Why NASA lost 700 boxes of moon landing video
schoenf...@gmail.com
original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
enhancement and image quality improvement.
Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
Here are some basic truths:
1. Radiation:
- The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
without massive lead sheild.
- Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
2. Continuity errors:
- It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
- photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
- a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
- photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
3. Lighting
- sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
directional light source placed at infinity.
- sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
- Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
one side.
4. Miscellaneous
- No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
- Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
red smoke.
- much more (see references)
References:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451
SwampMidget
government executes an attack on 911, now they hide the moon landing
films. Someone get Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney on the phone.
whofan
You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast,
all the while having to put together the 911 thing at the same time.
It makes one wonder how he ever had the time to put the whole tsunami
thing together.....
But, even though the demmies tell us how dumb George Bush is...he was
still able to pull all of *this* off??????
BTW - there's a rumor that Dubya is still miffed that they called his
hurricane 'Katrina'....he wanted it to be called 'Karen'. Oh well, can't
'win' them all...
Silly, delusional libby dems....
SwampMidget
also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast, "
Don't you think you're being a little ridiculous now? We all know that
George Bush did not create the hurricane. What he did was order the
levies blown up 'cause .... ummm ... George Bush hates black people.
And AND daybe puttin' da maganeze in da malt liquors so youz kills your
momma --->
http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/video/2006/060718rhDickGregoryMaltLiquor.wvx
miroco
If you don't think the Bush administration can control the weather then I
think you are naive or have your head in the sand.
whofan
Wow! I totally forgot about the kooks claiming that Bush bombed the
levees.
I assumed that he was so busy listening to all the liberal demmies
phone calls and "taking their rights away" that he wouldn't have been
able to get over to New Orleans the day after the storm to plant the
dynamite. Afterall, the dems keep telling everyone how 'dumb' George
Bush is.
But Dubya was able to pull all of this off....all the while, putting
together his plan to raise the temperature of the planet via his
global warming program.
BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
mike...@yahoo.com
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> enhancement and image quality improvement.
>
> Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
>
> Here are some basic truths:
>
> 1. Radiation:
> - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> without massive lead sheild.
>
WRONG. The radiation levels are not as high as you think, and Van
Allen himself said so.
> - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
> serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
>
We don't know what they experienced, but it must have been
survivable.
>
> 2. Continuity errors:
> - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
> obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
>
Wrong AGAIN.
> - photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
>
Funny then that it only happens with BRIGHT objects where the film
is maxed... The birghtness simply "smears over" or "blots out"
the crosshairs on the film.
> - a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
> also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
>
A letter "C" is a simple enough figure to appear just by luck.
> - photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
> are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
>
Time difference.
> 3. Lighting
> - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
> directional light source placed at infinity.
>
They're not parallel because the surface is not an ideal material.
It is full of imperfections (craters, etc.) that subtly alter the
shadows' directions. This can be seen in Earth photographs too.
> - sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
> which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
>
The film edges could have faded. The original negatives were
brighter. Film ages, you know.
> - Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
> one side.
>
Reflection off the ground.
> 4. Miscellaneous
> - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
> rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
>
The thrust is not that strong. If it was the lander would have been
shot into space with an incredible force, enough to kill the
astronauts (it has very little mass, and therefore inertia, compared,
to, say, an Earth launch rig, and is in much lower gravity.). You
don't need a whole boatload of thrust to throw something off the
Moon -- escape velocity there is only like 2 km/s as opposed to
11 km/s for Earth, that means 1/25 the energy (kinetic energy
is proportional to velocity _squared_).
> - Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
> ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
> red smoke.
>
Of COURSE the propellant will not be seen, because the fuel mix
produces a nearly invisible flame. Materials that burn invisibly DO
exist, like hydrogen, it's flame is very hard to see. What test
footage shows lots of "red smoke"?
Case is closed. Moon landing happened. YOU don't want to believe
it for some reason.
mike...@yahoo.com
whofan wrote:
> SwampMidget wrote:
> > damn that George Bush and all his Freemason buddies. First, the shadow
> > government executes an attack on 911, now they hide the moon landing
> > films. Someone get Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney on the phone.
> >
>
> You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
> also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast,
> all the while having to put together the 911 thing at the same time.
>
> It makes one wonder how he ever had the time to put the whole tsunami
> thing together.....
>
He may not have planned to whip up the hurricane. He just took
advantage
of the situation. Ditto for the tsunami thing. He may not even have put
together 9/11 himself, he got the terrorists to do it for him.
Nostradamus's
MABUS: osaMA-BUSh.
> But, even though the demmies tell us how dumb George Bush is...he was
> still able to pull all of *this* off??????
>
He didn't have to pull off as much as you think, and he's got other
people to
do things for himself. And he IS dumb, he has slaughtered THOUSANDS and
THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Iraqis just to root out Saddam... spent
(wasted) $250,000,000,000 (about 5 Bill Gates's worth of moolah) on
Iraq,
at a rate of $1000 per SECOND no less (and it's still climbing), TOOK
IT OVER
(did you know the Iraqis felt they were being conquered when the
American
flag was raised in place of the statue of Saddam? Do you know they
aren't
happy with us being there? That should tell you that we are screwing up
royally.), and overall has messed up with everything. Did you know he's
even been trying to get legislation passed to remove the 22nd
Amendment,
so he could stay in office for the rest of his life?!
> BTW - there's a rumor that Dubya is still miffed that they called his
> hurricane 'Katrina'....he wanted it to be called 'Karen'. Oh well, can't
> 'win' them all...
>
> Silly, delusional libby dems....
Except for the fact that they're right, at least in part. Bush is a bad
president,
and that much is CERTAIN. Period. End of story.
mike...@yahoo.com
whofan wrote:
> SwampMidget wrote:
> > "You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
> > also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast, "
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Don't you think you're being a little ridiculous now? We all know that
> > George Bush did not create the hurricane. What he did was order the
> > levies blown up 'cause .... ummm ... George Bush hates black people.
> > And AND daybe puttin' da maganeze in da malt liquors so youz kills your
> > momma --->
> > http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/video/2006/060718rhDickGregoryMaltLiquor.wvx
> >
>
> Wow! I totally forgot about the kooks claiming that Bush bombed the
> levees.
>
> I assumed that he was so busy listening to all the liberal demmies
> phone calls and "taking their rights away" that he wouldn't have been
> able to get over to New Orleans the day after the storm to plant the
> dynamite. Afterall, the dems keep telling everyone how 'dumb' George
> Bush is.
>
> But Dubya was able to pull all of this off....all the while, putting
> together his plan to raise the temperature of the planet via his
> global warming program.
>
And that isn't all that hard. He just refused to sign Kyoto, which
was only an "entry-level" so to speak anti-global-warming
protocol, claiming it would "damage the US economy". Ha ha ha.
See? He just put his wonderful "economy" above the planet
we all depend on to live.
> BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
> of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
> the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
>
WTF?!?!?! Bush fired missiles?!?!?!?! I doubt that all the Dems
believe this, sweepingeneralizationomania!
> Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
> actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
> front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
> thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
> she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
Maybe, maybe not. But there would at least be a little less CO2 in
the atmosphere...
Mike
obvious argument everyone should have at their disposal to explain to
the conspiracy cranks. Namely, confirmation from foreign sources. You
will recall that the moon landing happened at the height of the cold
war. The Soviets would have LOVED to expose it if it had been faked.
Prior to the moon mission the Soviets had specifically launched some
satellites with special telescopic equipment for the purpose of
monitoring our trip to the moon. They saw us go their and come back.
Moreover, as a courtesy, NASA provided the Soviet space scientists with
fairly detailed specs as to how the mission was to proceed. At that
time the Russkies had more experience in space then we did. They would
have told the world if anything did not make sense.
Anyways, in the late 90s Japan designed some super high-tech optical
equipment that was launched from a European rocket and did a flyby of
the moon. According to the Japs, they SAW the flag standing there in
the Sea of Tranquility.
So our paranoid friend has to believe in a conspiracy big enough to
encompass not only thousands of American scientists, but also the
scientific establishment of the Soviet Union at the height of the cold
war and the present day scientific community of Japan. Not too
plausible, eh.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
against the acceptance of the Kyoto protocol? And this was at the
time when Clinton was President, not Bush.
2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
President, that ratifies treaties?
3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
alive for long?
>> BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
>> of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
>> the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
>>
>
>WTF?!?!?! Bush fired missiles?!?!?!?! I doubt that all the Dems
>believe this, sweepingeneralizationomania!
>
Nah, not all, probably no more than half:-)
>> Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
>> actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
>> front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
>> thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
>> she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
>
>Maybe, maybe not. But there would at least be a little less CO2 in
>the atmosphere...
>
I can assure you that there wouldn't have been any difference. Now,
take your idiocy elsewhere.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Dirk Van de moortel
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156481509.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> enhancement and image quality improvement.
Luckily, before they lost the tapes, someone managed to make
a copy and leak it to the press:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html
Dirk Vdm
schoenf...@gmail.com
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > enhancement and image quality improvement.
> >
> > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> >
> > Here are some basic truths:
> >
> > 1. Radiation:
> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > without massive lead sheild.
> >
>
> WRONG. The radiation levels are not as high as you think, and Van
> Allen himself said so.
Imbecile.
> > - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
> > serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> > astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
> >
>
> We don't know what they experienced, but it must have been
> survivable.
Imbecile.
> >
> > 2. Continuity errors:
> > - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
> > obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
> >
>
> Wrong AGAIN.
I pitty the NASA whistleblowers. They went out of their way, with
significant risk, to leave these smoking gun pieces of evidence
(crosshairs behind scene objects- i mean that's pretty obvious stuff)
and yet the imbecile hordes still fail like retarded girls to
understand the reality of the situation.
> > - photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
> >
>
> Funny then that it only happens with BRIGHT objects where the film
> is maxed... The birghtness simply "smears over" or "blots out"
> the crosshairs on the film.
Imbecile.
> > - a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
> > also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
> >
>
> A letter "C" is a simple enough figure to appear just by luck.
And it being found on the ground with a clearly marked 'C' is also
'just luck'. Not the same kind of luck that let NASA lose 700 boxes of
the 'original footage' though is it? Ha Ha Ha you guys are a complete
joke..
> > - photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
> > are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
> >
>
> Time difference.
Imbecile.
> > 3. Lighting
> > - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
> > directional light source placed at infinity.
> >
>
> They're not parallel because the surface is not an ideal material.
> It is full of imperfections (craters, etc.) that subtly alter the
> shadows' directions. This can be seen in Earth photographs too.
Imbecile. A directional light source placed at infinity casts parallel
shadows AND ONLY parallel shadows. The photos clearly show radial
shadows, the providence of nearby specular lightsource.
> > - sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
> > which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
> >
>
> The film edges could have faded. The original negatives were
> brighter. Film ages, you know.
Imbecile.
> > - Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
> > one side.
> >
>
> Reflection off the ground.
Moon surface has 7% reflectivity - it can't even light the dark side of
moon rocks yet it can fully light the astronaut in the same photo!
> > 4. Miscellaneous
> > - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
> > rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
> >
>
> The thrust is not that strong. If it was the lander would have been
> shot into space with an incredible force, enough to kill the
> astronauts (it has very little mass, and therefore inertia, compared,
> to, say, an Earth launch rig, and is in much lower gravity.). You
> don't need a whole boatload of thrust to throw something off the
> Moon -- escape velocity there is only like 2 km/s as opposed to
> 11 km/s for Earth, that means 1/25 the energy (kinetic energy
> is proportional to velocity _squared_).
Imbecile.
> > - Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
> > ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
> > red smoke.
> >
>
> Of COURSE the propellant will not be seen, because the fuel mix
> produces a nearly invisible flame. Materials that burn invisibly DO
> exist, like hydrogen, it's flame is very hard to see. What test
> footage shows lots of "red smoke"?
Imbecile.
> Case is closed. Moon landing happened. YOU don't want to believe
> it for some reason.
Unlike you, my world-view requires me to reconcile the belief system
with the evidence. It is simply not possible to account for the
evidence shown in those documentary videos and the official Apollo
record.
If NASA did land on the moon, the official Apollo record is not
representative of that.
Ben Newsam
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Luckily, before they lost the tapes, someone managed to make
>a copy and leak it to the press:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/MoonLanding/MoonLanding.html
Awww, bless! Good old Clangers.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
age...@justicespammail.com
>Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
>original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
>enhancement and image quality improvement.
>
>Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
>and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
>
>Here are some basic truths:
>
> 1. Radiation:
> - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
>without massive lead sheild.
The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
> - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
>serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
>astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
> 2. Continuity errors:
> - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
>obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
>
> - photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
"The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair
(because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object
photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an
image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around
them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the
white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a
matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white
part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography."
> - a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
>also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
The "C" has been demonstrated to be a contaminate on the copy of the
photograph. It doesn't appear on the original negative.
> - photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
>are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
> 3. Lighting
> - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
>directional light source placed at infinity.
>
> - sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
>which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
>
> - Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
>one side.
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
> 4. Miscellaneous
> - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
>rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
>
> - Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
>ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
>red smoke.
