NASA exposes Apollo Hoax
schoenf...@gmail.com
Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.
pico
> http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
You need reading comprehension lessons.
Sam Wormley
Schoenfeld is easily duped.
Eric Gisse
You elevate intellectual dishonesty to a sport.
Martin Hogbin
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1183595922.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You have missed off a 'hoax'. I think you meant the 'Apollo hoax hoax'.
--
Martin Hogbin
CWatters
<schoenf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183595922.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
Wel they definitly didn't land on the dark side of the moon.
Ian Parker
There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
tightly knit group of people.
- Ian Parker
Uncle Al
>
> http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
> Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
> eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> this planet.
Hey stooopid, the Apollo landing was staged on Mars. NOBODY could
ever land on the moon - it is tidally locked with the Earth's
rotation.
The Mars simulacrum of a lunar landing sent Muslims ballistic. They
think the face of their demigod is covered with little corrigated
pocks from Neil Armstrong's booties. Would you like Neil Armstrong's
booty in your face? (OK, not you - a rational human being.)
Astronaught, "Knock knock!"
Muslim, "Who's there?"
Astronaught, "Wahhabite."
Muslim, "Wahhabite who?
Astronaught, "Wahhabite macht frei!!!"
Ha ha ha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Don Stockbauer
Hey, while we're making claims...
Androcles
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183632005.3...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
them is dead.
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:468CF5F2...@hate.spam.net...
: schoenf...@gmail.com wrote:
: >
: > http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
:
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg
: http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
:
: > Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: > this planet.
:
: Hey stooopid, the Apollo landing was staged on Mars. NOBODY could
: ever land on the moon - it is tidally locked with the Earth's
: rotation.
:
: The Mars simulacrum of a lunar landing sent Muslims ballistic. They
: think the face of their demigod is covered with little corrigated
: pocks from Neil Armstrong's booties. Would you like Neil Armstrong's
: booty in your face? (OK, not you - a rational human being.)
:
: Astronaught, "Knock knock!"
: Muslim, "Who's there?"
: Astronaught, "Wahhabite."
: Muslim, "Wahhabite who?
: Astronaught, "Wahhabite macht frei!!!"
:
: Ha ha ha.
Approved by the British Board of Censors as suitable for children
under the age of 13.
malibu
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
on actual footage that had
gone astray.
It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
In the more current happening, the film
"A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
*opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
camera. The other astronaut
is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
of the porthole that is making this shot look
like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
**********WAS********** it Armstrong?
Watch that movie- it's easily available
on the web- if you're scared to,
it just means you have too much invested in
the fantasy.
Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
when the ship is going down.
And this one is going down.
John
Galaxy Model
Every atom has at least ONE of you.
And me.
Androcles
"malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:1183652647.7...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
Benj
Ian Parker wrote:
> There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
> conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
> of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
>
> Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
> tightly knit group of people.
Yes, there is a "conspiracy theory" but clearly you have no idea what
it is. Instead you have cleverly (or perhaps stupidly) substituted the
old "The more people who know a secret the greater the probability of
a leak" saw, which is perhaps OK since it tends to be true. It's why
secrets are usually limited to as few as possible who "need to know".
But then comes the "bait and switch". It's like the trick currently
being used on global warming, where first you say global warming is
real (true) and temperature and CO2 levels are both rising (also true)
and then pull the fast move of "CO2 CAUSES global warming" (NOT
true). Same thing here. You jump from leak theory to a conclusion
that given a reasonably large number of people involved, a secret
COULD NOT be kept. This is clearly nonsense. The Manhattan project
was IMMENSE! The people, the money, the materials, the bureaucracy,
etc. should have guaranteed exposure. Yet the only leak was from the
inside to the Russians by one of the scientists and of course that
wasn't even known until the Russian bomb exposed it.
And let me point out that even if there is a leak, that doesn't mean
exposure. The fact that there are people agitating about an Apollo
hoax, COULD mean that there was a leak. But a carefully contained leak
insures a leak never leads to any kind of proof.
Anyone who says the government (or those in power) can't keep a secret
is either lying or ignorant. I point you to the UFO secret. Yes, there
are MANY people who can know a secret, but the catch is those in power
have almost limitless resources. And as an additional factor have
absolutely zero moral scruples. This means that should someone
actually leak information, massive efforts can and will be made to
cover it up. And that is not only paid journalists and authors to
throw chaff in the wind and cleverly use disinformation to lead any
serious investigators away, but also includes the gathering of any
physical evidence and its disappearance as well as the actual murder
of the leakers should that become necessary when simple intimidation
won't work.
The point is that in conspiracy theory, you don't have a free wheeling
system going along on its own. You have an active, tightly controlled,
system of oppression and disinformation designed to immediately
squelch even a SUGGESTION that anyone investigate a given area.
So when someone says on the Internet, hey, look at this! Instantly,
posters arise spouting all manner of "debunking" theories ridiculing
and "proving" the given suggestion is unreasonable. Only they aren't
real discussions at all. These are only "plausible" explanations that
really can't stand up to real investigations. But those involved with
secrets have discovered long ago that for the public a "possible"
explanation isn't required. The public is more than satisfied with
merely a "plausible" one. Hence even with the possibility of leaks,
most people are fooled and even the ones who still have suspicions
will not have any evidence available with which to prove anything.
