| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/19/2007 12:30 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
As the exchange about the definition of organic chemistry shows, nobody is under any obligation to agree with your rejection of the consensus opinion of word definitions.
Why can't you just be happy calling us PANs (Pro Apollo Nutters) like Sam Colby, Jack White and Duane Daman? |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 12:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nomuse,
I was thinking about the switch from equatorial to polar orbit. How much velocity would really be lost with one or two minor adjustments from their original trajectory? If you're on a standard orbit, there's going to be some wobble along the plane anyway due to the tilt. I am imagining swinging a weight and then changing the swing slowly. Mostly I also Imagine bashing myself in the head, too.
Think in vectors. A plane change is the difference between those two orbits. In the case of, say, going from a perfect equatorial orbit to a perfect polar orbit, vector math says you basically slow down until you aren't orbiting at all, then speed up again along the other orbit. The total delta-V is that of doing one of those orbits twice as fast. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 314333
Its fun watching NASA's incompetent failures try to act like they understand why the translunar injection trajectory would have to be in the plane of the moons orbit!
Youre not even close, NoUse. You have no idea what your talking about, and you seldom if ever do. The question has not been answered, which of NASA's stories is true? |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 12:36 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
As the exchange about the definition of organic chemistry shows, nobody is under any obligation to agree with your rejection of the consensus opinion of word definitions.
Why can't you just be happy calling us PANs (Pro Apollo Nutters) like Sam Colby, Jack White and Duane Daman? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
No, your not obilgated to accept it, but if you see my arguement is sound, and yet you still insist that the mainstream definition is correct, that makes you a bit hard headed doesnt it? Organic only has one meaning. Words are redefined constantly. Organic chemistry did not always include artificial synthesis as a component of its definition, just like antisemitism didnt alway mean a hatred of jews. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/19/2007 12:40 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Organic only has one meaning. Quoting: IDW 314074
One of the links I provided showed at least three meanings, Two of them are derived from the other, but they are all used in slightly different ways. Language is like that.
Words are redefined constantly. Organic chemistry did not always include artificial synthesis as a component of its definition Quoting: IDW 314074
Exactly! That changed once vitalism was discredited.
You claimed that organic chemistry was STRICTLY about biologically derived molecules. It has been repeatedly shown that this is not the definition used by the worldwide chemistry community, not for over a century.
If everybody in a given field uses a word a certain way, who are you to say differently? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314333
10/19/2007 12:56 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
More of a removal than an addition; they took "of biological origin" out but left the kind of carbon structures they'd been talking about before, in.
But not to forget; IDW's definition of "organic chemistry" includes WATER as an organic compound. And that's never been right, not in any period. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 1:44 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I think your forgetting, Ive have avoided the attention you think I desire all my life, and I have never agreed with anything just because "everyone" else does, or it's "what we were taught". Quoting: IDW
That's fine.
I am not a public figure, nor do I intend to be. Quoting: IDW
Then maybe you DON'T have a book coming out? Were you lying about that after all?
Because the *second* its out, you're a public figure. No ifs, ands, or buts.
So which is it? Is there a book coming out any moment now, and thus you're a public figure? Or you don't, and you're not a public figure: you were just lying about the book in the first place?
Which is it, IDW?
If you want to start a website for the purpose of discrediting my findings based upon material that intentionally misrepresents what I said, then that would be a libel, intended to harm the credibility. Quoting: IDW
It's based on material that doesn't misrepresent you at all. Heck, most of it YOU wrote yourself.
If you want to ridicule my ideas, such as the possibility the moon does not originate inside this solar system and EMR is composed of electrons in a passive vibration to an oscilating magnetic field, go ahead. Quoting: IDW
Why, thank you for your kind and utterly unnecessary permission.
But keep in mind the likelyhood that these ideas are correct is extremely high. Quoting: IDW
Except that its not.
My intention was to place these ideas where they could be discussed intelligently, not trampled by filthy swine. Quoting: IDW
So, once again, you chose a Conspiracy Message board to do this, rather than a whole host of far more appropriate channels, with those who might have intelligence anywhere near your super-I.Q. It seems to me that you were taking the idea to the kindergarten sandbox rather than testing it with the adults. Why would that be, except your own worry about the weakness of the ideas?
As it were, I had to settle for a shakedown of my ideas, to see if any of you could provide a reasonably adequate arguement against them. You never tryed. That was the odd thing about it. You agrued against ME. Quoting: IDW
This must be the old selective IDW memory in action. Many of your claims regarding Apollo were solidly refuted. So were many of your physics ideas. Your ideas fail to explain facts currently in evidence. And you can't believe your idea was so thoroughly trounced by people who are admitted amateurs here at GLP. But, yet, you were.
And YOU argue against people ALL THE TIME. You can say 'you started it,' or other such childish excuses. But the fact of the matter is that NO ONE argues more with the poster personally, rather than the idea, than you, yourself. You're FAMOUS for it.