There is no video of the LEM landing, stupid. And as to there being
no sign of "propellent ejected from the LEM" on takeoff:
"There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the flame from
the lander when it took off. The fuels they used produced no visible
flame! The lander used a mix of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an
oxidizer). These two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a
product that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame. We
expect to see a flame because of the usual drama of liftoff from the
Earth; the flame and smoke we see from the Shuttle, for example, is
because the solid rocket boosters do actually produce them, while the
lunar lander did not."
Yes, do:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Koobee Wublee
> > 1. Radiation:
> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> >without massive lead sheild.
>
> The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
>
> http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
I can asure you that the communication satellites in geosynchronous
orbit have their electronics designed to withstand 4+ order of
magnitude of the equivalent dosage you quoted from NASA. Apollo
command module has very minimal shielding. With 0.25-0.45g per cm^3 of
effective shielding, it is basically nil.
To me, this is a blatant falsification of document on NASA's part.
What else could they falsify?
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> > On 24 Aug 2006 21:51:49 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > 1. Radiation:
> > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > >without massive lead sheild.
> >
> > The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
> >
> > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
>
> I can asure you that the communication satellites in geosynchronous
> orbit have their electronics designed to withstand 4+ order of
> magnitude of the equivalent dosage you quoted from NASA. Apollo
> command module has very minimal shielding. With 0.25-0.45g per cm^3 of
> effective shielding, it is basically nil.
Clue:
1. How long does a communications satellite spend in that
environment?
2. How long does an Apollo spacecraft at escape velocity
spend in that environment?
> To me, this is a blatant falsification of document on NASA's part.
Or a recognition that one of these two spacecraft doesn't have to
spend more than a few minutes in the Van Allen belts.
- Randy
BDK
who...@comcast.net says...
I don't want to say where I think you have your head if you think they
can...
BDK
BDK
schoenf...@gmail.com says...
>
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> > > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > > enhancement and image quality improvement.
> > >
> > > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> > >
> > > Here are some basic truths:
> > >
> > > 1. Radiation:
> > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > > without massive lead sheild.
> > >
> >
> > WRONG. The radiation levels are not as high as you think, and Van
> > Allen himself said so.
>
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
> Imbecile.
All right! You're an imbecile, so go get on the short yellow bus and
shut the hell up, or you'll be shipped off to a "group home" by your
poor parents, who are so damn tired of you in general.
BDK
the_blogologist
> Bush is a bad president,
> and that much is CERTAIN. Period. End of story.
THIS was a BAD president:
the_blogologist
> SwampMidget wrote:
> > damn that George Bush and all his Freemason buddies. First, the shadow
> > government executes an attack on 911, now they hide the moon landing
> > films. Someone get Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney on the phone.
> >
>
> You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
> also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast,
> all the while having to put together the 911 thing at the same time.
>
> It makes one wonder how he ever had the time to put the whole tsunami
> thing together.....
>
> But, even though the demmies tell us how dumb George Bush is...he was
> still able to pull all of *this* off??????
muhahahahahaha!!!! good point :o)
george
Two things.
1) with the numbers of photos taken by NASA over its timespan will
probably be in the millions.
That some-one can lose a box of photos in that mass of material is not
a conspiracy but rather some-ones finger trouble.
2) The Van Allen belts. If they are as strong as the kooks claim why
haven't they affected the current space station or, previously, the
Russian space station ?
Grendel
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> enhancement and image quality improvement.
>
> Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
>
> Here are some basic truths:
>
> 1. Radiation:
> - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> without massive lead sheild.
Fallacy. The Van Allen radiation belt is can be navigated as long as
one does not spend an inordinate amount of time in it.
> - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
> serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
No, they actually lived with the fact that they slightly increased
their chances of contracting leukemia.
Take it from someone who has dealt with radiation (Radiographer Tech).
There are two types of exposure to worry about:
Acute: Massive doses of radiation in a short time. The exposure to the
Van Allen belt was neither of sufficient length of time or of a massive
enough dose to seriously affect the astronauts.
Chronic (or cumulative): Small doses over extended periods of time.
Any astronaut that passed through the Van Allen Belt on a regular basis
may have problems.
This is why people working around radiation have two types of
protective gauges. One is a Daily Dosimeter. It measures the amount
you get on a daily basis (works an a static charge basis and must be
reset each day). The other is a film badge, which records the dose
over an extended period (usually a month). Funny though it is, this is
just a regular camera type film strip, when developed, the degrees of
lightness of the film are a direct correspondence to the exposure.
(Also, if you get a heavy dose, you can usually tell what the exposure
was by immediately developing the film).
See, you learned something.
> 2. Continuity errors:
> - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
> obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
>
> - photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
Take it from someone who has experience in photography and film
handling. Look up the term 'Bleed'. Great contrasts between dark and
white sometimes causes the white to bleed. Or are you actually
suggesting that it was easier for Nasa to place a GIANT glass plate
with hashmarks BEHIND the objects in the scene rather than just place a
3"x3" plate in front of the lens?
> - a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
> also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
The 'C' is not in the original. It was a bad reproduction.
> - photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
> are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
Be more specific. Background, object etc. I've never found any
inconsistencies.
> 3. Lighting
> - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
> directional light source placed at infinity.
Only if the ground is perfectly fact. Also, on a sphere (you realize
the moon is globe...right?), object further away from the camera will
present an almost horizontal shadow, no matter what closer objects
cast.
> - sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
> which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
This is the problem photographers have with attempting to record a
3-demensional real world scene on a 2-demensional media (film).
> - Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
> one side.
Believe it or not, the regolith (sand) on the moon is HIGHLY
reflective. That just MIGHT explain why the moon is so bright at
night...ya think?
> 4. Miscellaneous
> - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
> rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
Hard packed ground under the lunar landing module. The regolith is
only inches thick. The sand had been blown away. Easily seen in
several photos.
> - Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
> ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
> red smoke.
No video of the actual 'landing'. A couple videos of the actual
'ascent'...the propellant that was used and the fact of being in a
vacuum explains no 'smoke' or 'heat'.
> - much more (see references)
All bullshit.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Everyone has the right to be stupid. Some people abuse the
privilege."-Solomon Short.
Sorcerer
"the_blogologist" <nob...@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hklrn4.1j3t9rc1ib56hhN%nob...@nowheres.com...
Both wrong. THIS was a GENOCIDAL president:
http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/newbill-pop2.jpg
Just ask the Cherokee, who gave up his land for tobacco and
cotton when faced by the gun. Keep his picture proudly on
your 20.
Androcles
Koobee Wublee
Randy Poe wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> > > On 24 Aug 2006 21:51:49 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > 1. Radiation:
> > > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > > >without massive lead sheild.
> > >
> > > The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
> > >
> > > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
> >
> > I can asure you that the communication satellites in geosynchronous
> > orbit have their electronics designed to withstand 4+ order of
> > magnitude of the equivalent dosage you quoted from NASA. Apollo
> > command module has very minimal shielding. With 0.25-0.45g per cm^3 of
> > effective shielding, it is basically nil.
>
> Clue:
>
> 1. How long does a communications satellite spend in that
> environment?
>
> 2. How long does an Apollo spacecraft at escape velocity
> spend in that environment?
Good points. However, all your concerns have been accounted for. Each
astronaut should have received at least 1300 RADs in such a trip to the
moon. The NASA's figure actually shocked a lot of engineers working
with the communication satellites.
> > To me, this is a blatant falsification of document on NASA's part.
>
> Or a recognition that one of these two spacecraft doesn't have to
> spend more than a few minutes in the Van Allen belts.
A few minutes? Your estimation of the depth of the Van Allen Belts is
off by several order of magnitude. You need to look it up yourself.
Koobee Wublee
george wrote:
> Two things.
> 1) with the numbers of photos taken by NASA over its timespan will
> probably be in the millions.
> That some-one can lose a box of photos in that mass of material is not
> a conspiracy but rather some-ones finger trouble.
How many photos did NASA take on the moon?
> 2) The Van Allen belts. If they are as strong as the kooks claim why
> haven't they affected the current space station or, previously, the
> Russian space station ?
Every manned mission so far is way below the Van Allen Belts except the
alledged Apollo missions. However, there was a shuttle mission that
went into the lower edge of this intense radiation zone. These
astronauts complained about seeing flashes of light even with their
eyes closed. Watch how an Apollo astronaut stumbled bad when
confronted with this phenomenon.
Koobee Wublee
Grendel wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > enhancement and image quality improvement.
> >
> > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> >
> > Here are some basic truths:
> >
> > 1. Radiation:
> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > without massive lead sheild.
>
> Fallacy. The Van Allen radiation belt is can be navigated as long as
> one does not spend an inordinate amount of time in it.
Even beyond the Van Allen Belts, the radiation is no where near as
benigh as the lower earth orbit.
Just how long did they spend in the Van Allen Belts any way?
> > - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
> > serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> > astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
>
> No, they actually lived with the fact that they slightly increased
> their chances of contracting leukemia.
Not with the .1 to 1 rad figure published by NASA on each Apollo
astronaut.
> [...]
It does not sound like you are an expert in this area of engineering.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156543292.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Pointers galore:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReasonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewLagrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LosingIt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewPotential.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156543582....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Straight from a retired aerospace engineer's bottom:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AerospaceRelativity.html
More expertise from the same bottom:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReasonLaws.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NewLagrangian.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LosingIt.html
Sorcerer
Another fuckhead... cannot even spell 'alleged'. I suppose the
Wright Brothers never flew in 1903 either.
I can appreciate scepticism but I have no time for stupidity.
Androcles
Vandar
> If NASA did land on the moon, the official Apollo record is not
> representative of that.
Google "laser ranging retroreflector".
Sorcerer
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started
with the beginning of your message "Dear Al,"?
3) An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
4) Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The 'shit' in question 4 is a reprise of the 'shit' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?
Androcles
Phil Miller
>
>Grendel wrote:
>> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
>> > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
>> > enhancement and image quality improvement.
>> >
>> > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
>> > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
>> >
>> > Here are some basic truths:
>> >
>> > 1. Radiation:
>> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
>> > without massive lead sheild.
>>
>> Fallacy. The Van Allen radiation belt is can be navigated as long as
>> one does not spend an inordinate amount of time in it.
>
>Even beyond the Van Allen Belts, the radiation is no where near as
>benigh as the lower earth orbit.
>
>Just how long did they spend in the Van Allen Belts any way?
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
"The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic
orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college
level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth
requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At
that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of
the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated
than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft
immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km
altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we
just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too
far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km."
Phil
--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.
Phil Miller
>
>Randy Poe wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> > > On 24 Aug 2006 21:51:49 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > > 1. Radiation:
>> > > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
>> > > >without massive lead sheild.
>> > >
>> > > The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
>> > >
>> > > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
>> >
>> > I can asure you that the communication satellites in geosynchronous
>> > orbit have their electronics designed to withstand 4+ order of
>> > magnitude of the equivalent dosage you quoted from NASA. Apollo
>> > command module has very minimal shielding. With 0.25-0.45g per cm^3 of
>> > effective shielding, it is basically nil.
>>
>> Clue:
>>
>> 1. How long does a communications satellite spend in that
>> environment?
>>
>> 2. How long does an Apollo spacecraft at escape velocity
>> spend in that environment?
>
>Good points. However, all your concerns have been accounted for. Each
>astronaut should have received at least 1300 RADs in such a trip to the
>moon.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
"For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per
square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations
indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per
square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because
the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear
to be the principal hazard.
These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every
gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely
stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of
10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something
like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.
For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50
mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding
recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the
whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about
2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to
1 rem.
So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the
astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause
cancer in the long term."
Phil
--
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Monty Python's "Galaxy Song"
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> > > > On 24 Aug 2006 21:51:49 -0700, schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 1. Radiation:
> > > > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > > > >without massive lead sheild.
> > > >
> > > > The astronauts got a small dose traveling through the radiation belt.
> > > >
> > > > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
> > >
> > > I can asure you that the communication satellites in geosynchronous
> > > orbit have their electronics designed to withstand 4+ order of
> > > magnitude of the equivalent dosage you quoted from NASA. Apollo
> > > command module has very minimal shielding. With 0.25-0.45g per cm^3 of
> > > effective shielding, it is basically nil.
> >
> > Clue:
> >
> > 1. How long does a communications satellite spend in that
> > environment?
> >
> > 2. How long does an Apollo spacecraft at escape velocity
> > spend in that environment?
>
> Good points. However, all your concerns have been accounted for. Each
> astronaut should have received at least 1300 RADs in such a trip to the
> moon. The NASA's figure actually shocked a lot of engineers working
> with the communication satellites.
1300! Wowee!
Of course, maybe the actual number was more like 2.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
This person is only recalling "to the best of my knowledge". The
source below is more authoritative.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
Dosimeter readings for total radiation exposure over the
entire mission, including traversing the Van Allen belts
two ways and spending time on the lunar surface: "Significantly
lower than the yearly average of 5 rem"
>
> > > To me, this is a blatant falsification of document on NASA's part.
> >
> > Or a recognition that one of these two spacecraft doesn't have to
> > spend more than a few minutes in the Van Allen belts.
