PDA

View Full Version : Why?



luna
2001-Nov-13, 10:23 PM
I have done a small amount of research on the subject of moon hoax theories, but have yet to find an answer to this question. The reasons for pretending the U.S. went to the moon was to prove the U.S.'s superiority and might over Russia during the cold war. Supposedly, the U.S. staged the whole moon landing bit. If the U.S. went (staged) to the moon once, and proved that they were able to get there, why stage some more landings? (If the only reason was to prove our superiority?)

Wiley
2001-Nov-13, 11:33 PM
I suppose to show that it was not a fluke or that we just got lucky.

I guess its the same reason we dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshimo and Nagasaki. Although one would've been enough to convince me, the PTB apparently believed otherwise.

luna
2001-Nov-13, 11:47 PM
Why so many more missions? As I stated, we only wanted to (yaddih yaddah) prove our superiority to Russia, why not two? If your theory is correct, why the extra money just to say 'we didn't get lucky'?

The Rat
2001-Nov-14, 12:58 AM
On 2001-11-13 17:23, luna wrote:
If the U.S. went (staged) to the moon once, and proved that they were able to get there, why stage some more landings? (If the only reason was to prove our superiority?)


Well, as radical as this may seem to some, maybe, just maybe, somebody actually gave a DAMN ABOUT DOING REAL SCIENCE?!?!?!

Mr. X
2001-Nov-14, 01:27 AM
Engineering is real science according to me, but what the hey. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

David Simmons
2001-Nov-14, 01:34 AM
Don't get hot under the collar guys. It looks to me like luna is pointing out a weakness the the HB's rationale.

But, luna, that is futile, although maybe fun. Many weakness have been shown over and over and over. The HB's pretend that nothing was ever said about those weaknesses. And they go right on repeating the same, tired points.

For an example, see the SAMU post, in its unbelievably tiresome repetition, about the temperature of Apollo 13 .

Silas
2001-Nov-14, 03:45 AM
I really like Wiley's answer, re Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

The central weakness in the HB field is A-13. Why would we have faked a failure? If the whole idea is to convince people...why undermine the effort?

If I were staging the Moon Hoax...I would have staged the following...

1) Discovery of water on the moon...

2) Discovery of caverns on the moon...

3) Radioactive isotopes...

4) Magnetic monopoles...

etc...

Do you see? If I had a real purpose to fake the whole affair, I'd make some hay!

Silas

NottyImp
2001-Nov-14, 09:16 AM
Certainly the only reason for going to the moon was not just to beat the Russians in a key area of the cold-war, but it was a major motivating factor.

We now see, for example, a whole generation of "faster, smaller, better" missions. Was there anyone advocating such missions during the sixties, rather than a series of hugely expensive manned moon landings? It would have made scientific sense to have done so, would it not?

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-14, 10:52 AM
On 2001-11-13 20:27, Mr. X wrote:
Engineering is real science according to me, but what the hey. :P


Kinda dilutes the definition though--some people say that creationism is real science.

Kaptain K
2001-Nov-14, 12:04 PM
Engineering is real science ...
Engineering bears the same relationship to science as science does to mathematics /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-14, 12:58 PM
They're cousins!

Well, you know, Einstein married his first cousin--on both sides of his family.

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-14, 01:27 PM
On 2001-11-13 19:58, The Rat wrote:


On 2001-11-13 17:23, luna wrote:
If the U.S. went (staged) to the moon once, and proved that they were able to get there, why stage some more landings? (If the only reason was to prove our superiority?)


Well, as radical as this may seem to some, maybe, just maybe, somebody actually gave a DAMN ABOUT DOING REAL SCIENCE?!?!?!



Rat,
They are talking about the reason that a FAKED moon landing would be repeated multiple times. Sounds like this one is setting up an arguement made by HB's so that the arguement can be ground into the dirt.