The ones that met with organized resistance usally involved a conspiracy by the federal government to either lie to, defraud or harm the American people. Quoting: IDW
I still have no evidence that such a conspiracy exists, and quite a bit that it doesn't. There's nothing organized about the people who counter you at all. Better use of resources would just be to ban you from any board that you're on, or make your internet connection so lousy as to be unusable, particularly as its *dial up* for goodness sake. The whole idea of 'organized resistance' is just a way for you to artificially inflate your ego.
When someone is paying ffor an organized campaign such as exposed here to defend against an accusation about something that happened forty years ago, the odds are very high that accusation is the truth. Quoting: IDW
I don't think that's an accurate barometer of gaging truth. And I certainly have not been offered any compensation, financial or otherwise, to oppose your ideas. So, you're just wrong again.
I have said things that many of you repeatedly make the unjustified claim that because it does not agree with consensus, it is automatically wrong. Quoting: IDW
That's not why I disagree with you. I disagree with your ideas because they don't conform to the EVIDENCE. I disagree with them because they are not falsifiable, and not science, but you represent them as such. I disagree with them because they are often wrong. I disagree with the way they are presented, I disagree with your constant barrages of childish name calling and reliance on fallacious argument, I disagree with your bullying tactics.
You simply get all bent out of shape when I point your shortcomings out.
Lawsuit, indeed. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 1:59 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Organic only has one meaning.
One of the links I provided showed at least three meanings, Two of them are derived from the other, but they are all used in slightly different ways. Language is like that.
Words are redefined constantly. Organic chemistry did not always include artificial synthesis as a component of its definition
Exactly! That changed once vitalism was discredited.
You claimed that organic chemistry was STRICTLY about biologically derived molecules. It has been repeatedly shown that this is not the definition used by the worldwide chemistry community, not for over a century.
If everybody in a given field uses a word a certain way, who are you to say differently? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
I gave the current definition. Remeber, at the beginning?
I think the artificial synthesis of organic compounds is just that. It has to be included in some discipline, and since carbon based molecules that are copies of organic molecules are being synthesized , academia calls it organic chemistry. There is no confusion on my part about this, I just dont AGREE with the basic reasoning, I just dont think what is being produced can actually be called organic if it is artificially produced, regardless of if it identical to the natural compound or not.
I also believe that substituting organic anologs as a replacement for the real thing is a recipe for disaster, like genetic engineering. Eventually , it will be disasterous. When slightly different artifical molecular structures are mistaken for natural molecules by natural processes in biologicals such as us, problems WILL occur. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314333
10/19/2007 2:04 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Still wrong.
There are organic compounds that have no analog to any biological product. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 2:06 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
More of a removal than an addition; they took "of biological origin" out but left the kind of carbon structures they'd been talking about before, in.
But not to forget; IDW's definition of "organic chemistry" includes WATER as an organic compound. And that's never been right, not in any period. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 314333
Well, yeah, since water is involved in so many organic processes I think it qualifies as an organic compound. I do realize of course that this ideal is not accepted, and goes against mainstream thinking.
The reason why carbon is used to define 'organic' is because carbon is incorporated into every living thing.
Guess what, so is water, so while it is not considered an organic compound because it doesnt contain carbon and is not produced by organic processes, it does figure heavily into organic chemistry. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 2:08 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Still wrong.
There are organic compounds that have no analog to any biological product. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 314333
But are they components of biological processes? |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 2:31 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Then maybe you DON'T have a book coming out? Were you lying about that after all?
Because the *second* its out, you're a public figure. No ifs, ands, or buts. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444
Is that a threat? It sounds like youre telling me you intend to take action to counter the publishing of my findings through intimidation. be very careful.
So which is it? Is there a book coming out any moment now, and thus you're a public figure? Or you don't, and you're not a public figure: you were just lying about the book in the first place?
Which is it, IDW? Quoting: 74444
WHy do you care? You shouldnt have any interest in my book based on your public opinion of me.
It's based on material that doesn't misrepresent you at all. Heck, most of it YOU wrote yourself. Quoting: 74444
If you want to write a book about my ideas, or start a website, go ahead! Just remember what I said.
Why, thank you for your kind and utterly unnecessary permission Quoting: 74444
Do I need Haps or Bobs permission to publish thier material? WHat about Jay and Phil? Thats a double edged sword. If you want to get dirty, I can fight back.
But keep in mind the likelyhood that these ideas are correct is extremely high. Quoting: IDW
Except that its not.
Explain why not?
My intention was to place these ideas where they could be discussed intelligently, not trampled by filthy swine. Quoting: IDW
So, once again, you chose a Conspiracy Message board to do this, rather than a whole host of far more appropriate channels, with those who might have intelligence anywhere near your super-I.Q. It seems to me that you were taking the idea to the kindergarten sandbox rather than testing it with the adults. Why would that be, except your own worry about the weakness of the ideas? Quoting: 74444
You mean like the Bad Astronomy board? The people here are brighter than those at bad astronomy, and besides that, I didnt bring up all these other ideas here, YOU DID.
This must be the old selective IDW memory in action. Many of your claims regarding Apollo were solidly refuted. Quoting: 74444
ANd yet you cannot give one example of that, can you?