>
> A few minutes? Your estimation of the depth of the Van Allen Belts is
> off by several order of magnitude. You need to look it up yourself.
Well, maybe by ONE order of magnitude.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation
"... an hour or so."
If my "few minutes" was "off by several orders of magnitude" that would
put
the correct number on the order of 3000 minutes, or about 2 days. You
aren't going to claim it took 2 days to traverse the Van Allen belts,
are you?
- Randy
george
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> george wrote:
> > Two things.
> > 1) with the numbers of photos taken by NASA over its timespan will
> > probably be in the millions.
> > That some-one can lose a box of photos in that mass of material is not
> > a conspiracy but rather some-ones finger trouble.
>
> How many photos did NASA take on the moon?
Thousands
> > 2) The Van Allen belts. If they are as strong as the kooks claim why
> > haven't they affected the current space station or, previously, the
> > Russian space station ?
>
> Every manned mission so far is way below the Van Allen Belts except the
> alledged Apollo missions.
So this sort of radiation doesn't 'radiate' huh ????
Tell me why flight crews are carefully monitored for radiation
illnesses and they fly at altitudes up to 50,000 feet ??
>However, there was a shuttle mission that
> went into the lower edge of this intense radiation zone. These
> astronauts complained about seeing flashes of light even with their
> eyes closed. Watch how an Apollo astronaut stumbled bad when
> confronted with this phenomenon.
>
Riiiiight.
I'll get the bridge ready
Martin Hogbin
"Mike" <mat...@hofstra.edu> wrote in message news:1156492395....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Mike4, your answers to this idiot are good. I just want to add an
> obvious argument everyone should have at their disposal to explain to
> the conspiracy cranks. Namely, confirmation from foreign sources. You
> will recall that the moon landing happened at the height of the cold
> war. The Soviets would have LOVED to expose it if it had been faked.
> Prior to the moon mission the Soviets had specifically launched some
> satellites with special telescopic equipment for the purpose of
> monitoring our trip to the moon. They saw us go their and come back.
> Moreover, as a courtesy, NASA provided the Soviet space scientists with
> fairly detailed specs as to how the mission was to proceed. At that
> time the Russkies had more experience in space then we did. They would
> have told the world if anything did not make sense.
>
> Anyways, in the late 90s Japan designed some super high-tech optical
> equipment that was launched from a European rocket and did a flyby of
> the moon. According to the Japs, they SAW the flag standing there in
> the Sea of Tranquility.
>
> So our paranoid friend has to believe in a conspiracy big enough to
> encompass not only thousands of American scientists, but also the
> scientific establishment of the Soviet Union at the height of the cold
> war and the present day scientific community of Japan.
Not to mention Kettering Grammar School.
Martin Hogbin
W. Dale Hall
Carter's crime was in attempting to reconcile
national actions with a personal morality.
GWB's crime is in pretending to have a personal
morality, convincing enough of the US population
of that pretense, and using foreign policy for
entirely cynical purposes.
Which crime is the greater?
the_blogologist
> the_blogologist wrote:
> > <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bush is a bad president,
> >> and that much is CERTAIN. Period. End of story.
> >
> > THIS was a BAD president:
> >
> > http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3699/carterlegacy1uh.jpg
> >
>
> Carter's crime was in attempting to reconcile
> national actions with a personal morality.
If carter is such an angel, why did he support funding for Hamas? Why is
he friends with so many dictators?
> GWB's crime is in pretending to have a personal
> morality, convincing enough of the US population
> of that pretense, and using foreign policy for
> entirely cynical purposes.
>
> Which crime is the greater?
When Carter took office Iran was a great stablizing force in the middle
east. By the time he left office two wars had started, and two more
would follow. Now Iraq is becoming a center for freedom in the middle
east. Why are you against freedom for other people?
Koobee Wublee
news:1156549318.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, maybe the actual number was more like 2.
> http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
> This person is only recalling "to the best of my knowledge". The
> source below is more authoritative.
This article gave the energy of a radiation particle. However, the
concerned radiation does not only confine to this. The number of
particles per area also account for the radiation. It does not quote
the amount of radiation.
> http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
> Dosimeter readings for total radiation exposure over the
> entire mission, including traversing the Van Allen belts
> two ways and spending time on the lunar surface: "Significantly
> lower than the yearly average of 5 rem"
This one above is totally unrealistic. Geosynchronous orbit and beyond
receives at least 300K rads per year. Now, do the calculation for
yourself.
>> > > To me, this is a blatant falsification of document on NASA's part.
>> >
>> > Or a recognition that one of these two spacecraft doesn't have to
>> > spend more than a few minutes in the Van Allen belts.
>>
>> A few minutes? Your estimation of the depth of the Van Allen Belts is
>> off by several order of magnitude. You need to look it up yourself.
>
> Well, maybe by ONE order of magnitude.
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#radiation
> "... an hour or so."
>
> If my "few minutes" was "off by several orders of magnitude" that would
> put
> the correct number on the order of 3000 minutes, or about 2 days. You
> aren't going to claim it took 2 days to traverse the Van Allen belts,
> are you?
You are off by 2 orders of magnitude on this one.
loot...@hotmail.com
their real accomplishments in space. So they are dropping all the
hints they can, like all their Space challenges. The problem is that
you poor fools are so clueless that you cant stand the truth, let alone
understand it. If you are so dense that after almost 40 years you
actually need to be told that the Moon Landings were fake, well that
is pretty sad. Why not pay some attention to the real world of Space
travel which is no kiddies sci fi movie, but is a massive challenge
beyond your ability to comprehend.
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1156549318.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Of course, maybe the actual number was more like 2.
> > http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
> > This person is only recalling "to the best of my knowledge". The
> > source below is more authoritative.
>
> This article gave the energy of a radiation particle.
Are you saying that's not an estimate of the radiation dosage received
by an Apollo astronaut? The paragraph in question:
"Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the
amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a
serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed.
Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time
available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20
mSv, milli-Sievert)."
> However, the
> concerned radiation does not only confine to this. The number of
> particles per area also account for the radiation. It does not quote
> the amount of radiation.
Read the paragraph. It's an estimate of the total radiation does
received by an Apollo astronaut in traversing the Van Allen belt.
> > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
> > Dosimeter readings for total radiation exposure over the
> > entire mission, including traversing the Van Allen belts
> > two ways and spending time on the lunar surface: "Significantly
> > lower than the yearly average of 5 rem"
>
> This one above is totally unrealistic.
It's the actual reading off the actual dosimeters.
> Geosynchronous orbit and beyond
> receives at least 300K rads per year.
Do you have a cite on that? Is that actually an estimate of
how much radiation a HUMAN would receive in geosynchronous
orbit?
And it isn't "and beyond". There is a belt (the Van Allen belt)
of higher radiation. It drops off after that.
> Now, do the calculation for
> yourself.
OK. If I take your number at face value, I end up with 34 rad
in a one hour exposure.
Now justify your number.
- Randy
Koobee Wublee
Randy Poe wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1156549318.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Of course, maybe the actual number was more like 2.
> > > http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
> > > This person is only recalling "to the best of my knowledge". The
> > > source below is more authoritative.
> >
> > This article gave the energy of a radiation particle.
>
> Are you saying that's not an estimate of the radiation dosage received
> by an Apollo astronaut? The paragraph in question:
That is right.
> "Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the
> amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a
> serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed.
> Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time
> available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20
> mSv, milli-Sievert)."
What radiation dosage does the author use? How many hunderds of K rads
per year inside the Van Allen Belts? Also, did you notice Apollo 11
received only 0.18 rad of radiation in total trip?
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/Resize-jpg/ts2c3-2.jpg
Save this in your archive. I believe this piece of information will
also disappear soon.
> > However, the
> > concerned radiation does not only confine to this. The number of
> > particles per area also account for the radiation. It does not quote
> > the amount of radiation.
>
> Read the paragraph. It's an estimate of the total radiation does
> received by an Apollo astronaut in traversing the Van Allen belt.
I know.
> > > http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
> > > Dosimeter readings for total radiation exposure over the
> > > entire mission, including traversing the Van Allen belts
> > > two ways and spending time on the lunar surface: "Significantly
> > > lower than the yearly average of 5 rem"
> >
> > This one above is totally unrealistic.
>
> It's the actual reading off the actual dosimeters.
That is why it is totally unrealistic. No acutall numbers of radiation
level to start out with.
> > Geosynchronous orbit and beyond
> > receives at least 300K rads per year.
>
> Do you have a cite on that? Is that actually an estimate of
> how much radiation a HUMAN would receive in geosynchronous
> orbit?
Although the radiation level at geosynchronous orbit and beyond is not
classified, it is somewhat confidential from one aerospace company to
another. The statistical average is over 300K rads per year. I am
very generous towards the Apollo credential.
I do have several articles which I downloaded before they are not
available any more. At this moment, I'd rather keep them confidential
as well.
> And it isn't "and beyond". There is a belt (the Van Allen belt)
> of higher radiation. It drops off after that.
The data suggests Geosynchronous orbit and beyond is the same in terms
of radiation level although the mix of radiation source (alpha
particles, electrons, protons, gamma rays, x-rays, etc.) is sligtly
different.
> > Now, do the calculation for
> > yourself.
>
> OK. If I take your number at face value, I end up with 34 rad
> in a one hour exposure.
No, the radiation level I gave you only applies to the upper end of Van
Allen Belts, the geosynchronous orbit, and beyond. Deep inside these
belts, the radiation level is at least an order of magnitude higher.
Also, your calculation should not assume the spacecraft penetrates the
Van Allen Belts straight up. You to be realistic to give the
trajectory an arc. This will also increase the time spent in the Belts
and the exposure dosage.
> Now justify your number.
I actually had, but at this moment I don't want to share my
calculations with the public due to a few confidential concerns.
edrh...@hotmail.com
mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > enhancement and image quality improvement.
> >
> > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> >
> > Here are some basic truths:
> >
> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > without massive lead sheild.
> >
>
> Allen himself said so.
Isn't it also true that the Apollo capsules went through the thinner
areas of the belts near the poles and went through very quickly.
edrh...@hotmail.com
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Imbecile.
um, retyping the word "imbecile" over and over again isn't really a
legitimate rebuttal.
edrh...@hotmail.com
Grendel wrote:
> Take it from someone who has dealt with radiation (Radiographer Tech).
> There are two types of exposure to worry about:
>
> Acute: Massive doses of radiation in a short time. The exposure to the
> Van Allen belt was neither of sufficient length of time or of a massive
> enough dose to seriously affect the astronauts.
>
> Chronic (or cumulative): Small doses over extended periods of time.
> Any astronaut that passed through the Van Allen Belt on a regular basis
> may have problems.
>
> This is why people working around radiation have two types of
> protective gauges. One is a Daily Dosimeter. It measures the amount
> you get on a daily basis (works an a static charge basis and must be
> reset each day). The other is a film badge, which records the dose
> over an extended period (usually a month). Funny though it is, this is
> just a regular camera type film strip, when developed, the degrees of
> lightness of the film are a direct correspondence to the exposure.
> (Also, if you get a heavy dose, you can usually tell what the exposure
> was by immediately developing the film).
>
> See, you learned something.
Only if he retained it. Any hands how many people think he retained it?
Anybody?
Koobee Wublee
edrh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Isn't it also true that the Apollo capsules went through the thinner
> areas of the belts near the poles and went through very quickly.
No, this cannot be true. The capsule went through the equitorial plane
of the solar system. If in polar trajectory as you have pulled out of
your *ss, the next stop would be extra-solar system or even ex-galatic
encounter which would happen eons from now.
Hint: Solar system lies roughly on a flat plane.
mike3
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1156492149.2...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, mike...@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >whofan wrote:
> >> SwampMidget wrote:
> >> > "You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
> >> > also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast, "
> >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > Don't you think you're being a little ridiculous now? We all know that
> >> > George Bush did not create the hurricane. What he did was order the
> >> > levies blown up 'cause .... ummm ... George Bush hates black people.
> >> > And AND daybe puttin' da maganeze in da malt liquors so youz kills your
> >> > momma --->
> >> > http://www.cnsnews.com/cns/video/2006/060718rhDickGregoryMaltLiquor.wvx
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wow! I totally forgot about the kooks claiming that Bush bombed the
> >> levees.
> >>
> >> I assumed that he was so busy listening to all the liberal demmies
> >> phone calls and "taking their rights away" that he wouldn't have been
> >> able to get over to New Orleans the day after the storm to plant the
> >> dynamite. Afterall, the dems keep telling everyone how 'dumb' George
> >> Bush is.
> >>
> >> But Dubya was able to pull all of this off....all the while, putting
> >> together his plan to raise the temperature of the planet via his
> >> global warming program.
> >>
> >
> >And that isn't all that hard. He just refused to sign Kyoto, which
> >was only an "entry-level" so to speak anti-global-warming
> >protocol, claiming it would "damage the US economy". Ha ha ha.
> >See? He just put his wonderful "economy" above the planet
> >we all depend on to live.
> >
> 1) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the US Senate voted 95:0
> against the acceptance of the Kyoto protocol? And this was at the
> time when Clinton was President, not Bush.
