#91
|
|||
|
|||
Alan LeHun wrote: In article o5EKc.1059157$Ar.127259 @twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com, says... Another stupid ass American Doesn't matter, still stupid ass, and American seems to fit in quite well with stupid, considering the avalanche of 'information' coming out of George Orwell's 1984 'homeland security' bunch anyways. I'll stick to dumb ass American because it fits so well into our modern scientific world view. Nope. There is more than enough evidence in my post to let people know where I live, and I can tell you that that is my nationality. You are still a dumb ass American or not, I merely quoted the documentary...so I guess you and others have nothing to say other than to insult them. Go figure. And Americans, in general, are not stupid. Un-educated and misinformed, almost definitely, but not stupid. Tell that to Jerry Springer. claiming to know it all about a documentary he hasn't even seen, no doubt. Nope, but I am not critising the documentary. You're a joke. I am critising your posts. Even an American could work that one out. A dumb ass American figure that out? Probably not..but hey you did. Your type of analysis has been left unanswered. Instead, you top posted an unjustified ad- hominems. Here is some more ad hominems for ya....dumb ass. is better left for people like the Jehovah Witnesses or better yet how about the Mennonites, you know those guys in horse drawn carriages who don't believe in the tooth fairy, or santa claus or radio's and TV's for that matter. Go talk to them, maybe they will understand your nonsense. They would probably at least try to answer my critiques and concerns. Like you answered anything? I merely quoted the documentary..did you bother to watch it? No. Instead you insulted...er ad hominem attacks on me..showing who the real dumb ass is. Go watch it then make your opinion known eh....dumb ass. I wonder why you didn't bother. Was it the scientific words like "inertia" that put you off, Negative mass? hardly. or are you just spouting second hand nonsense Nonsense to dumb arses such as yourself? Hard to tell..you tell me. without any understanding of the content whatsoever, Have you watched the documentary? No. So who is the dumb arse? Wait before you answer that....it is already clear that you *are* (a trait usually attributed to the American's you so obviously despise, Dumb ass fortress america...sheesh...yes I can't stand it. Sue me. but one that will soon be attached to Canadians if you continue to make such an arse of yourself). Oh, no...you're making ad hominem attacks...because you are simply put a dumb arse not to mention a hypocrite. Apologies to all in the various groups for rising to the bait. It ends here. Good, now get lost and leave the real research to the real men. Or better yet...go and WATCH THE VIDEO before making your stupid sweeping statements, dumb arse. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Dumb ass..Its night right now, I can see stars. My camera can see them too. ****in' moron. The Badastronomy web site was made for people like you, dimwits and morons. No, your camera cannot see them with fast exposure settings. If you would care to experiment for yourself, please report back to us on the fastest shutter speed you can use and still "see" stars with your camera. Then we will compare that with the slowest shutter speed you can use without overexposing a brightly lit foreground object. Get the picture? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Dumb ass..Its night right now, I can see stars. My camera can see them too. ****in' moron. The Badastronomy web site was made for people like you, dimwits and morons. No, your camera cannot see them with fast exposure settings. If you would care to experiment for yourself, please report back to us on the fastest shutter speed you can use and still "see" stars with your camera. Then we will compare that with the slowest shutter speed you can use without overexposing a brightly lit foreground object. Get the picture? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Holy ****..why dont you people watch the documentary then make your
silly comments. Then at least questions like what you pose below won't have to be answered because they are answered in the documentary. Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message .net.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message . is.net.cable.rogers.com... The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain. It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin put on the facts. The US government openly admitted recently snip bilge So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing a moon landing, Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get your story strait. Well, I'm trying to get yours strait (sic) to be honest. Are you saying that they actually went to the moon, but showed fake videos? Yes. That is all the documentary said. That the immediate televised landing was hoaxed. It ddidn't say the landing itself was hoaxed and indeed you would have to be pretty out to lunch to believe that. Why bother hoaxing something that really happened? I'm perplexed. but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong, and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood special effects? Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even their technicians and artists place stars in the background. Yes, because these are *simulations* and they want them to look nice, and people expect stars in space. Duh....but you forget that NASA also likes to maintain accuracy or as realistic as possible. That is the markings of a good artist that works for the space industry no doubt. The markings of a good artist is their use of aesthetics and license. Creating a simulation of a scene does not obligate the artist to simulate particular characteristics of real imaging devices. Even if you work for NASA. Besides you missed my point, many images from JPL and NASA show stars in the background. My point was they missed blackening them out like they normally do. But why? You're saying that they deliberately didn't include stars in the "hoaxed" footage; which shows it to be a hoax because there are no stars to be seen. Please explain why they would deliberately make it look incorrect, so that people such as yourself could see the deliberate flaw later on. This makes no sense at all. I can take any camera and place it on a tripod and take pictures of stars. Your telling me NASA sent a camera to the moon, and put it on a tripod and it couldnt take a picture of stars? Give me a break, we aren't all as dumbass about photography as you seem to be. Yes, but can you do that in broad daylight? Can you take pictures of the stars if the landscape around you is floodlit to daylight levels? Would you give me a break? You're telling me that the ISS or moon missions were never out of the daylight? You are even kookier than I thought possible. Exactly. I don't believe any of the moon missions took place during the lunar night. The place was bathed in sunlight. They would have been stumbling around in the dark otherwise. As much light hits the moon as the earth, you know. Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Depends on your optics no doubt. No, it depends on your emulsion, or your CCD. Ian |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Holy ****..why dont you people watch the documentary then make your
