revisiting Apollo

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Not really. I talked about camera pictures..should I have said
| footage...where no stars appear...and I was given a low down on how
| still cameras work..that was a good "scientific" rebuttal...NOT!

Do you think video cameras are immune from the problems of dynamic range
too? You seem far more interested in gloating over what you say is everyone
else's failure to follow you as you changed horses.

I didnt change horses at all. Whats the matter, don't like being had?
Don't like being insulted when all you can do is insult others? Taking
lessons from the skitzocult and psyop people online are we? Usenet is a
joke of the first proportions. I demonstrates everyday the global
insanity that is called "mankind".

The arguments about why
stars don't appear in various forms of photography come back to the same
principles, which were immediately explained to you.

| No I didn't. When I was asked for proof I quoted the film. I was
| quoting the film from the beginning.

You also brought up Hollywood feature films as "evidence" that stars can be
seen in space, trying to pass that off as "optical science" about which
we're supposedly ignorant. You've done more than quote the "documentary".

So? You are saying that Hollywood movies aren't attempting for
accuracy? Thats bull**** and you know it.


| So you all got sucked into a hoax.

What hoax? I've known for many months that "The Dark Side of the Moon" is
not a real documentary. The only joke here has been you attempting to foist
it off as a real program showing real evidence.

I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all. You
guys got all hot and huffy over it, and figured on how superior you all
are to little ol me. All you proved in all of this exorcise is that you
are all slaves to the ego.


| I wasn't fooled on anything.

Of course you were.

Hardly.

You cited the "documentary" as evidence that the U.S.
government had recanted.

Sure did. So? Idiots quote project blue book all the time to say there
is no such thing as UFO's. Doesn't make them right.

How can that be a valid argument if the
"documentary" is not real?

It is a real documentary, and the fact that the CBC or any other news
network would spend money and the time to put out disinformation or
misinformation proves that there is a cover up. Or are you too simple
minded to see that angle of propaganda? Never mind, I already know you are.


Further, you kept encouraging everyone else to watch it, when you obviously
have not seen it entirely yourself. You didn't start this "I'm just
fooling" line of argument until it was conclusively established that your
only bit of evidence was bogus. Classic face-saving.

That is what they call in psych circles a blind study. Like a placebo
effect. For example, if I write a headline on Usenet that says
something like, NASA Admits UFO's Are Real...I'll get all kinds of
people asking me where did NASA say that? The point...it gets attention
and you all fell into it rather nicely.


| There is still alot of discrepancies regarding the Moon landings.

Such as?

Need we go there? I have better things to do than be subjected to more
insults.


| You people are so [expletive] superior though,
| it isn't worth bringing up by such a kook as myself.

Well, you certainly have the inferiority complex that many conspiracy
theorists seem to share.

Hardly, that was sarcasm. On the other hand, you guys do have a
superiority complex and it shows through like the smell of **** waffles
through the bathroom.


You express considerable resentment for people who
have more knowledge and experience than you.

Hardly. But I do know more than your average dumbass out there.

I can't speak for the others,
but I'd be happy to share what I have learned.

| Not really there mr. superiority. Had you fooled.

Not in the least. Mr. Karel's film has been circulating for several months.
I did the research on it months ago. I even cover it on my web site. Just
because you recently found it it's bogus doesn't mean the rest of us didn't
already know it.

Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Yoda" wrote in message

| I've owned a Hasselblad...

I don't believe you. I find it hard to believe that someone would invest
thousands of dollars in a professional camera system and not have learned
the basics of exposure and dynamic range.

While in this case, I don't believe him either, it could acutally be true. I
do know several people who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on
professional telescope systems and have not learned the basics of
astronomical observing. g

Jaxtraw wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...


Jay Windley wrote:


Hmm. You don't seem to have the basics right. If you intend to sucker people
this way, you need to stick in some hidden clues that you were hoaxing all
along, which you can then reveal as proof that you were never serious;

Yeah well you all got hook, lined and sinkered.

for
instance in the documentary that hoaxed *you*, they used names from Kubrick
movies.

You got hoaxed by the hoaxed film. I merely quoted it and acted to
defend it. Can't stand to see how much you were all dragged down I see.


Failing to do that means you just look like an idiot;
congratulations! You convinced us all that you are, indeed, an idiot.

Feel superior now?


Ian

I disagree. If you intend to sucker people, they can't know what you
are doing. However if they aren't dimwits they might figure it out.

"Yoda" wrote in message
ogers.com...

Oh c'mon, Hawking is allowed to make errors, and in the words of some
crank on here, that is the mark of good science. True scientists know
when they are wrong and man enough to admit it.

Too bad you're not.

Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
ogers.com...
|
|
| Yes, you should have.
|
| Really? Maybe you dimwits shouldnt be so presumptuous.

It's not presumption to follow a line of thought from one sentence to
another. Perhaps you shouldn't be so presumptuous as to believe your intent
is always clear in your writings.

| The television camera used on Apollo 11 was certainly poor by today's
| standards,
|
| No ****.

And do you see why comparing it to today's standards is wrong?

No I don't see that. Comparing it to the Hubble maybe. But a camera
with such poor quality is a joke.


| | Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the lander.
| | That glare is a laughable.
|
| Please identify the photo you're describing.

Why do you care so much? Is it part of your superiority complex...that
you need to prove to the world, how smart you are, how brilliant you
are, how much you have it all figured out? What a joke.

|
| If it is a Hasselblad 70mm photo, use the following as a reference
| http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...m/magazine/?40

Please identify the photo you're describing. You complain that all we do is
insult you.

Thats all you guys have pretty much done. Hypocrites.


Here I am giving you the opportunity to present real evidence
and have me (us) comment on it. Please don't continue to say we're evading
the discussion if you won't take the opportunity to present a dispassionate
argument.

What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know
nothing(sic).


| Yeah whatever. There are plenty of used cameras out there you know.

A used Hasselblad 500/EL still costs about $1,500.

Whatever...you'll argue everything and anything.

And you still haven't
explained how you were able to use your Hasselblad without apparently
understanding dynamic range.

And before you accuse me of distraction or of trying to argue still
photography when you were talking about videography, keep in mind that the
same principles apply in both cases. The discussion of dynamic range in
still photography translates directly to videography.

| Excuses, excuses. For a billion dollar project to have such poor
| quality images is a joke.

You're retreating into a general argument in response to specific questions.
You're just saying, "Money can buy anything." Again, you seem to have
little understanding of what the Apollo 11 camera actually accomplished. If
you perhaps did some research into that, you could feel more comfortable
about how they approached television on that mission.

I don't even care about Apollo or any other moon project from the 60s or
70s. I couldnt care less if man went to the moon or landed on some
****in green cheese for that matter. What I did find interesting was
how emotional stupifying this newsgroup got over the mere suggestions of
faked footage. Because that proves how mankind is dualistic, and
countless blind experiments have been done by me online to prove this
over and over again. You are all slaves!


How many small, self-contained television cameras existed in 1969? How many
existed that could cram their signal onto a single S-band radio signal
transmitted over a one-meter dish 250,000 miles? How many that could --
with a single vidicon -- photograph in stark shadow and in full sunlight?
Did you know that the vidicon on Apollo 11's camera was actually classified
military technology that had been developed at a cost of millions and
borrowed by NASA?


No I didnt. Isn't it nice since you bring up the military, that science
is used for evil, murder and mayhem rather than the betterment of
mankind. This implies that the moon landing missions served a military
purpose from the get go and perhaps when they realized there is nothing
there that would actually help for world domination, they decided it
wasnt worth going to the moon anymore and so future moon missions were
scrapped altogether.

"Yoda" wrote in message
news


Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Not really. I talked about camera pictures..should I have said
| footage...where no stars appear...and I was given a low down on how
| still cameras work..that was a good "scientific" rebuttal...NOT!

Do you think video cameras are immune from the problems of dynamic range
too? You seem far more interested in gloating over what you say is
everyone
else's failure to follow you as you changed horses.

I didnt change horses at all. Whats the matter, don't like being had?
Don't like being insulted when all you can do is insult others? Taking
lessons from the skitzocult and psyop people online are we? Usenet is a
joke of the first proportions. I demonstrates everyday the global
insanity that is called "mankind".

Mainly by allowing us to observe loons who believe they are the targets of
imaginary government conspiracies from a safe distance...

The arguments about why
stars don't appear in various forms of photography come back to the same
principles, which were immediately explained to you.

| No I didn't. When I was asked for proof I quoted the film. I was
| quoting the film from the beginning.

You also brought up Hollywood feature films as "evidence" that stars can
be
seen in space, trying to pass that off as "optical science" about which
we're supposedly ignorant. You've done more than quote the
"documentary".

So? You are saying that Hollywood movies aren't attempting for
accuracy? Thats bull**** and you know it.

Most hollywood movies can't even get Newton's law's right; more often than
not spaceships stop when their engines stop. Do you really believe these
movies are striving for accuracy?


| So you all got sucked into a hoax.

What hoax? I've known for many months that "The Dark Side of the Moon"
is
not a real documentary. The only joke here has been you attempting to
foist
it off as a real program showing real evidence.