Yes, children. With enough money, control and effort conspiracy can
work. If you doubt that simply ask any REAL historian! Where do you
think the statement "History is bunk" came from? The history most of
us were taught and most people accept is FILLED with "plausible"
events, none of which were really true.
Benj
Androcles wrote:
> I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
> Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
> Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
> and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
> But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
"Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
stupid, insane and a complete "fuckhead". Usually that is all the
"proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
are a poopy-face!
In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
malibu
No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
the porthole.
"Earthrise, suckers."
John
Androcles
hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
Never mind, rhetorical question...
Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
you can download it for free.
Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
Obviously you and "Benj" are fuckheads.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
Imbecile.
Igor
Just as long as they didn't try to land on the sun at night. It would
be way too dark and they would have trouble seeing where they were
going.
Igor
You seem to be easily convinced about anything, provided that it
requires no real thinking.
hanson
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Agaji.46394$aS5....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "malibu" John <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> news:1183656212.9...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> : Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> : > Androcles wrote:
> : > > I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
> : > > Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
> : > > Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
> : > > complete and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity
> : > > is sick. But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
> : >
> : > "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
> : > I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
> : > That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
> : > the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
> : > that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
> : > stupid, insane and a complete "fuckhead". Usually that is all the
> : > "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
> : > Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
> : > You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you
> : > really are a poopy-face!
> : > In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
> : > scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
> :
> : No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
> : near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
> : supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
> : set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
> : the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
> : the porthole. "Earthrise, suckers."
> :
> Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
> hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
> Never mind, rhetorical question...
>
... ahahaha... Andro, that's a "she" and only if she had a
uterine inversion and an ovaryal redirection amongst other
things that turns a she into a "he", could she be a he...
ahahaha... Or, you could label "him" as a cunt... ahahaha...
who said to your closest bosom buddy in his River of Shit:
== Benj: "Uncle Al, I want to have your love-child!" ==
ahahaha... ahahahaha....
>
[Andro]
> Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
> you can download it for free.
> Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
> it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
> Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
> Obviously you and "Benj" are fuckheads.
> Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
> Imbecile.
>
IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced... and so the
agile mind of the paranoid went into high gear... which is equally
great entertainment...
And Jacoby woman... don't get uptight now! Just stay tight!...
ahaha.. Thanks for the laughs, dudes and dudettes... ahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> "malibu" <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
> : No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
> : near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
> : supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
> : set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
> : the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
> : the porthole.
> : "Earthrise, suckers."
> Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
> it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
> Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
Obviously, you don't know what a wide angle lens does. <shrug>
The_Man
> Androcles wrote:
> > I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
> > Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
> > Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
> > and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
> > But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
>
> "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
>
> I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
Again, you are wrong.
>
> That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
> the original paper.
How many "original papers" have you EVER read?
> I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
> that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
> stupid, insane and a complete "fuckhead".
Ideas which are in conflict with experiment are "clearly ridiculous".
> Usually that is all the
> "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
> Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
You can discuss it all you want - no one is stopping you. "Discussion"
doesn't make a wrong idea corrrect.
>
> You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
> are a poopy-face!
> In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
> scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
"Scientific discussions" are best undertaken by scientists, or at
least people who know something about science. One can sit with 4 year
olds, and ask them about the "nature of the chemical bond", and they
will certainly be wrong, no matter how earnest and cute they seem.
It is not a coincidence that the greater one's scientific education,
the more absurd this drivel about "hoaxes" seems.
Tonico
Again with your hokus-pokus conspiracy theories?¡?¡
Dude, you´re turning stupidity into an an art....
Tonio
The_Man
> > I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
> > Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
> > Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
> > and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
> > But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
>
> "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
>
> I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
Again, you are wrong.
>
> That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
> the original paper.
How many "original papers" have you EVER read?
> I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
> that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
> stupid, insane and a complete "fuckhead".
Ideas which are in conflict with experiment are "clearly ridiculous".
> Usually that is all the
> "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
> Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
You can discuss it all you want - no one is stopping you. "Discussion"
doesn't make a wrong idea corrrect.
>
> You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
> are a poopy-face!
> In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
> scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
"Scientific discussions" are best undertaken by scientists, or at
least people who know something about science. One can sit with 4 year
olds, and ask them about the "nature of the chemical bond", and they
will certainly be wrong, no matter how earnest and cute they may seem.
The_Man
The idea that man (or woman) has actually walked on this planet
(Earth) is a hoax perpertrated by NASA to perpetuate funding. America
was never disovered by Columbus - it was a hoax by the Spanish. The
"fact" that the earth revolves around the sun was a hoax perpetrated
by Copernicus, so he could perpetuate his funding and fool the saps.
Rich
[...]
> [hanson]
> IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
> the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
> root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
> then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
> the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
> Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
> the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced...
You mean they acknowledged this? Do you have a link?
I did see another google video program who's name escapes
me where they claimed not that Apollo was hoaxed, but that
the moon pictures were. Apparently with no radiation
shielding or insulation the film all came back fogged
or something.
