope, there is no guarantee that there would be the same angled slope on the opposite side. Quite how anyone cannot understand this painfully easy thing is beyond me. - - - Updated - - - Ever hear of hopeless? Useless? Unable to understand things that kindergarten kids can get?
Since you have studied the terrain, why don't you explain how you arrived at "20-30 degrees to the left" ? Maybe you don't want to explain too much or you might get stuck and have to do more "wiggling" to get out. How would we know? All we have to do is rotate the image any way we like and not have to explain why we do it! cog/log shmog! You can't even show a cog on your yoga photo! Look what you said about it: And now you want to want to start rotating the video camera around when it was stationary and aimed at one spot: What I cannot understand is how (according to your theory) the LRV parked in the same place taking two tilted video images of the same location, aimed at the same spot, can have one image tilted and the other not? This "side issue" that you speak of is largely your position for this entire thread! And why won't you tell us how you arrived at the "20-30 degrees left" baloney? Ever hear of "Obfuscation by Oscillation"? Here, this is what it looks like: Have you seen the wiggle worm?, smaller than a tiny germ, though he has a great big appetite. Though he isnt very big, he eats more than any pig, always looking for someone to bite!
Yep, right after you explain why it is nonsense"" How would we know! Precisely. You don't and you have taken no steps to find out. Quite useless in fact. You are a liar! I identified where the COG was. Yes, it must be so very confusing for you. Sorry you don't have the basic understanding of how slopes behave! Bullcrap. You didn't show an image at the same spot, you showed one downslope of the astronaut coming upslope. Are you stupid? It is a side issue since you haven't identified any problem that doesn't have simple explanations. Show why it's baloney. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty""), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance." I'll ignore the rest of your troll post.
Why don't you explain how you arrived at "20-30 degrees to the left" ? Look, I'll help you, it isn't too hard. All you have to do is show the position of the LRV and the angle the camera was pointed at to show the images in question. Now, this should not be too hard for someone who has studied "maps, google moon, the alsj" etc. You must have already done just that in order to come up with the correct answer. You must have already done the research - why not show us and prove your point?
I said:- "Where are your screen grabs from? Explain how you have assessed the direction and camera orientation - actually, don't bother. We both know you haven't and why." "I tend to peruse maps, google moon, the alsj, pictures taken at the time and visual evidence from the video. Your method is closer to butt ejecta. " I recommended studying maps/google moon/alsj and pictures to determine the orientation of the camera in the numerous rubbish screenshots you have posted - obviously the flow of debate is something that also eludes your IQ level. Now:- Show why it's baloney/nonsense. Ignoring the backpack(assuming it is empty""), what angle makes the astronaut stable. It's a very simple question and one you cannot answer because it shows you are full of crap. "Just for curiosity, at 56:34 assume his backpack is empty. Now tilt your screen and tell me what angle it makes to stop him falling over period! Then at 56:56 watch the astronaut exit right and tell me what angle you think the terrain is based on his forward stance." I think we can both work out why you won't answer this. If you assume that the backpack is empty, you still have to tilt the screen around 20 degrees.
I already told you how I did it: I did that - like I previously stated in post #123 I interpret your responses here to mean that you assume that visually you can just adjust the angle to get what you want. Not a very scientific way of doing it. For one thing, you are forgetting the strong possibility that the astronauts were hooked to cables and this would allow them to get in gravity defying positions. You actually brought up a good point about the rover - but you have not followed through - probably because you know that you are wrong...