So were many of your physics ideas. Your ideas fail to explain facts currently in evidence. And you can't believe your idea was so thoroughly trounced by people who are admitted amateurs here at GLP. But, yet, you were. Quoting: 74444
As Ive said it before, the fact that you do not understand my ideas and how they ARE represented by the evidence is not important nor is your opinion of me. Show me WHERE youve PROVED any of my ideas concerning physics are in error. ONE EXAMPLE, just one. Saying you proved something is a far cry from actually doing it. You can say anything you want to.
And YOU argue against people ALL THE TIME. You can say 'you started it,' or other such childish excuses. But the fact of the matter is that NO ONE argues more with the poster personally, rather than the idea, than you, yourself. You're FAMOUS for it. Quoting: 74444
And which is the more difficult path, the one I have taken, or the one you have? WHich is the more honorable, correct path as a SCIENTIST? To conform out of convienience with the staus quo,or to stand up for what you believe though you get only resistance for your efforts, and little backing?
I still have no evidence that such a conspiracy exists, and quite a bit that it doesn't. There's nothing organized about the people who counter you at all. Better use of resources would just be to ban you from any board that you're on, or make your internet connection so lousy as to be unusable, particularly as its *dial up* for goodness sake. The whole idea of 'organized resistance' is just a way for you to artificially inflate your ego. Quoting: 74444
I think the AMerican people whould be allowed to decide that from an informed position, I intend to see that they do. I think your denial is comical and assinine, you cannot deny what is as obvious as this.
Lawsuit, indeed. Quoting: 74444
What if it was a class action lawsuit, on behalf of the American people against the conspirators who profitted from the Apollo hoax? The money involved was substancial, the avergage american taxpayer will be open and receptive to the possibility of collecting a check if history is any judge.Like you side with the military industrial complex out of financial considerations, they will do the same against it if money is involved.
Is THAT why you are so concerned? SHould the Americn people have paid for Apollo, and did they get what they were told they did for thier money?? Should the contractors have to pay back the American people? If they cheated them they should. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314333
10/19/2007 2:38 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Plastics. Fullerenes. Some explosives. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 2:50 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Plastics. Fullerenes. Some explosives. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 314333
These materials are derived from naturally occuring substances, but they are created by artificial processes.
They are artificial arent they? Is trinitrotoluene produced by natural processes? Polystyrene? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314333
10/19/2007 5:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Depends on definition. When organic chemists talk, if they build up a more complex molecule from less complex molecules, then the result is artificial. They don't draw a distinction if one or more of the chemical that went into the mix were, say, ethelyne cracked from fossil fuels (which were of course once biological). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 5:19 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Is that a threat? It sounds like youre telling me you intend to take action to counter the publishing of my findings through intimidation. be very careful. Quoting: IDW 314074
I'm all FOR you publishing your book. But I will ridicule things in it I consider ridiculous.
WHy do you care? You shouldnt have any interest in my book based on your public opinion of me. Quoting: IDW 314074
Nice dodge. But I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question.
Is there a book coming out any moment now, and thus you're a public figure? Or you don't, and you're not a public figure: you were just lying about the book in the first place?
Which is it, IDW?
If you want to write a book about my ideas, or start a website, go ahead! Just remember what I said. Quoting: IDW 314074
Which part? I have a whole List of things you've said. But don't get all uppity about lawsuits and the like -- because you know you haven't got a legal leg to stand on.
Do I need Haps or Bobs permission to publish thier material? WHat about Jay and Phil? Thats a double edged sword. If you want to get dirty, I can fight back. Quoting: IDW 314074
So long as you do it within the bounds of the law, have at. You just don't seem to understand those things very well -- and you threaten potential lawsuits quite frequently, yet nothing ever comes of them. Funny, that.
Explain why not? Quoting: IDW 314074
I have, several times, over a myriad of different subjects. You don't give evidence to support your ideas, you reject out of hand contrary evidence without scrutinizing or considering it, there are observed phenomona that directly contradict your ideas, your ideas fail to explain anything that isn't currently explained by more traditional science, your ideas conflict with well established science, you give no ways of experimentally verifying your claims, and you give no way (and this is the biggie) of falsifying your idea.
In the meantime, you use every fallacious argument in the book, you misuse common scientific terms, your grasp of the rules of logic is backwards, and you cannot admit error or (again, the biggie) a way to falsify your idea. Honest scientists create experiments, or enumerate observations that, if met, mean their own idea is false.
You don't do this, because you are too wrapped up in your ideas supposed correctness. Similarly, you don't take the idea to authorities who could REALLY give the idea the brutal scientific testing that will see it sink or swim. Why?
Because you are too wrapped up in the idea's perceived correctness. You are egotistically linked to your idea.
You mean like the Bad Astronomy board? The people here are brighter than those at bad astronomy, and besides that, I didnt bring up all these other ideas here, YOU DID. Quoting: IDW 314074
It doesn't matter. They are your ideas, and your way of presenting them, regardless of where you go. Take responsibility for your own words and actions, IDW.
ANd yet you cannot give one example of that, can you? Quoting: IDW 314074
Not so YOU'LL admit it -- but then, there's nothing anyone ANYWHERE can say that will refute your ideas, as far as you are concerned.