>
Bush on Kyoto:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp
Clinton may have made a mistake, but for the next administration
to continue it is horrifying. And considering that this administration
is
so horrible in the way it's done things, it's absolutely shameful.
> 2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
> President, that ratifies treaties?
>
He took it over. Democracy here has been subverted (it's so freakin'
easy!), he's controlling the government, seizing more power then
he should have, he's got all his buddies in there, etc. And
remember, he's Bush!
> 3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
> treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
>
Well it's a start, and refusal to accept the darn treaty means that
that
FIRST STEP is not taken. US CO2 emissions are only growing faster,
not slower.
> 4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
> President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
> alive for long?
>
Yes, it's not just the President's. Oil is running out, so it will
collapse anyway (and I'll probably be there to see it happen.
According to some very good geologists we've got only 40-50
years of oil left and 20-25 years to significant economic
hardship as production halves). That much is certain (and
regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
an energy policy that would "encourage consumption" is
really, REALLY stupid.). Oh, and people lived fairly long before
oil, and this oil-based economy, so I think they would after it,
although probably not the same way we do now. And if nothing
is done, the crash will be really, really hard, everyone else will
suffer, while the super-rich would be sitting back watching it,
holdingon to all the money...
>
> >> BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
> >> of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
> >> the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
> >>
> >
> >WTF?!?!?! Bush fired missiles?!?!?!?! I doubt that all the Dems
> >believe this, sweepingeneralizationomania!
> >
> Nah, not all, probably no more than half:-)
>
I doubt that. Probably a lot less than half. They're more rational
than you might want to think. At least enough that most don't
believe in that crap.
>
> >> Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
> >> actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
> >> front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
> >> thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
> >> she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
> >
> >Maybe, maybe not. But there would at least be a little less CO2 in
> >the atmosphere...
> >
> I can assure you that there wouldn't have been any difference. Now,
> take your idiocy elsewhere.
>
Oh yeah there would, maybe not all that much. Remember, even if
ONE power plant cuts its CO2 then there's just a little teeny bit less
CO2 in the atmosphere. Whether or not it would have mattered is
arguable, but at least it would have been a step, and Kyoto would
provide a committed target, at least. And this will turn into a "yes!
no! yes! no!" fight that won't get anywhere. I know I'm right, YOU
just don't want to see it. You like Bush, but I think he's a bad, BAD
president. Look at the war in Iraq -- $1000 a SECOND and the
problems there are even worse then when we started the whole
darned thing. We got rid of Saddam only to destabilize the whole
Middle East. Talk about a miserable failure.
My argument is based on logic, and yours is not. Your argument
simply does not work.
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
mike3
the_blogologist wrote:
> <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bush is a bad president,
> > and that much is CERTAIN. Period. End of story.
>
> THIS was a BAD president:
>
> http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3699/carterlegacy1uh.jpg
And THIS is an even WORSE president:
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Feb2003/030114-O-0000D-001.html
mike3
> plausible, eh.
>
Yep, another good argument to put this to bed. It seems
that people want to see EVERYTHING as some sort of vast
conspiracy, EVERYTHING is done with some sort of sinister
motive, EVERYTHING has "dark" forces operating behind
it, ... There's probably *some* conspiracies out there, like
JFK's assassination perhaps, but the MOON LANDING?!
I think that's just a little *too* far... I doubt that
EVERYTHING is part of some grand 4000-year conspiracy
or whatever.
To the original poster: It's time to put this one to bed,
really.
>
>
> mike...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> > > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > > enhancement and image quality improvement.
> > >
> > > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> > >
> > > Here are some basic truths:
> > >
> > > 1. Radiation:
> > > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> > > without massive lead sheild.
> > >
> >
> > WRONG. The radiation levels are not as high as you think, and Van
> > Allen himself said so.
> >
> > > - Shuttle astronauts claim strange visual sensations and other
> > > serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> > > astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
> > >
> >
> > We don't know what they experienced, but it must have been
> > survivable.
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Continuity errors:
> > > - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
> > > obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong AGAIN.
> >
> > > - photos with camera cross-hairs BEHIND objects in the scene
> > >
> >
> > Funny then that it only happens with BRIGHT objects where the film
> > is maxed... The birghtness simply "smears over" or "blots out"
> > the crosshairs on the film.
> >
> > > - a rock with the letter 'C' marked on it, placed on the ground
> > > also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
> > >
> >
> > A letter "C" is a simple enough figure to appear just by luck.
> >
> > > - photos of the 'same event' from different angles that just
> > > are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
> > >
> >
> > Time difference.
> >
> > > 3. Lighting
> > > - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
> > > directional light source placed at infinity.
> > >
> >
> > They're not parallel because the surface is not an ideal material.
> > It is full of imperfections (craters, etc.) that subtly alter the
> > shadows' directions. This can be seen in Earth photographs too.
> >
> > > - sun light appears to eminate from a specular light source,
> > > which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
> > >
> >
> > The film edges could have faded. The original negatives were
> > brighter. Film ages, you know.
> >
> > > - Objects lighted from both sides, even though the sun is on
> > > one side.
> > >
> >
> > Reflection off the ground.
> >
> > > 4. Miscellaneous
> > > - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
> > > rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
> > >
> >
> > The thrust is not that strong. If it was the lander would have been
> > shot into space with an incredible force, enough to kill the
> > astronauts (it has very little mass, and therefore inertia, compared,
> > to, say, an Earth launch rig, and is in much lower gravity.). You
> > don't need a whole boatload of thrust to throw something off the
> > Moon -- escape velocity there is only like 2 km/s as opposed to
> > 11 km/s for Earth, that means 1/25 the energy (kinetic energy
> > is proportional to velocity _squared_).
> >
> > > - Video of the actual 'landing' shows no propellant being
> > > ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
> > > red smoke.
> > >
> >
> > Of COURSE the propellant will not be seen, because the fuel mix
> > produces a nearly invisible flame. Materials that burn invisibly DO
> > exist, like hydrogen, it's flame is very hard to see. What test
> > footage shows lots of "red smoke"?
> >
> > Case is closed. Moon landing happened. YOU don't want to believe
> > it for some reason.
> >
> > > - much more (see references)
> > >
> > > References:
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107
> > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
There is no "made a mistake" here. The Senate voted 95:0 against.
Period. What is not clear here for you?
> And considering that this administration is
>so horrible in the way it's done things, it's absolutely shameful.
>
This administration does the things that need doing, in the face of
immense opposition from idiots like you who believe that huge problems
can be made to go away simply by wishing so. That we managed to
create such a huge "educated class" devoid of any understanding, this
is truly shameful.
>> 2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
>> President, that ratifies treaties?
>>
>
>He took it over. Democracy here has been subverted (it's so freakin'
>easy!), he's controlling the government, seizing more power then
>he should have, he's got all his buddies in there, etc.
Gibberish.
> And remember, he's Bush!
And you're a moron. So?
>
>> 3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
>> treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
>>
>
>Well it's a start, and refusal to accept the darn treaty means that
>that
>FIRST STEP is not taken. US CO2 emissions are only growing faster,
>not slower.
There is only a point in taking a first step if it is leading
anywhere. In this case, it doesn't. Would suggest reading "Te
sceptical environmentalist" for starters.
>
>> 4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
>> President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
>> alive for long?
>>
>Yes, it's not just the President's.
No, it is not. Did he, or anybody around him, said it is? If not,
what is the content of this remark?
> Oil is running out, so it will
>collapse anyway (and I'll probably be there to see it happen.
>According to some very good geologists we've got only 40-50
>years of oil left and 20-25 years to significant economic
>hardship as production halves).
Aha. And if we fully implement Kyoto (which ain't gonna happen) these
numbers will change to 50-60 and 25-30, respectively. So?
> That much is certain (and
>regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
>an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
> is really, REALLY stupid.). Oh, and people lived fairly long before
>oil, and this oil-based economy, so I think they would after it,
>although probably not the same way we do now.
People lived fairly well without oil in a world that supported a
population of around 1 billion. Currently we've more than six times
as much. If you can devise a "soft landing" transition from the
current state to the previous one, I would like to hear about it.
> And if nothing
>is done, the crash will be really, really hard, everyone else will
>suffer, while the super-rich would be sitting back watching it,
>holdingon to all the money...
>
You must be a college student to be that dumb. Are you aware that
"all that money" is just a bunch of IOU notes, the value of which at
any given time depends on the state of the globel economy? That if
and when the globel economy crashes this money will be worth
*nothing* (30 years ago the phrase would've been "useful only as
wallpaper" but since most money nowadays exists only as computer bits,
even the wallpaper value may not be there). Do you understand that if
a global crash occurs, law and order collapses as well and when this
happens the "super_rich" (if they still have any assets left) have
"prey" written all over them? Do you think that the super-rich are
not aware of this situation? Do you think that they care only about
the present and wouldn't like to assure theirs and their descendants
survival, if they had a good way to do it?
Get off your ass and start learning some real history, real economy,
real political science. Not the Polyannish staff they feed the young
ones nowadays.
>>
>> >> BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
>> >> of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
>> >> the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
>> >>
>> >
>> >WTF?!?!?! Bush fired missiles?!?!?!?! I doubt that all the Dems
>> >believe this, sweepingeneralizationomania!
>> >
>> Nah, not all, probably no more than half:-)
>>
>
>I doubt that. Probably a lot less than half. They're more rational
>than you might want to think. At least enough that most don't
>believe in that crap.
>
Maybe. If so, then said "most" keeps very quiet.
>>
>> >> Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
>> >> actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
>> >> front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
>> >> thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
>> >> she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
>> >
>> >Maybe, maybe not. But there would at least be a little less CO2 in
>> >the atmosphere...
>> >
>> I can assure you that there wouldn't have been any difference. Now,
>> take your idiocy elsewhere.
>>
>
>Oh yeah there would, maybe not all that much. Remember, even if
>ONE power plant cuts its CO2 then there's just a little teeny bit less
>CO2 in the atmosphere.
To take out one power plant you've either to have something to replace
it with (which we don't, at the moment) or to accept the economic
consequences, which we're not prepared to do.
> Whether or not it would have mattered is
>arguable, but at least it would have been a step, and Kyoto would
>provide a committed target, at least.
That's along the lines of "doesn't matter if it helps, at least we're
doing something". In short, idiocy.
> And this will turn into a "yes!
>no! yes! no!" fight that won't get anywhere. I know I'm right,
Yes, for sure:-) And, how do you know it? Got a certificate from god
or something?
> YOU just don't want to see it. You like Bush, but I think he's a bad, BAD
>president. Look at the war in Iraq -- $1000 a SECOND and the
>problems there are even worse then when we started the whole
>darned thing. We got rid of Saddam only to destabilize the whole
>Middle East. Talk about a miserable failure.
It was "stable" Middle East that brought you 9/11, my dear moron. And
that will bring you much more of the same if you'll leave it as it is.
And it was a concern for the "stability of Germany", during the 30s,
that weighted heavily among the considerations when "what should be
done about Hitler" was debated. Stability is a worthwhile goal when
the outcomes are positive, and only then. Clinging to "stability at
any cost" can only get you the stability of the grave. It doesn't get
more stable than this.
If and when you have anything better to offer than PC twaddle, I'll be
interested to hear. Till then, don't bother.
edrh...@hotmail.com
If the moon were on a flat plain, we'd get full solar eclipes every
month.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that the Apollo missions went up exactly
from the pole (which is tipped a bit, so even if they had, they'd still
not be travelling straight out of the solar system)
Do you have verification that the Apollo missions used an equitorial
trajectory? Or is this just something "everybody knows?"
Unfortunately, I don't have an index of everything I've ever read or
looked through. I just noticed once that someone mentioned the Apollo
missions didn't pass through the thickest sections of the Belt. And
that they passed through it as quickly as possible, as opposed to a
Shuttle mission which would have orbited near it for some time.
mike3
Well I don't know about this whole Kyoto thing, but it DOES NOT
excuse Bu$h's other mistakes...
> > And considering that this administration is
> >so horrible in the way it's done things, it's absolutely shameful.
> >
> This administration does the things that need doing, in the face of
> immense opposition from idiots like you who believe that huge problems
> can be made to go away simply by wishing so. That we managed to
> create such a huge "educated class" devoid of any understanding, this
> is truly shameful.
>
The administration doesn't do the things that need doing, it does
the things that don't need doing, it makes things worse than better.
We've slaughtered so many innocents (maybe even more than Bin
Laden killed!!!!) just to get a handful of terrorists. We are screwing
up ROYALLY.
> >> 2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
> >> President, that ratifies treaties?
> >>
> >
> >He took it over. Democracy here has been subverted (it's so freakin'
> >easy!), he's controlling the government, seizing more power then
> >he should have, he's got all his buddies in there, etc.
>
> Gibberish.
>
Lack of counterargument noted. Concession accepted. You
did not show it wrong. In order to argue against - you have to
prove it wrong. If you are as smart as you claim, that should
be a piece of cake.
> > And remember, he's Bush!
>
> And you're a moron. So?