To answer the question, the suggestion has been made that the moon landings were staged as many times as they were (HB reasoning here) to ensure continued funding to NASA. An organization HB's believe is taking money for other more sinister means.

luna
2001-Nov-14, 01:33 PM
[quote]
On 2001-11-14 04:16, NottyImp wrote:
Certainly the only reason for going to the moon was not just to beat the Russians in a key area of the cold-war, but it was a major motivating factor.

Also, the answers to the question of, 'what were the other factors?' (besides yaddah beating russia) can't seem to be answered. What i'm saying is that it seems a waste of money to stage many missions beyond the first two.
The only presented explanation is to show that the first mission wasn't just lucky. Why make the A-13 a (half) failure, wouldn't it have cost more money to "produce"?

ToSeek
2001-Nov-14, 01:56 PM
On 2001-11-14 08:27, Valiant Dancer wrote:

To answer the question, the suggestion has been made that the moon landings were staged as many times as they were (HB reasoning here) to ensure continued funding to NASA. An organization HB's believe is taking money for other more sinister means.


Which of course brings up the issue of how NASA managed to save money by faking the moon landings despite constructing all of the hardware and paying all of the government contractors, mission controllers, etc.

Aodoi
2001-Nov-14, 03:45 PM
Well, they'd built that fancy gigantic vacuum chamber with the 1/6 gravity and all so they musta figured they should use it more than once... would seem kinda a waste to do a couple impossible things just once. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Mr. X
2001-Nov-14, 04:14 PM
On 2001-11-14 10:45, Aodoi wrote:
Well, they'd built that fancy gigantic vacuum chamber with the 1/6 gravity and all so they musta figured they should use it more than once... would seem kinda a waste to do a couple impossible things just once. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Then they have some kind of anti-gravity device, don't they? I thought I was the only one who figured how to generate anti-gravitons! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-14, 04:32 PM
On 2001-11-14 08:56, ToSeek wrote:


On 2001-11-14 08:27, Valiant Dancer wrote:

To answer the question, the suggestion has been made that the moon landings were staged as many times as they were (HB reasoning here) to ensure continued funding to NASA. An organization HB's believe is taking money for other more sinister means.


Which of course brings up the issue of how NASA managed to save money by faking the moon landings despite constructing all of the hardware and paying all of the government contractors, mission controllers, etc.


Ok. I can answer this. First I have to get in the mindset of the HB. (scrape, scrape. SNORT!) Ok.

Payments were on paper only. Therefore, the equipment cost much less that reported. The excess was used to build a vast complex in Area 57. (sniff) Mission controllers and other support personell were paid less than reported and fear of the government's hit squads held them in check. Especially since the murder in full view of the crew of Apollo 1. (sniff) Whatever money was extra could be funneled into "special projects". Apollo 13 had to be a half failure because Lowell and his crew were cooperating. (sniff) The failure was to ensure that people wouldn't reasonably believe that tourism of the moon would start in about 25 years.

(OK. The coke has worn off.)

The preceding has been a thought experiment to attempt to rationalize the position of Hoagland and other conspiracy theorists. In no way do I believe the ideas and rationales in the preceding thought experiment.

Wiley
2001-Nov-14, 06:18 PM
Ya know, the moon landing hoax has to be unique. This has to be the only hoax where the hoax is more difficult to pull off than the real thing.

To pull off this hoax would require more money, more political clout, and much better technology than actually going to the moon.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-14, 06:34 PM
Yes, it would be more difficult to fake the landing than to accomplish it, but the HBs just come back and say it was actually totally impossible to really go to the moon because of the "radiation", so no matter how hard it was to fake it, it is still supposedly easier than "impossible".

ToSeek
2001-Nov-14, 07:32 PM
On 2001-11-14 13:18, Wiley wrote:
Ya know, the moon landing hoax has to be unique. This has to be the only hoax where the hoax is more difficult to pull off than the real thing.

To pull off this hoax would require more money, more political clout, and much better technology than actually going to the moon.


I believe that was Neil Armstrong's response to the concept.

Mr. X
2001-Nov-14, 08:11 PM
Well if it HAD I had staged I guess I would have made it very over the top, for example:

1. Apollo can reach the moon in 5 minutes!

2. Apollo the size of an aircraft carrier!

3. Apollo boasts high-tech weaponry able to destroy any high altitude soviet craft from hundreds of miles away!

4. Apollo on the moon: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and 20 regiments of highly trained specialised soldiers!

5. Nuclear missile base established on the moon by Apollo crew!

Would've been impressive. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Would anyone have believed it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Russ
2001-Nov-14, 09:29 PM
My primary clue that Apollo really did go to the Moon has nothing to do with the scientific gains it would represent. The hard bitter fact is that the space program was not about science or exploration. It was about proving to the Russians that our rockets were better than theirs. By being able to send a crew to the Moon and back, multiple times, we were telling the Russians that we had very good, very reliable, high lift boosters that could drop hundreds of Nukes each on Russian soil if we though it necessary.

The Rat
2001-Nov-14, 09:33 PM
Rat, They are talking about the reason that a FAKED moon landing would be repeated multiple times.

DOH! (slaps forehead, looks dazed, slinks away)

Sorry. I've been working shifts, and it's affected my brain cells.

Both of them.

Lisa
2001-Nov-14, 10:18 PM
On 2001-11-14 15:11, Mr. X wrote:
Well if it HAD I had staged I guess I would have made it very over the top, for example:

1. Apollo can reach the moon in 5 minutes!

2. Apollo the size of an aircraft carrier!

3. Apollo boasts high-tech weaponry able to destroy any high altitude soviet craft from hundreds of miles away!

4. Apollo on the moon: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and 20 regiments of highly trained specialised soldiers!

5. Nuclear missile base established on the moon by Apollo crew!

Would've been impressive. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Would anyone have believed it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

If you're trying to get more funding, why stop there? Why bring back a bunch of dopey boring rocks? Bring back another type of rocks, and in that I mean, the kind that are a girls best friend. Well, I like them anyway. A double handfull of gold nuggets would get attention. The public would have been sending bundles of cash to NASA demanding more space exploration.
Lisa

Wiley
2001-Nov-14, 10:48 PM
On 2001-11-14 17:18, Lisa wrote:

If you're trying to get more funding, why stop there? Why bring back a bunch of dopey boring rocks? Bring back another type of rocks, and in that I mean, the kind that are a girls best friend. Well, I like them anyway. A double handfull of gold nuggets would get attention. The public would have been sending bundles of cash to NASA demanding more space exploration.
Lisa


Interesting idea, but we must chose a different type of rock. Otherwise the de Beers company will do a massive marketing blitz do destroy NASA's credibility, then they will buy NASA, and terminate your best friend.

Do you like sapphires?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-11-15 15:12 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Nov-14, 11:18 PM
Wiley is right, they would have run a huge smear campaign against NASA, that their rocks are crap, ugly, nowhere near DeBeers quality. Powerful as they are NASA would have looked like idiots, the U.S. government too, squeezed under the sheer volume of wild accusations by DeBeers.

DeBeers would have bought NASA, bought the United States and then closed them down, or renamed the U.S. to DeBeers: Diamonds are forever land or something like that. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Lisa
2001-Nov-14, 11:26 PM
Interesting idea, but we chose a different type of rock. Otherwise the de Beers company will do a massive marketing blitz do destroy NASA's credibility, then they will buy NASA, and terminate your best friend.

Do you like sapphires?

Actually, I prefer emeralds and rubies. More colour.
Seriously? How could NASA hoax some more funding? "Well, we found an energy source that can power our SUVs for the next 3,000 years, but that didn't seem important back in the 60's. Sorry. My bad".
The entire HB argument can be summed up thus: we were trying to beat the russians to the moon, so we faked it.
Horsestuff.
The country was charged up. I dimly remember this, even though I was more interested in stickball at the time. We got money/brainpower/manpower in the same column and made something happen.
Lisa

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lisa on 2001-11-14 18:34 ]</font>

Mr. X
2001-Nov-14, 11:35 PM
I really want to go on with this, but I think it belongs in another folder.


Actually it doesn't, it rightfully belongs here in the moon hoax folder in a thread about reasons for the moon hoax, so please, do proceed! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Couldn't be any more at home!

Embarassed yet? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Lisa
2001-Nov-15, 12:17 AM
Um, I did edit this when I realized which folder I was in. For some reason, I thought I was in "General Astronomy". This topic would be totally unsuitable for that folder.
Okay, to keep the thread going, what could NASA claim to ensure further funding?
(James, don't even think about it)
Lisa

Hat Monster
2001-Nov-15, 05:43 AM
To ensure further funding, NASA would need to give good reasons for going back to the moon.

"We discovered naturally occuring, weapons grade uranium and plutonium underneath several craters at the landing sites. With additional exploration, we could set up a mining base to exploit these deposits."

Wiley
2001-Nov-15, 08:45 PM
On 2001-11-14 18:26, Lisa wrote:
Actually, I prefer emeralds and rubies. More colour.


Hey! Who let my ex-wife onto the board!? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Seriously? How could NASA hoax some more funding? "Well, we found an energy source that can power our SUVs for the next 3,000 years, but that didn't seem important back in the 60's. Sorry. My bad".
The entire HB argument can be summed up thus: we were trying to beat the russians to the moon, so we faked it.


How about the secret to Joe Newman's and Dennis Lee's energy machines, dilithium crystals, or Dick Clark's anti-aging formula? I was thinking Jimmy Hoffa, but I doubt he could sustain a whole industry.



The country was charged up. I dimly remember this, even though I was more interested in stickball at the time.


Stickball? Is there another baseball fan on this board besides myself?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Wiley on 2001-11-15 15:46 ]</font>

The Rat
2001-Nov-16, 03:24 AM
Stickball? Is there another baseball fan on this board besides myself?
GO JAYS GO!!!

Lisa
2001-Nov-16, 03:50 AM
Hey! Who let my ex-wife onto the board!? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

No, my ex-husband's name is Mark.


Stickball? Is there another baseball fan on this board besides myself?

I grew up on Guam and Puerto Rico. Outdoor games are popular if you live somewhere that its always summer. Add kickball and boonie stomping.
Lisa

Wiley
2001-Nov-16, 04:23 PM
On 2001-11-15 22:50, Lisa wrote:
I grew up on Guam and Puerto Rico. Outdoor games are popular if you live somewhere that its always summer. Add kickball and boonie stomping.
Lisa


Boonie stomping?

Wiley
2001-Nov-16, 04:31 PM
On 2001-11-15 22:24, The Rat wrote:
GO JAYS GO!!!


GO BRAVES (http://braves.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/atl/homepage/atl_homepage.jsp)

ToSeek
2001-Nov-16, 04:35 PM
On 2001-11-15 15:45, Wiley wrote:

Stickball? Is there another baseball fan on this board besides myself?


I'd admit to being an Orioles fan if they weren't such a rotten team.

Irishman
2001-Nov-19, 07:41 PM
luna, you are correct that the main reason for Apollo was a political statement, with the scientific exploration and the technological developments as secondary goals. However, I do think we got more out of the secondaries than the primary, don't you?

As for proving anything to HBers, most seem incapable of considering it could actually have happened as described, and refuse to listen to any explanation that doesn't assume NASA is an evil puppet of the military out to mislead the American public and the world.

NottyImp (I get it) said:

We now see, for example, a whole generation of "faster, smaller, better" missions. Was there anyone advocating such missions during the sixties, rather than a series of hugely expensive manned moon landings? It would have made scientific sense to have done so, would it not?

First consider that manned space exploration was the pinnacle of space advances in technology, and the Space Race was a real driver for what happened. Without the Russians actively providing an opponent, you can see where it's gotten us. As soon as it was figured out the Russians weren't going to go to the moon (they couldn't or they wouldn't) and there was no competition for the next step (permanent colony? Mars mission? Big honkin' space station? asteroid mining?), the government quickly lost interest in dumping money into the space thing when so many other political issues were heating up at home (Viet Nam, civil rights, ERA, riots in urban areas). There wasn't strong support for robotic exploration (the only real way to do faster, cheaper, better than the Apollo mission) because the manned missions were the real attention getters. Scientifically, we could learn a lot from robotic missions and for a cheaper price, but after landing humans, "what's the point?"

Lisa said:

The entire HB argument can be summed up thus: we were trying to beat the russians to the moon, so we faked it.

You forgot the part about "the government couldn't possibly tell us the truth about anything."

CelticBlonde
2001-Nov-25, 01:21 AM
According to that Fox video on the moon hoax, the images from the moon landing were shot at Area 51. Also, they said that Area 51 was a high security place and people would be shot if they attempted to enter without permission. However, Fox was able to supply it's viewers with pictures of Area 51.
Riddle me this:
If Area 51 is such a high security place, then how did Fox get pictures of it?

David Hall
2001-Nov-25, 05:48 AM
On 2001-11-24 20:21, CelticBlonde wrote:

If Area 51 is such a high security place, then how did Fox get pictures of it?


It's not impossible to get shots of the outer perimiter of the base, and it's possible to use telephoto lenses and such to get some reasonable shots of some exterior features. Also, I believe security there has been relaxed a bit in the last few years. But just suppose you wanted to walk into the compound and search around all the nooks and crannies and peek into the buildings. Well, it was nice knowing you.

I'm more curious as to why and how the Apollo hoaxters can claim Area 51 as the hoax filming base, when all the UFO conspiracy buffs are at the same time calling it the place where we're testing alien spacecraft and technology. Two such tremendous secret projects located in the same place? They would be constantly getting in each others' way.

Hey, maybe we were doing both. We were using alien technology to fake all the Apollo landings. That's why they look so realistic. Yeah, that's the ticket. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Valiant Dancer
2001-Nov-26, 04:55 PM
On 2001-11-24 20:21, CelticBlonde wrote:
According to that Fox video on the moon hoax, the images from the moon landing were shot at Area 51. Also, they said that Area 51 was a high security place and people would be shot if they attempted to enter without permission. However, Fox was able to supply it's viewers with pictures of Area 51.
Riddle me this:
If Area 51 is such a high security place, then how did Fox get pictures of it?


Area 51 is a high security place. The guards there had in the past orders to shoot trespassers. (The warning still stands.) Getting pictures from satelite was not available until recently and loiterers were challenged by military police. The reason?

Area 51 was the test area for the Skunkworks.
The Skunkworks developed the SR-71 Blackbird, the F117 "Wobbly Goblin" Nighthawk, and several other secret aircraft tests representing cutting edge designs for military use. All of these projects are human made from plans supplied by humans. (The design for the Nighthawk was by a Russian physicist who publicly published an aircraft configuration which the Russian government considered unworkable.)

One needs tight security on these areas. The latest decrease of security at Groom's Lake (area 51) tends to indicate that the secret aircraft testing has been moved elsewhere.

JayUtah
2001-Nov-26, 11:50 PM
If Area 51 is such a high security place, then how did Fox get pictures of it?

The Area 51 exclusion perimeter was recently expanded in response to the ability of telephoto lenses to obtain reasonably good pictures from a great distance away. Since someone with such equipment can essentially set up round-the-clock surveillance, this poses a much greater threat to operations at Area 51 than does a satellite fly-over. Satellite photo schedules are strictly limited by orbital mechanics and so work can be planned around them. It's quite easy to ensure that nothing of interest is happening there when a surveillance satellite passes overhead.

Fox's images may date to before the new cordon was in place.

It's quite likely that the military contributes to rumors of various alien goings-on at the base in order to cover for its real purpose. If everyone believes that's where the U.S. government is secretly storing alien artifacts then they won't suspect that it's where cutting-edge technology is tested.

I'd say that if I saw an F-117 being tested there, and had no prior knowledge of its design, I wouldn't dimiss the conclusion that it was unearthly technology.

The allure of Area 51 to a conspiracy theorist is that of a moth's to a flame. Secrecy provides a void into which the conspiracist can plausibly inject any type or degree of conjecture.

Lisa
2001-Nov-27, 10:56 AM
And how did you feel the first time you saw a B-2 flyby? I thought: "Cool, that explains a lot".
Lisa

Jim
2001-Nov-27, 11:51 AM
On 2001-11-26 11:55, Valiant Dancer wrote:


Area 51 is a high security place. The guards there had in the past orders to shoot trespassers. (The warning still stands.) Getting pictures from satelite was not available until recently and loiterers were challenged by military police. The reason?

Area 51 was the test area for the Skunkworks.
The Skunkworks developed the SR-71 Blackbird, the F117 "Wobbly Goblin" Nighthawk, and several other secret aircraft tests representing cutting edge designs for military use. ...


Some years back (don't ask how many), I was very into building models... planes, boats... mostly WWII stuff. However, on one trip to the model shop, I found a beautiful jet airplane model, the Blackbird. I fell in love with it, bought it and rushed home.

I ran into the LR where my father was visiting with a friend and showed them both my new prize. My father's friend was especially taken with it. He looked the box over closely and (with permission) opened it and read the Specifications brochure very slowly and with great concentration.

He then gave it back to me, excused himself and left.

I found out later that my father's friend was in the AF testing program. He was interested in my model because the AF hadn't released any info on the Blackbird at that time. He left to report to his superiours that Revell had the plans to a top secret spy plane... and was mass-marketing a model kit of it!

Any three people can keep a secret, as long as two of them are dead.
Benjamin Franklin

odysseus0101
2001-Dec-04, 03:28 AM
On 2001-11-24 20:21, CelticBlonde wrote:
According to that Fox video on the moon hoax, the images from the moon landing were shot at Area 51. Also, they said that Area 51 was a high security place and people would be shot if they attempted to enter without permission. However, Fox was able to supply it's viewers with pictures of Area 51.
Riddle me this:
If Area 51 is such a high security place, then how did Fox get pictures of it?


One can easily see several pictures of the base. They were taken by Soviet satellites and (far more recently) sold to corporations. I know there is some commercial satellite imagery out there as well.

SAMU
2001-Dec-04, 01:28 PM
Clay pigeons!

SAMU

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-17, 06:12 PM
Wiley is right, they would have run a huge smear campaign against NASA, that their rocks are crap, ugly, nowhere near DeBeers quality. Powerful as they are NASA would have looked like idiots, the U.S. government too, squeezed under the sheer volume of wild accusations by DeBeers.

DeBeers would have bought NASA, bought the United States and then closed them down, or renamed the U.S. to DeBeers: Diamonds are forever land or something like that. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

ROFLMAO! This has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a while! :)

I think DeBeers are on the wane these days though, certainly compared to where they were 30-40 years ago!




They're cousins!

Well, you know, Einstein married his first cousin--on both sides of his family.


Is that so? Well, that is weird.

Musashi
2005-Nov-17, 06:17 PM
A new record?

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-17, 06:54 PM
A new record?

For what? Necromancy? Or marrying someone you're dual-related to?

Musashi
2005-Nov-17, 07:12 PM
The first.

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-17, 07:16 PM
I'll point you to a thread that I don't understand. Which would have to have some sort of record attached to it that I don't understand.

