El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should do this. They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo. If not for that, at least for posterity. I suppose though that people will say "Ohhh nooo why should they at all??" That's the othger side of the coin...those people are a bad as the hoaxter types.
Me? I wanna see the Apollo hardware from above just for the halibut ! !
> Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
> At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA > should do this. > They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo. > If not for that, at least for posterity. I suppose though that people > will say "Ohhh nooo > why should they at all??" That's the othger side of the coin...those > people are a bad as the hoaxter types.
> Me? I wanna see the Apollo hardware from above just for the halibut ! !
I don't see why NASA should bother with "bullshit about the moon landing hoax". The kooks will just find something else to be kooky about, e.g. does anybody think that folks who are worried about the world coming to an end in 2012 will be cured in 2013?
Michael Toms wrote: > Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
> At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should > do this. > They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo. > If not for that, at least for posterity. I suppose though that people will > say "Ohhh nooo > why should they at all??" That's the othger side of the coin...those > people are a bad as the hoaxter types.
> Me? I wanna see the Apollo hardware from above just for the halibut ! !
>Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
>At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should >do this. >They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo.
In case you didn't notice, the whole face on Mars issue is still being presented as an alien artifact. High resolution images did nothing to change things, and they won't change anything with the Moon hoax crowd, either.
You can't convince a paranoid to stop being so simply by presenting rational evidence. You need drugs to do that. _________________________________________________
Well, except that the so-called "Moon landing" films WERE a hoax.
Far from being shot "on the Moon", those films were actually faked on a secret NASA sound stage somwehere near the South Pole of Enceladus.
Don't believe me? Prove it for yourself. Freeze frame #129382, and you can clearly see where some NASA "big brain" was asleep at the switch, and forgot to edit out the rings of Saturn. And in frames #294924-7, you can see, unmistakably, three cryovolcanoes erupting, just inside the right edge of the frame.
"Moon landings" indeed! PFfffftt! NASA was just trying to "cover up" the fact that they had already explored the outer reaches of the solar system, and were currently spending the gazillion dollars a year of YOUR money we gave them for "space exploration" on Cuban cigars and rides at Disney World
What? Oh, I suppose you *also* believe that Disney World wasn't built until 1971. Don't you people ever GET IT? That's WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!
Haiku Jones
p.s: those six dark spots in the left-center of frames #294355-67? Fossil Enceladusian trilobite carapaces. A fool could see that.
> >Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
> >At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should > >do this. > >They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo.
> In case you didn't notice, the whole face on Mars issue is still being > presented as an alien artifact. High resolution images did nothing to > change things, and they won't change anything with the Moon hoax crowd, > either.
> You can't convince a paranoid to stop being so simply by presenting > rational evidence. You need drugs to do that. > _________________________________________________
I can't remember a single dull moment in the journey to discover the history of clocks,planetary dynamics and geometry yet the conclusion that the Earth will rotate 69.17 miles every 4 minutes at the Equator and turn through a full 24 901.5 mile circumference in 24 hours contains so much more history than a person can absorb in a lifetime -
Your old commie indoctrination just does not have that frontier spirit about it and how many good kids are robbed of the pleasure of becoming familiar with the human struggle to create the timekeeping systems and conventions we use today.John Harrison was basically a one man version of NASA yet look what each and every one of you do every time you try to obscure the principles which link the 24 hour clock to the raw astronomical cycles , planetary dynamics and terrestrial geography .Nobody pays attention to the moon-hoaxers yet when it comes to the invention of accurate clocks in respect to planetary geography and dynamics,you yourselves are worse.
You can believe what you wish,that is what freedom is all about,I too am free to believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 15 degrees per hour yet I am alone in that view for many years in this forum and that is the most disconcerting thing
On Jul 2, 1:24 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can believe what you wish,that is what freedom is all about,I too > am free to believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 15 degrees per > hour yet I am alone in that view for many years in this forum and > that is the most disconcerting thing
We have already gone over this, you are not alone with that view, with respect to the sun we all agree with you, we all believe the same thing, so get off your high horse and knock off the disparaging remarks.
Time to move on to a different frame of reference, where things really get exciting.
It will probably quiet a few of them down..thinning the ranks. But probably just as soon as one issue gets solved enough some other sad soul will invent another conspiracy....