Oh yes, they say that the pictures were filmed at Stanly
Kubrik's studio in the UK. Ah yes, it was called _Dark
Side of the Moon_, no pink floyd included. It does not seem
to be on google video any more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
Dark Side of the Moon (documentary)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dark Side of the Moon is a French documentary by director William Karel which
originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic
premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo
11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help
from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances,
most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz
Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.
=============
Cheers,
Rich
hanson
news:sZSdnaU2MtL-yhDb...@comcast.com...
>
>> [hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/69f1a721ed71de13
>> IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
>> the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
>> root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
>> then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
>> the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
>> Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
>> the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced...
>
> You mean they acknowledged this? Do you have a link?
>
Yes, Rich, they did; otherwise I would not have said so. However
I am not here to do research for you. Google/groups for -- Apollo
pictures transmission quality refilming, JPL etc. -- It is there, but like
with UFO-Roswell or Area 51 -- fantasies for feeding the paranoid
sells much easier... Just like the Einstein Dingleberries with their
fetish that their Relativity dominates and governs everything...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
[Rich]
> I did see another google video program who's name escapes
> me where they claimed not that Apollo was hoaxed, but that
> the moon pictures were. Apparently with no radiation
> shielding or insulation the film all came back fogged
> or something.
>
> Oh yes, they say that the pictures were filmed at Stanly
> Kubrik's studio in the UK. Ah yes, it was called _Dark
> Side of the Moon_, no pink floyd included. It does not seem
> to be on google video any more.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
>
> Dark Side of the Moon (documentary)
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Dark Side of the Moon is a French documentary by director William Karel
> which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The
> basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from
> the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by
> the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some
> surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry
> Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow,
> Christiane Kubrick.
>
----------------------
>
[hanson]
Rich
> "Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
> news:sZSdnaU2MtL-yhDb...@comcast.com...
>>> [hanson]
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/69f1a721ed71de13
>>> IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
>>> the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
>>> root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
>>> then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
>>> the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
>>> Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
>>> the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced...
> [Rich]
>> You mean they acknowledged this? Do you have a link?
>>
> [hanson]
> Yes, Rich, they did; otherwise I would not have said so. However
> I am not here to do research for you. Google/groups for -- Apollo
> pictures transmission quality refilming, JPL etc. --
I don't find any references with this search string.
Cheers,
Rich
hanson
news:raydnXeoCbMr4RDb...@comcast.com...
> hanson wrote:
>> "Rich" <som...@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:sZSdnaU2MtL-yhDb...@comcast.com...
>>>> [hanson]
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/69f1a721ed71de13
>>>> IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
>>>> the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
>>>> root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
>>>> then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
>>>> the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
>>>> Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
>>>> the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced...
>
>> [Rich]
>>> You mean they acknowledged this? Do you have a link?
>>>
>> [hanson]
>> Yes, Rich, they did; otherwise I would not have said so. However
>> I am not here to do research for you. Google/groups for -- Apollo
>> pictures transmission quality refilming, JPL etc. --
>
> I don't find any references with this search string.
>
.... ahahaha... I said also "etc"... which means keep trying...
Cheers!... ahahahaha... It is there, Richie, somewhere!
>
>
[hanson]
pico
> Hey stooopid, the Apollo landing was staged on Mars.
Aw shit! There goes the neighborhood!
Don Stockbauer
I personally think it was staged on a tiny moon orbiting a planet
orbiting a star in a galaxy just at the causal horizon.
An dats de truff.
BradGuth
> http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
> eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> this planet.
Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.
Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> > this planet.
>
> Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.
>
> Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
> fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
> and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
> and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
> -
> Brad Guth
BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
unfiltered Kodak moments.
Any 3D interactive orbital simulator proves that we've been snookered,
and then some.
-
Brad Guth
Koobee Wublee
Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
relativity?
Don Stockbauer
God, never do anything useful, you'll be pecked to death by ducks.
Sam Wormley
>
> Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
> Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
> relativity?
>
Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
Koobee Wublee
On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
fudged to predict the predictions.
** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
transform.
** Since the geodesic model of the most popular interpretation to the
mathematics of spacetime generally follow the paths of the maximum
accumulated spacetime, a photon should never propagate through space
in this model. Historically, Einstein proclaimed twice the Newtonian
result on bending of light after the Schwarzschild metric was
identified by Hilbert. In doing so, Einstein argued the gravitational
time dilation of the dt^2 term should contribute an amount equivalent
to the Newtonian result and the dr^2 term also the same. Well, so far
with all these many derivations where one obviously liberally copying
each other have never nailed down the proper integration limits, and
yet all come out to support Einstein's prediction without any
mathematical backing. The prediction part is very questionable
already. Now, the 1919 expeditions by Sir Eddington fudged the
observations to account for Einstein's prediction. In the 60's,
Shipiro's experiment did not prove light bending but gravitational
time dilation. These two phenomena are very different. On top of
that, Shipiro's experiment is very questionable.
** The prediction of Mercury's orbital anomaly is totally based on
the geodesics following the paths of maximal spacetime. And yet, it
does not include the effect where the Schwarzschild metric yields a
slightly higher different balancing centrifugal acceleration. That is
Mercury has to travel at a slightly higher speed to balance between
the gravitational pull and the centrifugal push. The geodesic model
according to the principle of least time actually predicts the
observation but fails at the some certain distance that gravitational
effect suddenly becomes antigravity.
