What do sceners think about scientific consensus?
category: offtopic [glöplog]
Scientific consensus is that Atari ST is ~10% faster than Amiga 500
Quote:
And if it is all fake, what does that change for you and what are you gonna do about it?
For one it proofs that you can't believe a word coming from NASA, which in and of itself is very useful. NASA is nothing but a front for the military industrial complex. It has great marketing and sells a whole bunch of lies. Just like Elon Musk and SpaceX, by the way.
That is kind of not an answer to the question.
Quote:
That is kind of not an answer to the question.
Knowledge is useful to understand the world around you, does that answer your question?
Not to question is an answer of this kind.
Clearly the demoscene is just a front for the military-industrial complex as well! (and Amiga and Atari aren't free of sin either! [NXP is the company that now owns all the Motorola CPU IP])
(also, something something finnish military having a booth at Assembly once)
What were the results of the vacuum test exactly? It just looks like the developed photos are discoloured. Also, I can see in that "visual evidence" comparison that the mountains at the far back are moving left slightly while the rover etc. are moving right. This means the camera turned between the photos in addition to being moved (and here I am ignoring the possibility that said vaccum damage caused warping of the film that might also explain differences in perspective).
@fizzer
The conclusion of the vacuum test is at the bottom of the page.
Also I suggest you read the article about the visual evidence, it’s all explained in detail.
The conclusion of the vacuum test is at the bottom of the page.
Also I suggest you read the article about the visual evidence, it’s all explained in detail.
The conclusion doesn't really state the findings as such. A difference image would have been useful, to show the changes in the developed photos due to (re-)pressurization.
I noticed something else about the photograph parallax comparison - there is a difference in tilt between them, so that the mountain is closer to the edge in one of the photographs and has a different projection as a result. I don't think the parallax test works for these photos, because the vanishing point is at a different location in each image, and I would guess the horizon is at a different orientation too.
I looked through the relevant part of the article and didn't see anything about camera orientation, only position ("several tens of centimetres").
I noticed something else about the photograph parallax comparison - there is a difference in tilt between them, so that the mountain is closer to the edge in one of the photographs and has a different projection as a result. I don't think the parallax test works for these photos, because the vanishing point is at a different location in each image, and I would guess the horizon is at a different orientation too.
I looked through the relevant part of the article and didn't see anything about camera orientation, only position ("several tens of centimetres").
Are you seriously falling for this?
Asking Gabbie to provide evidence for any of his statements is a cardinal mistake.
Again from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank:
But have fun debunking each one of the hundred of "evidence", I guess.
Asking Gabbie to provide evidence for any of his statements is a cardinal mistake.
Again from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank:
Quote:
Crank debaters tend to be much, much more motivated than you are. This enthusiasm is a big part of what makes them cranks. This means that the crank will have heard all of the common objections to their crankiness. The crank has memorized canned responses to each of them.
But have fun debunking each one of the hundred of "evidence", I guess.
Quote:
The conclusion doesn't really state the findings as such. A difference image would have been useful, to show the changes in the developed photos due to (re-)pressurization.
The comparison images are right there, on the left you have the control, on the right the vacuum treated film. Or do you mean something else?
Quote:
I looked through the relevant part of the article and didn't see anything about camera orientation, only position ("several tens of centimetres").
It's right above the pictures:
Quote:
Astronaut Dave takes a few panorama images in EVA-1 near the LM, AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.
By creating a stereoscopic image you can calculate the approximate distance of the objects in the background. That's how the author can conclude this:
Quote:
In addition, the Apollo 15 stereoscopic photos feature a clear separation line between the ‘mountains’ and the foreground. Based on the distance between the camera and rover, the distance to the panorama of the ‘lunar’ scape cannot be more than 150 metres.
You can test this quite easily yourself using a camera and photoshop.
Here is some more visual evidence:
Quote:
AS17-134-20437-20443 top composite & AS17-147-22494-22521 lower composite – (notice the US flag is missing)
Viewed on their own these shots are convincing, and do the trick. But tricks they are, because:
1) the LM cannot change position,
2) the LM cannot change size in relation to the mountain backdrops if the viewpoint is the same, and if the focal length of the lens (60mm Biogon) and the camera used (Hasselblad 500 Lunar Surface Camera) are the same in each case.
Wagging the Moondoggie
Indeed, what else is NASA lying about? Or the more interesting question, what are they not even talking about?
there is no moon?
Gabbie, are you making money from spreading those "facts" at least or you are just a pawn in a game, a conspiracy theorists sheeple wasting yours and other people time? Cause you know Fox TV was making some decent buck from their original series on fake moon landing. Not to mention books on the topic.
Tomkh, I don’t remember “personal attacks” being part of the scientific method, but than again, I never paid attention at school so maybe I missed it.
Also, where can I turn my Pouet comments into gold? That sounds great!
Also, where can I turn my Pouet comments into gold? That sounds great!
I just want to figure out where are you coming from with it. Many podcasters that didn't "discriminate" conspiracy theorists like fake moon landing believers, flat earthers and aliens, like Joe Rogan and such, are super rich now. So I'm just curious what's your interest in all of this. How is this a personal attack? It's just a question.
It's the dichotomy of the internet, you either keep the stage open so any idiot can chime in, or you're gatekeeping / tone-policing or being authoritarian by not allowing equal outlets for idiocy - and often that involves clutching meta-narrative strawmen, loaded questions and jumping to conclusions. All the nuanced good faith debate gets dissolved into shit flinging and whataboutism.
I think there was some good debate going on, but Gabbie, let it go - you might believe all of the things you speak about but you're overzealous and not reading the room. Gah, do I ever get annoyed with idealogues thinking they are doing me a favour prescribing their worldview to me. I'm not alone on that. (just an opinion of course, live your life bae).
Also, I don't have the answers. I just prefer a chat in real life where it's more than just text and "winning".
I think there was some good debate going on, but Gabbie, let it go - you might believe all of the things you speak about but you're overzealous and not reading the room. Gah, do I ever get annoyed with idealogues thinking they are doing me a favour prescribing their worldview to me. I'm not alone on that. (just an opinion of course, live your life bae).
Also, I don't have the answers. I just prefer a chat in real life where it's more than just text and "winning".
Quote:
Also, where can I turn my Pouet comments into gold? That sounds great!
The glöpcoin is apparently coming. I've seen some serious talks about it in the oneliner.
the moderator team sees no possible way that anything fruitful will come from continuing this debate. please respect our decision by not attempting to re-open the debate you were having elsewhere on this site. thank you.