[SI] Happy Anniversary Shoot-In

"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........

"William Graham" wrote:

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........


I think you need to have seen the program ...

;-)

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...
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.


Sorry. Working in retail, I only get every second weekend off. And
it works out that it's the weekend that the shootin deadline falls on.
Worse, the place that I use for developing isn't open as much as my
work is, so I only have limited opportunities to get film to them on
time...[sigh].

I had such great plans, too - there's an art festival on in Melbourne
at the moment, which should probably yield some great photos, if I can
just get to one of the events...

Cheers,
Steve
(Great photos, guys)

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...
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.


Sorry. Working in retail, I only get every second weekend off. And
it works out that it's the weekend that the shootin deadline falls on.
Worse, the place that I use for developing isn't open as much as my
work is, so I only have limited opportunities to get film to them on
time...[sigh].

I had such great plans, too - there's an art festival on in Melbourne
at the moment, which should probably yield some great photos, if I can
just get to one of the events...

Cheers,
Steve
(Great photos, guys)

Al Denelsbeck wrote in message .3.44...
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.


Sorry. Working in retail, I only get every second weekend off. And
it works out that it's the weekend that the shootin deadline falls on.
Worse, the place that I use for developing isn't open as much as my
work is, so I only have limited opportunities to get film to them on
time...[sigh].

I had such great plans, too - there's an art festival on in Melbourne
at the moment, which should probably yield some great photos, if I can
just get to one of the events...

Cheers,
Steve
(Great photos, guys)

TP wrote in
:

Al Denelsbeck wrote:

The evidence might seem convincing, stacked up against nothing else,
which was the purpose of the show. Had they actually had a
professional photographer (or even one of the video editors who helped
produce the show), as well as a high-school physics teacher throw in
their commentary, the "evidence" would have collapsed rather readily.

Trust me, this has been beaten to death on other newsgroups,
and I'm
being exceptionally polite right now in my manner of addressing it
;-).


We've obviously watched different shows. In the one I watched, much
doubt was cast on the authenticity of the photos by a past President
of the Royal Photographic Society, a very highly respected
professional body. The other analysts were also professionals, all
experts in their field.

The reasoning given was in each case cautious, analytical and precise.

Otherwise, I would not have taken note.

As for trusting you, Al, well ...

;-)


No problem by me. If you'd rather I *prove* to you how much nonsense
is bouncing around, I'll be more than happy to. That's why I invited you to
say the word.

But as I've indicated in the past, I don't put any faith whatsoever
in "highly respected" and all that rot. Just because Dr. Respectable tells
me the sky is green doesn't make it true. If you need me to show you the
flaws, fire away.

I'm willing to bet you could do a websearch on the name of the
program and have your "highly respectable" evidence handed to you neatly
shredded on a platter, too ;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Dallas wrote in
newsan.2004.10.12.16.52.31.304000@realphoto:

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.


Mmmmm, yep. Heard that one before. Always by the crackpots, too.
Shame you didn't read the part leading up to it.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

i downloaded a physics experiment. It was a heavy ladle and a feather.
Both dropped to the ground at the same speed. i.e rapidly. This proved a
theory made by galileo i believe.


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 3.44...
TP wrote in
:

Colin D wrote:

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.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The evidence might seem convincing, stacked up against nothing else,
which was the purpose of the show. Had they actually had a professional
photographer (or even one of the video editors who helped produce the
show), as well as a high-school physics teacher throw in their commentary,
the "evidence" would have collapsed rather readily.

Trust me, this has been beaten to death on other newsgroups, and I'm
being exceptionally polite right now in my manner of addressing it ;-).

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.

If you want me to start poking holes in the moon hoax theory, say the
word. You might have thought my SI commentaries are long, but I'll be
taking *days* destroying all the horse**** about the hoax ideas ;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

i downloaded a physics experiment. It was a heavy ladle and a feather.
Both dropped to the ground at the same speed. i.e rapidly. This proved a
theory made by galileo i believe.


"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
. 3.44...
TP wrote in
:

Colin D wrote:

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.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The evidence might seem convincing, stacked up against nothing else,
which was the purpose of the show. Had they actually had a professional
photographer (or even one of the video editors who helped produce the
show), as well as a high-school physics teacher throw in their commentary,
the "evidence" would have collapsed rather readily.

Trust me, this has been beaten to death on other newsgroups, and I'm
being exceptionally polite right now in my manner of addressing it ;-).

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.

If you want me to start poking holes in the moon hoax theory, say the
word. You might have thought my SI commentaries are long, but I'll be
taking *days* destroying all the horse**** about the hoax ideas ;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"TP" wrote in message

Tony Polson i presume.