** GPS does not need any GR or SR for its design.
You must be awfully religious to conclude the observations really fit
into SR and GR predictions. <shrug> If so, you need to follow the
great reverend Hammond to bring more spiritual satisfactions. <shrug>
Jeckyl
news:1183699733.4...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
>> > Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
>> > relativity?
>>
>> Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
>> there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
>> an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
>
> On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> fudged to predict the predictions.
>
> ** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
> forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
> special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
> the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
> principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
> transform.
So? Twin paradox is observed, time dilation is observed. No fudging there
> ** Since the geodesic model of the most popular interpretation to the
> mathematics of spacetime generally follow the paths of the maximum
> accumulated spacetime, a photon should never propagate through space
> in this model. Historically, Einstein proclaimed twice the Newtonian
> result on bending of light after the Schwarzschild metric was
> identified by Hilbert. In doing so, Einstein argued the gravitational
> time dilation of the dt^2 term should contribute an amount equivalent
> to the Newtonian result and the dr^2 term also the same. Well, so far
> with all these many derivations where one obviously liberally copying
> each other have never nailed down the proper integration limits, and
> yet all come out to support Einstein's prediction without any
> mathematical backing. The prediction part is very questionable
> already. Now, the 1919 expeditions by Sir Eddington fudged the
> observations to account for Einstein's prediction. In the 60's,
> Shipiro's experiment did not prove light bending but gravitational
> time dilation. These two phenomena are very different. On top of
> that, Shipiro's experiment is very questionable.
That one or two people might fudge does nothing to lessen the record of SR.
> ** The prediction of Mercury's orbital anomaly is totally based on
> the geodesics following the paths of maximal spacetime. And yet, it
> does not include the effect where the Schwarzschild metric yields a
> slightly higher different balancing centrifugal acceleration. That is
> Mercury has to travel at a slightly higher speed to balance between
> the gravitational pull and the centrifugal push. The geodesic model
> according to the principle of least time actually predicts the
> observation but fails at the some certain distance that gravitational
> effect suddenly becomes antigravity.
WTF are you on about there?
> ** GPS does not need any GR or SR for its design.
Irrelevant
> You must be awfully religious to conclude the observations really fit
> into SR and GR predictions.
No .. just scientific
Rich
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1183699733.4...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>>>> Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
>>>> Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
>>>> relativity?
>>> Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
>>> there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
>>> an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
>> On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
>> fudged to predict the predictions.
>>
>> ** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
>> forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
>> special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
>> the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
>> principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
>> transform.
>
> So? Twin paradox is observed,
Really? When? Where?
Cheers,
Rich
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
> > > Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
> > > relativity?
>
> > Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
> > there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
> > an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
>
> On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> fudged to predict the predictions.
Then do it.
All you do is talk, talk, talk. But when it comes time to put your
money where your mouth is, you run like the little bitch you are.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/299174f66a830c43?dmode=source
You couldn't support your arguments in that thread, or answer my
simple questions. Why should anyone believe you can support yet
another load of bullshit?
[snip remaining lying and general stupidity]
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > ** GPS does not need any GR or SR for its design.
>
> Irrelevant
Actually it is blatant lying. He knows what he says is not true, but
says it anyway despite people correcting him dozens of times with
explicit references to the design documents.
[...]
Eric Gisse
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hafele-Keating.
Koobee Wublee
> Hafele-Keating.
It does not prove the symmetry of time dilation. You have to find
experiments that prove all the properties of the Lorentz transform.
Tell me if that is too much to ask for a hypothesis to explain the
null results of the MMX?
Koobee Wublee
> Actually it is blatant lying. He knows what he says is not true, but
> says it anyway despite people correcting him dozens of times with
> explicit references to the design documents.
No, I have not been lying. By stating those statements above, you are
the biggest liar. <shrug>
Jeckyl
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#5.%20Twin%20paradox
Koobee Wublee
> On Jul 5, 9:28 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> > fudged to predict the predictions.
>
> Then do it.
I just did.
> All you do is talk, talk, talk. But when it comes time to put your
> money where your mouth is, you run like the little bitch you are.
No, I just did.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/299174f66a8...
>
> You couldn't support your arguments in that thread, or answer my
> simple questions. Why should anyone believe you can support yet
> another load of bullshit?
You are incapable of carrying out any scientific debate. As a liar
and an irrational rant, it is also impossible to achieve any
conclusion in such an unmoderated group. We will leave your silly
arguments in the archive for some future generations of scholars to
decide.
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 5, 11:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hafele-Keating.
>
> It does not prove the symmetry of time dilation.
[...]
Of course not. It isn't a symmetric situation, which is the whole crux
of the Twins paradox.
Eric Gisse
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 5, 11:26 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 9:28 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> > > fudged to predict the predictions.
>
> > Then do it.
>
> I just did.
As usual, Koobee Wublee can't tell the difference between "assertion"
and "proof".
[snip stupidity]
The_Man
I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.
Game, set, match. You lose.
>
> Any 3D interactive orbital simulator proves that we've been snookered,
> and then some.
> -
> Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
malibu
> On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> > > > Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
> > > > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> > > > this planet.
>
> > > Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.
>
> > > Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
> > > fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
> > > and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
> > > and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
> > > -
> > > Brad Guth
>
> > BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
> > would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
> > whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
> > every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
> > should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
> > unfiltered Kodak moments.
>
> I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
> specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.
>
Hey, a starscape from the moon's surface- how trite AND
unimportant. Don't bother.
Plus, only a handfull of pics of the astronauts- hey,
you can't see their faces anyway, who needs pictures.
Don't worry about it. We lost all the
pictures just recently, anyway.
John
John
pico
> BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
> would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
> whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
> every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
> should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
> unfiltered Kodak moments.
The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
either?
malibu
> "malibu" <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:1183656212.9...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> : On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:: > Androcles wrote:
>
> : > > I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
> : > > Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
> : > > Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
> complete
> : > > and total fuckhead. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
> : > > But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
> : >
> : > "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
> : >
> : > I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
> : >
> : > That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
> : > the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
> : > that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
> : > stupid, insane and a complete "fuckhead". Usually that is all the
> : > "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
> : > Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
> : >
> : > You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
> : > are a poopy-face!
> : > In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
> : > scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
> :
> :
> : No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
> : near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
> : supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
> : set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
> : the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
> : the porthole.
> : "Earthrise, suckers."
> :
> : John
> Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
> hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
> Never mind, rhetorical question...
>
> Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
> you can download it for free.
> Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
> it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
> Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
> Obviously you and "Benj" are fuckheads.
> Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
> Imbecile.
the porthole was round, making the view of earth round.
tape was applied to create a straight edge.
The fucking material is there to view.
If you're not going to view
it, don't comment on it. It just shows
how ignorant you are. Would you like a
jpeg capture of Neil futzing with the camera which
is NOT right up against the window like he said,
but against the far side of the capsule to make them
look as far away as possible?
Or can you actually pause in your business to
take in some data?
John
Androcles
"malibu" <veg...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:1183726579.4...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Fuck off, cretin.
*plonk*
malibu
Ooh, good one Android.
Is your little metal head getting hot?
John
BradGuth
> On Jul 6, 5:57 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 12:44 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 9:35 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> > > > > Those who were deceived by theApolloHoax will be remembered, for
> > > > > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> > > > > this planet.
>
> > > > Fools of such bigotry in denial of their denial, to say the least.
>
> > > > Hot and cold wars have been caused and/or extended by this little
> > > > fiasco, our valuable resources and some of our best talents diverted,
> > > > and decades of true advancements lost forever. Par for the American
> > > > and Zionist Third Reich way of doing such things.
> > > > -
> > > >BradGuth
>
> > > BTW, Venus is not a wussy point source of a star, but even though, it
> > > would have been unavoidably recorded as somewhat brighter than Earth,
> > > whereas apparently instead it became entirely invisible on each and
> > > every Apollo mission, as did a good half dozen other pesky items that
> > > should have easily been within the DR(dynamic range) of those
> > > unfiltered Kodak moments.
>
> > I long ago showed that on the three Apollo missions that YOU
> > specifically picked, Venus would NOT have been visible.
NASA or better ESA certified) doesn't agree with those infomercial
spewed crapolla simulators as The_Man farted out. (actually The_Man
never did offer us an actual solar system simulator, just the usual
infomercial spewed crapolla of lies upon lies)
At several times, Venus was in fact very much within sight from the
surface of that moon, and otherwise especially as easily obtained
within FOVs taken from orbit.
>
> Nor any other stars, apparently.
> Hey, a starscape from the moon's surface- how trite AND
> unimportant. Don't bother.
At least I didn't say that they couldn't have easily accommodated a
few one second or longer exposures. If I wanted to prove via camera
and rad-hard film to the world that I'd walked on that physically dark
and nasty moon of ours, as such I would have simply included the likes
of that vibrant big old and often enough nearby Venus, as unavoidably
and otherwise clearly situated above the local horizon.
I assume that you folks have access to a proper solar system simulator
that includes our moon.
>
> Plus, only a handfull of pics of the astronauts- hey,
> you can't see their faces anyway, who needs pictures.
I agree, but then their xenon arc lamp of such a terrestrial looking
color spectrum from such artificial illumination is yet another
absolute dead give away. There's simply no further contest here, as
in none at all. Those unfiltered Kodak moments simply were not
obtained while on the physically dark and naked moon of ours.
>
> Don't worry about it. We lost all the
> pictures just recently, anyway.
That's true, and it's what always happens when too much of their own
shit keeps hitting that hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo fan.
You do know what I mean by way of asking "where's Venus" don't you?
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LLPOF, Just like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
Is that the ver best Zion crapolla you've got to offer?
Let us see your Zion approved solar system simulator in action.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
Brad Guth
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 5, 10:04 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Does this also go with the crap that is supposed to be credited as
>>> Einstein's work --- namely the special and the general theories of
>>> relativity?
>> Those relativity theories of Einstein's are pretty good theories as
>> there has NEVER been a prediction of either that was contradicted by
>> an observation. Hard to beat that, eh Wublee!