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:06:14 -0700 (PDT), "P. Edward Murray"
<p.edwardmur...@gmail.com> wrote: >It will probably quiet a few of them down..thinning the ranks. But >probably just as soon as one issue gets solved enough some other sad >soul will invent another conspiracy....
Well, the sort of casual "conspiracy of the month" folks might drift off to something else. But each of these wacky beliefs has a core group of disciples, and nothing will change their views. Of course, sometimes they aren't so wacky at all. Hoagland and his crew are making a lot of money from books and websites promoting the whole face on Mars conspiracy. He's probably too smart to actually believe this stuff- he's just a modern P. T. Barnum, dependent on suckers for his income. _________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:06:14 -0700 (PDT), "P. Edward Murray" > <p.edwardmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It will probably quiet a few of them down..thinning the ranks. But >> probably just as soon as one issue gets solved enough some other sad >> soul will invent another conspiracy....
> Well, the sort of casual "conspiracy of the month" folks might drift off > to something else. But each of these wacky beliefs has a core group of > disciples, and nothing will change their views. Of course, sometimes > they aren't so wacky at all. Hoagland and his crew are making a lot of > money from books and websites promoting the whole face on Mars > conspiracy. He's probably too smart to actually believe this stuff- he's > just a modern P. T. Barnum, dependent on suckers for his income.
Oh, I'm sure of it. Reminds me of a clip I saw on a TV news show some years back from a "World Renown" ufologist. He explained about these three lights that flew in perfect formation in the sky as they did zig-zag maneuvers. He was going on and on while the clip played on a monitor as he talked. Then at one point the news switched to the clip full screen and not a shot of the monitor. Then you could see it. The station broadcast the clip with the black level set correctly to FCC/NTSC standards. There was the wings and fuselage of the airplane. What the clip was, was a hand held shot through a telephoto lens that was severely underexposed. Busted. But the news people, bless them and their ratings, just went on like he was gospel.
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:01:00 -0700, palsing wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:24 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can believe what you wish,that is what freedom is all about,I too >> am free to believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 15 degrees per >> hour yet I am alone in that view for many years in this forum and >> that is the most disconcerting thing
> We have already gone over this, you are not alone with that view, with > respect to the sun we all agree with you, we all believe the same thing, > so get off your high horse and knock off the disparaging remarks.
> Time to move on to a different frame of reference, where things really > get exciting.
> \Paul A
He cannot get off his high horse. He is obsessed with his position. It will take pharmaceutical intervention to reverse course. I doubt he/she will allow that. EPD
>> You can believe what you wish,that is what freedom is all about,I too >> am free to believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 15 degrees per >> hour yet I am alone in that view for many years in this forum and >> that is the most disconcerting thing
You're right: there's no law against being wrong.
But it /is/ rather poor form to repeat the same error ad nauseam. -- Dave
Golden California Girls <gldncag...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>Oh, I'm sure of it. Reminds me of a clip I saw on a TV news show some years >back from a "World Renown" ufologist. He explained about these three lights >that flew in perfect formation in the sky as they did zig-zag maneuvers. He was >going on and on while the clip played on a monitor as he talked. Then at one >point the news switched to the clip full screen and not a shot of the monitor. >Then you could see it. The station broadcast the clip with the black level set >correctly to FCC/NTSC standards. There was the wings and fuselage of the >airplane. What the clip was, was a hand held shot through a telephoto lens that >was severely underexposed. Busted. But the news people, bless them and their >ratings, just went on like he was gospel.
On Jul 2, 3:08 pm, "Michael Toms" <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
> At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should > do this. > They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo. > If not for that, at least for posterity. I suppose though that people will > say "Ohhh nooo > why should they at all??" That's the othger side of the coin...those > people are a bad as the hoaxter types.
> Me? I wanna see the Apollo hardware from above just for the halibut ! !
Michael Toms wrote: > Will LROC put to rest the years long bullshit about the moon landing hoax?
> At being able to see features only 3 meters wide I should think NASA should > do this. > They did it with the face on Mars, now they should do it for Apollo. > If not for that, at least for posterity. I suppose though that people will > say "Ohhh nooo > why should they at all??" That's the othger side of the coin...those > people are a bad as the hoaxter types.