silly comments. Then at least questions like what you pose below won't have to be answered because they are answered in the documentary. Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message .net.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message . is.net.cable.rogers.com... The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain. It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin put on the facts. The US government openly admitted recently snip bilge So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing a moon landing, Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get your story strait. Well, I'm trying to get yours strait (sic) to be honest. Are you saying that they actually went to the moon, but showed fake videos? Yes. That is all the documentary said. That the immediate televised landing was hoaxed. It ddidn't say the landing itself was hoaxed and indeed you would have to be pretty out to lunch to believe that. Why bother hoaxing something that really happened? I'm perplexed. but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong, and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood special effects? Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even their technicians and artists place stars in the background. Yes, because these are *simulations* and they want them to look nice, and people expect stars in space. Duh....but you forget that NASA also likes to maintain accuracy or as realistic as possible. That is the markings of a good artist that works for the space industry no doubt. The markings of a good artist is their use of aesthetics and license. Creating a simulation of a scene does not obligate the artist to simulate particular characteristics of real imaging devices. Even if you work for NASA. Besides you missed my point, many images from JPL and NASA show stars in the background. My point was they missed blackening them out like they normally do. But why? You're saying that they deliberately didn't include stars in the "hoaxed" footage; which shows it to be a hoax because there are no stars to be seen. Please explain why they would deliberately make it look incorrect, so that people such as yourself could see the deliberate flaw later on. This makes no sense at all. I can take any camera and place it on a tripod and take pictures of stars. Your telling me NASA sent a camera to the moon, and put it on a tripod and it couldnt take a picture of stars? Give me a break, we aren't all as dumbass about photography as you seem to be. Yes, but can you do that in broad daylight? Can you take pictures of the stars if the landscape around you is floodlit to daylight levels? Would you give me a break? You're telling me that the ISS or moon missions were never out of the daylight? You are even kookier than I thought possible. Exactly. I don't believe any of the moon missions took place during the lunar night. The place was bathed in sunlight. They would have been stumbling around in the dark otherwise. As much light hits the moon as the earth, you know. Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Depends on your optics no doubt. No, it depends on your emulsion, or your CCD. Ian |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Funny, after I sent this in I went to tell my wife....dont be suprised to see some dumbass point out the spelling error. You win the award! Paul Lawler wrote: "Jaxtraw" wrote in message ... "Yoda" wrote in message .net.cable.rogers.com... Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell? Um, HAOX? Just checking to see if you can spell, and I guess you can.....now do some real research on your own. Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell? PICTIRES? Gee. this is fun. Gee, you can spell..can you spell dumbass? Ah yes... again faced with his inability to provide a shred of evidence other than the repeated mantra "Go look it up if you care, I can't be bothered" Yoda suffers a meltdown and is reduced to babbling ad hominem attacks. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Funny, after I sent this in I went to tell my wife....dont be suprised to see some dumbass point out the spelling error. You win the award! Paul Lawler wrote: "Jaxtraw" wrote in message ... "Yoda" wrote in message .net.cable.rogers.com... Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell? Um, HAOX? Just checking to see if you can spell, and I guess you can.....now do some real research on your own. Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell? PICTIRES? Gee. this is fun. Gee, you can spell..can you spell dumbass? Ah yes... again faced with his inability to provide a shred of evidence other than the repeated mantra "Go look it up if you care, I can't be bothered" Yoda suffers a meltdown and is reduced to babbling ad hominem attacks. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Well said for a dumb arse.
CeeBee wrote: Yoda wrote in sci.astro: You guys sometimes only prove that the science of the last one hundred years is really just a new religion. You, of all people? A moon hoax twit accusing _others_ of following a religion? Where do you get the idea that there is a "moon hoax"? This was never said, nor implied. Its the footage dumb arse...DUMB ARSE! You're a stunner. Really, you are. You're a dumb ass, so who cares what you think? I don't think the people at CBC will be loosing sleep over it because dumb asses like you think there is wind on the moon, and mud to boot! |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Well said for a dumb arse.
CeeBee wrote: Yoda wrote in sci.astro: You guys sometimes only prove that the science of the last one hundred years is really just a new religion. You, of all people? A moon hoax twit accusing _others_ of following a religion? Where do you get the idea that there is a "moon hoax"? This was never said, nor implied. Its the footage dumb arse...DUMB ARSE! You're a stunner. Really, you are. You're a dumb ass, so who cares what you think? I don't think the people at CBC will be loosing sleep over it because dumb asses like you think there is wind on the moon, and mud to boot! |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Sticks and stones...dumb arse.
CeeBee wrote: Yoda wrote in sci.astro: I wouldn't be shocked if you did believe that there is not only mud there but an atmosphere to boot. I wouldn't be shocked if the Yoda doll in the Star Wars movies has actually more brains than his namesake in this newsgroup. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ v4 | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 4th 03 11:52 PM |