> >
> >> 3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
> >> treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
> >>
> >
> >Well it's a start, and refusal to accept the darn treaty means that
> >that
> >FIRST STEP is not taken. US CO2 emissions are only growing faster,
> >not slower.
>
> There is only a point in taking a first step if it is leading
> anywhere. In this case, it doesn't. Would suggest reading "Te
> sceptical environmentalist" for starters.
What is the problem with Kyoto, then? Furthermore, this Kyoto
arm of the argument is not the basis of my case, I can dig up
a lot more.
> >
> >> 4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
> >> President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
> >> alive for long?
> >>
> >Yes, it's not just the President's.
>
> No, it is not. Did he, or anybody around him, said it is? If not,
> what is the content of this remark?
>
I said that I already knew what you said -- that the economy is
not just the President's. It's the national economy.
> > Oil is running out, so it will
> >collapse anyway (and I'll probably be there to see it happen.
> >According to some very good geologists we've got only 40-50
> >years of oil left and 20-25 years to significant economic
> >hardship as production halves).
>
> Aha. And if we fully implement Kyoto (which ain't gonna happen) these
> numbers will change to 50-60 and 25-30, respectively. So?
Well, it's a _first step_ and that's all that's important. If Kyoto,
an absolute minimalist procedure (whether you agree with it
or not) is rejected, then you can bet your bottom dollar anything
more extensive will be too (the same "arguments" they provide
would apply to ANYTHING more extensive), so we will NEVER
solve this problem, at least the government won't, and at least
not with this administration! Bush HAS TO GO and we need
someone who puts the planet above the dollar. Remember,
if the planet is destroyed, nobody will be able to live _at all_,
because we won't have the biosphere. At the very worst, when
the economy collapses, we might be tossed back to the 1700s
or so. If the biosphere collapses, we go extinct.
>
> > That much is certain (and
> >regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
> >an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
>
> Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
> speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
> a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
> judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
>
Then prove it wrong. Don't just say I'm stupid, PROVE that he
did not mean that. Show the error of my argument. He's also been
asked if lifestyle changes will be necessary, and said no, it's the
"American way of life". What?! People should drive around SUVs
for
> > is really, REALLY stupid.). Oh, and people lived fairly long before
> >oil, and this oil-based economy, so I think they would after it,
> >although probably not the same way we do now.
>
> People lived fairly well without oil in a world that supported a
> population of around 1 billion. Currently we've more than six times
> as much. If you can devise a "soft landing" transition from the
> current state to the previous one, I would like to hear about it.
>
Attrition, have less kids, then less people, etc.. And "soft" is a
relative term, too. It might still be pretty rough. Furthermore, this
depletion of oil is INEVITABLE as long as oil continues to be used.
That's why Bush is fighting in Iraq: more oil, to sustain a patently
unsustainable way of life.
> > And if nothing
> >is done, the crash will be really, really hard, everyone else will
> >suffer, while the super-rich would be sitting back watching it,
> >holdingon to all the money...
> >
> You must be a college student to be that dumb. Are you aware that
> "all that money" is just a bunch of IOU notes, the value of which at
> any given time depends on the state of the globel economy? That if
> and when the globel economy crashes this money will be worth
> *nothing* (30 years ago the phrase would've been "useful only as
> wallpaper" but since most money nowadays exists only as computer bits,
> even the wallpaper value may not be there). Do you understand that if
> a global crash occurs, law and order collapses as well and when this
> happens the "super_rich" (if they still have any assets left) have
> "prey" written all over them? Do you think that the super-rich are
> not aware of this situation? Do you think that they care only about
> the present and wouldn't like to assure theirs and their descendants
> survival, if they had a good way to do it?
>
Well if they go out rich, then that's what they want. Furthermore, this
is not an "extinction-level" event -- someone will survive. Global
warming, though, if it runs out of control and the environment
becomes incompatible with life, then THAT is an "extinction-level"
event. So we have a devastating "double whammy" coming our
way for the crap we're doing.
> Get off your ass and start learning some real history, real economy,
> real political science. Not the Polyannish staff they feed the young
> ones nowadays.
>
Get off your ass and see that we're heading for collapse and Bush
is not helping.
> >>
> >> >> BTW, do you realize that the symbol of New Hampshire - the Old Man
> >> >> of the Mountain - collapsed during Bush's term???? According to
> >> >> the libs....Bush very likely fired missles at the rock formation ;^)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >WTF?!?!?! Bush fired missiles?!?!?!?! I doubt that all the Dems
> >> >believe this, sweepingeneralizationomania!
> >> >
> >> Nah, not all, probably no more than half:-)
> >>
> >
> >I doubt that. Probably a lot less than half. They're more rational
> >than you might want to think. At least enough that most don't
> >believe in that crap.
> >
> Maybe. If so, then said "most" keeps very quiet.
>
This is also an unprovable rumor -- have you asked them all?
> >>
> >> >> Strangely enough, my neighbor and I were talking tonight and she
> >> >> actually blamed George Bush because the acorns on a tree in her
> >> >> front yard are smaller than normal this year. I asked her if she
> >> >> thought the acorns would be bigger if Kerry had won in 2004...and
> >> >> she said yes. Demmies are weird, and lost...
> >> >
> >> >Maybe, maybe not. But there would at least be a little less CO2 in
> >> >the atmosphere...
> >> >
> >> I can assure you that there wouldn't have been any difference. Now,
> >> take your idiocy elsewhere.
> >>
> >
> >Oh yeah there would, maybe not all that much. Remember, even if
> >ONE power plant cuts its CO2 then there's just a little teeny bit less
> >CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> To take out one power plant you've either to have something to replace
> it with (which we don't, at the moment) or to accept the economic
> consequences, which we're not prepared to do.
>
And then we should darn well be prepared to accept the economic
consequences. The fact that we aren't is bad. Remember, if we DESTROY
the planet, then NOTHING WILL BE LEFT.
> > Whether or not it would have mattered is
> >arguable, but at least it would have been a step, and Kyoto would
> >provide a committed target, at least.
>
> That's along the lines of "doesn't matter if it helps, at least we're
> doing something". In short, idiocy.
>
Well, then PROVE it does NOT help.
> > And this will turn into a "yes!
> >no! yes! no!" fight that won't get anywhere. I know I'm right,
>
> Yes, for sure:-) And, how do you know it? Got a certificate from god
> or something?
>
Well, you so far have only conceded 1 point.
> > YOU just don't want to see it. You like Bush, but I think he's a bad, BAD
> >president. Look at the war in Iraq -- $1000 a SECOND and the
> >problems there are even worse then when we started the whole
> >darned thing. We got rid of Saddam only to destabilize the whole
> >Middle East. Talk about a miserable failure.
>
> It was "stable" Middle East that brought you 9/11, my dear moron. And
> that will bring you much more of the same if you'll leave it as it is.
> And it was a concern for the "stability of Germany", during the 30s,
> that weighted heavily among the considerations when "what should be
> done about Hitler" was debated. Stability is a worthwhile goal when
> the outcomes are positive, and only then. Clinging to "stability at
> any cost" can only get you the stability of the grave. It doesn't get
> more stable than this.
>
And now the "stable" Middle East (which wasn't as stable as you might
think) has become "unstable" (relative! It may have been _more_ stable
than before). If we keep attacking like we are, it only gives them more
reason to hate us, and the Kyoto thing has nothing to do with this.
If we want to fight terrorism, we've got to attack the root cause --
extreme
religion. Terrorists need to be arrested and prosecuted. We shouldn't
be going and invading contries and taking them over, slaughtering
thousands of INNOCENT people in order to get a single man, plus
(get this!) staying in and creating more problems (instead of solving
them. We don't have peace in the Middle East, it's just gotten worse.).
That's called building an empire.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>excuse Bu$h's other mistakes...
>
that whatever it is, it is Bush's fault anyway:-) And you expect to
be taken seriously?:-)
>> > And considering that this administration is
>> >so horrible in the way it's done things, it's absolutely shameful.
>> >
>> This administration does the things that need doing, in the face of
>> immense opposition from idiots like you who believe that huge problems
>> can be made to go away simply by wishing so. That we managed to
>> create such a huge "educated class" devoid of any understanding, this
>> is truly shameful.
>>
>
>The administration doesn't do the things that need doing, it does
>the things that don't need doing, it makes things worse than better.
>We've slaughtered so many innocents (maybe even more than Bin
>Laden killed!!!!) just to get a handful of terrorists. We are screwing
>up ROYALLY.
It is an unfortunate fact of war that innocents are being killed.
Declaring by fiat that "it shouldn't be so" is not going to change it.
Are you aware of the fact that at least 50000 French citizens were
killed by Allied bombings during the libaration of France, in WWII. And
these were not even "enemy citizens". So, how else do you think the
job could've been done? And, no, we're not dealing with "handful of
terrorists". Would've been nice, would this has been the situation,
but it isn't true. We're dealing with a world wide movement which has
a world wide support base.
>
>> >> 2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
>> >> President, that ratifies treaties?
>> >>
>> >
>> >He took it over. Democracy here has been subverted (it's so freakin'
>> >easy!), he's controlling the government, seizing more power then
>> >he should have, he's got all his buddies in there, etc.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>>
>
>Lack of counterargument noted. Concession accepted. You
>did not show it wrong. In order to argue against - you have to
>prove it wrong. If you are as smart as you claim, that should
>be a piece of cake.
There is nothing to argue against since you made no statement, just
plain gibberish. Democaracy has not been subverted, Congress is
functioning, the courts are functioning, your statement has no
content.
>
>> > And remember, he's Bush!
>>
>> And you're a moron. So?
>> >
>> >> 3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
>> >> treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Well it's a start, and refusal to accept the darn treaty means that
>> >that
>> >FIRST STEP is not taken. US CO2 emissions are only growing faster,
>> >not slower.
>>
>> There is only a point in taking a first step if it is leading
>> anywhere. In this case, it doesn't. Would suggest reading "Te
>> sceptical environmentalist" for starters.
>
>What is the problem with Kyoto, then? Furthermore, this Kyoto
>arm of the argument is not the basis of my case, I can dig up
>a lot more.
As I said, read "The Sceptical Environmentalist". It has a big
chapter about Kyoto, among other things.
>> >
>> >> 4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
>> >> President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
>> >> alive for long?
>> >>
>> >Yes, it's not just the President's.
>>
>> No, it is not. Did he, or anybody around him, said it is? If not,
>> what is the content of this remark?
>>
>
>I said that I already knew what you said -- that the economy is
>not just the President's. It's the national economy.
>
>> > Oil is running out, so it will
>> >collapse anyway (and I'll probably be there to see it happen.
>> >According to some very good geologists we've got only 40-50
>> >years of oil left and 20-25 years to significant economic
>> >hardship as production halves).
>>
>> Aha. And if we fully implement Kyoto (which ain't gonna happen) these
>> numbers will change to 50-60 and 25-30, respectively. So?
>
>Well, it's a _first step_ and that's all that's important.
A first step is only of value if it leads somewhere. This one leads
nowhere, it is no more than wishful thinking along the lines of
"somethign will turn up"
In 1990 the California legislature passed a law mandating that "within
10 years all the cars sold in California must be 'zero emission'
ones". The little fact that the technology to achieve this noble goal
didn't exist (wasn't even in sight, in fact) bothered nobody since it
was obvious to the honorable legislators that once they pass the law,
the technology will materialize. Only, it didn't.
Kyoto is a product of similar thinking.
...
>
>>
>> > That much is certain (and
>> >regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
>> >an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
>>
>> Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
>> speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
>> a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
>> judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
>>
>
>Then prove it wrong. Don't just say I'm stupid, PROVE that he
>did not mean that. Show the error of my argument.
All you need is to read the sentence this fragment came from and judge
from the context. Easy
...
>> > is really, REALLY stupid.). Oh, and people lived fairly long before
>> >oil, and this oil-based economy, so I think they would after it,
>> >although probably not the same way we do now.
>>
>> People lived fairly well without oil in a world that supported a
>> population of around 1 billion. Currently we've more than six times
>> as much. If you can devise a "soft landing" transition from the
>> current state to the previous one, I would like to hear about it.
>>
>
>Attrition, have less kids, then less people, etc.
Not happening, except for first world countries.
> And "soft" is a
>relative term, too. It might still be pretty rough. Furthermore, this
>depletion of oil is INEVITABLE as long as oil continues to be used.
>That's why Bush is fighting in Iraq: more oil, to sustain a patently
>unsustainable way of life.
>
And this is more stupidity (wonder what echo chamber you attend to
pick this). Would the purpose of the war in Iraq has been oil, no war
would've been needed. Since it was the US that held its hand on the
sanctions lever and it was in the power of the US to release it (heck,
most of the world was clamoring for it), would've been a piece of cake
to cut a deal with Saddam, along the lines of "you give us preferred
access to your oil, we stop the sanctions". Much simpler and cheaper.
Only, it would've done nothing to address the real issues which were
not oil.
>> > And if nothing
>> >is done, the crash will be really, really hard, everyone else will
>> >suffer, while the super-rich would be sitting back watching it,
>> >holdingon to all the money...
