 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:05:58 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple
>stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution
Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost did
that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy into
the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do?
Oops. Maybe you should heed that notion. It was only intended as
entertainment, not trolling...
> True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers.
Yeah I have one of those Dover textbooks on orbital dynamics. A large portion
of it is obsolete high-order approximations because these days you can either
integrate it numerically or use a program someone else has developed. A bit of
a lost art, really.
> "How did Americans in 1969 do what nobody can do today?"
We saw an astronaut from this era talk for quite a while on this point. Safety
is a big issue. When it's a god-given mission to put a man on the moon, risk
is irrelevant. It doesn't mean they weren't careful, but they were willing to
risk their lives in a way you just can't get away with these days.
The sign of an idiot conspiracy-theorist is that they find fault with
*everything*. Not just on one topic either. Conspiracy is a lens through
which they view the whole world. If you find one really intriguing point of
contention, fine. I'll listen and consider it critically. But if it's clear
you're only out to ruffle some feathers, I have more important things to do. I
enjoyed Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about UFO's. If all people can do is poke
around and find a million tiny little arguments or blurry photos, he doesn't
bother listening.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49d10aa5$1@news.povray.org...
> I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple
> stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution
they think I'm nuts around here (in other places for that matter) ....
winter is especially kind for star gazing ... no heat waves rising up from
the ground to interfere with things .... I've gathered crowds (indeed
three's a crowd in this case) wondering why in the world I was out middle of
the night. Carved a snow couch into the snow bank lined it with a sleeping
bag ... instant observation post!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
news:if62t4phrdvqihvo9amjnlg421kjfe82g1@4ax.com...
> Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost
did
> that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy
into
> the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.
my brother in-law moved here from toronto .... one summer night he asked
about those far away clouds. He just couldn't wrap his head around the idea
of it being the Milky Way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:36:33 -0400, "Jim Holsenback" <jho### [at] hotmail com>
wrote:
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote in message
>news:if62t4phrdvqihvo9amjnlg421kjfe82g1@4ax.com...
>> Me too. The only time I've seen the Milky Way in all its glory. I almost
>did
>> that penguin thing, falling over backwards. You shouldn't let a town boy
>into
>> the country at night, especially in the Southern hemisphere.
>
>my brother in-law moved here from toronto .... one summer night he asked
>about those far away clouds. He just couldn't wrap his head around the idea
>of it being the Milky Way.
>
Where is "here", Jim?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2009 20:05, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Holsenback wrote:
>
>
>> I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from
>> cities/towns.
>> during the summer I can clearly see the milky way
>
> I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple
> stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution
seconded
> We should have a national night of darkness, where all outdoor lighting
> is extinguished and people are encouraged to stargaze.
Wouldn't work because of the pollution here. From where I live I can see
Amsterdam. At night it is a orange sort of dome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Moreover, how could you get parallel shadows in a photograph no matter
> what you do? The concept of *perspective* should be rather clear to
> everybody. If you photograph a pair of train tracks, aiming at the horizon,
> the tracks will seem to converge at the horizon, ie. they will not be
> parallel in the image even though they are in reality. Every single person
> with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
> this.
..... unless they refuse to open their eyes and see.
To say it with Bill Kaysing's own words: "I decided I did not believe that
Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin or anyone else was going to the moon"
Seems like he has stuck with that decision ever since... or *is stuck* with it
may be a better term...
It is interesting and might be an explanation, to think that "Moon Hoaxers" were
actually kids back then, and the idea that people might actually be walking on
the moon shattered their - literally - childish beliefs about the universe to
such an extent that they simply refused to believe, and continue to do so to
this day.
Which would explain why they are so eager to prove their theories, and so
stubborn to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
>
> Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
Naah. Just good high-res HDR output and some simple postprocessing :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
> >
> > Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
> >
>
> Why emulate a substandard lens? :)
Why, to make the hoax more credible of course :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> > Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts about
> > every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do?
>
> Oops. Maybe you should heed that notion. It was only intended as
> entertainment, not trolling...
No problem, I sure was aware of the fact.
Just jumped on the occasion to let some steam off for which I never found the
right place before (and for which this forum, of course, is not the the right
place either, as I bet we don't have many people here doubting the lunar
landings -but what the heck... sometimes a man's gotta say what a man's gotta
say, no matter where he is ;))
> > True. But rocket scientists of that time did not depend on computers.
>
> Yeah I have one of those Dover textbooks on orbital dynamics. A large portion
> of it is obsolete high-order approximations because these days you can either
> integrate it numerically or use a program someone else has developed. A bit of
> a lost art, really.
.... which, I guess, may be the reason why NASA can't just simply build a few
Saturn V again and burn off the fireworks.
Nobody on the world would know how to operate that outdated once-high-tech these
days.
> The sign of an idiot conspiracy-theorist is that they find fault with
> *everything*. Not just on one topic either. Conspiracy is a lens through
> which they view the whole world.
There's one word for it: Paranoia.
The official definition of which is not that a person fears everyone and
everythig, but more generally that he tries to relate everything he percieves
to one central idea.
Which *can* be the idea that "they" are out to get him, of course.
I once read an article by someone who did some maths on the lunar lander fuel
capacity and such; he went into great detail about how he asked some
information from a university professor while avoiding any hint that he might
be after the Apollo project - because of course all university professors would
be briefed to not tell the truth about anything related to the Apollo program...
.... heck, he didn't even give that professor a *chance* to try convince him
where his math was systematically wrong - all out of sheer... well, Paranoia.
If you don't *want* to believe, you can always construct a theory that will
allow you not to.
---
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out to get you...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
