Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[JayUtah]

Thank you for confirming the context re *near* eidetic was all about music and

It was not. You went on to say you never forgot a face. You're claiming visual near-eidetic memory, not aural.

 

[Vixen]

The context was a blanket "excellent memory, near eidetic," and then a bunch of examples ranging from faces to music to poems and every other rambling thing that sprung to mind. You did not restrict the claimed excellence to any psrticular context at all.

Erm, in a thread, there is context. The context there, was a Songs of Praise type production in a church setting. I pointed out such choirs and musicians usually had song sheets or sheet music. Another poster drawing on Steve's and Myriad's claims I was terminally ill remarked that someone with memory problems like myself might need them. As I do not have any terminal illness I pointed out that thanks for the snide comment but my memory (re music and poetry) was 'near eidetic'. This is true and factual. Now a couple of posters are claiming this is an outrageous brag, when in reality, I am entitled to set the record straight.

 

[Steve]

The context was a blanket "excellent memory, near eidetic," and then a bunch of examples ranging from faces to music to poems and every other rambling thing that sprung to mind. You did not restrict the claimed excellence to any particular context at all.

It certainly does not apply in the context of science.

 

[Vixen]

It was not. You went on to say you never forgot a face. You're claiming visual near-eidetic memory, not aural.

I am good at remembering faces and score well in super recognisers tests. The OBSERVER newspaper once held a readership challenge re eidetic ability and I scored well on that.

 

[JayUtah]

I am entitled to set the record straight.

You are not entitled to gaslight others and expect it to work.

Does your claim of "near-eidetic" memory apply to this thread or not?

 

[Thermal]

Erm, in a thread, there is context.

Yes there is, and blanket brags are often included in them. You made one. No one forgot. And you ain't misdirecting your way out of it, with the track record you've established of refusing to acknowledge a rather staggering amount of silliness.

 

[Vixen]

It certainly does not apply in the context of science.

You're the arbiter?

 

[LondonJohn]

I am good at remembering faces and score well in super recognisers tests. The OBSERVER newspaper once held a readership challenge re eidetic ability and I scored well on that.

*whole body cringes*

 

[Vixen]

You are not entitled to gaslight others and expect it to work.

Does your claim of "near-eidetic" memory apply to this thread or not?

Ask Reform Offlian as he is the one who keeps introducing it as some kind of personal dig.

 

[JayUtah]

I am good at remembering faces and score well in super recognisers tests.

Truly eidetic memory is contextual. You are claiming near-eidetic memory in the visual context. That would ordinarily mean that you can visually recall posts in this thread. Yet you cannot seem to demonstrate this ability.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're the arbiter?

I can second what Steve said. And I'm pretty confident that Jay can support it too.

 

[Vixen]

*whole body cringes*

I have no control over your emotions.

 

[JayUtah]

Ask Reform Offlian as he is the one who keeps introducing it as some kind of personal dig.

I also introduce it, not as a personal dig but as a reminder that if you set high standards for yourself you will be held to them by others. If you have a "near-eidetic" visual memory, yet you cannot seem to recall visually what was written in the thread (and thereby keep repeating claims that have been addressed) then there is either reason to doubt your claimed ability or reason to suspect some other cause.

 

[Vixen]

Truly eidetic memory is contextual. You are claiming near-eidetic memory in the visual context. That would ordinarily mean that you can visually recall posts in this thread. Yet you cannot seem to demonstrate this ability.

Er, one learns to separate the wheat from the chaff. I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread yet as I have been away, just what turned up as an 'alert'.

 

[JayUtah]

I can second what Steve said. And I'm pretty confident that Jay can support it too.

I am perfectly willing and able to discuss the choice of film stock for the Apollo mission. And @Vixen has suggested that she might be willing to discuss the pros and cons. But of course that discussion must take second position to her latest childish tantrum about how badly she's being treated.

 

[Steve]

You're the arbiter?

Evidence, my dear. Copious evidence. No arbiter required. The science speaks for itself.

 

[JayUtah]

Er, one learns to separate the wheat from the chaff. I haven't had a chance to catch up with the thread yet as I have been away, just what turned up as an 'alert'.

Can you explain why your near-eidetic visual memory does not seem to permit you to recall what has been addressed in this thread and what has not?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You're the arbiter as to whether transparency film was the optimal type for Moon conditions?

Why wouldn't it be?

What other film do you think they should have used?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Herewith, as you requested.

View attachment 74491

Guess what you see when you click the "visit" button at the lower right? It takes you to a Facebook post by a meteorologist showing this image.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Do look up the pros and cons.

It was the fastest film available, gave good colour rendering and had a well understood development process.

Monochrome negative film was also used.

80 ASA Panatomic-X black-and-white film was used for high-detail surface and orbital documentation and Kodak 2485 High-Speed Black-and-White was used for low-light or interior spacecraft and deep-space tracking.