>> >
>> You must be a college student to be that dumb. Are you aware that
>> "all that money" is just a bunch of IOU notes, the value of which at
>> any given time depends on the state of the globel economy? That if
>> and when the globel economy crashes this money will be worth
>> *nothing* (30 years ago the phrase would've been "useful only as
>> wallpaper" but since most money nowadays exists only as computer bits,
>> even the wallpaper value may not be there). Do you understand that if
>> a global crash occurs, law and order collapses as well and when this
>> happens the "super_rich" (if they still have any assets left) have
>> "prey" written all over them? Do you think that the super-rich are
>> not aware of this situation? Do you think that they care only about
>> the present and wouldn't like to assure theirs and their descendants
>> survival, if they had a good way to do it?
>>
>
>Well if they go out rich, then that's what they want.
Aha. So, can we judge that you were just tossing empty phrases with
no substance behind them? I guess we can.
> Furthermore, this
>is not an "extinction-level" event -- someone will survive. Global
>warming, though, if it runs out of control and the environment
>becomes incompatible with life, then THAT is an "extinction-level"
>event.
Again, read the "sceptical environmentalist". It is a thoroughly
researched book. Nobody (well, nobody serious, activists and
associated trash don't count) is talking about extinction level event.
Some areas may get less livable, some other areas, more. It takes a
sober judgement of possible consequence of various actions and
inactions, to plot a proper course, and as soon as you put an
"infinite payoff" value on one item in the evaluation, no sober
judgement is possible anymore.
...
>
>> > Whether or not it would have mattered is
>> >arguable, but at least it would have been a step, and Kyoto would
>> >provide a committed target, at least.
>>
>> That's along the lines of "doesn't matter if it helps, at least we're
>> doing something". In short, idiocy.
>>
>
>Well, then PROVE it does NOT help.
>
It doesn't help since, first, the currently fastest groving economies on
the planet are exempt and second, since none of the signatories is
prepared to take the hard steps necessary to even begin living up to
the treaty terms.
>> > And this will turn into a "yes!
>> >no! yes! no!" fight that won't get anywhere. I know I'm right,
>>
>> Yes, for sure:-) And, how do you know it? Got a certificate from god
>> or something?
>>
>
>Well, you so far have only conceded 1 point.
No, not even one. You didn't make yet any worthwhile argument on any
point.
>
>> > YOU just don't want to see it. You like Bush, but I think he's a bad, BAD
>> >president. Look at the war in Iraq -- $1000 a SECOND and the
>> >problems there are even worse then when we started the whole
>> >darned thing. We got rid of Saddam only to destabilize the whole
>> >Middle East. Talk about a miserable failure.
>>
>> It was "stable" Middle East that brought you 9/11, my dear moron. And
>> that will bring you much more of the same if you'll leave it as it is.
>> And it was a concern for the "stability of Germany", during the 30s,
>> that weighted heavily among the considerations when "what should be
>> done about Hitler" was debated. Stability is a worthwhile goal when
>> the outcomes are positive, and only then. Clinging to "stability at
>> any cost" can only get you the stability of the grave. It doesn't get
>> more stable than this.
>>
>
>And now the "stable" Middle East (which wasn't as stable as you might
>think) has become "unstable" (relative! It may have been _more_ stable
>than before). If we keep attacking like we are, it only gives them more
>reason to hate us,
:-)) I could write here a full chapter about the "postmodern
mythologies of warfare" but this would've been a waste of time. You
may want to take a look on various Al Qaeda and similar groups
writings to see what motivates them. Hatred ain't it.
> and the Kyoto thing has nothing to do with this.
>If we want to fight terrorism, we've got to attack the root cause --
>extreme religion.
Aha. And, how will you do it? Send a delegation of ivy league
professors to Arab countries to explain to them that they educate
their kids improperly and they should, from now on, leave said
education to us? Good luck.
> Terrorists need to be arrested and prosecuted.
Wonder why it didn't occur to anybody, during WWII, to just send cops
to Germany and Japan to arrest the ring leaders, instead of bombings,
invasions and the like.
You're harboring under the illusion that we're dealing with "just few
individuals". Ain't so. Closing your eyes and ears and repating
"we're not in war, we're not in war, we're not in war ..." won't make
it so. Tough.
mike3
Well the point is, yes, I DO expect to be taken seriously by SOMEBODY
and I know they're there, and that somebody may not be you, though.
This is my third round on this one, and I'm only going to round 5,
and that will be the end of this debate.
Anyway, at least Clinton _supported_ Kyoto for a bit, take a look:
http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm
The fact that Bush does not and the "reasons" he cites for it could
theoretically be applied to any more effective plan, he won't do
what's needed (and nor will his buddies, either, of course.).
Especially
considering his defenses of the "American way of life" (a greedy,
wasteful, unsustainable way of life).
Besides, like I've said, the whole Kyoto thing is pretty irrelevant as
Bush has done far worse things. Perhaps we can drop this point?
> >> > And considering that this administration is
> >> >so horrible in the way it's done things, it's absolutely shameful.
> >> >
> >> This administration does the things that need doing, in the face of
> >> immense opposition from idiots like you who believe that huge problems
> >> can be made to go away simply by wishing so. That we managed to
> >> create such a huge "educated class" devoid of any understanding, this
> >> is truly shameful.
> >>
> >
> >The administration doesn't do the things that need doing, it does
> >the things that don't need doing, it makes things worse than better.
> >We've slaughtered so many innocents (maybe even more than Bin
> >Laden killed!!!!) just to get a handful of terrorists. We are screwing
> >up ROYALLY.
>
> It is an unfortunate fact of war that innocents are being killed.
> Declaring by fiat that "it shouldn't be so" is not going to change it.
> Are you aware of the fact that at least 50000 French citizens were
> killed by Allied bombings during the libaration of France, in WWII. And
> these were not even "enemy citizens". So, how else do you think the
> job could've been done? And, no, we're not dealing with "handful of
> terrorists". Would've been nice, would this has been the situation,
> but it isn't true. We're dealing with a world wide movement which has
> a world wide support base.
Then we don't fight terrorism with war. You don't fight violence with
more violence. How do we catch and proseucte serial killers? Do we
bomb the cities they're in?! Heck no! Terrorists deserve to be brought
to justice, yes, but do slaughter FAR more innocents than guilty is
just promothing the thing we want to see stopped. The "war on
terrorism" has been seriously mismanaged. We supposedly wanted to
get Saddam (and I'm not sure how big a threat he REALLY posed,
anyway, there were reports that no WMDs were found... bush LIED).
If he was a real, imminent threat (ie. he had WMDs AND was going
to use them), then we should have taken him out, but not in the
way we did. The best way would have been to *JUST* get
Saddam and leave Iraq, get him out in a clean, controlled manner
with as little innocents killed as possible, instead of carpet-bombing
the crap out of the place. That's not a responsible way to do things.
> >
> >> >> 2) Are you aware, my dear moron, that it is the Senate, not the
> >> >> President, that ratifies treaties?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >He took it over. Democracy here has been subverted (it's so freakin'
> >> >easy!), he's controlling the government, seizing more power then
> >> >he should have, he's got all his buddies in there, etc.
> >>
> >> Gibberish.
> >>
> >
> >Lack of counterargument noted. Concession accepted. You
> >did not show it wrong. In order to argue against - you have to
> >prove it wrong. If you are as smart as you claim, that should
> >be a piece of cake.
>
> There is nothing to argue against since you made no statement, just
> plain gibberish. Democaracy has not been subverted, Congress is
> functioning, the courts are functioning, your statement has no
> content.
How is democracy not subverted? Bush rigged the elections. That's
enough proof that it has been subverted.
> >
> >> > And remember, he's Bush!
> >>
> >> And you're a moron. So?
> >> >
> >> >> 3) Are you aware, my dear moron, that most of the signatories to
> >> >> treaty are nowhere near to fulfilling their obligations under it?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Well it's a start, and refusal to accept the darn treaty means that
> >> >that
> >> >FIRST STEP is not taken. US CO2 emissions are only growing faster,
> >> >not slower.
> >>
> >> There is only a point in taking a first step if it is leading
> >> anywhere. In this case, it doesn't. Would suggest reading "Te
> >> sceptical environmentalist" for starters.
> >
> >What is the problem with Kyoto, then? Furthermore, this Kyoto
> >arm of the argument is not the basis of my case, I can dig up
> >a lot more.
>
> As I said, read "The Sceptical Environmentalist". It has a big
> chapter about Kyoto, among other things.
>
Well I don't know if Kyoto would really have much effect, but
bigger, more extensive, REALLY effective plans would be
dismissed under the same grounds. So what if it "hurts the
economy"?! If we destroy the planet's life support system there
won't be anyone around to care... Here's a critiquie of
> >> >
> >> >> 4) Are you aware, my dear moron, that the economy is not just the
> >> >> President's, but your as well, and that, without it, you won't be
> >> >> alive for long?
> >> >>
> >> >Yes, it's not just the President's.
> >>
> >> No, it is not. Did he, or anybody around him, said it is? If not,
> >> what is the content of this remark?
> >>
> >
> >I said that I already knew what you said -- that the economy is
> >not just the President's. It's the national economy.
> >
> >> > Oil is running out, so it will
> >> >collapse anyway (and I'll probably be there to see it happen.
> >> >According to some very good geologists we've got only 40-50
> >> >years of oil left and 20-25 years to significant economic
> >> >hardship as production halves).
> >>
> >> Aha. And if we fully implement Kyoto (which ain't gonna happen) these
> >> numbers will change to 50-60 and 25-30, respectively. So?
> >
> >Well, it's a _first step_ and that's all that's important.
>
> A first step is only of value if it leads somewhere. This one leads
> nowhere, it is no more than wishful thinking along the lines of
> "somethign will turn up"
>
So then we need a bigger plan, and be willing to sacrifice the present
economy in favor of something better, and sustainable. BUSH doesn't
want that, he wants to continue "business as usual" and that's not
acceptable. "Business as usual" is NOT sustainable!
> In 1990 the California legislature passed a law mandating that "within
> 10 years all the cars sold in California must be 'zero emission'
> ones". The little fact that the technology to achieve this noble goal
> didn't exist (wasn't even in sight, in fact) bothered nobody since it
> was obvious to the honorable legislators that once they pass the law,
> the technology will materialize. Only, it didn't.
>
> Kyoto is a product of similar thinking.
>
Well, then people have to change, and BUSH doesn't want to change
anything.
> ...
> >
> >>
> >> > That much is certain (and
> >> >regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
> >> >an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
> >>
> >> Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
> >> speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
> >> a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
> >> judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
> >>
> >
> >Then prove it wrong. Don't just say I'm stupid, PROVE that he
> >did not mean that. Show the error of my argument.
>
> All you need is to read the sentence this fragment came from and judge
> from the context. Easy
>
Let's see...
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020923-2.html):
"Congress also must understand they've got to pass an energy bill. You
see, an energy bill will be good for jobs. An energy bill will be good
for national security. We need an energy bill that encourages
consumption [sic], encourages new technologies so our cars are cleaner,
encourages new renewable energy sources, but at the same time
encourages increase of supply here at home, so we're less dependent on
foreign sources of crude oil. (Applause.) "
(In other words, Bush is advocating quick techno fixes, links below
explain
why they won't work.)
An energy bill that encourages consumption. This is not the case, it
should
DIScourage consumption and ENcourage CONSERVATION. Yes, the bill
talks about doing all this development of technology, but technology
alone
does not solve the problem, because the economy is built to run off of
cheap oil, or something with a similar Energy Return On Energy Invested
(EROEI). To move to intermittent, low-density renewable sources of
energy
we will need to start becoming less wasteful, more conservative, more
efficient, and overall find ways to live with less energy. Will we do
it? I
don't know. Bush sure won't. We need to reduce consumption, we need
to get down our energy use to a level that's much less wasteful, and
then
supply all that energy entirely from said renewable sources, making a
true
zero-fossil-fuel society. But, as said wonderfully on this page, we
don't
want to make changes to the "sacred" "American way of life":
http://www.oilempire.us/apollo.html
There are no quick fixes, and this site shows it. Instead, a true fix
will
require revamping our way of doing things from the ground up to an
oil-independent, lower-energy, much more efficent way of life that can
be supplied with nothing but pure renewable energy. We need a
major change, and we need to make it happen. Perhaps we can start
right now, with ourselves. I don't use that much energy to begin with,
for example, I don't use the car that much (and I don't mind. Really,
I don't.). Perhaps maybe you (or anyone else who happens to see this)
should cut down on your car use, if you use an SUV as you primary
mode of transport I suggest that you definitely trade it in for a more
fuel efficient vehice, *and* do that little extra bit of work of
decreasing
the car use. Walk, instead of drive, when you're just going around the
town and not carring a heavy load, for example. That way, transport-
wise, your energy consumption can be minimized. And you'll probably
have a little more money to work with, not having to tank up on
expensive $3-a-gallon gas (I don't know what it is in your area, but
here it's over $3/gallon.).
The current system is based on CHEAP OIL, and trying to run it off of
anything else is like trying to run a gasoline car on diesel.
Say it with me: THERE ARE NO QUICK TECHNO FIXES.
> ...