> Me? I wanna see the Apollo hardware from above just for the halibut ! !
If you remember, the improved images of the Mesa that was The Face On Mars did NOT stop, hinder, or slow down the conspiracy people; they insisted the improved image was itself a hoax. Since these people will never go away, our best strategy is to ignore them until they get in our face, then hit them across the back of the head with a 2x4 as hard as possible.
These people are the price we pay for the 1st amendment, but it doesn't mean we have to either listen to them or tolerate them if they do get in our face.
--- Right wing, gun toting, socialist, peace-loving Dave
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:01:00 -0700, palsing wrote: > > On Jul 2, 1:24 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You can believe what you wish,that is what freedom is all about,I too > >> am free to believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 15 degrees per > >> hour yet I am alone in that view for many years in this forum and > >> that is the most disconcerting thing
> > We have already gone over this, you are not alone with that view, with > > respect to the sun we all agree with you, we all believe the same thing, > > so get off your high horse and knock off the disparaging remarks.
> > Time to move on to a different frame of reference, where things really > > get exciting.
> > \Paul A
> He cannot get off his high horse. He is obsessed with his position. It > will take pharmaceutical intervention to reverse course. I doubt he/she > will allow that. > EPD- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Here is a hypothetical scenario - a guy comes to a forum which has an interest in astronomy and announces a simple fact that humanity is great for landing people on the moon and is rebuffed and called insane.So this guy goes into the history of avionics,from balloons to planes to rockets, to promote the fact that men did land on the moon but is rejected again by questioning the reasoning for going to the moon.The guy then explains the social and p[olitical issues behind the venture and technological achievements that emerged from the race to put men on the moon but is rebuffed again with the observation that even the most powerful telescopes show no indication that men were on the moon.The guy comes does this for over 6 years and shows all the possibilities of space adventure arising from the event that occured 40 years ago and this is still rejected.In short,behind the simple fact that people were on the moon is a vast history of achievements from many different areas that make it possible.
I come here and announce that the Earth turns once in 24 hours at an Equatorial rate of 69.17 miles every 4 minutes and an entire circumference in 24 hours but this is rejected.I explain the history of horology and mapmaking based on 1 degree of geographical separation for each 4 minutes based on rotational characteristics and it is still rejected.The difference between geostatic and the astronomy of planetary dynamics makes no difference as people refuse to acknowledge the simple 24 hour/360 degree fact,the entire history of timekeeping from the creation of the 24 hour day to the calendar system based on references for daily and orbital motions,the practical issues of calendar reform and the creation of timezones,the danger of using timekeeping averages to model planetary dynamics just as modern try to using computers to model global climate through the eyes of pollution.
So much behind that simple fact that the Earth rotates once in 24 hours and in 6 years I have yet to see a single individual look at the same history of astronomy as I do an affirm it,whether it is frightening or heartbreaking to see our race descend to a level where this simple fact is rejected for a poorly thought out alternative 'sidereal time' value is a tragedy that few could genuinely absorb in the scope of its influence.
Being on the wrong side of the argument you use words like repetition and obsession whereas it often surfaces as dedication and tenacity on the right side of this thing,the very fact that after 6 years ,even allowing for my own failings,there is still not another person in all the thousands that visit here that can acknowledge a basic fact for the independent rotation of the Earth demonstrates just how deep and wide this problem actually is.
On 3 July, 10:49, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being on the wrong side of the argument you use words like repetition > and obsession whereas it often surfaces as dedication and tenacity on > the right side of this thing,the very fact that after 6 years ,even > allowing for my own failings,there is still not another person in all > the thousands that visit here that can acknowledge a basic fact for > the independent rotation of the Earth demonstrates just how deep and > wide this problem actually is.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If none out of thousands has accepted your viewpoints has it ever crossed you mind that:
a) you are explaining yourself very badly
or
b) you are wrong and the thousands that disagree with you are correct
or
c) posting the same material hundreds of time when a single peer reviewed article would suffice creates the impression that you are obsessed
On Jul 2, 1:33 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Any images presented as evidence will be dismissed as more fakes.
True. But the point isn't so much to cure and shut up the hoax claimants, it's just so that they won't have the power to confuse a big chunk of the unsophisticated. There will always be people who will believe any nutty idea, but they're few in number; the people who can be fooled when a nutty idea sounds plausible enough are far more numerous.