>
> On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> fudged to predict the predictions.
>
> ** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
> forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
> special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
> the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
> principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
> transform.
The twin's paradox involves accelerations... and contrary to its
name is *not* a paradox.
The problem is not relativity, but your understanding of it. Hit some
textbooks and get back to us.
Sam Wormley
Sam Wormley
>
> There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
>
> Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
> Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
>
> BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
> -
> Brad Guth
>
Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.
BradGuth
Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nasty moon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within those Apollo EVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.
The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic charged moon.
As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anything NASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from that moon is where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
Brad Guth
wsth...@bellsouth.net
<colin.watt...@turnersNOSPAMoak.plus.com> wrote:
> <schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183595922.4...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> Wel they definitly didn't land on the dark side of themoon.
That was Pink Floyd.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm all for keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's starte with computers."-Solomon Short (paraphrased)
Sam Wormley
Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
-
Brad Guth
Sam Wormley
I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On the contrary, it is easy to show how the observations have been
> > fudged to predict the predictions.
>
> > ** The time dilation part as predicted by the Lorentz transform which
> > forms the mathematical basis of the interpretation known as the
> > special theory of relativity has never proven its symmetry. Remember
> > the twin's paradox is the manifestation of the time dilation and the
> > principle of relativity in which both are properties of the Lorentz
> > transform.
>
> The twin's paradox involves accelerations... and contrary to its
> name is *not* a paradox.
You can always find a scenario where both twins experience the same
amount and duration of acceleration --- identical mission profile. In
this case, acceleration if it does affect it which it does not then
cancels out in each twin. All that left is pure speed difference.
<shrug>
Therefore, the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911
and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
such as religious faith. <shrug>
OK, I did. All what I have described still remain so. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
>
> ...the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911 and
> and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
> the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
> of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
> understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
> logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
> such as religious faith. <shrug>
>
Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
hanson
news:xizji.1012$Xa3.602@attbi_s22...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> ...the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911 and
>> and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
>> the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
>> of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
>> understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
>> logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
>> such as religious faith. <shrug>
>>
> Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox
>
> http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
>
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson
>
BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
ahahaha.....
pico
> Fuck off, cretin.
> *plonk*
Hey, Fuckwit - CLIP the unnecessary part of the post. You are part of
the problem.
pico
>> The DR was just much to great. Besides, the stars look very small
>> without an atmosphere to shoot through. I've never seen stars in
>> photographs of the Earth from space. Suppose we never orbited the Earth,
>> either?
>
> There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
No there is not, and also there is not enough resolution for the focal
length of the lenses they were using.
Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.
Take the challenge. Be a man. Or woman. Or whatever you are.
pico
> Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
> Earth,
Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).
pico
> Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
Ah, BradGuth admits he is not informed, out of the argument; he has
lost. He cannot reach into his Zionist-conspiracy sources for backup.
Kinda too bad because their rationales are just a hoot.
Androcles
"pico" <as...@askme.com> wrote in message
news:138u05v...@news.supernews.com...
Fuck off, cunt.
*plonk*
BradGuth
I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.
You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just down-load, install and run with most any good 3D interactive
solar system simulator. It'll put the moon and other planets exactly
where they were, hour by hour if need be, along with displaying such
items in their proper albedo.
Otherwise, contact Kodak Corporate for all the film expertise you'll
ever need, and then some. Then look at published images of our moon
along with other planets and even a few stars showing up within the
very same FOV and exposure.
Too bad Sirius was apparently hiding out along with Venus, as
otherwise the vibrant speck of Sirius would also have been rather
impressive on film.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot. Do you
also suck private parts for a living?
-
Brad Guth
Sam Wormley
I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
image field. The fact is they were not.
We are waiting, Brad Guth, for you to cite credible data to the contrary.
Sam Wormley
Guth can't answer the question!
Don Stockbauer
Koobee Wublee
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox
>
> >http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin...
>
> [hanson]
> .... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
> .... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
> Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
> a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
> Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
> the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
> con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson
>
> BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
> that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
> you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
> ahahaha.....
Mr. Wormley is totally speechless getting caught as a piece of
Einstein dingleberry. Please allow me to laugh with you. ahahaha...
The absurd ridiculousness does not end here in SR and in its nemesis
known as the twin's paradox. Similar bullsh*t also resides in GR. As
I have pointed out in the previous few posts, the observations
predicted by GR represent a total joke. Any serious scholars trained
in logic and consistency should easily identify the crap coming out of
GR, and yet again the whole field is dominated by Einstein
dingleberries. ahahaha...
Sam Wormley
Laugh away, bubba!
schoenf...@gmail.com
> On 5 Jul, 01:38, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> > Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
> > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> > this planet.
>
> There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
> conspire the greater the possibility of a leak.
Actually, the correct law is "the greater the lie the more they'll
believe". That's an Adolf Hitler quote. Take 5 mins from your idealism
and take a look around.
BradGuth
Put up or shut up.
What hocus-pocus solar system simulator software has our Venus and
other planets plus even a few stars invisible? (as hidden by what?)
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
Such silly and usually loaded questions are not the point.