>
> >> > is really, REALLY stupid.). Oh, and people lived fairly long before
> >> >oil, and this oil-based economy, so I think they would after it,
> >> >although probably not the same way we do now.
> >>
> >> People lived fairly well without oil in a world that supported a
> >> population of around 1 billion. Currently we've more than six times
> >> as much. If you can devise a "soft landing" transition from the
> >> current state to the previous one, I would like to hear about it.
> >>
> >
> >Attrition, have less kids, then less people, etc.
>
> Not happening, except for first world countries.
>
Well then they SHOULD change. The fact that they are not changing
shows a terrible laziness here. We really need a world government.
We have to get this stuff to start happening somehow. It doesn't
matter whether or not it's not happening now, we've got to get it to
happen.
> > And "soft" is a
> >relative term, too. It might still be pretty rough. Furthermore, this
> >depletion of oil is INEVITABLE as long as oil continues to be used.
> >That's why Bush is fighting in Iraq: more oil, to sustain a patently
> >unsustainable way of life.
> >
> And this is more stupidity (wonder what echo chamber you attend to
> pick this). Would the purpose of the war in Iraq has been oil, no war
> would've been needed. Since it was the US that held its hand on the
> sanctions lever and it was in the power of the US to release it (heck,
> most of the world was clamoring for it), would've been a piece of cake
> to cut a deal with Saddam, along the lines of "you give us preferred
> access to your oil, we stop the sanctions". Much simpler and cheaper.
> Only, it would've done nothing to address the real issues which were
> not oil.
>
The issue IS oil. And if you mean the "real issues" being "terrorism",
then we've done a horrible job, we've slaughtered innocent people
just like a terrorist. If we really have done something GOOD in the
Middle East, why don't they like us being there?!
Well, I don't have the book, and am not willing to spend the money
on it (I don't have much money.). Besides, I've seen a lot of arguments
for these debates anyway. The idea that oil will soon be depleted has
come from very respectable geologists. I've looked at oil sands, etc.
and they are just too polluting and too expensive to use. Well, maybe
global warming wouldn't be an extinction-level event, but it would
certainly cause a very bad dieoff. Combined with oil depletion, we've
got a big problem here. Take a look at:
www.dieoff.org
www.peakoil.com
www.oilcrash.com
www.oilempire.us
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com
www.globalwarming.org
> ...
> >
> >> > Whether or not it would have mattered is
> >> >arguable, but at least it would have been a step, and Kyoto would
> >> >provide a committed target, at least.
> >>
> >> That's along the lines of "doesn't matter if it helps, at least we're
> >> doing something". In short, idiocy.
> >>
> >
> >Well, then PROVE it does NOT help.
> >
> It doesn't help since, first, the currently fastest groving economies on
> the planet are exempt and second, since none of the signatories is
> prepared to take the hard steps necessary to even begin living up to
> the treaty terms.
>
Yep, and therefore, you've just conceded Bush is bad, because you
just said they aren't prepared to do the hard work. A good leader would
try to get that hard work done.
> >> > And this will turn into a "yes!
> >> >no! yes! no!" fight that won't get anywhere. I know I'm right,
> >>
> >> Yes, for sure:-) And, how do you know it? Got a certificate from god
> >> or something?
> >>
> >
> >Well, you so far have only conceded 1 point.
>
> No, not even one. You didn't make yet any worthwhile argument on any
> point.
The argument is good, and YOU do not want to accept it.
> >
> >> > YOU just don't want to see it. You like Bush, but I think he's a bad, BAD
> >> >president. Look at the war in Iraq -- $1000 a SECOND and the
> >> >problems there are even worse then when we started the whole
> >> >darned thing. We got rid of Saddam only to destabilize the whole
> >> >Middle East. Talk about a miserable failure.
> >>
> >> It was "stable" Middle East that brought you 9/11, my dear moron. And
> >> that will bring you much more of the same if you'll leave it as it is.
> >> And it was a concern for the "stability of Germany", during the 30s,
> >> that weighted heavily among the considerations when "what should be
> >> done about Hitler" was debated. Stability is a worthwhile goal when
> >> the outcomes are positive, and only then. Clinging to "stability at
> >> any cost" can only get you the stability of the grave. It doesn't get
> >> more stable than this.
> >>
> >
> >And now the "stable" Middle East (which wasn't as stable as you might
> >think) has become "unstable" (relative! It may have been _more_ stable
> >than before). If we keep attacking like we are, it only gives them more
> >reason to hate us,
>
> :-)) I could write here a full chapter about the "postmodern
> mythologies of warfare" but this would've been a waste of time. You
> may want to take a look on various Al Qaeda and similar groups
> writings to see what motivates them. Hatred ain't it.
>
Well, I've seen a lot of things -- hatred of the US is part of it,
extreme
religion is another part. But the point is, war will not help. Violence
just begets more violence.
> > and the Kyoto thing has nothing to do with this.
> >If we want to fight terrorism, we've got to attack the root cause --
> >extreme religion.
>
> Aha. And, how will you do it? Send a delegation of ivy league
> professors to Arab countries to explain to them that they educate
> their kids improperly and they should, from now on, leave said
> education to us? Good luck.
>
Go and get some sort of international policing committee set up,
perhaps, to arrest and prosecute the terrorists like how we arrest
and prosecute criminals here. We probably also need people to
see that the religious texts do not mean what these extremist
groups say.
Also, global problems show that we need a world government.
That's what we need -- a WORLD GOVERNMENT, built for
JUSTICE and that RESPECTS HUMAN LIFE. Unfortunately,
Bush and other world leaders don't seem to like the idea, but
it's needed.
Perhaps someone else could think up something more
comprehensive. But world government would be very, very
beneficial if done right. Remember, if we want peace we have
to stop war, and therefore we need alternative methods of fighting
terrorism, etc.
> > Terrorists need to be arrested and prosecuted.
>
> Wonder why it didn't occur to anybody, during WWII, to just send cops
> to Germany and Japan to arrest the ring leaders, instead of bombings,
> invasions and the like.
>
> You're harboring under the illusion that we're dealing with "just few
> individuals". Ain't so. Closing your eyes and ears and repating
> "we're not in war, we're not in war, we're not in war ..." won't make
> it so. Tough.
>
Yes, it's a global organization, and yes, we are fighting it with war,
and yes, we are slaughtering far more innocents than guilty, and
yes, we are screwing up royally. Since it's a global threat, then we
need a global counterattack. WORLD GOVERNMENT, yeah baby!
With a world government we could coordinate huge international
cooperative efforts to root out and destroy terrorism with a minimum
of innocent people killed (that means less than the number of
guilty, and ideally zero.), help get GOOD religion out there instead
of this extreme fundamentalist crap, etc. All of these global
problems show fundametal flaws in our world structure. That means
an unprecedented effort has to take place.
Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster
6 years of the Other George [*] have made everyone believe that a)
global warming is not an oxymoron, and that b)
the energy cartels do not love the Protocol of the Elders
of Kyoto (sik) -- even though it's been online since Feb.12
of *last* year, meaning tens of billions of dollars per year,
already, in hedgefundtrading.
icebergs are breaking off of Antarctica ("the sky is glowing!"), and
Dubya didn't *sign* the Protocol that his daddy & Gore helped
to write. dang, that Liberal Media Owned by ConsWervatives!
as for the war, it is pretty obviously the detonator
to prove the statistical doctrine of the cartel, Hubbard's Peak Oil,
since it a)
cut-off the Iraqi oil and b)
it takes a huge amount of oil to "go" to war,
let alone to make it. (not that I dysagree with Peak Oil, but
this admistration has no nuclear energy policy --
we shouldn't be burning *any* "fossilized" fuels for electricity,
because of one word:
plastics!
* http://tarpley.net/bush8.htm
> >> There is no "made a mistake" here. The Senate voted 95:0 against.
> In 1990 the California legislature passed a law mandating that "within
> 10 years all the cars sold in California must be 'zero emission'
> ones". The little fact that the technology to achieve this noble goal
> didn't exist (wasn't even in sight, in fact) bothered nobody since it
> was obvious to the honorable legislators that once they pass the law,
> the technology will materialize. Only, it didn't.
> access to your oil, we stop the sanctions". Much simpler and cheaper.
thus:
I prefer the formula piDD, where D is the diameter;
the area of its greatcircles is then piDD/4....
coordinatewisely, I can only do tripolars!
> You seem to think that the information is conveyed by the
> *names* of the coordinate. If the names are r and theta,
> then we are using polar coordinates, and if the names are
> theta and phi, then we are using spherical coordinates, and
> if the names are x and y, then we are using Cartesian
thus:
[How Big Is Infinity?]
nowhere nohow noway anywise as big as yo' momma....
anywho, the Hindoos are never going to agree with that assumption.
> >>> Assuming that the universe is finite (which at this point is a
thus:
he is Right. I mean,
Why are their no left trigona?...
it seems a lot of this is wrapped-up in the projections
to the ordinary plain, which provides the canonical right angle,
made on the diameter of a circle with compasses. the above dyscussion
on affine geometry may be the best approach....
three mathematical dimensions are very special;
four are also special, but they aren't "right" in the same way:
the four altitudes of a regular tetrahedron all meet pairwise
at the same angle, not ninety degrees (arcos 2/3 ?);
the altitudes of a general tetrahedron do not meet, at all,
as you might expect by analogy to the trigon. also,
no more than four lines can meet pairwise at the same angle,
in this static (and 3D) sense....
Hamilton's vector terminology was deconstructed
by Gibbs into "inner & outer products," which seems
to give rise to co- and contra-variance in these "bigger"
(somehow) spaces. (I just found a good text on this,
vis-a-vu electromagnetism, stressing that
4D in this area is really always 3D + 1D, in spite
of any ellision or hype over or from Michelson-Morley-Miller-Minkowski,
or decategorizations (in modern term; Minkowski was added
to the problem-set in Memorium & by Mystaque,
by special order of the Department of Einsteinmania,
the Musical .-))...
below, you are comparing a pure (and unit) vector
with a pure scalar (also unit, and negative) e.g.
> > > > 0 + 1 * i + 0 * j + 0 * k and (- 1) + 0 * i + 0 * j + 0 * k.
> > > The angle between these is 90 degrees when plotted in
> > > Cartesian coordinates.
> > > Their projections in 3-space: (0,1,0) and (-1,0,0) are also
> > > at 90 degrees. Do you think otherwise?
> > This evidence of projections doesn't give us the required condition of
> > rectangularity
> Usually, the angle between two functions isn't as important as being
> able to prove (in some circumstances) that the angle is 90 degrees. The
> formula for the coefficients of the Fourier Transform relies on the
> fact that the following functions are pairwise orthogonal:
> 1, sin x, sin(2x), sin(3x), ..., cos x, cos(2x), cos(3x), ...
> Here, f*g = integral(f(x)g(x), x=-Pi..Pi).
thus:
the brachistocrhone problem actually helped Leibniz and Bernoulli
to establish "the" calculus. I'm sure, Newton had to weigh-in
with his cannonballs, but, Who cares?... I mean,
all he did was algebraize Kepler's orbital constraints
-- and didn't cite his contemporary ... I mean, Galileo didn't, either
--
although evidence points to his stealing the 2nd-power law
from what's-his-face (no-one knows, since Sir Duh destroyed all
of his portraits at the Society, which wrote a whole Philosphic Tract,
to obfuscate the basic idea....
Bernoulli's paper is fairly elementary,
even in French.
thus:
to be featured in the next movie,
"Harry Potter's New Crusades and
the 'Public' Charter Schools: Faith-based Initiatives
in the New Millennium CCE: Come the Rapture,
No Child Left Behind!:"
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3333uk_scoop_soc.html
--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/Amplitude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/3322_ethanol_no_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
... snip inanities, except for the following pearl ...
>
>How is democracy not subverted? Bush rigged the elections. That's
>enough proof that it has been subverted.
>
theory crazed kook, not just a "poor deluded youth". Since there is
precisely zero evidence to Bush rigging any elections, the above is
only meaningful in what it says about you, nothing else. As for me,
my time is too valuable to waste it on kooks.
... snip remaining inanities ...
Good bye.
mike3
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <1156803342.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "mike3" <mike...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> ... snip inanities, except for the following pearl ...
> >
> >How is democracy not subverted? Bush rigged the elections. That's
> >enough proof that it has been subverted.
> >
> Thank you for so kindly providing a proof that I'm dealing with conspiracy
> theory crazed kook, not just a "poor deluded youth". Since there is
> precisely zero evidence to Bush rigging any elections, the above is
> only meaningful in what it says about you, nothing else. As for me,
> my time is too valuable to waste it on kooks.
>
> ... snip remaining inanities ...
>
> Good bye.
>
In other words you FAILED TO ANSWER MY POINTS, ALL OF THEM,
except maybe for that one. Your view on one point was generalized to
"refute" them all, and you have committed a grave logical error. Go
and look over ALL THE REMAINING POINTS. What about my points
on oil consumption? On the idea that techno-fixes will not work? On
the ideas about how to fight terrorism right? On the idea of a world
government?
mike3
Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster wrote:
> it apperas that 12 years of the Original George, and
> 6 years of the Other George [*] have made everyone believe that a)
> global warming is not an oxymoron, and that b)
> the energy cartels do not love the Protocol of the Elders
> of Kyoto (sik) -- even though it's been online since Feb.12
> of *last* year, meaning tens of billions of dollars per year,
> already, in hedgefundtrading.
