| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Professor Min" |
| Date: |
09 Jul 2006 01:10:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Science proves man never landed on the Moon (was: . . .) |
On 9 Jul 2006, wrote:
Professor Min wrote:
PS Independent reconstruction of an accurate and reliable
NASA chronology for those Apollo photos which reveal
with reasonable certainty a single light source "Look!
the sun looks just like a giant spotlight!" etc., that
would be the obvious place to start building your case.
<snips>
I I sure as hell wish there were more intelligent people like yourself
responding to this post. You are correct in that several reputable
sources would be required to carry out the analysis and have them
published. This is required in order to keep biasing checked. A
possible solution is to submit it to various universities around the
world (preferrably not in America) where photogrammetry is taught. It
could be given as project to test their skills. It wouldn't have
anything to do with proving or disproving the moon landing. What it
will accomplish is to see whether the students really have mastered
photogrammetric rectification. If however it does turn out to prove
that landings did not occur where NASA said they did, then what will
the professor say?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Much depends upon the target audience, and the motivations for
targeting the aforesaid. Reputability, like beauty, is in the
eyes of the beholder. Not everyone is intellectually sovereign.
Rather most depend on others whom they deem "authoritative" to
tell them what to think about science, religion, politics, etc.
(whose minions apparently can't think *lucidly* for themselves).
The fact that something's true & factual CAN be independently
reproduced, does not mean that it will or must be reproduced
by any significant numbers, i.e. sufficient to persuade even
the general populace en masse as to its irrefutable veracity.
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
that's well-publicized, so everyone can see it for themselves.
Contrarily, simple claims require simple proof. E.g., ancient
astronomers weren't all born blind, deaf and dumb--before the
Greek Atheists came along. That's a simple claim with equally
simple proof; to wit, see for yourself if you have any doubts:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e5a1d6139fd566cf21c5db5f420154ae@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info
But of course, the clergy of the Church of Liberalism (kudos
Ann Coulter!) aren't able to refute even the simplest proof
which stands contrary to their intolerant dogmas (as in this
case, their sacred gospel 'According to Mikolaj Kopernik' has
been CLEARLY refuted). They therefore ignore such refutation,
and label everyone who questions their "infallible authority"
with every inane epithet/projection in the book: "brain-dead
moron", "kook", "mindless claptrap", "bad science" ad nauseam.
That's Liberalspeak for "I am unable to refute facts & truths
which invalidate our indefensible Liberal Atheist party-line".
Whereas...
I never claimed to fly a corporeal manned spacecraft clear to
the Moon and back on fully six separate occasions back in the
days when Richard Milhous Nixon was President of the U.S.A.:
and do so without so much as one casualty--particularly from
the intense radiation beyond ~450 miles above sea level, much
less far beyond the Earth into deep space, where raging solar
storms would've fried any living mortal creatures to a crisp!
I never made any such claim, NASA did. The burden of proof is
squarely on their shoulders, not mine. NASA has abjectly failed
to provide any such extraordinary proof that they did in fact
succeed with their allegedly "manned" Apollo missions--while
the hippies and flower children were jammin' down with Joplin,
Hendrix, and Morrison's latest hits on AM transistor radios...
Lacking any extraordinary proof of Apollo's "manned" success,
therefore every reasonable, rational, sane-minded person must
conclude that all the "manned" portions of the Apollo program
alleged to occur above ~450 miles a.s.l. never happened, but
were hoaxed on terrestrial soundstages...probably at Area 51.
^^^^^^^^^^^
That said...
Provided the date plus approximate time and place of an event,
any good astronomy program can reliably replicate said event
in basic astronomical terms. The momentary angle of sunlight
relative thereto being the most contextual example, to prove
or disprove extant public Apollo "men-on-the-moon" photographs.
Even using light-geocentric coordinates, it doesn't take the
proverbial rocket scientist to ascertain--within a reasonable
degree of certainty--where the light-apparent position of the
Sun was, is, or will be to a solar system body having a known
and reliable ephemeris. The ten major planets obviously being
the best-known and most well-established in all human history
(e.g. even Chris Marriot's 'Sky Map Pro' calls them "planets").
For example, if some of the Apollo "man-on-the-moon" photos
(those generally revealing a single--parallel--light source)
show shadows going off well to the right, when they should've
been going off well to the left, well, you get the "picture".