Your Apollo docking issue was soundly refuted. Your dose calculations were never shown. Your contention about thrust is wrong. Your contentions about radio were soundly refuted. Compact television cameras DID exist as early as 1965. Your mathematical claims regarding 10^5 are the stuff of infamy. Your Windows Calculator claims spelled out your logical processes perfectly. You made claims regarding temperature without showing your work. The Moon does NOT have the lowest eccentricity of any natural object, either by the traditional definition, NOR the one you made up. You're getting trounced right here with your electron/not photon claims. Your claims disagree with physics established well over a century ago. Water is NOT the only compound that expands when frozen. You've repeatedly lied about who I am, and where I work, without evidence, nor apology. You've admitted lying on a host of different things. You've flip flopped on Apollo 17 several times. You have no understanding of the measured relative velocities of asteroids. You never, ever, show the math, or show the work necessary to really prove your claims.
And that's just a sample. The List goes on, as you well know.
As Ive said it before, the fact that you do not understand my ideas and how they ARE represented by the evidence is not important nor is your opinion of me. Quoting: IDW 314074
But, IDW, you yourself gave that wonderful arbitrary rule of thumb: If you can't explain it in 100 words or less, you yourself don't understand the concept. You haven't done that.
Show me WHERE youve PROVED any of my ideas concerning physics are in error. ONE EXAMPLE, just one. Saying you proved something is a far cry from actually doing it. You can say anything you want to. Quoting: IDW 314074
I know. You LIVE by that -- saying and claiming victory and all the other balderdash you spew without showing an iota of evidence or proof.
Your lack of explanation for the experimentally verified FACT of time dilation without resorting to relativity, and the experimental data that proves the phenomena exists, and is predicted exactly by relativity.
Your lack of explanation of where 800 lbs of pristine Moonrocks came from, without resorting to fanciful tails of robot landers without any evidence to back up such things were even built.
Your claims regarding the Moon's eccentricity, and your recent returning to the claim that eccentricity is NOT defined as a ratio to a perfect circle.
Your claims that nuclear reactions were used for thrust on Apollo.
Your claims of selectively visible threads right here on this message board, rather than admitting you were using the search engine wrong.
Again, the list goes on. Shall I continue?
And which is the more difficult path, the one I have taken, or the one you have? Quoting: IDW 314074
Why on Earth does THAT matter?
WHich is the more honorable, correct path as a SCIENTIST? To conform out of convienience with the staus quo,or to stand up for what you believe though you get only resistance for your efforts, and little backing? Quoting: IDW 314074
The answer is: NEITHER! The honorable, correct path of the scientist is to FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, and CHANGE YOUR IDEAS IN LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. It is to ACCEPT and INCORPORATE contrary information into the idea, or to discard the idea if necessary. It is NOT to stubbornly hold onto the idea no matter what, come hell or high water.
THAT'S science. And you CERTAINLY do not do this.
I think the AMerican people whould be allowed to decide that from an informed position, I intend to see that they do. I think your denial is comical and assinine, you cannot deny what is as obvious as this. Quoting: IDW 314074
I think that plenty of information is available, and that you are, once again, coming from the position of pure ego. IDW will save humanity. It is IDW alone and forsaken on a hostile world, but IDW sees the TRUTH! TO be against IDW is to be against TRUTH! For HE is the arbiter! And don't you forget it!
And of COURSE its comical. The entire thing is absurdly surreal. But, if it weren't, I probably wouldn't have compiled the List, either. It's TERRIBLY funny.
What if it was a class action lawsuit, on behalf of the American people against the conspirators who profitted from the Apollo hoax? The money involved was substancial, the avergage american taxpayer will be open and receptive to the possibility of collecting a check if history is any judge.Like you side with the military industrial complex out of financial considerations, they will do the same against it if money is involved. Quoting: IDW 314074
Firstly, because I don't think it was a hoax.
Secondly, because I think the Space program is among the greatest endeavors of our species.
Thirdly, what are YOU willing to put up if Apollo turns out to be correct?
Fourthly, I'm no fan of the military industrial complex, nor the current administration, but I'd be a lot more pleased if more of my dollars went to the space program and exploration (and science in general) than where it's going now.
Is THAT why you are so concerned? SHould the Americn people have paid for Apollo, and did they get what they were told they did for thier money?? Should the contractors have to pay back the American people? If they cheated them they should. Quoting: IDW 314074
What if they DIDN'T cheat them? What if, amazingly, you turn out to be completely wrong?
Suppose super-ridiculous-high-res-photos are taken of the Moon by Malaysia. Should you pay for your libelous statements, as you are claiming I should pay for those statements YOU consider libelous? Because, I can tell you right now, you went way further over a line that I wouldn't get NEAR with the Big List, and if several people you have randomly accused of a huge number of things could prove any damage due to your claims, they'd have a helluva better case than you would.
But, again, this is mere yakking on a message board. I'll wait to see your book, should it ever come to fruition. However, you still avoided my question, way at the beginning of this:
Is there a book coming out any moment now, and thus you're a public figure? Or you don't, and you're not a public figure: you were just lying about the book in the first place?