>
> icebergs are breaking off of Antarctica ("the sky is glowing!"), and
> Dubya didn't *sign* the Protocol that his daddy & Gore helped
> to write. dang, that Liberal Media Owned by ConsWervatives!
>
> as for the war, it is pretty obviously the detonator
> to prove the statistical doctrine of the cartel, Hubbard's Peak Oil,
> since it a)
> cut-off the Iraqi oil and b)
> it takes a huge amount of oil to "go" to war,
> let alone to make it. (not that I dysagree with Peak Oil, but
> this admistration has no nuclear energy policy --
> we shouldn't be burning *any* "fossilized" fuels for electricity,
> because of one word:
> plastics!
>
> * http://tarpley.net/bush8.htm
>
Well at lest someone agreed with my claims about oil to some
degree...
mike3
Perhaps maybe because they don't have any freedom? Why are we still in
there? If they have freedom we should not be telling them how to run
their country. Iraq is becoming a hotspot for war and conflict in the
Middle East.
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1156549318.6...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > > Of course, maybe the actual number was more like 2.
> > > > http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
> > > > This person is only recalling "to the best of my knowledge". The
> > > > source below is more authoritative.
> > >
> > > This article gave the energy of a radiation particle.
> >
> > Are you saying that's not an estimate of the radiation dosage received
> > by an Apollo astronaut? The paragraph in question:
>
> That is right.
>
> > "Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the
> > amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a
> > serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed.
> > Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time
> > available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20
> > mSv, milli-Sievert)."
>
> What radiation dosage does the author use?
Whether it's right or not, it is certainly and explicitly an
estimate of dosage received by an Apollo astronaut. It is an
answer to the question "what would be the radiation does due
to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would
be exposed?"
Are you REALLY taking issue with the fact that an answer to the
question of how much dosage an Apollo astronaut receives is
an estimate of how much dosage an Apollo astronaut receives?
> > Read the paragraph. It's an estimate of the total radiation does
> > received by an Apollo astronaut in traversing the Van Allen belt.
>
> I know.
Um, what? You just said above that it isn't.
Me: "Are you saying that's not an estimate of the radiation dosage
received
by an Apollo astronaut?"
You: "That is right."
Make up your mind.
> > It's the actual reading off the actual dosimeters.
>
> That is why it is totally unrealistic. No acutall numbers of radiation
> level to start out with.
Um, what? The actual reading of the dosimeters is "totally
unrealistic?"
> > > Geosynchronous orbit and beyond
> > > receives at least 300K rads per year.
> >
> > Do you have a cite on that? Is that actually an estimate of
> > how much radiation a HUMAN would receive in geosynchronous
> > orbit?
>
> Although the radiation level at geosynchronous orbit and beyond is not
> classified, it is somewhat confidential from one aerospace company to
> another.
Do you have a cite on that?
> I do have several articles which I downloaded before they are not
> available any more. At this moment, I'd rather keep them confidential
> as well.
That would be "no" then.
> > OK. If I take your number at face value, I end up with 34 rad
> > in a one hour exposure.
>
> No, the radiation level I gave you only applies to the upper end of Van
> Allen Belts, the geosynchronous orbit, and beyond. Deep inside these
> belts, the radiation level is at least an order of magnitude higher.
Do you have a cite on that?
> > Now justify your number.
>
> I actually had, but at this moment I don't want to share my
> calculations with the public
That would be "no" then.
Thanks for playing.
- Randy
mike3
the_blogologist wrote:
> whofan <who...@netscape.org> wrote:
>
> > SwampMidget wrote:
> > > damn that George Bush and all his Freemason buddies. First, the shadow
> > > government executes an attack on 911, now they hide the moon landing
> > > films. Someone get Charlie Sheen and Cynthia McKinney on the phone.
> > >
> >
> > You forgot that Dubya was busy rigging the 2000 and 2004 elections and
> > also planning how to whip up a major hurricane to hit the Gulf coast,
> >
> > It makes one wonder how he ever had the time to put the whole tsunami
> > thing together.....
> >
> > But, even though the demmies tell us how dumb George Bush is...he was
> > still able to pull all of *this* off??????
>
> muhahahahahaha!!!! good point :o)
Well, actually, Bush could definitely have done it. He's got a lot of
buddies.
He only needs to rig the elections when they are coming, and he just
gets
his loyal buddies to do it. He did not have to put together 911, he
just had
to open up his country to attack and take advantage of the situation,
same for the hurricane and the tsunami. Real simple, and he's greedy
enough to do it.
the_blogologist
But how was he able to conceal evidence of the crime?
All the 911 loonies have is fuzzy logic.
If Bush is dumb, then so is Kerry.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portra
y_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF
and even better connected:
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/2503/kerrykennedy2if.jpg
kveryef...@yahoo.com
schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
> Last week, NASA admitted that it simply "lost" 700 boxes containing the
> original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> enhancement and image quality improvement.
>
> Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
>
> Here are some basic truths:
>
> 1. Radiation:
> - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> without massive lead sheild.
>
> serious anamolies when merely approaching the belt. Yet Apollo
> astronauts were somehow immune to this intense radiation.
>
>
> - It appears that NASA whistleblowers INTENTIONALLY left
> obvious 'smoking gun' evidence.
>
>
> also marked 'C' (i.e. a prop in a movie studio)
>
> are not consistent both in lighting and actual objects in the scene.
>
> - sun shadows are not parallel, as is expected from a
> directional light source placed at infinity.
>
> which is simply cannot the case (it must be directional at infinity).
>
> one side.
>
> - No crater under lunar landing module, as if the powerful
> rockets failed to move a grain of sand as it 'landed on the moon'.
>
> ejected from LEM, even though Earth trials show tremendous amounts of
> red smoke.
>
>
> References:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1913474363747128107
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5737681932896358451
btw: Capicorn 1 was not a documentary.
As far as your viedos go they have already been exposed as junk
science at best.
Work on real consiparcy like why hotdogs come in packs of 8 and hotdog
buns come in packs of 12.
Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster
of Trickier Dick Cheeny and Drumsfeld,
who quit Nixo just before W'gate hit (which *might* make you wonder
about that halfbraindead #2 FBI-guy and his so-called book).
he is the unfortunate legatee of his daddy's rotten career,
as documented in enough pages to cause him to lose in '92,
"as seen in 'The War Room,'" in the first-ever _Unauth. Bio.
of [the Original] George_, http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm (available
in a new printing from EIR).... well, "legatee" may be the rong wurd.
Jackson was, in deed, the premiere abomination of the word,
democrat; he also gutted the US Bank. Carter was the first-ever
Trilateral Commission Prez (Zbigniew was the first President of the TC,
but Albright and Rice are no improvements & from the same source).
> > http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3699/carterlegacy1uh.jpg
> http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Feb2003/030114-O-0000D-001.htm
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <1156789851....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "mike3"
<mike...@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
>>> > That much is certain (and
>>> >regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
>>> >an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
>>>
>>> Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
>>> speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
>>> a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
>>> judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
>>>
>>
>>Then prove it wrong. Don't just say I'm stupid, PROVE that he
>>did not mean that. Show the error of my argument.
>
>All you need is to read the sentence this fragment came from and judge
>from the context. Easy
Just a note. A CBS affiliate (radio) was broadcasting this as a sound
byte during their ad for themselves. This station didn't speak lies
in the past; and any errors were immediately corrected. I've heard
them exaggerate things such as weather prediction items (temperature
mins and maxs and wind velocities) and other "little" things.
<snip>
/BAH
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <6YHIg.7$25....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>>>> > That much is certain (and
>>>> >regardless of your opinion about Bush. Him wanting to make
>>>> >an energy policy that would "encourage consumption"
>>>>
>>>> Any person of average intelligence, upon reading the text of the
>>>> speach where this appears, will recognize from the context that this is
>>>> a slip of the tongue and not the meaning that was intended. As for my
>>>> judgement of your intelligence, well, you can guess...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then prove it wrong. Don't just say I'm stupid, PROVE that he
>>>did not mean that. Show the error of my argument.
>>
>>All you need is to read the sentence this fragment came from and judge
>>from the context. Easy
>
>byte during their ad for themselves. This station didn't speak lies
>in the past; and any errors were immediately corrected. I've heard
>them exaggerate things such as weather prediction items (temperature
>mins and maxs and wind velocities) and other "little" things.
>
use just this (thus, technically, you can claim that this is not a
lie). Once you start the ball rolling, enough people will keep
repeating it since, never seeing the full context, they're not even
aware that what they've is just a fragment. Easy.
mike3
Oh, and considering the point I brought up in my message where I
addressed
the quote in it's context and that context itself, Bush is still as
whacked-out
as ever.
You may want to support him, but that's your problem. Watch America go
down the drain and pull the planet with it... You utterly, completely
failed to
address all the non-"conspiracy" (ie. unrelated to the allegation of
"election
rigging") claims in my latest post. I suggest you go over that ENTIRE
post,
concentrate on the claims OTHER than the "election rigging", and write
a rebuttal (real REBUTTAL not just insults).
Qnc...@netscape.net
it could have been for '4, and may now be enough
of a margin for Novemeber 7-- with or without the Paper Nail
in yo'pocket. the real "conspiracy" was twofold,
as far as I know: a)
what the DNC's Chairman Fowler did to the Voting Rights Act,
as rubberstamped by the Supreme Court, causing Gore (apparently)
to lose Arkansas' 5 EC votes; b)
the unanimous Congressional OKing of the Financial Services
Modernization Act of Dec.'99, which unleashed the 527s
on a TV-habituated public via Soros' Move-on "left" and
Swiftboaties "right" etc. ad vomitorium (this is partly hypothetical,
since
I don't watch that thing .-)
> address all the non-"conspiracy" (ie. unrelated to the allegation of
> "election
thus:
very funny, I think, that
you consructed a graph with a right-elbow in it;
that is *exactly* the thing:
we are simply dealing with time in a phase-space, and
one could just as well use an axis of time,
that was oblique to your other one (in your case,
it was just (another?) scalar !-)...
all of these other well-known orthogonalities do not really matter,
even if they can ultimately be treated geometerically,
as they can mathematically....
here is a related question:
did Lagrangians and Hamiltonians come before, or
after Riemannian manifolds?
> > Do you agree or disagree: There is no such thing as vectors
> > in R^n which are orthogonal under the dot product and which
> following 2 hours and 15 minutes = ( 2.25 h, - 3 d). Do You claim, that
> there is an right angle between a certain rise in temperature and a
> certain fall of temperature?
> Friendly greetings
> Hero
> PS. Maths is also about ,,spaces", which are sets with a structure.
> And Cantor defined ,,Eine Menge ist eine Zusammenfassung bestimmter,
> wohlunterschiedlicher Dinge unserer Anschauung oder unseres Denkens,
> welche Elemente der Menge genannt werden, zu einem Ganzen. ,, A set is
> a collection of specified, proper differentiated things of our
> reception or reasoning (thinking), which are called elements of the
> set, into a whole. (my translation). So in math we can talk about sets
> of numbers as well as sets of dogs, sets of temperature changes,...
thus:
have you read Bernoulli's brachistochrone paper?...
there is another book on it, out, called _The Calculus Wars_,
which at least (as I recall) shows how to use both
of the notations (ask Conway, what the dots are good for;
I forgot what he wrote, when I asked him on Geometry.pre-college,
or whatever it was on Swarthmore's site)....
anyway, this book doesn't have any notion that
there was a political reason for the attacks
of the "Newton circle" (in other word, conspiracy). as for Hooke's
role,
I'll see if I can find the text of the keynoter
of the Ninth Annual Nonlinear Science confab,
which was at the faculty center, here.
thus:
I think this is easy to guess at, since
it is approximately my own situation....
I took a two-year course in electronics engineering,
doing passably well as they say, but have never entered
into the field. it only gives me some insight
into the use of complex numbers, "period."
thus:
the brachistocrhone problem actually helped Leibniz and Bernoulli
to establish "the" calculus. I'm sure, Newton had to weigh-in
with his cannonballs, but, Who cares?... I mean,
all he did was algebraize Kepler's orbital constraints
-- didn't cite his contemporary ... I mean, Galileo didn't, either --
although evidence points to his stealing the 2nd-power law
from what's-his-face (no-one knows, since Sir Duh destroyed all
of his pics at the Society, which wrote a whole Philosophic Tract,
Ri...@911experiments.com
> > original moon landing video. The video was being requested for digital
> > enhancement and image quality improvement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716
> > Given this massive failure by NASA, one can rely only on independent
> > and objective analysis of the existing evidence.
> > Here are some basic truths:
> >
> > 1. Radiation:
> > - The Van Allen radiation belt simply cannot be penetrated safely
> WRONG. The radiation levels are not as high as you think, and Van
> Allen himself said so.
The rest of the rebuttals are too weak to bother with. The dogmatic loonie landing believers will never be convinced even after 50 years.