PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone know who this is?



johnwitts
2002-May-04, 11:50 PM
I was doing a search with my name and I found this site...

http://www.webspawner.com/users/sgm007/

He thanks me for my help. Does anyone know who he is?

Ian R
2002-May-05, 01:34 AM
At the bottom of the page John:

Copyright © 2001 Stuart Mullin. All Rights Reserved

Alan G. Archer
2002-May-05, 01:41 AM
On 2002-05-04 19:50, johnwitts wrote:
I was doing a search with my name and I found this site...

http://www.webspawner.com/users/sgm007/

He thanks me for my help. Does anyone know who he is?


Viewing the page's source, the HTML says that its author is Stuart Mullin. A Yahoo! search for Stuart Mullin returned seven Web page matches, with the webspawner.com page being the fifth result.

Alan

johnwitts
2002-May-05, 01:43 AM
Doh! Note to self; always read to the bottom of the page. Seriously, I think he's put that there since I posted the last message.

Oh yes I do.

What does everyone think of my 'prodegy'?

johnwitts
2002-May-05, 01:53 AM
BTW, IanR, I've done your video, and will send it as soon as I can find your address again.

Found it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-05-04 21:56 ]</font>

Jim
2002-May-05, 02:44 AM
On 2002-05-04 19:50, johnwitts wrote:
I was doing a search with my name and I found this site...

http://www.webspawner.com/users/sgm007/

He thanks me for my help. Does anyone know who he is?

slasher?

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1146&forum=3&15

JayUtah
2002-May-05, 05:36 AM
Yes, the page has "student project" written all over it.

...in one photograph there is something which looks suspiciously like a sound microphone being dangled down. This is quite suspicious.

Yes it is. Boom microphones would be totally useless for shooting actors in space suits. Especially since the actors playing astronauts would have microphones as part of their costumes. You would kill several birds with one stone to simply use the microphones the astronauts were wearing.

The evidence against a conspiracy is quite rare, as many people seem to be happy to question it.

A bit unclear; I presume he means people are happy not to question the moon landings.

But he raises an interesting question. To say there is little evidence against the conspiracy misses an important point. The evidence for a conspiracy derives almost exclusively from interpretation of materials provided by NASA -- materials which under different interpretation are the proof of Apollo's success.

The same material, two different interpretations: one natural, common, and mundane; the other sensationalist, uncommon, and incredible. Which one will call attention to itself? Which one will stand out?

The hoax itself could be a hoax, as people seem to delight in distrusting authority, especially the nations governing body.

A very astute observation for a student. It gets even deeper when you realize that the "governing body" postulated by many conspiracy theorists is not the visible trappings of government but instead a more covert cabal concreted from various actual and mythical secret societies, and acting through the visible mechanism.

When there isn't anything necessarily to distrust, people tend to invent things to distrust.

why does America insist on going back, time after time.

This is one of those contradictory arguments that suggest the sloppy nature of the hoax theories. Here it's suspicious that additional missions were undertaken. Later it's suspicious that we don't have regular commuter service to the moon by now.

it was really possible to get to the moon then why didn’t Russia go there after the U.S.A.

Because no one knew better than the Soviets that second place in a space race is a very poor consolation prize. After Krushchev the rules changed for the Soviets. They could no longer break records at any cost. They could no longer recklessly endanger astronauts in hastily put-together spacecraft. And the death in 1966 of Korolev spelled the effective end of their moon landing.

The Soviets settled for first place in another space race event: the first operational space station.

A conspiracy is unlikely because of the fact that for every problem that conspiracy theorists give, there is a reasonable answer available for it.

Because of the way the conspiracy theorists structure their arguments, this point can't be stressed highly enough. Most conspiracy arguments go like this: "It must have happened the way I say it did, because it couldn't have happened any other way." This is an attractive argument for them because it compels, rather than convinces. They don't actually have to provide any evidence for the way they say it happened. But if it's the "only way", then it must have happened that way, no matter how unlikely or counterindicated.

But of course it all hinges on the absence of all other possible explanations. Because the conspiracy theories are so improbable, almost any other supportable explanation would step ahead of them. Witness David Percy's fanatical devotion to the idea that shadows on the moon must be completely black. If that's not true, then there's no reason to buy into his highly improbable assertion of artificial lights, which he supports solely on the contention that it's the "only way".

Why would the Government waste millions of dollars on a conspiracy-wouldn’t going once be enough?

Another good observation. A magician never repeats a trick, and for a good reason: complex illusions don't stand up to repeated examination. A single successful landing would have satisfied Kennedy's challenge, bested the Soviets, and fulfilled the nation's pride.

NASA's actions are inconsistent with someone trying to do what the conspiracy theorists say they were trying to do. This is a useful tool when evaluating hoax claims: Is the proposed scenario a good way to carry out a hoax, or is it simply an ad hoc hypothesis formulated to fit what's needed?

If we had really gone to the moon then there should be hotels and casinos on the moon.

This is a common argument. It's the centerpiece of the chief hoax believer over at the Hare Krishna forum. As promised, first the conspiracists argue "Why only seven attempts?" and then a bit later, "Why can't I vacation on the moon yet?" The Krishna author wants to know why, if we developed a "reliable" and "routine" method of reaching the moon, haven't we gone back?

Apollo was a crash program, no pun intended. It moved at a feverish pace, and was aimed toward one goal: initiation of lunar exploration prior to 1970. Repeatable does not mean routine, and it was hardly reliable. Nearly every Apollo mission had something go wrong which caused furrowed brows and required fast thinking to overcome.

The answer is easy: We'll go back to the moon when and if the American public makes it a priority. The taxpayer giveth, and the taxpayer taketh away.

I think it's cool he linked to Clavius, though.

Ian R
2002-May-07, 07:46 PM
BTW, IanR, I've done your video, and will send it as soon as I can find your address again

Woo Hoo! Thanks John. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif