PDA

View Full Version : Download a official movie from nasa.......



jesus_christ_hacker_
2003-Oct-08, 05:13 AM
I joined this group and downloaded a movie from their yahoo group that actually was taken showing them staging the apollo hoax in the nevada desert.

www.nasa.darkgod.net

freddo
2003-Oct-08, 05:16 AM
Hmm.. A banned poster returns with a proboards BB attached to his new website...

If I weren't so bad at math I would try putting 2 and 2 together.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-08, 05:20 AM
link to the group please?

JayUtah
2003-Oct-08, 05:52 AM
Why would NASA release an "official NASA video" depicting something completely at odds with all their other "official NASA videos"? And why would I have to go to a Yahoo group to get something "official" from NASA? If it were "officially" NASA's, then I could get it "officially" from NASA.

Musashi
2003-Oct-08, 05:57 AM
Just in case any of you don't know or didn't remember, jesus christ hacker has already been banned once.

DataCable
2003-Oct-08, 08:51 AM
Probably pointless, as this is without a doubt nothing more than a troll, but the following is my rank-amateur-level debunking of his "Top Reasons why this mission never happened," which I will attempt to muddle through, horrendous grammar and near absence of punctuation notwitstanding.


Top Reasons why this mission never happened
Right off the bat, the title of this manifesto should more correctly be Top Reasons why I believe this mission never happened , since most of the "reasons" listed are more along the lines of "evidence"/"giveaways" which allegedly support the hoax hypothesis, not actual "reasons" that it wouldn't have/couldn't have/didn't happen.


1. The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980
Assuming for a moment the statement to be true, it is further necessary to demonstrate that something more than a "calculator built in 1980" is necessary to perform the tasks required of the AGC. Cries of "Oh come on, that's rediculous!" will be politely ignored, in anticipation of some sort of hard evidence.


2. None of the following astronauts can be contacted for a " official " interview
No list of astronauts follows this statement. This looks curiously like a "list" partially-copied from some other source.

Ignoring the absence of any specifically-named astronauts for the moment and assuming it to be a declaration that NO Apollo (or Apollo-era) astronaut will give any interview ("official" or otherwise), the claim is simply rediculous. The fact that astronauts do not wish to be interviewed by conspiracy theory entheusiasts means nothing. (And it's "...for an 'official' interview.")


3. The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space telescope
Entirely true, and entirely meaningless. It is physically impossible for the Hubble or any Earth-based telescope to resolve any detail as small as a flag (or even larger objects such as the LM descent stages or LRVs) on the surface of the moon from this distance.


Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.
It is patently false that there is no footage of Astronauts in weightlessness for a period exceeding 1 minute. Besides, the KC-135 could only produce 20-30 seconds of "weightlessness" at a time, not a full minute. However, remember this claim, as it comes up again later. (And it's "...an aircraft..." and "...the Earth's atmosphere...")


5. The " Live " video feed that was fed back to earth was impossible for the " compression " technology of the time. The " 3 meter " dish would of required a far more advanced and powerful signal generation. As well the computer buffer couldn't even buffer the amount of data even necessary for the most reduced black and white video signal at extremely low frame rate.
"...computer buffer..."? The author seems to be of the impression that the TV signal was somehow processed by the LM's computer. Not so, the computer had nothing to do with the TV transmission. A very clear explanation of the signal compression scheme can be found Here (www.clavius.org/tvqual.html). (And it's "...would have required...")


6. The shadowing off every picture in Nasa's database shows that their are too many light sources there should be only one " The Earth reflecting light" Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above.
It is untrue that light reflected from the Earth was the only light source, or that it was even a significant light source. The sun was the primary illumination for all photography and was itself captured on film in this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/20128986.jpg) from Apollo 12, and this photo (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/as14-67-9367.jpg) from Apollo 14, for instance.

Now, as to the claim that there were "too many light sources," this one is quite simple to prove. Multiple light sources projected onto a given object will cast multiple shadows diverging from that object. It is up to the author to produce specific photographs ("supposedly") taken on the lunar surface which exhibit these characteristics. Claims about separate shadows cast by separate objects not being at the "correct" length or angle will be ignored, as the fact that each object casts only a single shadow proves that there is only a single source of illumination.

As to the claimed impossibility of "sitting on the sunny part of the moon," why would it be any more dangerous than sitting on the sunny part of the Earth? The Earth's atmosphere conducts heat, which is a much more efficient manner to transfer thermal energy from one mass to another than radiation, the only method possible on the atmospherically-challenged lunar surface.

Now perhaps this is being overly-literal, but since I'm picking on the grammar, I'll pick on this as well: To the best of my knowledge, human flesh does not "melt." It will burn, it will corrode in the presence of strong acids or bases, but it does not change state from solid to liquid. (And there were no more than 2 astronauts on the lunar surface at any given time, unless the author is claiming that the CMP was also at risk of "melting" within the confines of the CM in lunar orbit.)

(Oh, and it's "...that there are..." and "It's impossible...")

Point 7 consists of nothing but barely comprehensible conjecture about some project called "Beyond Black" which is allegedly where the money for Apollo 11 "actually" went.


8. Why haven't we been back since? If it was done in 1969 surely its not beyond our abilities now * We still cant do it *
There is no current overwhelming public, political, or financial demand to return men to the surface of the moon, conspiracy theorist cries of "Prove it!" notwithstanding.


9. The USA was in a race for space with Russia and faked the mission to help save face with the Russian superiority regarding space travel.
The first 10 words of this statement are entirely true, the USA was in a race for space with Russia. What follows that true statement is merely rhetorical conjecture with no supporting evidence presented. And besides, this supposed "Russian superiority regarding space travel" is largely misunderstood.


10. You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed.
"...the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio...?" They took pictures of the gold foil on a studio with the studio's reflection visible in it? The statement makes entirely no sense.


11. Flags don't sway in space...
Flags do sway in space, when one or both of the astronauts are unfurling it and attempting to twist the flagpole it's attached to into the ground.


...see the Videos and you can clearly see the choppy editing of the poor film editing of 1969...
"...the choppy editing of the poor film editing..."? The poor film editing was edited... choppily? Or was the film, which was poor, edited, and then edited again... choppliy? Or was the editing of the poor film editing, as a whole, choppy? Yeesh.


...where the Astronauts didn't jump up and down to show there weightlessness live for the world to see.
Yes, they did, just not in the particular footage the author refers to.


The reason they didn't do that is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness. As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet
Was it not stated in point #4 that footage of "weightlessness" was simulated by using a plane in freefall? Is the author now claiming that such fakery was not possible at the time, and therefore could not have been faked? As to the "40,000 - 50,000 feet" figures, from what I have been able to gather, the KC-135 flew in parabolic arcs between 24,000 and 33,000 feet.


( clarification that the video did not show weightlessness meaning in 1969 they just moved still frames to create the illusion as well as the slow moving effect which is very un-matrix like overall a poorly done video).
Using the phrase "un-matrix like," which I interpret as "unlike the film The Matrix, a work of fiction, produced late in the 20th century using state-of-the-art digital effects" to describe film of actual historical doccumentation from the mid-20th century... well, that one just speaks for itself.

And finally...

Astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston.
No, they didn't.


However radio waves and s-band signals...
S-band signals are radio waves.


...travel at roughly 189,000 miles per second...
That's 186,000 miles per second.


...this means Mission Control couldn't of replied...
That's "...couldn't have replied..."


faster than 3 seconds since the moon is over 380,000 miles from the Earth even at its closest apex.
That's 386,000 kilometers (about 240,000 miles) on average. At it's closest, it's about 356,000km (221,000 miles), which is apogee, not apex.

AstroSmurf
2003-Oct-08, 11:51 AM
... rediculous ... That's ridiculous :D

Further, I think we established that the lunar surface itself acted as a filler light for some of the photos.

TriangleMan
2003-Oct-08, 12:13 PM
Download a official movie from nasa.......

. . . and it's NASA, not "nasa".

Oh, and JCH, :P :P :P

Astronot
2003-Oct-08, 01:25 PM
I particularly like this quote.


...the Astronauts didn't jump up and down to show there weightlessness...

How do you jump up and down if you are weightless because there is no gravity to pull you back down? In this passage and others, he seems to be under the impression that an astronaut should be weightless on the surface of the moon. Perhaps he is making the same mistake I did as a five year old seeing photos and footage from the Gemini flights and believes that the vacuum of space as the cause of weightlessness.

The whole site is full of such silliness. Letís keep an eye on this fellow; he looks like a candidate to be banned again.

Rue
2003-Oct-08, 02:09 PM
This all looks familiar. Someone in western Canada must be very bored...

ToSeek
2003-Oct-08, 02:12 PM
10. You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed.
"...the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio...?" They took pictures of the gold foil on a studio with the studio's reflection visible in it? The statement makes entirely no sense.


I assume what he's trying to say is that you can see the camera crew or other indications of the filming in the reflection of the gold foil (a photo would be nice). This happens in movies sometimes - there's a notorious case of someone being filmed walking past a plate glass window, and you can see the camera and the entire film crew in the reflection.

jesus_christ_hacker_
2003-Oct-08, 03:44 PM
Ah yes the grammer kings I don't know where those points where taken from but half of them seem to be taken from another website. Quite possibly you mis-spelt lol the url? :o

xbck1
2003-Oct-08, 04:33 PM
You're the one who put the link up. We just clicked and assumed that you knew what you were doing. Boy, were we wrong!

Musashi
2003-Oct-08, 04:47 PM
That sounds like the same list he put up before. Guys, don't bother talking with him. He will be gone soon.

Stuart
2003-Oct-08, 05:09 PM
If I may pick up a couple of points here.

1. The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980

I was thinking about this. I don't see that the computer was absolutely mission essential. Forgetting about the HBers for a moment, what I mean is that I don't think it would be necessarily an inevitably fatal situation if the computer went out. The LM landing is a very simple ballistic solution. All a good pilot would need is a radar altimeter to give him height above ground and either a variable thrust control for the rocket or a blip switch. The pilot would have been able to mentally integrate the changes in HaboveG to give rate of descent and could bring the craft in with dead reckoning. It would be hairy to do it that way but a good pilot (and NASA's were the best) should be able to do it. Its no more difficult than bringin in a glider in many ways; the processes are mroe or less teh same.


As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet

Ahem.
1947 YB-36 51,500 feet, service ceiling, 48,000 feet
1949 MiG-15 52,000 feet
1951 B-36D 52,000 feet
1956 B-36J Featherweight III, 59,000 feet
1958 U-2 75,000 feet plus (actual figure classified)
1961 SR-71 95,000 feet plus (actual figure classified)

And that's just from memory.

50,000 feet by 1969 was easily achieved by a wide variety of aircraft.

Glom
2003-Oct-08, 06:20 PM
Forgetting about the HBers for a moment, what I mean is that I don't think it would be necessarily an inevitably fatal situation if the computer went out.

And that's exactly what happened on Apollo 11.

JayUtah
2003-Oct-08, 09:15 PM
An onboard computer is not essential to the abstract task of landing on the moon. The AGC onboard computer was essential to the solution developed by Apollo to land on the moon.

I'll use the proverbial example of an elevator controller. Elevators were controlled at one point by a simple up-down-stop switch. A human "pilot" operated it. Later, combinatorial logic in the form of relays operated the elevator. This automated much of the job of the pilot. The logic was not "intelligent" in any way. It simply progressed through a series of well-defined states in response to operator input and sensory awareness of its environment (i.e., where is the cab?). Nowadays elevators are controlled by sophisticated computers that can optimally service the needs of many passengers. Now a good human pilot could do the same given simply an up-down-stop switch. But you can't take the pilot out of the first solution any more than you can take the computer out of the current solution. Neither the human pilot nor the computer is individually essential to solving the problem of operating an elevator. But each is integral and necessary to its particular solution.

The astronauts could have flown to the moon without an onboard computer. But that doesn't mean you could have torn the computer out of an Apollo spacecraft and have that work.

This nuance is exactly why the conspiracist argument makes no sense. They say the computers weren't very powerful. That's true, but it doesn't matter. The "computer" that powered the first automatic elevators was extremely brain-dead. It wasn't a computer in any meaningful sense of the word, yet it got the job done.

The conspiracists don't realize that the Apollo engineers didn't sit down and say, "Well, in order to solve this problem we need a computer with 10 kilowhoopies of power." Instead they sat down and said, "We can build a computer that provides 10 kilowhoopies of power. What can we do with that?" That fact that we now provide spacecraft with computers up in the 100 megawhoopie range doesn't mean that there's something particular about space flight that requires it. It just means we can now assign those spacecraft to missions where 100 megawhoopies is enough power to get the job done.

BigGig
2003-Oct-09, 02:40 AM
The arguments seem very adolescent, this fellow is just a kid who hasn't studied any of the evidence, his understanding of data transmission seems to be limited to streaming video over the internet. He needs to ask his mommy for help with a few things I guess. Or he is, as his name suggests a devout christian who can't accept the fact that we went to the moon,

digitalspector
2003-Oct-09, 03:11 AM
The arguments seem very adolescent, this fellow is just a kid who hasn't studied any of the evidence

that, or his/her/them life/lives is/are that boring. I am not 'smart' in the lunar landings. They happened before that time, but I have read, studied, and attempted to "put myself in their(the 'lunar-nauts') boots.

Do these people not appreciate anything?

He compares it to a '1980' calculator. Fine. It comes down to math, and basic mathematical and observational skills.

Even modern computers....are only as smart as the operator. Yes, they may have more functions, can compute faster...etc. But, its the 'pilot' of the simple computer that matters. Even, still, our current computers (at least by my background) still have their basis in the original programming/computational basics. It still holds true.

Yes, the computers may have been a small benefit to humans back 'in the day'. But, they held their own. A computer doesn't think for us, just yet. A simple calculator...even 1980 dated...can do math easier then most humans can. Its all in the process and patterns. Humans can still "do more" then a computer, if they are trained for 'incidents". We can still think, observe, and come up with solutions in realtime faster then most computers.....

AGN Fuel
2003-Oct-09, 04:06 AM
The arguments seem very adolescent, this fellow is just a kid who hasn't studied any of the evidence

that, or his/her/them life/lives is/are that boring. I am not 'smart' in the lunar landings. They happened before that time, but I have read, studied, and attempted to "put myself in their(the 'lunar-nauts') boots.

Do these people not appreciate anything?

He compares it to a '1980' calculator. Fine. It comes down to math, and basic mathematical and observational skills.

Even modern computers....are only as smart as the operator. Yes, they may have more functions, can compute faster...etc. But, its the 'pilot' of the simple computer that matters. Even, still, our current computers (at least by my background) still have their basis in the original programming/computational basics. It still holds true.

Yes, the computers may have been a small benefit to humans back 'in the day'. But, they held their own. A computer doesn't think for us, just yet. A simple calculator...even 1980 dated...can do math easier then most humans can. Its all in the process and patterns. Humans can still "do more" then a computer, if they are trained for 'incidents". We can still think, observe, and come up with solutions in realtime faster then most computers.....

Agree. I think part of it comes down to a lack of appreciating utility. A kid with the latest whizz-bang computer looks disparagingly at his parent's old 286 and mocks it for its lack of functionality. But if the parent is only using it for wordprocessing, then the 286 is absolutely fine. It comes down to the tools being capable of doing the job for which they are used.

It's a bit like arguing that the Sumerians could not possibly have documented their lives, because all they had was a stylus and clay tablets rather than e-mail. Sure, it was primitive, but it did the job. :roll:

Hamlet
2003-Oct-09, 03:11 PM
Just on a tangent, I wanted to say that I loved JayUtah's kilowhoopie and megawhoopie units for computing power. I'll have to remember to use those in my next presentation to my boss. :D

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Oct-09, 10:44 PM
1. The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980

Here we go again :roll:

As usual Jay has explained all this in rigorous detail so I am just being redundant (actually I am still practicing my debunking skills :D)
here (http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp65.htm) are the specs of a 1974 POCKET PROGRAMABLE calculator (the HP-65) which was perfectly capable to be used as a replacement to AGC if necessary. A consumer product and way before 1980. So as usual is not too hard to assume that the AGC could have done it's job and quite well thank you in 1969. BTW it was actually used during the Apollo-Soyuz Rendezvouz.

to paraphrase Arthur Balfour:
All this contains much that is obviously true, and much that is relevant; unfortunately, what is obviously true is not relevant, and what is relevant is not obviously true (Winston Churchill's version of the quote :D)

BTW KiloWhoopie and MegaWhoppie are much more better units to measure computer power than SPECS and MFLOPS :lol:

JayUtah
2003-Oct-09, 11:46 PM
I get to use teraFLOPS. :-)

Madcat
2003-Oct-10, 12:33 AM
Agree. I think part of it comes down to a lack of appreciating utility. A kid with the latest whizz-bang computer looks disparagingly at his parent's old 286 and mocks it for its lack of functionality. But if the parent is only using it for wordprocessing, then the 286 is absolutely fine. It comes down to the tools being capable of doing the job for which they are used.

You're very right. The average consumer needs nowhere near the level of processing power of even the least powerful PC on the market today. I wish that the PC makers would try and make the things cost $100 bucks or less instead of making them more powerful and roughly the same or greater price each year. Everybody should have one by now. But nooooo......

ToSeek
2003-Oct-10, 03:36 PM
I placed a couple of messages on there disputing the "NASA saving money" concept and have now been banned from the forum.

Musashi
2003-Oct-10, 04:17 PM
Yeah, he is a clown.

BTW, I think that Nasa (tha admin/moderator of the board), CIA, and JC hacker, are all the same person. Remember the OP in this thread, where JChacker claimed to have 'found' ths Yahoo site? Then why is he mentioned on the site? He goes through a lot of twists and turns just to make others think that it isn't his site, and that threre are others (at least 2), who are in charge of the site. Hmmmm...

ignorant_ape
2003-Oct-10, 04:29 PM
TOSEEK : hhe hee i read that thread - he called you stupid . while being too dumb or intentionaly ignorant to realise that the costs were in 1000$ increments - bust like the top line said - IN BIG LETER even i could fathom

btw - i couldnt post a reply after your ban - so he might have gone into paranoid shut down mode like tezzer did

MUSASHI :there is no IP listed - but proboards does not allow guests to edit - and every one of JC or cia`s posts is edited by nasa - go figure

YRS - APE

edited to spell musashi`s nick right - bad ape

Reacher
2003-Oct-10, 06:21 PM
Gotta love that Starbuck guy.




Inconcievable!

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-13, 09:55 AM
Gotta love that Starbuck guy.




Inconcievable!


yeah he was on tezzers forum


Cool guy really but sometimes very strange

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Oct-13, 04:51 PM
I get to use teraFLOPS. :-)

Yeah, Yeah, :lol: go ahead, just strut around showing off with your supercomputer...... just cause you helped designing it [-(..... just cause it's the third fastest in the world [-(..... just because it runs Linux! 8) I am not the least bit envious! :^o

Kendal_Moon
2003-Oct-14, 03:16 AM
Yeah, he is a clown.

BTW, I think that Nasa (tha admin/moderator of the board), CIA, and JC hacker, are all the same person. Remember the OP in this thread, where JChacker claimed to have 'found' ths Yahoo site? Then why is he mentioned on the site? He goes through a lot of twists and turns just to make others think that it isn't his site, and that threre are others (at least 2), who are in charge of the site. Hmmmm...

I downloaded the video and watched it over and over again and it seems very apparent that it was from www.nasa.gov . I don't know why you all seem so arrogant, I watched the movie and it seems legite, did any of you actually watch it for yourself? I don't know why your all so in arm's against this fellow could it be because he is right?

Archer17
2003-Oct-14, 03:25 AM
Yeah, he is a clown.

BTW, I think that Nasa (tha admin/moderator of the board), CIA, and JC hacker, are all the same person. Remember the OP in this thread, where JChacker claimed to have 'found' ths Yahoo site? Then why is he mentioned on the site? He goes through a lot of twists and turns just to make others think that it isn't his site, and that threre are others (at least 2), who are in charge of the site. Hmmmm...

I downloaded the video and watched it over and over again and it seems very apparent that it was from www.nasa.gov . I don't know why you all seem so arrogant, I watched the movie and it seems legite, did any of you actually watch it for yourself? I don't know why your all so in arm's against this fellow could it be because he is right?If you're not just a troll explain why: a) you think it's legit .. b) you think it's from NASA themselves and .. c) you flew like a bat out of hell right after you posted this? hmm.. :-k

Musashi
2003-Oct-14, 05:18 AM
Regardless of the movie, where it came from, what it shows, etc. JCH is a clown.

If you want to talk about the movie, please do. Let us know what exactly you think is so good about it. Then maybe we can talk.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-14, 05:25 AM
where is this movie?

freddo
2003-Oct-14, 06:35 AM
where is this movie?

From the look of it you need to sign up to a yahoo group (for a price), then you can download the video.

So either Kendal_Moon is a troll (likely JCH back again), or he is one gullible sucker.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-14, 07:08 AM
Ive had a discussion with a person here (don't want to say name because i don't know if they want to be named) and we both think JCH is most likely Tezzer again.

Why do i say so?

1. On his board is Starbuck, who is a well known tezzer follower from his first board.

2. "NASA" (who i am very sure is also "CIA" due to them consistenly editing each others posts) said here (http://nasaconspiracy.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&num=10656295 33): [/i]"ToSeek is no longer banned as long as he isn't a [bad word deleted] when I post on his site and ban's me if he does he will be banned here as well fairly simple."[/i]

So he has been here before (and he knows toseek comes here and is a member here) and was banned.

3. His post and run style of vague information to a website with little information and a forum is very similar to Tezzer. Even the style of his webpage and forum is similar to tezzers forum except for the colours.

4.his way of running his board on this forum is very similar. Editing, calling bad names, banning all competition, etc.



He is just trying to get us all riled up again so he can run to his buddies so he can say he got us again.

Lets leave this as it is: A site that does not require our time to debunk.



Then again we could be wrong. But i doubt it.

freddo
2003-Oct-14, 07:21 AM
Funny how some minds can think..


Hmm.. A banned poster returns with a proboards BB attached to his new website...

If I weren't so bad at math I would try putting 2 and 2 together.

That was my twig to the 'tezzer' connection - and I agree they could well be one and the same..

But I ask now, do we even care anymore?

My only contribution to this thread has been to let the BA 8) know someonw he has banned has returned.

Where tezzer is concerned - this will be the only way I will interact with him. I encourage all others to do the same - he's not worth anyone's time.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-14, 07:27 AM
I agree. Feeding him posts on his board and here only makes him do more.
This "Rage" failed miserably.

Like i said in the above post, i don't think this deserves our time more than telling anybody who visits this topic the wrong facts in his lunar hoax "evidence".

Kendal_Moon
2003-Oct-14, 02:17 PM
I don't see why you all are so arrogant. Anyone with a varied opinion is be littled in this forum. I am all about the truth and the truth seems to prevail. I downloaded the movie and it is explained to me that the moon is 389,000 miles from the earth and radio signals travel at 189,000 miles per second. This means that it will take a second and a half for a signal to reach the moon from earth and the video clearly shows a conversation between N.A.S.A and apollo 11 that was not delayed in the slightest. This seems pretty concrete and straight forward even you no minds should be able to understand this concept your done. It's proven and the N.A.S.A Hoax is once and for all disputed and proven with N.A.S.A's own footage.

AstroSmurf
2003-Oct-14, 02:29 PM
...the moon is 389,000 miles from the earth and radio signals travel at 189,000 miles per second. 384,400 kilometers, not miles. The signal return time is just over 2 seconds, so there's Bad Math all over that quote.

It's proven and the N.A.S.A Hoax is once and for all disputed and proven with N.A.S.A's own footage. ... If it is, indeed, NASA footage. Which we are questioning. I'm not about to pay for something of dubious veracity - give me a nasa.gov link and I'll have a look.

Glom
2003-Oct-14, 03:04 PM
Expectation: There would be a second or so between crew and ground speech and vice versa.

The reality: There is no delay between crew and ground but there is a couple of seconds of delay between ground and crew.

AstroSmurf
2003-Oct-14, 03:16 PM
What is observed, then?

Musashi
2003-Oct-14, 04:23 PM
If it is the video I am thinking of, a) it has been discussed before here, and b) It offers no proof of a hoax.

In the video you see/hear the ground crew replying instantly to the astronauts. This is because the video was recorded at the ground station. So, when the ground crew hears the astronaust, they can reply instantly. Then they speak. several seconds go by, and then there is a reply. Makes perfect sense to me.

Is that all the video offers you Kendal? I hope you didn't waste too much money on that.

By the way, for someone who throws out insults about us being arrogant, you seem to have a quite inflated ego yourself.

Starbuck
2003-Oct-14, 04:38 PM
8-[ Uh, hey. I guess I should clear the air a little, as I seem to somehow have become relevant, against my best efforts.
The connection here is actually very circular, Humph. I've been lurking on the BABB for the better part of five years, so both times the Lone Rager (tezzer, et al) posted board links, I signed up and posted to, if for no better reason, keep myself entertained during a recent stint of unemployment. I continue now simply because I had so much fun "anti-raging" That Guy, I want to see if it'll be any fun this time (plus, it's fun being the big fish in a little bowl :wink: ) I've strove (striven?) to keep the link between myself and BA hidden so as not to diminish the work you guys do here by being associated with a joker like me.
BTW, the YahooGroups That Guy is keeping the alleged smoking gun video on is free, you just need a Yahoo account (equally free). The subscription is more Rage-babble (or somethin, I dunno...). the videos (he actually has three), are laughable, but here's a link that may or may not work (I know so little about HTML, so very little...):

http://f5.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gB2MPzIFvozVqHOvA8sPK4YJC3N248Gc2C6ksT6pqcORJblCS_ w7MG2iDSj1vIQe2cHJdIeiqfqB2rgTEvVYDIxCO2WgBKg5-ROi9g/Watch_the_flag_blow_in_the_Desert_breeze.mpeg

Anyway, I guess I'm here now, so if I've muddled the issue any further, I'll try to clear things up with brisk but witty Q&A sessions.

I'm new here, so I just have to ask, does anybody else feel the urge to talk like Strong Bad when they post? Or is it just me?

Musashi
2003-Oct-14, 04:58 PM
Well Starbuck, of course I feel the urge to talk like Strongbad! Who else would I talk like? The cheat? Bubs? No! I will talk like myself. Anyhow, it seems that this is your first post here, well, congratulamations. I remember my first post here, it went something like this... (star wipe to new scene, with me at my computer)

(typing noises) Dear Mr. BABB I have a question for you. What kind of name is BABB anyway? Are you from another planet or something? Maybe you are a girl and you just mistyped BABE, well, in that case... Hello there Mr., er.. Ms. BABE. This is a migty fine site you have here, maybe we could go out sometime. We could meet at Rallys, or In 'n' Out, or Sonic Burger, whatever you got out there.

(star wipe back to me answering your question)

So, yes, I do get the urge to talk like StrongBad occasionally. Thanks for a wonderful question.

SKY
2003-Oct-14, 05:09 PM
8-[ Uh, hey. I guess I should clear the air a little, as I seem to somehow have become relevant, against my best efforts.
The connection here is actually very circular, Humph. I've been lurking on the BABB for the better part of five years, so both times the Lone Rager (tezzer, et al) posted board links, I signed up and posted to, if for no better reason, keep myself entertained during a recent stint of unemployment. I continue now simply because I had so much fun "anti-raging" That Guy, I want to see if it'll be any fun this time (plus, it's fun being the big fish in a little bowl :wink: ) I've strove (striven?) to keep the link between myself and BA hidden so as not to diminish the work you guys do here by being associated with a joker like me.
BTW, the YahooGroups That Guy is keeping the alleged smoking gun video on is free, you just need a Yahoo account (equally free). The subscription is more Rage-babble (or somethin, I dunno...). the videos (he actually has three), are laughable, but here's a link that may or may not work (I know so little about HTML, so very little...):

http://f5.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gB2MPzIFvozVqHOvA8sPK4YJC3N248Gc2C6ksT6pqcORJblCS_ w7MG2iDSj1vIQe2cHJdIeiqfqB2rgTEvVYDIxCO2WgBKg5-ROi9g/Watch_the_flag_blow_in_the_Desert_breeze.mpeg

Anyway, I guess I'm here now, so if I've muddled the issue any further, I'll try to clear things up with brisk but witty Q&A sessions.

I'm new here, so I just have to ask, does anybody else feel the urge to talk like Strong Bad when they post? Or is it just me?

I should apologize...


Ive had a discussion with a person here (don't want to say name because i don't know if they want to be named)

I was the person that Humphrey was referring to. 8-[

I sent a message to Humph concerning a list of simularities between the Tezzar board and the JCH board, and you being a poster on both was part of the list. Of course, I didn't consider the fact you may have been lurking here (much like I did for about a year before posting) and was introduced to the two sites through here. :)

I still believe that JCH and Tezzar are either the same person or a small group trolling boards to raise tempers for their personal pleasure (as was stated in another thread). There are still other simularities between the two, but thats just my opinion.

Anyways, sorry for the insinuation, and hope you stick around. :)

JayUtah
2003-Oct-14, 05:31 PM
I don't see why you all are so arrogant.

Not arrogant, merely sure of ourselves. Unlike the conspiracy theorists, we've examined all the evidence and done the math. And unlike the conspiracy theorists many of us are professional space scientists, engineers, or other persons expected to be familiar with space.

Anyone with a varied opinion is be littled in this forum.

Only if he comes in, guns blazing, with the same old garbage that's been debunked for decades.

I downloaded the movie and it is explained to me that the moon is 389,000 miles...

kilometers

... from the earth and radio signals travel at 189,000 miles per second.

186,282.396 miles per second in a vacuum.

This means that it will take a second and a half for a signal to reach the moon from earth...

Yes, but where was the recorder? That makes a difference.

The recorder was on the ground, picking up the ground controllers in real time. However, that same recorder was picking up the astronaut's transmission 1.3 seconds after he actually said it. You're hearing essentially what the controller would have heard, but certainly not what the astronaut heard.

If the astronaut asks a question and the controller answers it, you would expect the ground-based recorder to record it essentially as if the two men were in the same room. The controller hears the question after the 1.3-second delay, but responds immediately.

If, on the other hand, the controller asks the astronaut a question, there would be a considerable delay as recorded. The recorder captures the question immediately, but it will take 1.3 seconds for it to travel to the moon and be heard, and another 1.3 seconds for the astronaut's reply to travel back to earth and be recorded.

The notion that there should always be a delay in both directions in a ground-based recording of the air-to-ground loop is a fundamental misunderstanding both of the physical principle involved and of the behavior of the equipment.

...and the video clearly shows a conversation between N.A.S.A and apollo 11 that was not delayed in the slightest.

Anyone can excise a few seconds of video out of a two-hour record and argue that it fits some predetermined conclusion. The question is whether all the evidence fits that conclusion.

I watch the Apollo 11 EVA once a month or so, to keep my knowledge of it fresh. If you're claiming there are no effects of the time delay then it's been a very long time since you saw the whole thing.

First, not all communications were conversations. The astronauts and controllers, recall, had trained for months for this. They were expected to report certain things at certain times without necessarily being prompted. It wasn't always a question-answer format.

Second, the expected delays do, in fact, occur. Listen to more than the snippet at a web site, as we have, and then make up your mind. There are many instances throughout the Apollo mission when both the astronaut and the controller begin to say something, realize after the delay that they have interrupted, and both stop talking. The transmissions crossed paths on the way to or from the moon, but they have each said a substantial piece before realizing the interruption. It is trivially easy to find examples of the effects of the communications delay. The conspiracist simply don't let you hear them, nor do they expect you to find them on your own.

Third, a well-documented "bug" -- the acoustic coupling of the astronauts' headphones and microphone in the communications cap -- caused the astronaut's microphone to occasionally reproduce the last bit of a controller's transmission as it arrived in the astronaut's helmet. If you time the difference between when the controller utters it on the recording, and when the echo is recorded, you get exactly 2.6 seconds -- the expected round trip duration.

It's proven and the N.A.S.A Hoax is once and for all disputed and proven with N.A.S.A's own footage.

You mean a very carefully selected excerpt from NASA's own footage. If you do your own research and look for more information than what the conspiracy theorists have spoon-fed you, you find that it's not proven "once and for all" and that the evidence isn't nearly so cut-and-dried as you've been misled to believe.

A conclusion that holds only for its proponent's carefully chosen case isn't a very strong conclusion. The conspiracists not only fail to provide the whole picture of the evidence, they often prevent other researchers from checking up on them by providing incomplete or wrong citations, or omitting them altogether. And they certainly don't expect you to go looking for more evidence on your own. Make no mistake: these authors realize just how weak their case is. They simply hope you won't notice.

Kendal_Moon
2003-Oct-15, 03:06 AM
Americans are very stupid people. You would rather believe in Santa Claus than that your father bears you gifts. Now I am going to say certain phrase's acknowledging who I am, anyone who is apart of these organizations will understand my knowledge of the following topic completely.

I am from the island man,
Peace, holds two fingers up in a Vee,
Ba da da dup
5 breezes short from 3 but still can sail on the ocean and ride the waves,

I think I got all of you covered or uncovered you might say.

Welcome to CSIS my friends not even second to the KGB.

ocasey3
2003-Oct-15, 03:19 AM
Ummmm, I feel like I just read a post at GLP. :-?

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-15, 03:26 AM
CSIS? Canadian Security Intelligence Service? Doubt it buddy.

Musashi
2003-Oct-15, 03:52 AM
That is JCH. That is the same crap he spouted last time he was here. Everyone say bye to Kendal_Moon.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-15, 03:53 AM
Bye bye.

ocasey3
2003-Oct-15, 03:54 AM
buh bye

The Bad Astronomer
2003-Oct-15, 04:03 AM
Americans are very stupid people.

This statement is almost but not quite a banning offense. I strongly urge you to read the FAQ and start flying right.

Gmann
2003-Oct-15, 01:42 PM
That figures. They seem to be the kind of folks who will not discuss the possibility that they may be mistaken. I looked at their 'movies' and I don't see what they are talking about. Given the picture quality, I don't see how you could conclude anything from them.

2003-Oct-15, 02:17 PM
Americans are very stupid people.

This statement is almost but not quite a banning offense. I strongly urge you to read the FAQ and start flying right.
yeah yeah
my appologies
i'll reWORD
-------------
monyana
right now late
for Linux

Reacher
2003-Oct-15, 04:53 PM
OH MY GOD!
People here know Strongbad!?
YAY!
Ah, that fulfills my day.
God, do I love Strongbad.
'AAAAAAWWWW I was raised by a cup of cawfeee!' -Homsar... What a laugh.

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-18, 03:15 AM
i've been banned :evil:


I feel so rejected :(


Hey starbuck can you please post messages that appear there? Thnx

Humphrey
2003-Oct-18, 04:25 AM
Starbuck: My humblest apologies. I am very sorry for generalizing you. I assumed that since you were part of both boards that you were a part of his group. Again, i am very sorry. I hope you accept this aplogy. :-)


No offense taken?

Starbuck
2003-Oct-18, 03:56 PM
Hump: I willingly suject myself to the bizarre rants of the likes of JCH and tezzer. Offense obviously isn't in my vocabulary. I'm just clearing the air here cause I don't want you guys to be wrong, seeing as you work so hard to be accurate (I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about how I'm posting in the same thread as JayUtah :o ) Oh, and good luck with the matrimonial follderoll, I'm swiftly approaching wedded bliss m'self (fingers crossed), this Feb.

Styles: You say you want me to post stuff back here on the BABB? Cool, I'm a spy 8) .

Humphrey
2003-Oct-18, 08:43 PM
Congrats on the wedding. I hope it leads to a very long lasting relationship. If not, at least one where you get the bulk of the divorce money. :-P

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-19, 01:53 AM
Styles: You say you want me to post stuff back here on the BABB? Cool, I'm a spy 8) .


What did he say about my banning? Pleeease i need to know 8-[

Musashi
2003-Oct-19, 02:43 AM
I didn't see anything over there about your banning at all. But he may have erased it or something.

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-19, 03:41 AM
Americans are very stupid people. You would rather believe in Santa Claus than that your father bears you gifts. Now I am going to say certain phrase's acknowledging who I am, anyone who is apart of these organizations will understand my knowledge of the following topic completely.

Not sure what your deal with Santa Claus is, though I'd like to point out that you're talking about a European legend/tradition that, in various forms, has been around for quite a while. But, let's take a look at your phrases.


I am from the island man,
Peace, holds two fingers up in a Vee,
Ba da da dup
5 breezes short from 3 but still can sail on the ocean and ride the waves,


1-2. You're from Vancouver Island, in Canada. Your point?
3. Sounds similar to the theme from "Dragnet", a show about the LAPD back in the day.
4. Arwoo?


I think I got all of you covered or uncovered you might say.

Welcome to CSIS my friends not even second to the KGB.

Uh huh. Right. Yeah. CSIS? Talk to me when they're on the level of the Mossad, CIA, DIA, NSA, MI-5, etc. Besides, I assume, since you're stating you work for CSIS, you must be an analyst, not an agent, right? So what? What's your specialty? Not that I believe you actually do work for CSIS, BTW. :roll:

For everyone else, nothing to see here, move along, this is not the troll you're looking for. :D

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-19, 03:44 AM
OH MY GOD!
People here know Strongbad!?
YAY!
Ah, that fulfills my day.
God, do I love Strongbad.
'AAAAAAWWWW I was raised by a cup of cawfeee!' -Homsar... What a laugh.

The System Is Down. The System, System, System System System System

Do do de do do, do do de do do, do do de do do!

Lightswitch rave, anyone? (http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail45.html) (click on the lightswitch at the end) :lol:

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-19, 03:46 AM
CSIS? Talk to me when they're on the level of the Mossad, CIA, DIA, NSA, MI-5, etc.

Hey!

*Reads the list*

Ah nuts. :wink:

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-19, 04:16 AM
OK, I have a Yahoo Groups membership under a different name, and decided to stop by to take a look.

Under pictures, there's a bunch of garden-variety conspiracy-theorist pics, including a few referencing the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. One such pic shows an airliner, the Pentagon, and appears to be making conjecture as to its angle coming in. Another one is something about mind control, and a third is a Canadian flag. Whatever.

The files, the files, woo-woo, the files. :o

OK, I'm posting the files on my website for anyone to look at. I'm also keeping the original file names, despite their length and, in the case of file #1, their profanity. Just right click on the links below, and click on Save As. I can't have these up indefinitely, since they take a good portion of my disk usage quota, and they're just so, well, silly. I'll try to keep them up through Halloween, though, and will post on this board when I need to take them down. I will also keep them on my PC, should someone want me to email out a copy to them.

File #1 (http://www.websown.com/~jdonahue/astro/Nixons_Bull****_bad_tv_cut_bad_editing_from_nasa.m peg) is Nixon's "phone call" to the astronauts. You can clearly hear an echo in the background, presumably from the mikes of the astronauts picking up the transmission in the earpiece. The delay is noticable - we're hearing President Nixon's call "live", and then hearing the delay from when Armstrong and Aldrin hear it, the microphones retransmit it, and ground control picks up the transmissions from the astronauts. The tagline on the Yahoo site, BTW, is Apparently Apollo 11 in the Nevada Desert. ](*,)

File #2 (http://www.websown.com/~jdonahue/astro/Watch_the_flag_blow_in_the_Desert_breeze.mpeg) is the flag-planting scene. This one's been beaten to death, no need to comment on it. Anyone watching closely can see the reason the flag is "waving" - it's because it was being twisted. The gagl...er, tagline (actual Freudian slip) underneath the filename is Setting_up_the_flag_in_the_desert, despite the fact that there's no need for the _ characters at all. #-o Whatever.

File #3 (http://www.websown.com/~jdonahue/astro/apollofilm.rm) is a composite of several "scenes", which claims to show the astronauts on "wires", accounting for their reduced weight in the lower Lunar gravity. That said, at least one scene, the one proporting to be from Apollo 17, looks like it came from the movie "Capricorn One" - the ground is a nice brownish color (not the nice uniform grey of the moon), the flag looks a little big, etc. There's also a scene that appears to be taken from the training sessions prior to landing on the moon. It's hard as heck to make heads or tails of these videos. This is their biggie, with a tagline of Excluse footage From Nasa Computer staging a conspiracy film CLASSIFIED!. 8-[

There is only one message readable on the Yahoo forum, discussing how the US Military is being transformed into a Global NATO Response Force, posted by Ozzy bin Oswald (don't ask).

So, there's your synopsis of the Yahoo group. I am now unjoining it, and taking a shower. Bleh :o

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-19, 04:19 AM
CSIS? Talk to me when they're on the level of the Mossad, CIA, DIA, NSA, MI-5, etc.

Hey!

*Reads the list*

Ah nuts. :wink:

Exactly. I have no doubt the CSIS isn't bad. But, that's a hell of a list to compete against.

I continue to be baffled at the hostility some Canadians display towards the US. It's just.....weird. Not saying you do, The Supreme Canuck, but our "friend" certainly does. I mean, it's not like we return it, ya know? Heck, most of my favorite musicians are Canadian (Rose Chronicles, Kristy Thirsk, Sarah MacLachlan, Delerium, Tara MacLean, Frontline Assembly, Rush....)

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-19, 04:21 AM
The anti-Americanism is pretty bad up here, and I see no point to it. It disgusts me. But I do have to say I know a few Americans who don't like Canada much... not many but a few. That also disgusts me.

Ugh. Human behaviour is just so... incomprehensable...

Humphrey
2003-Oct-19, 05:02 AM
The anti-Americanism is pretty bad up here, and I see no point to it. It disgusts me. But I do have to say I know a few Americans who don't like Canada much... not many but a few. That also disgusts me.

Ugh. Human behaviour is just so... incomprehensable...

Don't worry when phase 17 goes throiught that will be no problem. A united Canadian planet will fare peacefully.

:-P

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-19, 05:24 AM
The anti-Americanism is pretty bad up here, and I see no point to it. It disgusts me. But I do have to say I know a few Americans who don't like Canada much... not many but a few. That also disgusts me.

Ugh. Human behaviour is just so... incomprehensable...

Yeah, human behavior (my own included) can just suck at times.

That said, I have a suspicion as to what might be part of the cause of the anti-Americanism, at least (I have no freakin' clue about anti-Canadianism). First, during the War of 1812, we did try to take Canada. Second, on the world stage, Canada often tends to get looked over, disregarded, or lumped into the same catagory as the U.S., which is unfortunate because, while we have a lot in common, we're not the same.

This is, unfortunately, compounded by people down here, who at times tend to dismiss Canada, or not take you guys seriously. On the other hand, it's not entirely surprising, though, considering Canada's population (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo42a.htm) when compared with that of the U.S. (http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html) - we've got 10 times the population. I mean, look at the population of Los Angeles (http://losangeles.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) and San Diego (http://sandiego.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) (where I live). We account for roughly 1/6 the population of Canada by ourselves. And, when talking about San Diego, that's the city proper - we've got several other cities of various size in San Diego county (some (http://escondido.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) cities surpassing 100,000 (http://chulavista.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) by themselves. In all, San Diego county is around 2.6 million, LA county around 9.6 million, and Orange County (separating the two) around 2.6-2.8 million. California's over 34 million people, surpassing the population of Canada. We're just so much bigger, that we see Canada as some curiosity.

It's like Robin Williams said - Canada seems like someone living in a loft apartment over a really great party. :D

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-19, 05:29 AM
War of 1812 isn't it. I think it may just be jealousy. And the fact that we always get blamed for things. Like the power outage. It's the little things like that.

I have no idea what anti-Canadianism is, though. Maybe it's a response to anti-Americanism.

Gmann
2003-Oct-19, 12:20 PM
I have an idea, why don't we settle this Canada vs America thing with a hockey game. Everyone knows that the best, biggest and toughest hockey players come from :o ...on second thought, maybe a game of tiddly winks would be in order. :wink:

Humphrey
2003-Oct-19, 06:40 PM
I have an idea, why don't we settle this Canada vs America thing with a hockey game. Everyone knows that the best, biggest and toughest hockey players come from :o ...on second thought, maybe a game of tiddly winks would be in order. :wink:

Lets go for soccer. Both teams suck, so nobody is really on top. :-P

R.A.F.
2003-Oct-19, 07:07 PM
...we've got several other cities of various size in San Diego county (some (http://escondido.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) cities surpassing 100,000 (http://chulavista.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) by themselves.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why my wife and I moved away from that area (El Cajon) about 2 years ago. We don't miss it, not one bit. Where we live now (northern Ca) there are TREES, and we can actually SEE the stars at night. Now don't get mad :) I'm not trying to "talk bad" about SD county, it's still a heck of a lot better than LA...it just that it got to be too much for us.

ToSeek
2003-Oct-20, 01:07 AM
I have an idea, why don't we settle this Canada vs America thing with a hockey game. Everyone knows that the best, biggest and toughest hockey players come from :o ...on second thought, maybe a game of tiddly winks would be in order. :wink:

Lets go for soccer. Both teams suck, so nobody is really on top. :-P

Only if you're talking about the men's teams. ;) The women's teams fought it out for third place in the World Cup just recently.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Oct-20, 01:09 AM
Hey, R.A.F., do you actually live in a place called Paradise, or is it a description?

SirThoreth
2003-Oct-20, 03:40 AM
...we've got several other cities of various size in San Diego county (some (http://escondido.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) cities surpassing 100,000 (http://chulavista.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) by themselves.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why my wife and I moved away from that area (El Cajon) about 2 years ago. We don't miss it, not one bit. Where we live now (northern Ca) there are TREES, and we can actually SEE the stars at night. Now don't get mad :) I'm not trying to "talk bad" about SD county, it's still a heck of a lot better than LA...it just that it got to be too much for us.

Hey, no offense taken. 8)

Yeah, these days I live up in Penasquitos, which has more of a small-town feel, but it's hard sometimes to really see the stars, between the light pollution and the clouds/fog/etc that you get being so close to the ocean.

At the moment, I'm back to living with my parents - renting sucked, because I could never save up enough $$$ for the down payment on my own place. As it is, I should hopefully be moving up to the Temecula, Murietta, or Wildomar area - you get a much clearer view of the stars up there, and it's not all that far from SD.

But, yeah, SD is sooo much nicer than LA (where I'm working tonight). :D

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-20, 06:37 AM
thread hi-jack


So whats the news at that forum eh?

R.A.F.
2003-Oct-20, 02:07 PM
Hey, R.A.F., do you actually live in a place called Paradise, or is it a description?

To completely answer your question will take a bit of a story so hang on...

If you drive for about an hour, traveling North from Sacremento, CA, you will come upon the city of Chico. It's a "college town" on the floor of the interior valley of California. Traveling east from Chico, for about 20 minutes takes you to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, and to the town of Paradise. Just north of Paradise is the town of Magalia (pronounced Muhgayleeuh) which consists of a large reservoir in the south and the town proper being north of that. Magalia is also the discover "site" of the largest gold nugget ever found in California. It was found in 1859 and weighed in at 54 lbs., of which 49.5 ounces were pure gold, but more about that in a minute. Paradise, and the surrounding areas are known as "the ridge" with a total population of about 40,000 spread over a huge area.

So now to your question...Yes there is a Paradise.

Do I actually live there? Well, no. I actually live in the southern most part of Magalia, far south of the reservoir. about 50 yards south of my front door is the plaque commemorating the site of that big gold nugget. (See, I told you I'd get back to that). About 50 yards south of that is the town of Paradise "city" limit. So if I were to be totally accurate, I would have to state that I live about 100 yards from Paradise. My reasoning for using "Paradise" as my location is that we do all our shopping there (unless we travel to Chico) and "downtown" Paradise is a heck of a lot closer to us than "downtown" Magalia. Anyhow, "living in Paradise" just sounds so much better than "living in Magalia", don't you think?

TriangleMan
2003-Oct-20, 02:24 PM
Hey, R.A.F., do you actually live in a place called Paradise, or is it a description?

"living in Paradise" just sounds so much better than "living in Magalia", don't you think?

Actually I think "close to Paradise" would be a better location. :)

Starbuck
2003-Oct-20, 04:38 PM
thread hi-jack


So whats the news at that forum eh?


