 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:33:45 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
>> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
>
> You make it sound like this was something new. Of course the reflectors
> have been being measured for 40 years, so there's nothing new about that.
>
I assumed they either didn't know about it or just ignored it ;)
> A few conspiracy theorists try to claim that there are no reflectors,
> and that all the observatories around the world which are measuring the
> reflectors are in a big conspiracy together to lie about it, which of
> course
> is ludicrous.
>
> Most conspiracy theorists are not as fool as trying to claim there are
> no
> reflectors. Instead, they claim that they were sent there by unmanned
> probes.
>
> Of course what they *don't* explain is how they were sent there, when,
> who designed the landing systems (so that the reflectors could land
> safely
> rather than crashing) and the deploying systems, all this in complete
> secrecy, of course, and how they were able to sneak this unmanned probe
> there without the soviets noticing. (Sending a rocket to space is not
> something you can really do very furtively, especially when the Soviet
> Union is very interested in your space activities because it's the height
> of the cold war and nuclear proliferation.)
>
> Some conspiracy theorists may claim that the Moon mission which
> allegedly
> took the reflectors to the Moon was actually staying on low Earth orbit
> and
> simply sent an unmanned probe from there to the Moon. Again, it would be
> hard to keep such a huge unmanned probe embedded inside the lunar module
> without hundreds of engineers (many of which were not direct NASA
> employees)
> noticing that something is not summing up.
>
> Since the lunar module was already in orbit, wouldn't it have been much
> simpler to send *it* to the Moon in order to take the reflector there? No
> need to hide heavy unmanned probes with automatic landing equipment. Just
> send the whole thing there.
>
> Of course you still don't have the automatic landing mechanism. Well,
> the easy solution to that problem is to use the lunar lander itself. And
> while you are at it, put the astronauts inside. Easy.
>
This is scary stuff =:O
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
LCROSS, not aliens.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:34:43 +0200, gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> LCROSS
Yeah, that as well =)
I've been waiting for info on LCROSS. Everything I've read/heard just said
they annalized the plume form the explosion, but nowhere does it tell us
what they found out. Probably just dust...
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:48:44 +0200, Nekar Xenos
<nek### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
Oh yeah how do you know they're actually receiving anything at all have
you tried it yourself; have you, have you? This is the start of the
slow-con for when the equipment becomes available for anyone to run the
tests "We didn't get anything back" will be the cry of the masses; "Oh
yeah we've said they've been getting dimmer for ages, you need more
sensitive equipment available only to us" and so the con continues.
:-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Oh yeah how do you know they're actually receiving anything at all have
> you tried it yourself; have you, have you? This is the start of the
> slow-con for when the equipment becomes available for anyone to run the
> tests "We didn't get anything back" will be the cry of the masses; "Oh
> yeah we've said they've been getting dimmer for ages, you need more
> sensitive equipment available only to us" and so the con continues.
>
> :-P
Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
counts as science or just a belief system...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
> counts as science or just a belief system...
OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because experiments
are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
>> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
>> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
>> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
>> counts as science or just a belief system...
>
> OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because experiments
> are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
> the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).
...and *that* is why I personally believe it. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:00:38 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake thusly:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
>> without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
>> work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
>> it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
>> counts as science or just a belief system...
>
> OTOH science is more trustworthy than layman hearsay because
> experiments
> are usually corroborated by many independent parties (who would have all
> the motivation in the world to report that the experiment doesn't work).
They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the
reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the
> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
That's worryingly good.
Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental
condition...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:21:32 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the
>> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
>
> That's worryingly good.
>
> Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental
> condition...
I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes a
joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