Venus was per it's given visual size offering a brighter item per
grain of film than Earth. You folks are absolutely pathetic Zions,
without any speck of remorse or sense of humor none the less.
There have long been multiple examples of our moon and Venus side by
side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
DR as was available to those NASA/Apollo missions. Photographs of our
moon along with Jupiter, Saturn and even a dim little Mars showing up
within the very same FOV and given exposure. Even the NASA/Apollo
archives has a telephoto enhanced Mars along with our moon as obtained
from one of their lunar orbits.
If Sirius were ever situated anywhere above that physically dark lunar
horizon (of which it clearly was), it too would have been unavoidably
recorded on film as a nifty little fuzzy speck of a somewhat dim
violet/bluish light.
All you MIB folks of NASA's swarm of damage-control have got to work
with are those hocus-pocus conditional laws of physics, of skewed
science that simply can not be independently replicated, and otherwise
as much excluded and/or lost evidence as you silly Jewish folks can
possibly muster as the official rusemasters and naysayers of defending
your Skull and Bones mainstream status quo butts.
-
Brad Guth
Ian Parker
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183632005.3...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> : On 5 Jul, 01:38, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
> : >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
> : >
> : > Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
> : > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> : > this planet.
> :
> : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
> : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
> :
> : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
> : tightly knit group of people.
> :
> :
> : - Ian Parker
>
> Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
> them is dead.
If all the conspirators except you are dead, only you can leak. What
about another conspiracy! I seem to remember you believe this one.
NASA has discovered that the precession of 43" per century of Mercury
is in fact wrong. Everyone who works in the deep space tracking
department has been told to keep mum. It is classified as more secret
even than the Moon landing fakes.
Similarly all the engineers at CERN are part of a conspiracy. The
hadrons are NOT moving at 99%c their speed is above that of light.
Somehow there have been no leaks. This is a surprise.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
> On Jul 5, 8:40 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jul, 01:38, schoenfeld....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
>
> > > eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
> > > this planet.
>
> > There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
> > conspire the greater the possibility of a leak.
>
> Actually, the correct law is "the greater the lie the more they'll
> believe". That's an Adolf Hitler quote. Take 5 mins from your idealism
> and take a look around.
I agree, as when if ever hasn't our government lied to us?
Didn't the USSR/Russia also have to lie their perpetrated cold-war
butts off?
Lieism is almost as Skull and Bones proof tested as anything Third
Reich and of anything their Zion Hitler is ever going to get. Atheism
is just their usual cloak of what such Jewish liars of spewing
infomercial fuckology have to utilize in order to accomplish their
inside jobs of snookering humanity for all it's worth.
-
Brad Guth
hanson
news:1183786244.3...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
news:xizji.1012$Xa3.602@attbi_s22...
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> ...the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911 and
>> and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
>> the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
>> of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
>> understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
>> logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
>> such as religious faith. <shrug>
>>
[Sam]
>
[hanson]
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson
>
BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
ahahaha.....
>
Mr. Wormley is totally speechless getting caught as a piece of
Einstein dingleberry. Please allow me to laugh with you. ahahaha...
>
The absurd ridiculousness does not end here in SR and in its nemesis
known as the twin's paradox. Similar bullsh*t also resides in GR. As
I have pointed out in the previous few posts, the observations
predicted by GR represent a total joke. Any serious scholars trained
in logic and consistency should easily identify the crap coming out of
GR, and yet again the whole field is dominated by Einstein
dingleberries. ahahaha...
>
The way I see GR, agreeing with your take, I up the ante and raise
the stake as in google/groups -[author:han...@quick.net GR BFD ]-
wherein I said:
... as long as Einstein and/or his Dingleberries do use
[1] Newton's G and steps of [2] Newtonian mechanics,
in their relativistic pursuit and their equations, all their little
relativity vignettes remain merely mental masturbations.
Them using [1 &2], forces to carry with them, by necessity, any
and all problems, baggage, short comings and defects attributed
to [1 &2], that Einstein & his Dingelberries are trying to get
(unsuccessfully) rid of.
So, GR = BFD. It's a circular dance by Einstein Dingleberries
.... and it doesn't change that fact no matter how much they twist
and convolute the situation with frame dragging, matrices or barks
& cries that "GPS works", somenthing that so many loudmouthed
Einstein Dingleberries do... Whether the Einstein Dingleberries
like it or not,...All of them will remain by definition under the towering
influence & governing hand of Newton and his G, from which they
so far have tried to escape in absolute, not relative, vain... ahaha..
>
.... ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, KooBee. You are alright!
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Androcles
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183823754.3...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You still believe the Sun goes around the Earth because you can
see it does. Have fun with your make-believe, fuckhead.
pico
>> Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
>> were using and we will work from there.
> I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.
No you have not.
> You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.
You've seen way too many comic books and Star Trek shows.
pico
> My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot.
If you knew anything of the original "pagans" you would be embarrassed
by what you wrote. Unless you are some kind of seething Roman Catholic
crusader (in the original meaning.)
pico
> There have long been multiple examples of our moon and Venus side by
> side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
> DR as was available to those NASA/Apollo missions.