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... oh, wha!
Whoops, asleep at the keys. Not good.
Actually, there hasn't been a peep in three days, I think his banning you may have been his last act before either a) he got bored and went back to playing CounterStrike, or b) his mom found out what he was doing and grounded him from the computer.

Only my opinion, though.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-20, 08:45 PM
Or he might of banned himself again.

Stylesjl
2003-Oct-21, 07:41 AM
im probaly the only one keeping that forum going :o

Kendal_Moon
2003-Oct-27, 03:22 AM
Yeah, these days I live up in Penasquitos, which has more of a small-town feel, but it's hard sometimes to really see the stars, between the light pollution and the clouds/fog/etc that you get being so close to the ocean.


I joined the sites forum and pm'd the admin and he gave me some great info regarding the connection between the Apollo Conspiracies and Radarsat 2. Not to mention the satellites most secret functions. Very interesting don't know why you guys are so hard on this group they have very high level information regarding operation " Polar Ice " anyway. I trust em and figure if they can prove the sat information I got and double checking so far seems accurate I will believe the nasa bit.

Musashi
2003-Oct-27, 03:30 AM
Right

freddo
2003-Oct-27, 04:10 AM
I joined the sites forum and pm'd the admin and he gave me some great info regarding the connection between the Apollo Conspiracies and Radarsat 2. Not to mention the satellites most secret functions. Very interesting don't know why you guys are so hard on this group they have very high level information regarding operation " Polar Ice " anyway. I trust em and figure if they can prove the sat information I got and double checking so far seems accurate I will believe the nasa bit.

Because I can prove to you beyond doubt that I played cricket yesterday - would you then believe me if I told you that you could breathe in space?

Kendal_Moon
2003-Oct-27, 04:13 AM
Because I can prove to you beyond doubt that I played cricket yesterday - would you then believe me if I told you that you could breathe in space?

=D> How do you know their is such a thing as space you ever been in it? Besides whats between your ears that is.

Musashi
2003-Oct-27, 04:14 AM
5 posts and already you have to turn to insults?

freddo
2003-Oct-27, 04:25 AM
How do you know their is such a thing as space you ever been in it? Besides whats between your ears that is.

Excellent Kendal_Moon, I knew you were a nice person... :roll:

So I guess your answer is no - you wouldn't believe me... So why believe the other guy? The relationship between the two proofs are just as tenuous.

[BTW - I've already tried Breathing on the Moon (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=141938#141938)]

Starbuck
2003-Oct-27, 07:36 AM
I hope Kendall doesn't get banned, every time he posts I know it's time to check back at the ole' Proboard.

Anyway, Styles should find it of note that all previous posts have been deleted. All of them. And a totally new set of topics having to do with... heck, I have no idea what the guys raving on about now. It's 2:30am, and I have to go to work here in a minute. My standard of entertainment is just too darn high.

Musashi
2003-Oct-27, 07:43 AM
Yeah, I noticed that too. I find it strange that all the old posts and tpics dissapeared and new ones sprang forth. Also, I have it on good authority that the Humphrey over there is not the Humphrey from here.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-27, 08:01 AM
Yah i never signed on there, so any post there by someone pretending to be me is not me. Seriously.


Plus nobody can be that stupid as to pretend to be me. There are many smarter people to pretend to be, namely everyone.

Humphrey
2003-Oct-27, 09:37 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!

when i clicked on the site to see what the imposter is saying about me i get this:

"nasa.darkgod.net has been disabled

THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED
404 - NOT FOUND

You have reached this page after typing an URL that was
in conflict with our Terms of Service.

Please don't complain to us about this single account anymore.
The account has been disconnected and we have
done everything we could to stop the abuse."



LOL

Starbuck
2003-Oct-27, 05:31 PM
Well, the Board (http://nasaconspiracy.proboards19.com/) is still up, and I guess I could check the yahoo groups...


But why?!

Humphrey
2003-Oct-27, 08:33 PM
heh. it seems that he just moved the website to a different adress.

Boy this guy goes throught alot for a incoherent website like that. This "Raging" he does is a pure waste of time to go against us. I seriously am concerned for his social life. Even anoying trolls deserve to be happy sometimes.

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-01, 06:54 PM
First, Musachi - great sig line.

Second, is this video the one they discuss here (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp) at snopes.com? If it isn't, what's it supposed to show?

Musashi
2003-Nov-01, 06:57 PM
:D Thanks.

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-01, 07:07 PM
:D Thanks.

You're welcome. My big field of study is early literature (up until the Renissance) so seeing something like that on an astronomy bulletin board, of all places, made me smile.

Musashi
2003-Nov-01, 07:13 PM
I also study early lit, but it is more of a hobby for me. Welcome to the board, by the way.

Ikyoto
2003-Nov-02, 05:15 PM
That's when a bunch of really po'd Canadians did what no one else ever did before or since.. They got all the way to Washington DC and burned most of it to the ground.

THAT is why Canada has bee so quiet all these years!

They are just biding their time - Them with their round bacon and beer...

Just you watch - They'll be back!

Kendal_Moon
2003-Nov-04, 06:07 AM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

Laser Jock
2003-Nov-04, 03:48 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-05, 02:55 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammar mistake as well.

SeanF
2003-Nov-05, 03:05 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammar mistake as well.

Spelling errors aren't really grammar errors -- and it's a good thing, too, because the word is "criticizing." ;)

Starbuck
2003-Nov-05, 04:50 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammar mistake as well.

Spelling errors aren't really grammar errors -- and it's a good thing, too, because the word is "criticizing." ;)

Yah, Sean, think about that as I point out how you... what's wrong here is... the-- oh fergit it! #-o

Starbuck
2003-Nov-05, 05:35 PM
He made me an Moderator? :o
Okay, I now exert a moderate amount of Phil-like control over a small HB forum.

Any suggestions? 8-[

SeanF
2003-Nov-05, 05:45 PM
Spelling errors aren't really grammar errors -- and it's a good thing, too, because the word is "criticizing." ;)

Yah, Sean, think about that as I point out how you... what's wrong here is... the-- oh fergit it! #-o

Care to guess how many times I proofread that post before I submitted it? :D

Ikyoto
2003-Nov-05, 09:03 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammar mistake as well.

Would it be incorrect to correct the above grammer to read "Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammatical error as well?" :-s

Sister Ray
2003-Nov-05, 09:40 PM
Ya that site did go down I found it back again on all the major search engines now at http://www.nasaconspiracy.net

On the top of the first page of that site:


THE NASA CONSPIRACY... The only believable conspiracy story out their.

[Emphasis mine]

I'm not a grammer nazi, but couldn't they get through the title without a mistake?

Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammar mistake as well.

Would it be incorrect to correct the above grammer to read "Allow me to state the law that any post critizing the grammar of something will inevitably have a grammatical error as well?" :-s

Yes. Thus, your post misspells "grammar." I'm sure there will be a grammatical mistake in this post, because it is an infinite cycle.

Ikyoto
2003-Nov-05, 10:57 PM
Ewe kawt thaht? Kool! Eye thaught know won whaz chekying speling!