No. It's between 2 and 2000 depending the the theory-du-jour. None of these numbers are embarrasing for me.
OK, let's go with 2 then, just for argument's sake. Remind me, your argument was?
I'm sorry no, you don't claim, you 'allude'.
Thank you for acknowledging the error of your ways. It would be appreciated if you would please try to be accurate in future.
I think you've misunderstood what jumping to conclusions means. If something is obvious, then you're not jumping to conclusions if you believe it.
Again, like the Earth being flat, for example?!
You can play by whatever rules you like ...
So don't go trying to make them up then!
... but don't blame me if you never get anywhere.
Oh, don't worry about the possibility of me holding
you accountable!
It's impossible to prove a picture is genuine, therefore in order to progress in an enquiry somebody needs to show it's fake. If they can't, well that proves nothing.
And leaves matters inconclusive!
Then you're left with a photo that's not shown to be fake.
But suspicious, and hence raising doubts!
It doesn't surprise me that you can't see it.
So why post it, then?!
Look at the swinging thing under the astronauts arm. It's swinging at about half the speed it would on earth. Look at the aerial type thing after he puts it down. It wobbles around at half the speed it would on earth. But you can tell this film has not been slowed down because the astronaut is moving at normal speed. How on earth did they do that? Claymation? [emphasis added]
Yes, this reads like a very scientific analysis!
So there's no speeded up footage, right?
Well you're a smart cookie - I'm sure you can work it out for yourself! Allusion's against 'the rules', is it?
Nope I gave an estimate of probability, which actually was a little high.
'A little high'? Surely not, given your impeccable objectivity:
Second maybe the boot has anisotropic reflectivity. In fact, given the shape of the highlight it almost certainly does.
Yes, I would agree that 'almost certainly' corresponds with 'high probability', but even so, is by no means conclusive. In fact, far from it:
It's more likely the curvature of the surface causing the elongated highlight. Note, that's as estimate of probability too.
Yes, 'more likely' is certainly
very different from 'almost certainly', I'd say! Hedging your bets now, yes - learning fast!
So, notwithstanding my generally negative views on seeking to rely on the obvious, you're now saying that it's
probably not anisotropic reflectivity, but instead that the larger radius curvature of the boot in the vertical plane compared to the relatively tight radius curvature in the horizontal plane 'probably' accounts for the elongation of the hotspot? Well hey ho -
there's a plausible explanation that never crossed my mind. Now why the hell didn't I default to anisotropic reflectivity as the 'obvious' explanation, I wonder!
And what was your request of me in light(!) of your initial erroneous conclusion?:
Read up on the subject here. With an anisotropic reflection like this it is difficult if not impossible to tell if the lightsource is higher or lower than the camera. Rewrite your analysis to rule out anisotropic reflections.
Seems you need to dig out your old school physics books, are are they still in your satchel, unopened?!
Yes, it would show a spacesuit-shaped hotspot. Perhaps you need to learn a little more about specular reflection.
'Spacesuit-shaped 'hotspot''? What's one of those look like, then?!
I know enough about specular reflection to recognize yet another erroneous comment on your part. Specular reflection does not necessarily lead to 'hotspots'. Indeed, a very dark image can be specularly reflected. The appearance of a hot spot is largely determined by the
intensity of light hitting the reflective surface. My argument is that, whilst the spacesuits were highly reflective, they were also of a matt finish, which, as you will no doubt be aware, leads to diffuse reflection, especially when the fabric is 'crumpled and creased', as is the case with the shoulder area, especially with the arms raised! What we should expect to see is diffuse interreflection, which does not tend to manifest as hotspots, even on specular reflective surfaces.
Don't know what you're talking about here. I'm guessing you're talking about the glare you get off the road. Why did you choose a road? Why not talk about the glare you get off sand dunes or dry mud flats? Oh right, there is none. They reflect diffusely. Another word for you to look-up.
Well you guessed wrong, didn't you, and again, drew an erroneous conclusion! There's a couple of words for
you to look up: 'guess' and 'erroneous'! All matt, or 'rough', surfaces reflect diffusely (including road surfaces!). However, the direction of the light striking the surface, nonetheless, has a large impact on the amount of light reflected towards a surface being 'filled', depending on where that surface is in relation to the light source and reflective surface. Try placing your face close to a light-coloured matt-painted wall and cast your eye along it looking towards a bright window. Now, turn and face the opposite way and look away from the window. Notice a difference?!
See, while you talk big about expanding knowledge, you still seem to have a long way to go.
Ahem!
Good luck with it. I'm happy to answer questions.
Evidently. I tend only to pay attention to
correct answers, though, so I guess you won't mind if I take a rain check, on this occasion!
Now, I owe somebody worthy of debating with a little attention (apologies sts60), so you won't mind going to the back of the queue now (I'm assuming you'll respond!), will you?