Which is it, IDW? I'm breathless with anticipation of the answer. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 5:27 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
and if several people you have randomly accused of a huge number of things could prove any damage due to your claims, they'd have a helluva better case than you would. Quoting: 74444
Unless my accusations proved to be true, and that would be the pivotal issue in such a lawsuit. THINK! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 5:34 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Unless my accusations proved to be true, and that would be the pivotal issue in such a lawsuit. THINK! Quoting: IDW 314074
And when they turn out to be utterly false? What do you think they should do? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 5:47 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your Apollo docking issue was soundly refuted. Quoting: 74444
When
Your dose calculations were never shown. Quoting: 74444
Proving what?
Your contention about thrust is wrong. Quoting: 74444
It is, HOW?
Your contentions about radio were soundly refuted. Quoting: 74444
Can you show us WHERE, and HOW?
Compact television cameras DID exist as early as 1965. Quoting: 74444
And how does that matter?
Your mathematical claims regarding 10^5 are the stuff of infamy. Quoting: 74444
You mean when I told you you sould have used scientific notation? WHo was wrong?
Your Windows Calculator claims spelled out your logical processes perfectly. Quoting: 74444
I didnt know I had a scientific calculator on my computer ,what does that prove? That I am not absorbed so much in the tool as in the work? Personally I dont have much faith in Windows as a whole. I wouldnt do important work on it.
You made claims regarding temperature without showing your work. Quoting: 74444
I gave you a chance to show your work proving my figure wrong by presenting it. WHy didnt you?
The Moon does NOT have the lowest eccentricity of any natural object, either by the traditional definition, NOR the one you made up. Quoting: 74444
Yeah, that is probably true, but its not really that important of an error.
You're getting trounced right here with your electron/not photon claims. Your claims disagree with physics established well over a century ago. Quoting: 74444
Because it disagrees with "physics" established over a century ago and you cannot understand it means I got trounced? With those rules , Iv already lost before the game begins!
Water is NOT the only compound that expands when frozen. Quoting: 74444
There are few others, but water is the most important because if ice sank to the bottom , the oceans would be forzen solid. As I recall the subject was intelligent design of the universe, which you were arguing against.
You've repeatedly lied about who I am, and where I work, without evidence, nor apology. Quoting: 74444
Ive never said who you were, but I do know where you work and what your job description is.
You've admitted lying on a host of different things. Quoting: 74444
NAME A FEW?
.
You've flip flopped on Apollo 17 several times. Quoting: SHILL BLAH BLAH BLAH
I dont believe any of the missions were successful. Whethere I did at one time or not is totally irrelevant.
You have no understanding of the measured relative velocities of asteroids. Quoting: 74444
Proof? You made the claim, prove it.
You never, ever, show the math, or show the work necessary to really prove your claims. Quoting: 74444
It is much easier for you to prove I am wrong than for me to prove I am right, I gave you that opprotunity and you FAILED. |
| IDW
User ID: 314074
10/19/2007 5:48 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Unless my accusations proved to be true, and that would be the pivotal issue in such a lawsuit. THINK!
And when they turn out to be utterly false? What do you think they should do? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444
But there not false, and you and I know theyre not, dont we? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/19/2007 11:34 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Well, maybe you can give a clear answer to this question, IDW.
Are you going to tell whether you're having a book come out? |
| IDW
User ID: 314549
10/19/2007 1:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Well, maybe you can give a clear answer to this question, IDW.
Are you going to tell whether you're having a book come out? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
When you tell me why you want to know? Is that clear enough? See how that works? I dont want you to know. It may ALREADY be finished, and made available to some. You will be among the last to know.
It seems to me as I have said before that you shouldnt waste your time worrying about it, since my ideas are so easily "debunked". |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 2:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your Apollo docking issue was soundly refuted.
When Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
When you made the claims that the objects were going too fast to bump. There was an entire thread to that, where it was being explained that it didn't matter if they were going thousands of miles an hour relative to Earth, when they were going only a few feet per second relative to each other. You said you did calculation proving they could not have docked, and then balked when Apollo Soyuz was brought up. You once again claimed you had done the calculations, when you had not.
Your dose calculations were never shown.
Proving what? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Proving you didn't do them. You said, several times, you had calculated the dosage of radiation received by the astronauts, and you had confirmed and proved it was lethal. You then came up with several different conflicting timeframes. You then claimed you had done the calculations with 100 percent certainty. When asked to SHOW said calculations, you balked again. The only logical conclusion is that you either did not do the calculations, or are so unsure of their correctness that you won't show them for fear of further ridicule. I'm pretty sure of the former.
Your contention about thrust is wrong.
It is, HOW?
Your belief about the center of gravity and the 'balance point' of a rocket. Your claim that, in an airless environment, the Lander would be uncontrollable in landing. Your claim about having to use maximum thrust at touchdown.
Your contentions about radio were soundly refuted.