When shooting the moon and Venus from within our atmosphere and
attempting to get some detail from the moon, the exposure is made for
the average luminance of the moon which therefore obviates shadow detail
of the kind necessary when shooting ON the moon. When on the moon,
exposures were made to include shadow detail. That puts the demands upon
dynamic range way beyond the films ability to render the tiny stars,
which are pinpoints in space, even with a lens twice the diagonal of the
film (~150mm) and so beyond the resolution of the other lenses it's not
worth discussing.
Also when shooting the moon with Venus in the frame from earth, each can
be significantly underexposed (lowering DR) and over-developed (lowering
DR further) and we still get an image because each is on the toe of
exposure. The point being that we aren't imaging detail, just small
samples which obviate all other detail.
The same occurs with digital.
Sam Wormley
I agree whole heartedly... that you should put up or shut up.
Sam Wormley
> On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 8:01 pm, pico <a...@askme.com> wrote:
>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>> Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
>>>>> Earth,
>>>> Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
>>>> much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
>>>> Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).
>>> My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot. Do you
>>> also suck private parts for a living?
>>> -
>>> Brad Guth
>> Guth can't answer the question!
>
> Such silly and usually loaded questions are not the point.
>
> Venus was per it's given visual size offering a brighter item per
> grain of film than Earth. You folks are absolutely pathetic Zions,
> without any speck of remorse or sense of humor none the less.
>
Too bad a sufficiently bright Venus was not in the image field!
The_Man
and episodes of "The X-Files", "In Search of..." ("based in part on
theory and conjecture" - in fact, it was based ENTIRELY on [wrong]
theory and conjecture), "The Night Stalker", "Capricorn One", the OJ
trial, ....
BradGuth
You've bet your bottom dollar, haven't you.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> > side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
> > DR as was available to those NASA/Apollomissions.
>
> attempting to get some detail from themoon, the exposure is made for
> the average luminance of themoonwhich therefore obviates shadow detail
> of the kind necessary when shooting ON themoon. When on themoon,
> exposures were made to include shadow detail. That puts the demands upon
> dynamic range way beyond the films ability to render the tiny stars,
> which are pinpoints in space, even with a lens twice the diagonal of the
> film (~150mm) and so beyond the resolution of the other lenses it's not
> worth discussing.
>
> be significantly underexposed (lowering DR) and over-developed (lowering
> DR further) and we still get an image because each is on the toe of
> exposure. The point being that we aren't imaging detail, just small
> samples which obviate all other detail.
>
> The same occurs with digital.
see! LLPOF, and then some.
My VGA cellphone camera has better DR than MESSENGER. Go figure.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
And the Zion rusemasters of our hocus-pocus NASA and of all that's
Skull and Bones speak, with each of their butt-cheeks flapping in
their own intellectual infomercial spewed wind.
-
Brad Guth
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 10:14 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> BradGuth wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 6, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> BradGuth wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> BradGuth wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
> >>>>>>>>> Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
> >>>>>>>>> Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
> >>>>>>>>> BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> BradGuth
> >>>>>>>> Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
> >>>>>>>> the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
> >>>>>>>> not.
> >>>>>>> Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
> >>>>>>> any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
> >>>>>>> otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
> >>>>>>> certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
> >>>>>>> of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
> >>>>>>> more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
> >>>>>>> Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within thoseApolloEVAs
> >>>>>>> is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
> >>>>>>> local horizon.
> >>>>>>> Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
> >>>>>>> Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
> >>>>>>> exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
> >>>>>>> You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
> >>>>>>> advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
> >>>>>>> Venus.
> >>>>>>> The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
> >>>>>>> such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
> >>>>>>> Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
> >>>>>>> unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
> >>>>>>> terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic chargedmoon.
> >>>>>>> As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
> >>>>>>> you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
> >>>>>>> supposedly better than anythingNASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
> >>>>>>> offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
> >>>>>>> was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
> >>>>>>> infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
> >>>>>>> fart.
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> BradGuth
> >>>>>> Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
> >>>>>> range of the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they
> >>>>>> were not.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> Brad Guth
> >>>> I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Just down-load, install and run with most any good 3D interactive
> >>> where they were, hour by hour if need be, along with displaying such
> >>> items in their proper albedo.
> >>> Otherwise, contact Kodak Corporate for all the film expertise you'll
> >>> ever need, and then some. Then look at published images of ourmoon
> >>> along with other planets and even a few stars showing up within the
> >>> very same FOV and exposure.
> >>> Too bad Sirius was apparently hiding out along with Venus, as
> >>> otherwise the vibrant speck of Sirius would also have been rather
> >>> impressive on film.
> >>> -
> >>> Brad Guth
> >> I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
> >> objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
> >> image field. The fact is they were not.
>
> >> We are waiting, Brad Guth, for you to cite credible data to the contrary.
> >> I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Put up or shut up.
>
> > What hocus-pocus solar system simulator software has our Venus and
> > other planets plus even a few stars invisible? (as hidden by what?)
> > -
> > Brad Guth
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've been there and done that. Now it's your turn.
-
Brad Guth
pico
\\
> And the Zion rusemasters of our hocus-pocus NASA and of all that's
Thank your for seeding our nut-case rejection parser.