Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[JayUtah]

You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

I'm drawing your attention to posts where you argued and disagreed with the answers you were given about the Apollo photos.  You tried to tell us you never did that.  You are once again trying to rewrite the thread to make it look better for you.  You are once again trying to save face instead of being honest.  You insisted that if someone were to read this thread, they would conclude you had been grossly mistreated.  Someone read the thread, failed to draw the conclusion you desired, and this set you off on another spell of revisionism and recrimination.

Just knock it off.  You're not fooling anyone.

You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?

Yes, I do, and so does everyone else.  They're watching you play your little puerile victimization game and probably laughing to themselves over it.  By all means keep playing it if that's how you prefer to participate.  But don't pretend it's everyone's fault but yours.

[Icarus1]

I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

But you have still not answered my question. You accept the statement about how easy it is to move around in a cruising plane, and that a bath will drain in the same way there as on the ground?

My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.

You said to know something is to understand it in an earlier thread, but this is demonstrating that knowing and understanding are two different things. There is a difference between knowing what the motion is and understanding it, and the lack of understanding is presuambly what is motivating you to ask questions and suggest possible analogies such as ball on elastic or travel in a bus.

Sorry, I'm dealing with every post as it comes in and as a left handed creative thinker all of my balls are in the air at once.  I can't get to each person quick enough.

It'll be easier for me to re-package the question here than to try and re-read every post since.  This has already been regarded as suspect as it's a sign of side stepping to save face!  FFS I'm a grown man with my own business.  If only you knew me in person this would be different.

However, Yes i agree either on a plane, or on the ground.  This is knowledge I already KNOW as i observe it.  My questions are to understand WHY!

So, with this, Yes knowing and understanding are 2 different things.  Hence I know the planets are in orbit, but the WHY is the question; I'm not asking this anymore as I already had this knowledge.

My reason for asking questions about orbit gravity and elastic bands was to understand IN MY OWN MIND how the Vortex is wrong.

The answer is as I already thought;  Our SS is within it's own Space time and planets are not individually affectd the gravity of the galaxy.  Hence, the mass of our Sun does NOT lead the planets, but the SS moves as a whole!

[Icarus1]

You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

I'm drawing your attention to posts where you argued and disagreed with the answers you were given about the Apollo photos.  You tried to tell us you never did that.  You are once again trying to rewrite the thread to make it look better for you.  You are once again trying to save face instead of being honest.  You insisted that if someone were to read this thread, they would conclude you had been grossly mistreated.  Someone read the thread, failed to draw the conclusion you desired, and this set you off on another spell of revisionism and recrimination.

Just knock it off.  You're not fooling anyone.

You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?

Yes, I do, and so does everyone else.  They're watching you play your little puerile victimization game and probably laughing to themselves over it.  By all means keep playing it if that's how you prefer to participate.  But don't pretend it's everyone's fault but yours.

I suppose the majority has it then?

Thanks

[AtomicDog]

Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?

I'm a Trekkie. That's why I know a Tellarite when I see one.

[Northern Lurker]

There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

I disagree.

This is my thread.

I suggest YOU Move on!

You have been told before that this is an open forum where anyone can participate. You have also been told before that only the owner, Lunar Orbit can decide whether someone participates or not.

Lurky

[Icarus1]

Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?

I'm a Trekkie. That's why I know a Tellarite when I see one.

hahha, that was actually funny.

No hard feelings to anyone.

[Jason Thompson]

I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.

Sorry, but scientist or not, you certainly do rely on facts and 'fixed knowledge'. It was these things that resulted, among other things, in the creation of computers and the worldwide web that is allowing you to tell people all over the world that you don't rely on them! Now you haven't gone so far as to say that quantum physics is pure bunk while using a bunch of semiconductors (the function of which was eludicated through quantum physics), which I have heard, but honestly, I'd suggest you re-evaluate what you do and don't rely on before making proclamations about facts and knowledge.

It would take a very keen and observant mind to read this entire post and WANT to UNDERSTAND where I am coming from.

Really? That really sounds patronising.

It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

Icarus, it has not been suggested, it has been stated plainly along with explanations of what you have done to present that impression, and advice on how to avoid it and move on. Yet you continue. You can pick and choose what to respond to here, so if you are only interested in the substatial responses to your scientific queries, as you profess to be, then simply ignore the rest and the conversation will soon fall to where you want it to be.

[JayUtah]

I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.

Well, yes, it's appropriately frustrating when people make allegations that aren't based on fact, and dispute or deny contrary fact when it's presented to them.  The reason we have science is in order to make a systematic, repeatable examination of the physical world.  That's in order to obtain as much of fact as we are capable of discovering.  You're asking questions that appeal to that systematic method.  But you don't seem to appreciate the workings of that method.

I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.

You're behaving increasingly like you've come here to bait a debate between science and what we might term new-age mysticism.  That's not an inappropriate topic or debate, but if that's why you're here then just flat-out say so.  You'll get your debate, and with a whole lot less side-debate over whether you're concealing a hidden motive.

Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.

And instead of ignoring those and focusing on your stated purpose, you vigorously encourage them.  That, combined with your revisionism and your ham-fisted attempts at casting yourself as a victim raise considerable skepticism that you are being honest with your motives.

It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

You behave more and more like a run-of-the-mill -- let's say -- fringe theorist.  Why is it suddenly someone else's fault that you're being treated according to the way you present yourself?

[Icarus1]

There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.
[

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

I disagree.

This is my thread.

I suggest YOU Move on!

You have been told before that this is an open forum where anyone can participate. You have also been told before that only the owner, Lunar Orbit can decide whether someone participates or not.