On Jul 2, 2:24 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yet look what each and every one of you do every > time you try to obscure the principles which link the 24 hour clock to > the raw astronomical cycles , planetary dynamics and terrestrial > geography
I'm not trying to obscure the principles which link natural noon, with the Equation of Time, to uniform clock time. I am trying to make them plain; the alternate set of principles you are trying to present, being badly flawed, can't be explained clearly - and you don't even try. If people did listen to you, the connection between the natural noon cycle and the 24-hour clock would become obscure indeed.
<martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 3 July, 10:49, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Being on the wrong side of the argument you use words like repetition > > and obsession whereas it often surfaces as dedication and tenacity on > > the right side of this thing,the very fact that after 6 years ,even > > allowing for my own failings,there is still not another person in all > > the thousands that visit here that can acknowledge a basic fact for > > the independent rotation of the Earth demonstrates just how deep and > > wide this problem actually is.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> If none out of thousands has accepted your viewpoints has it ever > crossed you mind that:
> a) you are explaining yourself very badly
> or
> b) you are wrong and the thousands that disagree with you are correct
> or
> c) posting the same material hundreds of time when a single peer > reviewed article would suffice creates the impression that you are > obsessed
It is the magnificence of it all ,the appeal of the goodness of people to see what a simple fact such as the 24 hours it takes the planet to turn once shines with human achievement.
Even the flaw of Flamsteed which inverted the references for daily and orbital motions has its own dignity to it or the geometric distortions of Newton,only in the eartly 20th century does a dull ennui set in with the inability to deal with the matter effectively from the point which link between clocks and planetary dynamics through 24 hours and geographical separation of 4 minutes for each degree of geographical separation.
You are caught up in the cogs of a late 17th century mistake which has no history behind it and would teach kids all the concepts which spread out from that mistake.Humanity,at its core,is good,courageous,hopeful, adventurous and all those positives which all the color-me-grey ideologies have never been able to contain -
So,I am thrilled with my era and its technological achievements which can now restore the damage that was done,a pulse of energy that runs through humanity and astronomically encapsulated at different points,one of which is that it takes the Earth to turn once in 24 hours.
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >3 metre wide pixels?
>What is the remnants of the LEM going to be? Two or three pixels, a slightly >lighter shade of gray?
The results that are returned could be a good deal better than you might expect. If the orbiter takes multiple images crossing the landing areas, or images on different orbits, they can be combined via the drizzle algorithm to yield an image with greater resolution than the camera itself provides. Add in the effects of reflections and shadows, and it is entirely possible that we'll have enough detail to recognize what we are seeing as something other than just a few gray pixels. It would be fun to see that. _________________________________________________
>>What is the remnants of the LEM going to be? Two or three pixels, a >>slightly >>lighter shade of gray?
> The results that are returned could be a good deal better than you might > expect. If the orbiter takes multiple images crossing the landing areas, > or images on different orbits, they can be combined via the drizzle > algorithm to yield an image with greater resolution than the camera > itself provides. Add in the effects of reflections and shadows, and it > is entirely possible that we'll have enough detail to recognize what we > are seeing as something other than just a few gray pixels. It would be > fun to see that.
>> Any images presented as evidence will be dismissed as more fakes.
> True. But the point isn't so much to cure and shut up the hoax > claimants, it's just so that they won't have the power to confuse a > big chunk of the unsophisticated. There will always be people who will > believe any nutty idea, but they're few in number; the people who can > be fooled when a nutty idea sounds plausible enough are far more > numerous.
> John Savard
I'm not sure I agree with this, if for no other reason than, if someone declares that an image was faked, that the evidence was tainted, then how is the layperson to trust the evidence?
On a deeper level, this is the central question of epistemology, "How do you know that what you know is the truth? How to you verify the evidence?" Cross-checking and coordination of facts is one of the methods to try and ferret out the truth, but it takes time and detective work, which most people don't want to, or are incapable (in my humble opinion) of doing.
Of course, what the conspiracy people fail to notice, is that if they claim that the evidence was tainted, then ANY evidence they present is also open to the same charge. If you open up that can-of-worms, you defeat any chance of finding the Truth.
|