Can you show us WHERE, and HOW? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Other thread, for pages. You claim that radio couldn't have gone to the Moon and back, that for SOME reason the engineers chose to make such an obvious mistake. In the meantime you ignored Voyager, Mariner, Viking, Surveyor, Pioneer and a host of deep space probes that used exactly the same stuff, that worked fine. Others came in, and corrected your math. You merely hand waved, and didn't show your work.
Compact television cameras DID exist as early as 1965.
And how does that matter? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Because among your claims, that you were 100 percent sure of, included that no such compact television cameras existed until Apollo. You were soundly refuted, and never recanted. But then, you so rarely do.
Your mathematical claims regarding 10^5 are the stuff of infamy.
You mean when I told you you sould have used scientific notation? WHo was wrong? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
You were. You were given dozens of sources showing that 10^5 is a perfectly acceptable form of notation. You didn't claim it was the least bit unclear until long after the fact, alternatively declaring it an inappropriate notation, an evil trick designed to trick you and make you look stupid, and that it didn't matter, and argued about it for pages, rather than a simple admittance of 'Whoops!'. You were wrong.
Your Windows Calculator claims spelled out your logical processes perfectly.
I didnt know I had a scientific calculator on my computer ,what does that prove? That I am not absorbed so much in the tool as in the work? Personally I dont have much faith in Windows as a whole. I wouldnt do important work on it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
No. Ignorance of the calculator wasn't the problem. Your REACTION to its discovery were. When you said your claculator was broken, a person posted that you should use the Windows one. Now, SIGHT UNSEEN, you claimed that it didn't do enough digits, then that it wasn't a scientific calculator, and then that you didn't trust the mathimatical abilities of the computer. THREE different excuses, before you even looked at the calculator on your own computer. You, as usual, totally jumped the gun, and came to firm conclusions before you would even mouse click on an icon on your own computer and find out for yourself.
It goes to your pattern of making claims and proclamations of 100 percent accuracy without doing any legwork. That pattern is repeated over and over again. That's what is so illuminating about your ignorance of the calculator: not the ignorance itself, but the lengths you went to DEFEND your ignorance. Big important point here.
You made claims regarding temperature without showing your work.
I gave you a chance to show your work proving my figure wrong by presenting it. WHy didnt you? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
You demonstrate, again, your lack of grounding in logic and science. You claimed a temperature range. When asked how you came up with it, you yell 'prove me wrong.' It's intellectually dishonest, and downright lazy thinking, IDW. Prove you're right, or I'll just assume you're wrong based on all your bang-up calculations of the past. 10^5, for example.
The Moon does NOT have the lowest eccentricity of any natural object, either by the traditional definition, NOR the one you made up.
Yeah, that is probably true, but its not really that important of an error. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
It was important when you brought it up as evidence that the Moon is not what we think it is -- seeming to imply you believed it was artificial. Also, if it wasn't that important, why did you defend the position for 17 PAGES? Again, this goes to your repeated pattern of making the claim, being 100 percent sure about it, and when you are proved utterly wrong, don't admit it, and when REALLY cornered, say it isn't that important of an error.
By the by, you said you wanted one example when your ideas were solidly refuted -- well here's a complete one, and now you are admitting that you're wrong. That qualities as one example of your idea being solidly refuted to the point where you, reluctantly, must agree. These others are examples, too.
You're getting trounced right here with your electron/not photon claims. Your claims disagree with physics established well over a century ago.
Because it disagrees with "physics" established over a century ago and you cannot understand it means I got trounced? With those rules , Iv already lost before the game begins! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Not at all. If you HAVE a better model it has to accomplish certain things, among which include:
-It has to address and predict behavior better or more accurately than current models.
-It has to explain all the same natural phenomena and observation previously explained by the theory its attempting to replace.
-It has to be testable.
-It has to be falsifiable.
-It has to be repeatable.
You've gone past just replacing Einstein, to wiping out Muchelson and Morely, and gone right back to disputing Newton as well. How far back do you want to start, to make the IDWverse work? In the meantime, the traditional models (including relativity) are predicting wonderfully well. How do your models predict BETTER? How are any of your ideas FALSIFIABLE? Do you not see the importance of falsifiability?
Water is NOT the only compound that expands when frozen.
There are few others, but water is the most important because if ice sank to the bottom , the oceans would be forzen solid. As I recall the subject was intelligent design of the universe, which you were arguing against. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Irrelevant. You claimed, repeatedly, that water was the ONLY substance to expand upon freezing, and, again, claimed to know this for 100 percent certain, and argued about it for 6 pages. You were wrong, again. It isn't the fact that you were wrong, IDW, it's the absurd lengths you'll go to to avoid ADMITTING it.
You've repeatedly lied about who I am, and where I work, without evidence, nor apology.
Ive never said who you were, but I do know where you work and what your job description is. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Then why did you CLAIM you knew who I was? Was that a mistake? And, as for where I work, you've accused me of working for the NSA, which I don't do. So I know you are lying about knowing where I work, and what my job description is. It goes to your continued pattern of dishonesty, and reliance on fallacious arguments. You just keep on proving my points.
You've admitted lying on a host of different things.
NAME A FEW? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
"Ive never said who you were (lie: You've accused me of being Duncan Kunz, BA, J, and several others), but I do know where you work (lie: because you keep claiming government jobs that I don't have) and what your job description is (lie: You don't know what my job is, and merely use this as a convenient ad hominem)."