Beyond this, if several major universities, be they American
or otherwise, were to conduct a thorough investigation of the
matter, then publish their complete analysis, calculations and
conclusions for public scrutiny, nobody's stopping them, or are
they? Thus there are advantages to being a sovereign individual. :)
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLFEUpljD7YrHM/nEQL+FwCfQ4IUQOpd2XOrW6DxdQIue2mSeugAoPFO
7moUkp2Ne8WfdbVzhlvZf+3T
=W+nv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science proves man never landed on the Moon (was: . . .) |
09 Jul 2006 05:03:55 PM |
|
|
Professor Min wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006, wrote:
Professor Min wrote:
PS Independent reconstruction of an accurate and reliable
NASA chronology for those Apollo photos which reveal
with reasonable certainty a single light source "Look!
the sun looks just like a giant spotlight!" etc., that
would be the obvious place to start building your case.
<snips>
SNIPPITTYY> Whereas...
I never claimed to fly a corporeal manned spacecraft clear to
the Moon and back on fully six separate occasions back in the
days when Richard Milhous Nixon was President of the U.S.A.:
and do so without so much as one casualty--particularly from
the intense radiation beyond ~450 miles above sea level, much
less far beyond the Earth into deep space, where raging solar
storms would've fried any living mortal creatures to a crisp!
I never made any such claim, NASA did. The burden of proof is
squarely on their shoulders, not mine. NASA has abjectly failed
to provide any such extraordinary proof that they did in fact
succeed with their allegedly "manned" Apollo missions--while
the hippies and flower children were jammin' down with Joplin,
Hendrix, and Morrison's latest hits on AM transistor radios...
Lacking any extraordinary proof of Apollo's "manned" success,
therefore every reasonable, rational, sane-minded person must
conclude that all the "manned" portions of the Apollo program
alleged to occur above ~450 miles a.s.l. never happened, but
were hoaxed on terrestrial soundstages...probably at Area 51.
^^^^^^^^^^^
That said...
Provided the date plus approximate time and place of an event,
any good astronomy program can reliably replicate said event
in basic astronomical terms. The momentary angle of sunlight
relative thereto being the most contextual example, to prove
or disprove extant public Apollo "men-on-the-moon" photographs.
Even using light-geocentric coordinates, it doesn't take the
proverbial rocket scientist to ascertain--within a reasonable
degree of certainty--where the light-apparent position of the
Sun was, is, or will be to a solar system body having a known
and reliable ephemeris. The ten major planets obviously being
the best-known and most well-established in all human history
(e.g. even Chris Marriot's 'Sky Map Pro' calls them "planets").
For example, if some of the Apollo "man-on-the-moon" photos
(those generally revealing a single--parallel--light source)
show shadows going off well to the right, when they should've
been going off well to the left, well, you get the "picture".
Beyond this, if several major universities, be they American
or otherwise, were to conduct a thorough investigation of the
matter, then publish their complete analysis, calculations and
conclusions for public scrutiny, nobody's stopping them, or are
they? Thus there are advantages to being a sovereign individual. :)
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLFEUpljD7YrHM/nEQL+FwCfQ4IUQOpd2XOrW6DxdQIue2mSeugAoPFO
7moUkp2Ne8WfdbVzhlvZf+3T
=W+nv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
But of course not reading the question correctly can only lead to not
making a relevant answer.
What do we know of the Moon projects?
Well we know that there was no way, for astro/cosmo nauts to send
pictures in real time at that period, but we also know one S Kubrick
came into possesion of NASA satellite lenses which apparently or so the
story goes is how he filmed Barry Lyndon in real light but with a very
wide aperture, with said lenses, now like any Propaganda maybe Mr
Kubrick made those pictures for the Soviet audience to demonstrate
technological superiority, spin had a kernel of truth in those days,
hey I remmeber the Moon shot twas my birthday but being Oz it was a day
ahead, (non natal) but for the back room boys of that hidden society of
covert actions and arms dealers etc, you know the ones that stuff up
every now & then, remember Ollie North?
The Great game is not a conspiracy but the interface of relations and
actions, just outside the boundaries of sovereignty.
Hope that clears that up, has Minnie ever wondered why an Elvis
afficionado invests as much faith in his hero, as any religious zealot?
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
