|
Post by sts60 on Jul 10, 2007 23:43:14 GMT -4
Of course, he's only suspended for a month. And only because he insisted, again, on charging without evidence that we are all liars and paid shills and whatnot.
I'm sure he'll boast otherwise at his favorite conspiracist haunt, claiming he was banned for daring to ask questions. It's easy to do when one's not all hung up on facts and such.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 11, 2007 0:07:19 GMT -4
Alas, poor Rocky... Alas, poor Rocky! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite folly, of most excellent fanasty: he hath bored me with his hack a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it all is! my gorge rims at it. Here hung those lips that I wished to bash I know not how oft. Where be your jibes now? your gambols? your wrongs? your flashes of idiocy, that were wont to set the lurkers on a roar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 11, 2007 2:58:21 GMT -4
If the numbers of those seeing a hoax are really getting so large then where is all the support for Rocky? How come no one came out of the woodwork to support his views? If somehow, as I'm sure he thinks, their posts and memberships were being suppressed then why would he even be allowed to post here? Sadly he is not the most close-minded individual I have seen posting on the net but he does come close. His level of paranoia is astounding.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 11, 2007 5:01:23 GMT -4
It will be interesting to see what happens in a month's time.
My money is on him coming back and making the same accusations all over again, to "encourage" LO to ban him permanently. It only does his HB street cred any good to be banned, so as soon as the ban is lifted he is unable to peddle his martyrdom elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 11, 2007 7:54:10 GMT -4
It only does his HB street cred any good to be banned, so as soon as the ban is lifted he is unable to peddle his martyrdom elsewhere. Do you really expect rocky's fellows to do research?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 11, 2007 16:20:59 GMT -4
Does anyone really think rocky believes what he is saying? Oh, yes. Of course, I also believe he's a paranoid schizophrenic, so there we all are, I suppose. Edit: Oh, yeah--great riff on the Bard, PW.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 13, 2007 16:51:45 GMT -4
Man, Data Cable, I wish you hadn't compressed those six clips so much. On YouTube a persistent conspiracy theorist is mistaken compression artifacts in the fifth clip for wires. I've been working all day trying to explain that it's an illusion caused by compression artifacts. I'm working on my final work as we speak, but it's getting quite annoying to try and explain it over and over again.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 14, 2007 7:44:08 GMT -4
you could post them in the isolation thread , and refer them them to there. save you finger tips at least. If it wasn't for compression artefacts, what would they have to argue about.. Pixel roundnes maybe? :
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 22, 2007 18:45:05 GMT -4
122:22John has moved northeast of the Central Station and throws a piece of trash off to the north.Clip 5 1.38mb Data Cable, is there any chance you might be able to upload a higher quality, less-compressed version of this clip? I'm currently having a debate over compression artefacts vs. wires, and it would help a lot to have a less-compressed version. EDIT: I would still like to have a higher quality version, although I'm not going to actively discuss on YouTube anymore. It's too frustrating, both in terms on the horrible YouTube quality of the films and discussion restrictions, and the persistentness of HBs. No matter how many times you show how something is a compression artefact, they keep saying something along the lines of "Yeah but it's still a wire". Too bad about this closed-mindedness, it's worse than I expected.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 26, 2007 1:57:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2007 12:57:31 GMT -4
If the numbers of those seeing a hoax are really getting so large then where is all the support for Rocky? How come no one came out of the woodwork to support his views? ... I feel this is wishful thinking on his part. He wants to believe that people agree with him and do not believe us, the pro-Apollo crowd. He's making his own little world.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 9:29:26 GMT -4
Here's a question for you pro-apollo people.
I should go into some more detail on the issue of making sand dust-free.
If I take a bucket of sand that has various-sized grains and I want to remove all of the ones that are small enough to float in an atmosphere, I'll dump it onto a screen that has holes that are just large enough not to let the grains that are too heavy to float through. Then, I'll shake it back and forth until there are no more grains falling throught the holes. Then, while it's still on the screen, I'll run water on it while moving it back and forth with a brush. If there are any small particles left, they should fall through the screen during this process. Then, I'll let it dry. If I spread out a few truckloads of sand treated in this way along a wide track and run a vehicle over it, I think there will not be a cloud of dust. What do you people say?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 9:44:57 GMT -4
I should go into some more detail on the issue of making sand dust-free.
We are well acquainted with the process of sifting and washing. You are not.
If I take a bucket of sand that has various-sized grains and I want to remove all of the ones that are small enough to float in an atmosphere,
Then they won't suddently stop in atmosphere, the way you say they do. And they likely won't be impressibe. You haven't gotten used to the idea that your theory is mathematically impossible because no process produces sand with contradictory properties.
Then, I'll let it dry. If I spread out a few truckloads of sand treated in this way along a wide track...
Putting it on a truck and carrying it to some location and dumping it on the ground out of the truck and spreading it around are all processes that create more dust. You cannot subject your particulate to that kind of agitation without creating dust. Agitation is how the dust was originally created.
...I think there will not be a cloud of dust.
I don't care what you think. I am interested in what you can prove. You have the burden of proof that this will work as you say, but since you won't do anything to prove your method will actually result in magic sand, you get no sympathy.
What do you people say?
The same thing we've been saying for 48 pages: you don't know what you're talking about and you won't prove that you do, and you keep saying the same things over and over again which amount to nothing more than your repeated wishful statements of belief with not one shred of proof.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 9:54:51 GMT -4
So are you saying that the treated sand I described would produce a cloud of dust when driven over? Would it be as dense as a cloud produced by driving down a dry dirt road on a hot day? Exactly how dense would it be?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 13, 2007 9:58:29 GMT -4
I say, please retract your claim that we are paid to debunk conspiracy claims and/or to spread disinformation. You already served a one-month suspension for failing to do so. Failure to do so this time will like result in your permanent banishment.
|
|