Deep Impact: Extinction Event (http://bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44&page=69&order=desc)

On that page, goto that thread, have a look at it and have a look at the date on it. Makes no sense. 4 Pages of What?

In regards to this thread, reading through the first page gave me a good laugh and I doubt many here had read it, I thought it was quite humourous.

Musashi
2005-Nov-17, 08:26 PM
Maybe you don't know that two things are working to create threads that have no posts. First off, two fora merged into one. So, the databases could have gotten screwed up. Second, awhile before the merge, the BA trimmed his DB down, foucsing on older posts. So, somehow the thread got indexed even though the posts got deleted. This is not a big deal. Everyone knows about it. you can stop pointing it out.

Also, it would help if you put your intent in every post where you dredge up a 3 or 4 year old thread. If you think it is funny and people would get a kick out of it, say that when you revive the thread. A better idea would be to chuckle and move on, eveyone here has the same capability to find posts that you do. The fact that the last post is from 2001 should be an indication that people moved on.

01101001
2005-Nov-17, 09:16 PM
Maybe you don't know that two things are working to create threads that have no posts. First off, two fora merged into one. So, the databases could have gotten screwed up. Second, awhile before the merge, the BA trimmed his DB down, foucsing on older posts. So, somehow the thread got indexed even though the posts got deleted. This is not a big deal. Everyone knows about it. you can stop pointing it out.

Also, it would help if you put your intent in every post where you dredge up a 3 or 4 year old thread. If you think it is funny and people would get a kick out of it, say that when you revive the thread. A better idea would be to chuckle and move on, eveyone here has the same capability to find posts that you do. The fact that the last post is from 2001 should be an indication that people moved on.
Put jkmccran on your ignore list. Come on, everyone! It has enhanced my enjoyment of BAUT. All I have to endure is:


jkmccrann
This message is hidden because jkmccrann is on your ]ignore list.
(If only the software would mark as new only messages that have responses from someone not on your ignore list, then life would be perfect.)

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-17, 09:30 PM
Put jkmccran on your ignore list. Come on, everyone! It has enhanced my enjoyment of BAUT. All I have to endure is:


(If only the software would mark as new only messages that have responses from someone not on your ignore list, then life would be perfect.)

I put him on the ignore list some time ago. He will remain there until he stops pointlessly riviving ancient threads. He is the first and only one on my ignore list - I really don't like ignoring people. I just wish the system could identify which threads he had brought back from the dead so I could avoid them all.

Count Zero
2005-Nov-17, 10:48 PM
Oh, I don't mind. It is a bit disorienting, but I usually find the thing he finds amusing to be fun. All of these threads are from long before I came to BABB. Maybe it's the historian in me, but I find these old discussions kind of interesting.

As far as irritation? Let me show you my perspective:
A couple of weeks ago I flew out to Los Angeles to see the Rolling Stones concert at Anaheim Stadium. The stranger sitting next to me was nice enough, but he'd had a lot of beer while waiting for the show to start. Sure enough, five times during the two-hour concert he had to get up, and stumble across everyone to the aisle so he could go take a leak. Was I upset? Dude, I was at a Rolling Stones concert!!! I was having a ball. Inconveniences like that were minor next to the joy of being there.

Musashi
2005-Nov-18, 03:02 AM
I almost went to that show, but couldn't get tickets. I considered hanging out in the parking lot to see if the sound was any good, but something else came up. I wish I had known you were gonna be in my neck of the woods. :)

Count Zero
2005-Nov-18, 03:48 AM
I'll be back in a few months. Mom lives out there. I'll send a PM a week or two in advance. Heck, using the "Where are the BadAstroBloggers?" (http://www.frappr.com/badastronomyblog) page, perhaps we could arrange a BABB-moot!

genebujold
2005-Nov-20, 09:34 PM
If the U.S. went (staged) to the moon once, and proved that they were able to get there, why stage some more landings? (If the only reason was to prove our superiority?)

They needed to improve their handicap and go four-wheeling.

Questions?