And that was just a sentence ago.
Oh, and you've CLAIMED that you sometimes lie, but when you do it is justified. You then will wimpily chime in with "Ok, so maybe I was exaggerating."
You have no understanding of the measured relative velocities of asteroids.
Proof? You made the claim, prove it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
Sure. During the craters discussion, you claimed that the relative velocities of asteroids were well under four kilometers per second. When pointed out the comet that hit Jupiter went significantly faster, you said that was a comet, not an asteroid. When pointed out sun grazers that go MUCH faster you changed the subject.
You never, ever, show the math, or show the work necessary to really prove your claims.
It is much easier for you to prove I am wrong than for me to prove I am right, I gave you that opprotunity and you FAILED. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 314074
You gave no such opportunity. You didn't show your work, you gave no observation that would falsify your claim. You rigged the game. NOTHING will prove to you that you are wrong, and you give no details. You just claim it is so (The Windows Calculator doesn't do enough digits!) and it is so, until absurd lengths are gone to to prove it.
It doesn't work that way.
I think this post and the examples of your behavior are quite clear, IDW.
Now then: Is there a book coming out any moment now, and thus you're a public figure? Or you don't, and you're not a public figure: you were just lying about the book in the first place? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 2:09 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When you tell me why you want to know? Is that clear enough? Quoting: IDW 314549
Okay. To test your credibility. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/19/2007 2:13 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But there not false, and you and I know theyre not, dont we? Quoting: IDW 314074
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they DO prove to be false. What do you think those you have accused of all sorts of nasty things should do? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/19/2007 2:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
When you tell me why you want to know? Quoting: IDW 314549
Well, I want to know because I'm interested in the subject it seems to be about. So yeah, I guess "interest" would be the answer.
It may ALREADY be finished, and made available to some. You will be among the last to know. Quoting: IDW 314549
Can I ask why? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314617
10/19/2007 4:32 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...because it costs so much to xerox them, and he can't find a mimeograph machine. |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/19/2007 4:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hey, when he plays nice, I'm quite willing to explore his theory. It's interesting, it's different, it's at the very least illuminating of what we think we know, and, heck, there's even a chance he's right!
It's when IDW goes into bully mode that I just can't help but respond. I'm not fond of slug-fests, but I've also never been good at backing down from bullies.
Others on this board feel the same. That's why conversations with IDW inevitably degenerate, to the dis-service of whatever was previously being discussed. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 314184
It was very kind of you to say this about IDW - "heck, there's even a chance he's right!"
As for IDW going "into bully mode" forcing you guys to respond - this can be perceived quite differently and simply "all relative" like Earth revolving around the Sun. Both the Copernican and the Ptolemaic views allow to predict orbital motion. Relative simplicity or complexity of equations does not change the fact that you can use any of those systems (in theory) to get the same results.
It seems highly ironical that people are willing to beat each other to death over what they think is the only true view of the world in order to find out later that there is a third view that reconciles both in a sense that both of them are partially true and both of them are irrelevant to
the truth of the third observer... or, shall we say, a puppet master, lol?
While Galileo was persecuted for the heresy of favoring the Copernican view which we accept today as ultimately true, would his example be a warning to us that we may be as arrogant and ignorant as we surely think the Church prosecutors were at Galileo's time?
It is even more ironic that the Galileo's experiment demonstrated by Apollo astronauts is considered by some to be one of the most convincing arguments... when it could be arguably done both ways and favor none of the views in light of the Space Power Facility built by NASA in 1969.
The argument using retroreflectors is similarly flawed because the Soviets, supposedly, put two of them on the Moon without sending manned missions, and, as such, it proves nothing.
It was also interesting to observe how "PANs" were fighting "HBs" (no offense, please, lol) over (im)possibility of obtaining photographic evidence of Apollo landings using telescopes. "PANs" were adamantly pitching that it is all about resolution, that it is physical law, and that it impossible to break the optical resolution limitation to see what we need to see. I was surprised that you joined this "resolution" club at some point. However, this explanation is not entirely true. As a matter of fact, optical interferometry breaks this barrier as far as resolution is concerned and invalidates the "resolution" explanation. Read about CHARA:
"It is called the CHARA (Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy) Array, and its ability to see into space with incredible detail—50 times finer than any single-mirror telescope ever built—promises to bring the night sky into incredibly sharp focus. For example, CHARA could zoom in on an illuminated object on the moon as small as a man. "If that man were driving a car," McAlister says, "we could distinguish one headlight from another."( [link to discovermagazine.com]
Of course, the club will find another "true" explanation what else can go wrong to get the desired photos but the point is -- the "resolution" club failed to provide a valid explanation while bullying the crowd of "HBs" with whatever the club evidently thought is good enough to keep "HBs" at bay.
When technical arguments are exhausted Apollo proponents tend to evoke the spirit of evil Russians who, supposedly, would never ever let untruth be told, lol. And yet again this can be showed to be questionable, time and again. See what Pesavento and Vick, authors of <<The Moon Race "End
Game"...>> , had to say about the Russian approach to telling "the Truth" - matryoshka where the "official" story of the next nested doll could directly contradict the previous information release.
