[SI] Happy Anniversary Shoot-In

Al Denelsbeck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pc

Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I do the long
commentary on the *last* gallery...
I hate you all.
Alright, I'm only kidding. Annika's pretty funny sometimes.

Two shots of frogs? There's luck.
I didn't figure that I'd done enough good shooting this week (though
I did pop a couple of things up on my PBase Photo-A-Day gallery). Then I
was at a wedding yesterday, which produced some decent shots but that's not
what I really like to do...

Al Denelsbeck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pc

Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I do the long
commentary on the *last* gallery...
I hate you all.
Alright, I'm only kidding. Annika's pretty funny sometimes.

Two shots of frogs? There's luck.
I didn't figure that I'd done enough good shooting this week (though
I did pop a couple of things up on my PBase Photo-A-Day gallery). Then I
was at a wedding yesterday, which produced some decent shots but that's not
what I really like to do...

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote:

Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I
do the long commentary on the *last* gallery...

I hate you all.

Hi Al,

Got as far as the pilot print in the darkroom. Turned on the lights.
Looked in the tray. Decided I didn't like what I saw. Technically fine.
Properly exposed, very nice tonality. Even looked good on the proof sheet.
But the selected composition didn't feel quite right to me after
enlargement. Had no life to it. So I stopped. Sorry.

Ken

S Lee wrote:
Al Denelsbeck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pc


Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I do the long
commentary on the *last* gallery...
I hate you all.
Alright, I'm only kidding. Annika's pretty funny sometimes.


Two shots of frogs? There's luck.

I was trying to work out if they were in fact the same frog on the same
rock. Still not sure they aren't, though I'm going to assume the chances
are slim...

S Lee wrote:
Al Denelsbeck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pc


Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I do the long
commentary on the *last* gallery...
I hate you all.
Alright, I'm only kidding. Annika's pretty funny sometimes.


Two shots of frogs? There's luck.

I was trying to work out if they were in fact the same frog on the same
rock. Still not sure they aren't, though I'm going to assume the chances
are slim...

Tom Hudson wrote:

S Lee wrote:
Al Denelsbeck choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:


http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pc


Oh, sure! *Now* you guys only send in 12 entries, after I do the long
commentary on the *last* gallery...
I hate you all.
Alright, I'm only kidding. Annika's pretty funny sometimes.


Two shots of frogs? There's luck.

I was trying to work out if they were in fact the same frog on the same
rock. Still not sure they aren't, though I'm going to assume the chances
are slim...

I'm with you, Tom, they are (it is?) the same little froggy. Take a
peek at the large photos, there is a bent twig lying on the rock face
left and below the frog's left hind leg, and it's in both shots. Well
spotted! {:-))

Colin.

TP wrote:

Colin D wrote:

I'm with you, Tom, they are (it is?) the same little froggy. Take a
peek at the large photos, there is a bent twig lying on the rock face
left and below the frog's left hind leg, and it's in both shots. Well
spotted! {:-))

So what is your conclusion after looking at NASA's shots from the
Apollo program?

Were they shot on the moon or in the Nevada desert?

;-)

I *believe* they were shot on the moon. That's the best one can do,
since those who do know aren't admitting anything contrary. I/ve
studied a few of the conspiracy claims, and to me they don't stack up
enough to discredit NASA.

YMMV

Colin

PS: What's it got to do with frogs, anyway?

TP wrote:

Colin D wrote:

I'm with you, Tom, they are (it is?) the same little froggy. Take a
peek at the large photos, there is a bent twig lying on the rock face
left and below the frog's left hind leg, and it's in both shots. Well
spotted! {:-))

So what is your conclusion after looking at NASA's shots from the
Apollo program?

Were they shot on the moon or in the Nevada desert?

;-)

I *believe* they were shot on the moon. That's the best one can do,
since those who do know aren't admitting anything contrary. I/ve
studied a few of the conspiracy claims, and to me they don't stack up
enough to discredit NASA.

YMMV

Colin

PS: What's it got to do with frogs, anyway?

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:58:42 +0000, Al Denelsbeck had this to say:

There is a conception within the woo-woo cultures that is used quite
often, as if it has some kind of validity, which simply stated means that
if any question whatsoever can be raised about a scientific process or
explanation, then any outlandish claim that someone wants to make up out
of the nullspace between their ears automatically has some kind of merit
to put in the place of the scientific explanation. The real world doesn't
work that way. No one has made any attempt whatsoever to explain how the
images could have been faked, which is a vital and necessary part of
offering an alternate explanation. Without it, what you have is crackpot
theory.

"Crackpot" is a term created by persons who wish to cast aspersions on the
ideas of others, based on their own ideas.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

"TP" wrote in message
...
Colin D wrote:

TP wrote:

Colin D wrote:

I'm with you, Tom, they are (it is?) the same little froggy. Take a
peek at the large photos, there is a bent twig lying on the rock face
left and below the frog's left hind leg, and it's in both shots. Well
spotted! {:-))

So what is your conclusion after looking at NASA's shots from the
Apollo program?

Were they shot on the moon or in the Nevada desert?

;-)

I *believe* they were shot on the moon. That's the best one can do,
since those who do know aren't admitting anything contrary. I/ve
studied a few of the conspiracy claims, and to me they don't stack up
enough to discredit NASA.

YMMV

Colin

PS: What's it got to do with frogs, anyway?


It involves making similar judgements about more than one photograph.

Recently, I saw a TV program (Discovery Channel?) about the Apollo
"landings" which made a very convincing case for them having been
faked.

I have always believed they happened, having watched them live on TV
as a teenager and really *want* to believe that the piece of "moon
rock" I handled at University was genuine. However, some of the
inconsistencies (and unexpected consistencies) in the NASA TV coverage
and still photos raised substantial doubts, and some highly credible
individuals firmly believe them to have been faked.


Well, one of the things that the "fakers" have trouble explaining, are the
thousands of ham radio operators that listened in to the conversations live
from the apollo astranaughts while they were enroute. Some of these hams had
radio direction finders, and they were able to track the spacecraft as it
made its way to and from the moon. It would have been very difficult for
NASA to have faked that. - Not entirely impossible, but very
difficult........