Lurky

Sorry I don't know how to use Quotes.

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.
Couldn't agree more.  Please re-read this entire thread where I've been called Liar.

You Disagree?

OK!  You'll hear nothing in remark from me for you disagreeing.

Your previous post you told ME 'MOVE ON!'  I used it back at you and your retort is about free speech!   Practice what you preach!

[JayUtah]

No hard feelings to anyone.

Calling me a Trekkie is a high honor.  I've been on the sets of Voyager, and I've had a hand in the designs for the upcoming (but long delayed) new television series.  I'm not only a fan of Star Trek, I've contributed to making it.

[JayUtah]

I suppose the majority has it then?

Yes.  If you ask people to render their judgment on something and they all disagree with you, that should tell you something.  You're not a victim, so stop acting like one.

And yes, we still need to clear up your latest revisionism because it speaks to the honesty with which you are approaching this thread.  That in turn informs people's decisions about what footing to engage you on.  In the heat of dealing with an opinion that differed, you claimed you never disputed the answers you were given regarding the Apollo photos.  Within seconds I found two posts from you that clearly disputed them.  Can you explain those two posts in light of your statement today?

[Icarus1]

I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.

Well, yes, it's appropriately frustrating when people make allegations that aren't based on fact, and dispute or deny contrary fact when it's presented to them.  The reason we have science is in order to make a systematic, repeatable examination of the physical world.  That's in order to obtain as much of fact as we are capable of discovering.  You're asking questions that appeal to that systematic method.  But you don't seem to appreciate the workings of that method.

I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.

You're behaving increasingly like you've come here to bait a debate between science and what we might term new-age mysticism.  That's not an inappropriate topic or debate, but if that's why you're here then just flat-out say so.  You'll get your debate, and with a whole lot less side-debate over whether you're concealing a hidden motive.

Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.

And instead of ignoring those and focusing on your stated purpose, you vigorously encourage them.  That, combined with your revisionism and your ham-fisted attempts at casting yourself as a victim raise considerable skepticism that you are being honest with your motives.

It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

You behave more and more like a run-of-the-mill -- let's say -- fringe theorist.  Why is it suddenly someone else's fault that you're being treated according to the way you present yourself?

I can't keep doing this; i'll have a Breakdown!!!


I'm not shouting.  i want to be clear!

I HAVE ALREADY SAID VERY VERY EARLY ON THAT I HAVE DIFFICULTIES MAKING MYSELF CLEAR, OR ASKING QUESTIONS.  I SAID THAT I HAD WORDED MY QUESTION OR UTTERANCE AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED 'IF' THESE 'COULD' BE 'STARS' AND 'NOT' 'THESE ARE STARS'. 

I appreciate your assumption that because I claimed I was a Professional Photographer which I am! that you all 'assumed' 'WRONGLY' that this meant I knew ALL  about the Apollo missions and photo's the use of the Blad and the settings and film used.


THE ONLY THING THAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IS I ASSUMED THE 'POSSIBILTY' OF STARS' AND YOU ALL ASSUMED MY IGNORACE;CORRECTLY.

The rest belongs in a Psychology Study!

There is NO way you have all read this entirely with this Understood!

[Icarus1]

I suppose the majority has it then?

Yes.  If you ask people to render their judgment on something and they all disagree with you, that should tell you something.  You're not a victim, so stop acting like one.

And yes, we still need to clear up your latest revisionism because it speaks to the honesty with which you are approaching this thread.  That in turn informs people's decisions about what footing to engage you on.  In the heat of dealing with an opinion that differed, you claimed you never disputed the answers you were given regarding the Apollo photos.  Within seconds I found two posts from you that clearly disputed them.  Can you explain those two posts in light of your statement today?

Please point out to me these points and I will answer sincerely.

[JayUtah]

I can't keep doing this; i'll have a Breakdown!!!

Then stop repeating the behavior that results in these sorts of exchanges.  I warned you before that this would happen if you continued to behave in a questionable manner.

I appreciate your assumption that because I claimed I was a Professional Photographer which I am! that you all 'assumed' 'WRONGLY' that this meant I knew ALL  about the Apollo missions and photo's the use of the Blad and the settings and film used.

That's not what I claimed you should know as a "professional photographer."  You specifically told us that you identified yourself as a professional photographer to assure us you had ruled out prosaic causes for the marks on the film.  In fact you had not, and I cited knowing about potential sources of artifacts in photography as something that a professional photographer should know.  I stand by that assessment.  It had nothing to do with specialized knowledge of Apollo photography or the idiosyncrasies of some particular camera system.  It had to do with basic knowledge such as exposure and best practices in film handling.

There is NO way you have all read this entirely with this Understood!

And once again you keep trying to gaslight your critics.  Until you knock off this childish behavior, you will continue to be treated like a child.

[Icarus1]

Re Read the entire thread Twik.  Pick out the many times I've argued with anyone about anything.

Do some Math against the  amount of posts in here, and the amount of accusations, assumptions and attack on my general character.

Then question me on my use of language and exclamation marks uses, more in my last posts (25 pages on here!!!)

Sorry, I don't see many "accusations" or "attacks on your general character".

I do see a lot of people telling you that you are incorrect in your conclusions. Telling you that you are wrong about science isn't an attack on you. Suggesting that your logic is faulty isn't assassinating your character. It's just saying you that you are wrong. Facts don't care if you're a beginner, or if you have low self-esteem. They simply exist. If you can't handle them, that's your problem.

You don't see 'Many' meaning you do see them?

Out of over 1000 posts how many do you think there are?