In fact there are numerous examples of the Soviet experts expressing their criticism and, at times, disbelief of NASA's achievements. Read Kamanin's diaries, for instance, if you have access to them. General Nikolai Kamanin was one of the key persons in the Soviet space program during the Moon race. He said (I am paraphrasing) that it is pure foolhardiness to launch Apollo-8 with 3 people on board after only two tests of Saturn-V one of which, despite NASA's positive assessment, the Soviets qualified to be an undeniable failure. For comparison, the Soviets, supposedly, required at least three successful tests passed in a row for their own rockets before they would attempt to go ahead with the manned missions.
Regarding tracking capabilities of both nations Kamanin's diaries refer to a curious episode with Zond-4 that the Americans were totally convinced, based on their radio tracking intelligence, was a manned mission around the Moon similar to Apollo-8, only Zond-4 was launched on March 2, 1968...And Apollo-8 was launched on Dec 21, 1968... Later the Russians persuaded the U.S. that it really was not, lol. But the rumor still had it that it actually was... Who would you believe?
There is a lot more to this Zond-4 story in connection to death of Yuri Gagarin who was planned to be number one in the first Soviet crew to fly to the Moon but I doubt you will be able to google this one out. Truth can be stranger than fiction, lol... Have a good weekend! |
| Lt.
User ID: 287683
10/19/2007 5:00 PM | | nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314617
10/19/2007 5:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Thoughtful post, Lt.
The distinction we make about IDW is not that his ideas are different, or that he defends them vigorously. It is the manner in which he chooses to defend them.
Despite provocation the "PAN" crowd mostly manages to show their work. I can speak most closely to my own posts; when I post argument or counter-argument, I do not intend my words to be the whole. Instead I show where my data came from, what transforms I performed on it, and, essentially, do my best to help anyone reading to replicate my work in detail; to validate it or falsify it.
This is a very different style than that employed by most HBs. They would prefer to obfusticate and emotionalize. They often refuse to show where their data came from.
IDW, however, stands alone as someone whose arguments can be summed up simply; "I'm right. Trust me."
He will not give his work, he does not want anyone to replicate and validate it. Instead he insists "You aren't smart enough to understand."
This, GLP, is a place where we are expected to think outside the box and explore beyond the norm. It boggles me. Every post I make, underlying my post and my argument is "This may be complicated stuff but you CAN learn it." Underlying every one of IDW's posts is "This is stuff only IDW can understand. The rest of you just stop your blathering."
I would enjoy a meeting of ideas. I DO enjoy the meeting of ideas when people -- when IDW, in his rare mellow moments -- bring ideas to the table in a form where they can be understood and discussed.
But perhaps there lies the other distinction. To me, all ideas can be approached critically, regardless of source. Perhaps the style of GLP is that all ideas should be absorbed uncritically, and given a chance to flower before the sharp shears of rationality are applied to prune them. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 314617
10/19/2007 5:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Can't speak in detail to your links (I have paying work I really need to catch up on), but optical interferometry, as well as long-baseline observation, is already known about by all those who have posted about current observational limits. There's also adaptive optics, and integration over time (how Hubble is able to pick up some very dim objects). There are objects that have been visualized where the received light is on the order of one or two photons per minute!
There are two or three nested points to consider in reference to optical observation of any objects left on the Moon.
First is that current resolution of any existing system is a couple magnitudes too small. It is just possible that something like the slight darkening caused by removal and turning over of some of the lighter surface material might be detected as a one-pixel darker spot.
Second is that projected resolution of new stuff coming on line, predicted, planned; from the Japanese probe to a very large optical array, is within a few orders of magnitude, at best, of the largest dimensions of any of the space hardware up there. Which means, bluntly, the lunar hardware would be seen with no greater pixel resolution than is used for this smiley :).
Would you look at 100-pixel splotch that could be a rock or a crater and agree that that was incontrovertible evidence of a manned lunar landing? I wouldn't!
How detailed would you need a picture to be sure it was actually a landed spacecraft and footprints? Descent stage is about 10 meters across. Assume it takes at least five pixels to make out the shape of a 50-centimeter long footprint. So we're talking a telescope or camera with 10,000 times than anything currently able to look at the Moon, and at least 100 time better than even the Japanese probe or similar.
And that's just to see some oblong splotches that might or might not be bootprints. Do you think those would be convincing? I can think of a dozen other explanations without breaking a sweat (okay, I would break a few laws of physics, but since when has that been an issue with the Hoax Believer crowd?)
How close do we need to get before we can be convinced an actual human being wearing a boot stepped on the soil forty years ago?
Put it this way; the still photographs taken on the lunar surface are on medium-format film; square frames 70mm on a side. That's almost the size of IMAX film. Does anyone really think that kind of resolution is going to be available from anything less than a person standing on the ground and looking at those same scenes?
And yet, of course, these photographs of millions of times the resolution so far described are impeached daily by those hoax believers who claim to be waiting on a "better photograph." |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
