revisiting Apollo

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:42:49 GMT, Yoda
wrote:

**** you asshole.


And that's what all your arguments boil down to.

Why don't you get your higher intelligence to
shut down another spacecraft, kookboi?





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.

What are you the morally majority? Not to mention pretty dimwitted.

CeeBee wrote:

Yoda wrote in alt.astronomy:


Swine!



Your facts and figures may be nonsense or sub par, but your swearing and
cursing certainly is top notch.

Jaxtraw wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Yoda" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
|
| Where do you get the idea that you didn't say that the pictures taken

on

| the Moon are hoaxed?
|
| Explain the picture of the moon rock with the letter C on it please?

Easy. The mark is not to be found on either of the duplication masters

used

to make research copies. It's not to be found on the original. And it's
not to be found on *any* version of the *other* photograph of the same
rock -- which no conspiracy theorist seems yet to have seen. The mark is
found on exactly one physical copy of one photo -- a print at LPI. That
this print was subsequently scanned and widely distributed as a JPEG is
irrelevant.

The conspiracy theorists never went farther than the JPEG. They never

tried

to trace it back to any authoritative source. Had they done so, they

would

have been led to LPI's photo file and that one print. And had they found
that print and put it under a microscope, they would have seen that it was

a

hair that found its way into the optical path during printing, since it
quite clearly lies *atop* the photo and is not in it.

Had they looked at either of the duplication masters, they would have

failed

to see the mark. The "anomaly" here is the reliance of self-proclaimed
photo analysts on downloaded JPEGs as substitutes for doing real
investigation.



Tsk. A proper crank *always* prefers a jpeg over the original image, since
many anomalies simply cannot be seen in the originals, and require jpeg
processing to properly reveal them. Where, for instance, is Hoagland's
martian subterranean city, without the power of jpeg to reveal it? )

Seriously, as I was typing this I was reminded of Lowell's self deception
regarding telescopes. He wrote many times that for planetary observations,
smaller rather than larger telescopes are better; since the larger
telescopes fail to show the canals...

Ian


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.

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.67...
Yoda wrote in alt.astronomy:


Idiot.

No, no, no - "****ing moron" it was. Don't get yourself confused.

I think that I'm the idiot and Wally is the "Effing moron." g

"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. 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 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 wasn't fooled on anything.

Of course you were. You cited the "documentary" as evidence that the U.S.
government had recanted. How can that be a valid argument if the
"documentary" is not real?

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.

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

Such as?

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

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

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


Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my
| ass off over all of this.

As am I. It's always funny to see people bluster their way into an
argument, calling people names and referring vaguely to evidence, only
to
have people more familiar with that evidence completely deconstruct the
argument. It's even more funny to see the original provacateurs try to
backpedal their way out of embarrassing gaffes by saying it was all just
a
prank.

Well if you really knew me, you would know that I am fooling around
anyway. But who cares eh.


If all conspiracy theories were as ineptly argued as this one, there
wouldn't be any.

Ineptly? Yeah right. Thats why so many people are responding? Cuz
they feel so superior...



| no one on this newsgroup has anything realistic to say other
| than "you're wrong", or "you're a kook"....hahahhahahahhahah

Not true.

Yeah right.

You've been given a number of scientifically valid explanations
for why your arguments -- provocation or not -- do not stand.

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!

You have
consistently ignored them, preferring instead to follow the ad hominem
threads.

| Usenet is a joke.

Thanks in large measure to contributions such as yours.

Hardly, in large its a joke because the majority of people here on
usenet are ****in asswipes.


| If anyone reads my responses all I did was quote the documentary.
| Nothing more and nothing less.

False.

And you're a damn ****in idiot if you can't see that.

You asserted that the "documentary" was proof that the U.S.
government had recanted on its claim to have landed on the moon, and you
berated all of us for not believing its conclusions.

No I didn't. When I was asked for proof I quoted the film. I was
quoting the film from the beginning. So you all got sucked into a hoax.

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; for
instance in the documentary that hoaxed *you*, they used names from Kubrick
movies. Failing to do that means you just look like an idiot;
congratulations! You convinced us all that you are, indeed, an idiot.

Ian

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:50:57 GMT, Yoda
wrote:

This newsgroup frequented by some of the biggest kooks online.


res ipsa loquitur





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.

"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?

| | 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.
|
| 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. 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.

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

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

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?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:38:36 GMT, Yoda
wrote:



Jay Windley wrote:

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| Well your insults do not bother me one wit, not one. I am laughing my
| ass off over all of this.

As am I. It's always funny to see people bluster their way into an
argument, calling people names and referring vaguely to evidence, only to
have people more familiar with that evidence completely deconstruct the
argument. It's even more funny to see the original provacateurs try to
backpedal their way out of embarrassing gaffes by saying it was all just a
prank.

Well if you really knew me, you would know that I am fooling around
anyway. But who cares eh.


No, you aren't: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J62E246D8






--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.

"Yoda" wrote in message
news |
| They are just ****in pictures people!!!!!!!! Who cares that some think
| they are hoaxed.

Obviously you do. Or at least you do until it's obvious that the people
against whom you're arguing know more about the subject than you do. Then
it's all just a big joke, ha ha. Not buying it. Like most conspiracy
theorists, you're used to dealing only with a relatively disinterested
public whom you can browbeat into thinking you know much more than they.
But now you're wallowing and you are trying to reinvent yourself as a
provacateur.

| Does it bother you people that much? Obviously.

It bothers me that people are claiming the photos were hoaxed, and that it
is not scientifically tenable to believe that they're real. What other
aspects of pseudoscience will you tolerate? How would you feel about being
judged someday by a jury composed of people who can't see through bogus
arguments even when they're dressed up as "science" or labelled "common
sense"?

| We have thousands of pictures of Unidentified Flying Objects...why don't
| you apply your "superior critical thinking" to those thousands of
| pictures and videos instead of worrying that someone thinks a few Apollo
| pics were hoaxed. Sheesh men, get a life!

Make up your mind. You seem to be claiming simultaneously that we're
spending both too much and too little effort on this question.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org