I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all. You
guys got all hot and huffy over it, and figured on how superior you all
are to little ol me. All you proved in all of this exorcise is that you
are all slaves to the ego.

Well, that depends whether person A is superior to person B if person A
understand basic science, and person B doesn't, but makes grandiose and
ridiculous scientific claims.


| I wasn't fooled on anything.

Of course you were.

Hardly.

You cited the "documentary" as evidence that the U.S.
government had recanted.

Sure did. So? Idiots quote project blue book all the time to say there
is no such thing as UFO's. Doesn't make them right.

It seems your confusion is beginning to brew here...

How can that be a valid argument if the
"documentary" is not real?

It is a real documentary, and the fact that the CBC or any other news
network would spend money and the time to put out disinformation or
misinformation proves that there is a cover up. Or are you too simple
minded to see that angle of propaganda? Never mind, I already know you
are.

....and here it is in its full glory. You've already claimed that you knew
the mockumentary was a hoax, and you used that hoax against us, yet now you
claim it's true. Additionally, in true conspiracy theory paranoia, you claim
this hoax is "misinformation" and proof of a cover up; yet it's a strange
cover-up that declares its intentions for all to see. By this logic, Spinal
Tap, being a mockumentary that openly admits to being a mockumentary, is
part of a disinformation conspiracy. Hmmm.


Further, you kept encouraging everyone else to watch it, when you
obviously
have not seen it entirely yourself. You didn't start this "I'm just
fooling" line of argument until it was conclusively established that
your
only bit of evidence was bogus. Classic face-saving.

That is what they call in psych circles a blind study. Like a placebo
effect. For example, if I write a headline on Usenet that says
something like, NASA Admits UFO's Are Real...I'll get all kinds of
people asking me where did NASA say that? The point...it gets attention
and you all fell into it rather nicely.

Well yes, and all publicity is good publicity. Unless it discredits your POV
and makes you look like a berk. As in this case.

| There is still alot of discrepancies regarding the Moon landings.

Such as?

Need we go there? I have better things to do than be subjected to more
insults.


| You people are so [expletive] superior though,
| it isn't worth bringing up by such a kook as myself.

Well, you certainly have the inferiority complex that many conspiracy
theorists seem to share.

Hardly, that was sarcasm. On the other hand, you guys do have a
superiority complex and it shows through like the smell of **** waffles
through the bathroom.

I think the word you're desperately grappling for here is "wafts".

You express considerable resentment for people who
have more knowledge and experience than you.

Hardly. But I do know more than your average dumbass out there.

Yes. You really are an above-average dumbass.

I can't speak for the others,
but I'd be happy to share what I have learned.

| Not really there mr. superiority. Had you fooled.

Not in the least. Mr. Karel's film has been circulating for several
months.
I did the research on it months ago. I even cover it on my web site.
Just
because you recently found it it's bogus doesn't mean the rest of us
didn't
already know it.

Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

Well done. You're making great progress.

Ian

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
snip
Usenet is a joke.
snip

....yet you posted over 20 messages to this thread alone. If it's such a
joke, why participate?

I think you are confused.
That was a movie called 'Capricorn One'.

That movie sucks. Never seen it and have no intention of watching it
ever.

If' you've never seen it, how do you know it sucks, or is this another
example of your higher level data analysis skillset?
snip

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:02:57 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:

You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints.

And you have wide experience of making footprints in fine material in
low-gravity vacuum environments, and can therefore authoritatively state
this.

And while we're about it, can I recommend you pop over to your nearest
ironworks, and examine the effect of stepping into the blacksand in the
moulds.

The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...

duh indeed. Anyone still spouting this piece of claptrap needs their brain
removed, polished to get rid of any wrinkles, and used as a pool ball.
They're clearly too dense to find it of any other use.

threadplonk

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:43:01 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:

Did you watch the video? Probably not.


My friends are laughing there asses off at what you just said because
they know me very well cause they listen to me all the time,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, thats why they're laughing their a*sses off. Because tehy have to
listen to you all the time. Sorry, but there it is.

and they
know that I keep watch for propaganda more than any other person they
know. So please your American ignorance is showing through

Since when did Zen Internet move to the US, and why are they forging .co.uk
domain names.... You really are a cretin aren't you?


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Yoda" wrote in message
news

I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all. You
guys got all hot and huffy over it, and figured on how superior you all
are to little ol me. All you proved in all of this exorcise is that you
are all slaves to the ego.

To misquote Mark Twain, Everyone's superior... only on different subjects.
Perhaps someday you'll find a subject in which you are superior.Equivocating
maybe? You are really not very good as a k00k. You might try for spelling.
There's almost always a "right" answer in spelling.