So what if my thought process of discovery, examination and then decision is documented as i go along?.. isnt that actually what science and research is all about?.. I see something, I consider all possibilities ie equipment, sneaker, work boot.. i deliberate, i examine real time examples like my husbands sneakers and work boots, then i come to the final conclusion that it is a work boot and not a sneaker.. this is what research is about.. and the fact that you make fun of it, shows you are not interested in the actual discovery of any kind of information or truth..
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 Why is "EVA boot" not in that list?
You have just been shown a boot print that is not a moon boot,
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 Why does it have the same tread width and spacing of an EVA boot? Why does it have the same depth as an EVA boot print? What effort have you made to find any boots from the period that have a similar tread pattern?
yet now you want a mic boom, so if i get you a mic boom will you then ask for a camera... and if i show that will you then ask for the studio truck to be shown?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 I knew this was too subtle for the denialists. I am not asking for an expanding list. Nor am I asking for something "better" or "bigger" than a boot print.
I am asking for
typical gaffs observed in all films.There are gaffs, such as reflection of crew and equipment, that occur commonly. The kind of gaffs the denialists claim to have found do not typically occur in films.
This is the problem of the positive alternative again. You are not showing evidence FOR a movie set. You are only showing evidence AGAINST it being on the Moon. You haven't made any progress towards a reasonable alternative.
Its never ending... you joke about a one legged employee.. really? that was your investigative conclusion?.. there are many possible explanations for why only one print is visible..
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 I've got a GREAT one; dust was kicked over some of the prints during the coming and going, and some were partially obscured by someone stepping on them.
now while I admit that yes, there have been things that are brought up and then made clear and do have rational explanations for, and that is good, that is part of the discovery, part of learning.. so why dont you come up with something to explain this..
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 Substitute, "Almost all." And could the reason why not every single iota of every single claim have been addressed is that the deniers keep coming up with new ones? It takes only a minute to type out "Where were the stars?" It takes a lot longer than that to explain Dynamic Range 101.
btw nomuse, i asked you a question about the van allen belts a page or two back.. would appreciate your thoughts on it in case you missed it..
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11980848 Case in point!
Actually, I have a really good question about the VARB.
NASA: "There are these invisible belts of deadly radiation around the Earth."
Denier: "Cool!"
NASA: "Here is a table of the energies and fluxes of same."
Denier: "Lying scum! They aren't anything like that!"
Do you see the problem?
