Apollo XIII-inconsistences

[Abaddon]

3D spatial reasoning. How does that work?

tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated.  You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer.  In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson:  you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

It's very simple, tarkus. You have been provided with photographic evidence, geometric evidence, logical evidence and photogrammetric evidence.

You ignore all of them. Why? Why is that? Why do you ignore the actual evidence placed right in front of you? Is it that you simply have a pseudo-religious thing going on? Is it that you don't read responses? Is it that you are experiencing some type of 3D spatial reasoning failure?

You tell me, because even only one of those reasons alone is sufficient to demonstrate that you are flat out wrong on this.

[Allan F]

This "tarkus" - is it one of the usual suspects?

[Abaddon]

This "tarkus" - is it one of the usual suspects?

I would be willing to bet so. There are tells in the style. I have seen all of these tactics before.

Nevertheless, this is LO's house. The determination is therefore his to perform.

[BazBear]

tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated.  You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer.  In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson:  you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

It's not a case of "appeal to authority" when you are provided evidence to back up the "authority's" findings and informed opinions.

[Echnaton]

Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.  As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

In many cases here, the above referenced authorities are really authorities on the maters in which they speak.  Many of the others in this forum are well versed and can make arguments with reference to real authorities.  That is suitable in matters in which judgement is an issue. 

Unlike your issue of the "missing" CM, which could be determined geometrically by referencing existing documents.  Are you up to doing what it takes to geometrically demonstrate your point?  If you can, it would present quite a problem to those that accept the Apollo record.  Just be aware that there are people in this forum that are quite competent in many aspect of math.  So be prepared to defend your analysis. 

[JayUtah]

Agreed.  It is not a fallacious appeal to authority to consider the expertise of demonstrated experts on a specialized topic, when that expertise provides knowledge and understanding that answer the question.  The "authorities" in this case are doing what experts do -- providing the relevant knowledge and judgment.

[Echnaton]

So far, tarkus has merely presented himself as an "expert" issuing a decree.  That is the classic meaning of the fallacious appeal to authority his source brings up because tarkus is "not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument."

[JayUtah]

That is true; he cannot demonstrate any competence.  But as with many conspiracy theorists, I doubt tarkus is able to see that or would agree with that characterization.  Many conspiracy theorists understandably believe that the people they encounter on the Internet will most likely be layman such as himself, and that he can bluff and bluster accordingly.  A few insinuate that there really is no such thing as expertise and that what little knowledge they may have is really no different than what others have.

The question regarding his training or experience in photographic interpretation is acute.  It is not a diversion.  Photographic analysis and interpretation is a formally defined field in which one can earn competence through training in the proven techniques and experience applying them.  Simply looking at the photograph and saying what one thinks it depicts is not photographic interpretation as is defined by its practitioners.  In short, one can certainly be incompetent at it.  And since few if any conspiracy theorists can describe any of the elements in its formal body of knowledge, it's safe to say that one should be assumed to have only layman's knowledge until they substantiate or demonstrate differently.

Fallacious appeals to authority can occur in several flavors.  There is the obvious one, where the actor in the appeal is not a legitimate authority.  But also there is one in which the question is not actually a matter that requires expertise.  On the one hand, an expert in photogrammetry can describe in those terms why the photographs in question are examples of natural perspective, and may go on to supply rigorous proof in the form of projective geometry equations showing quantitatively the answer.  But on the other hand, the counter examples here in this thread are given solely in the form of photographic and practical demonstrations that are within the ken of any participant.  While expertise helps us understand why a phenomenon occurs, a simple demonstration proves (without needing any expertise) that the phenomenon does occur.

[ChrLz]

Well, at least tarkus has 'specialised', in that most of his 'claim' is based on a total (and, frankly, embarrassing) lack of understanding of basic perspective.  And I mean BASIC.

May deity help him if he ever sees the Moon Terminator 'Illusion'...

[gwiz]

Haise making a selfie?  cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.

According to the Apollo 13 Press Kit, the mission carried two 16 mm movie cameras with a selection of lens, the two widest being 5 and 10 mm.  No problem at all taking a selfie with such wide-angle lens available.  In addition, these cameras could be switched to run automatically, no need to keep a finger on the button, so arm length is irrelevant.

[ineluki]

The third post and you're already complaining, trying to moderate the thread and just repeating yourself? 

I'm really torn on the issue, should we lament the fact that the lying Hoaxers can't even hide their true (disgustingly dishonest) intentions for 10 posts, or be happy that they show themselves to be dishonest so quickly?

[ineluki]

lack of understanding of basic perspective. 

Given his use of "Astro-Nots" I think the problem is basic honesty.

[Echnaton]

The third post and you're already complaining, trying to moderate the thread and just repeating yourself? 

I'm really torn on the issue, should we lament the fact that the lying Hoaxers can't even hide their true (disgustingly dishonest) intentions for 10 posts, or be happy that they show themselves to be dishonest so quickly?

The honest but misguided belief HBs are getting pretty thin these days but I try to take new members as they come.  The colors of the serial HBs show up pretty quickly.  It only took tarkus three posts to get diverted from his discussion start complaining.  Still there is some, albeit slim, hope he will return to the point.  And if he does, we can further address the misunderstandings. 

[smartcooky]

Haise making a selfie?  cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.

According to the Apollo 13 Press Kit, the mission carried two 16 mm movie cameras with a selection of lens, the two widest being 5 and 10 mm.  No problem at all taking a selfie with such wide-angle lens available. In addition, these cameras could be switched to run automatically, no need to keep a finger on the button, so arm length is irrelevant.

And in the zero G environment of space, a camera could be carefulyl positioned by a skilled operator so that it would stay where it was put, pointing in the same direction with very little drift.

[Allan F]

If it's a video camera, yes, but if it was a 16mm film camera, wouldn't the motor drive impart a twisting force on the camera, making it spin?