|
Post by fiveonit on Nov 23, 2010 15:59:28 GMT -4
Can I also add that lemurs and monkeys, while both primates, are different? I apologize to any chimps I man have offended. Let me change that to ring-tailed lemur prosimians.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 23, 2010 17:36:11 GMT -4
Chimps aren't monkeys, either.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Nov 23, 2010 17:50:05 GMT -4
Chimps aren't monkeys, either. Then I'll switch my apology to Sock Monkeys.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 23, 2011 14:30:20 GMT -4
I've finally withdrawn from the David Icke forum. I PM'd a mod and asked for my account to be deactivated.
The level of discourse there is pretty low. Some interesting people post there but the 9/11 and Apollo hoax posters are uniformly ignorant of basic science, logical discourse and technology in general.
I invited people to discuss the moon landing and other technical issues here. I hope a few people manage to get away from the paranoid fear and ignorance prevalent (and ubiquitous) at DIF.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Mar 23, 2011 14:38:37 GMT -4
What was your username on the DI forums?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 23, 2011 14:41:56 GMT -4
uh, apollo gnomon
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Mar 23, 2011 21:49:55 GMT -4
I was following the threads you were posting to while you were there; I never joined as I really could not be bothered. There are some of the most stubborn, ignorant, morons I have ever come across using that forum. That Stelios fellow is a piece of work. He has no understanding of the most basic physics and is so adamant that he is right all the time when he is so unbelievably wrong it’s not funny.
Apollo I will give you full credit, your patience was super human, you always stuck to the facts, tried to educate, obviously to no avail, and despite the accusations to the contrary never got personal or rude.
I don’t blame you for pulling the pin. I would have ended up doing more harm than good because I tend to get a bit emotive with complete morons and I would just end up insulting them all the time.
The most frustrating comment that was made quite often was how we blindly take NASA’s word for it and don’t see the ‘big picture’ or do any serious research. They don’t seem to understand that we don’t actually taken anyone’s word for it but have researched the Apollo missions in detail and actually understand the reality of what was possible at the time.
Hopefully one or two of them come here and get a decent education, doubtful, I have seldom seen a conspiracy theorist acknowledge the possibility of the reality of the technology involved let alone admitting they are wrong .
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Mar 23, 2011 22:20:50 GMT -4
That Stelios fellow is a piece of work. He has no understanding of the most basic physics and is so adamant that he is right all the time when he is so unbelievably wrong it’s not funny. Sadlly, Alexis1111 is even worse. Have you seen his theory that communication of any kind through the Van Allen belts is impossible? And since that makes geostationary satellites also impossible he proposes they instead use a massive array of networked low earth orbit satellites. Never mind that it would take thousands of said satellites that nobody ever sees, nobody ever admits to having built or launched.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 24, 2011 10:33:26 GMT -4
I don't think people like that have any idea that satellites can be seen, or otherwise identified by us "normal" folks. Their "research" is all online, not real life.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 24, 2011 13:34:49 GMT -4
Which just gets me. We used to stargaze at ren faire; the old site was better for it. Less light pollution. And my boss would point out satellites all the time. He didn't even finish high school, and he knows more science than most HBs seem to.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 24, 2011 15:15:28 GMT -4
I don't think people like that have any idea that satellites can be seen, or otherwise identified by us "normal" folks. Their "research" is all online, not real life. Way back in the 1980s someone in rural Texas, I think, published a great picture in Aviation Week showing the whole lineup of geostationary communication satellites as fixed dots of light in his sky, on a background of dashed lines (the stars moving past them as the earth turned - his camera was stationary). I had already seen many LEO satellites but I hadn't realized that it was possible to see geostationary satellites so easily until that image. He probably had much darker skies in his part of the country than I did in northern NJ (or do now in southern CA). It would be fun to update that picture now that there's so much more up there. It should also reveal the spent satellites that have been moved to the "junkyard" orbit and satellites in GEO that have simply run out of fuel and gone into inclined and/or elliptical orbits.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 24, 2011 15:46:46 GMT -4
Their "research" is all online, not real life. I know what you mean, but there's nothing wrong with online research as long as you throw out the garbage. NASA has a huge amount of good stuff online at ntrs.nasa.gov, and so do most universities. Google Scholar is also pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Mar 24, 2011 16:04:00 GMT -4
...Google Scholar is also pretty good. Not as good as it was, it seems to be picking up loads of junk now..
|
|
|
Post by twik on Mar 24, 2011 17:30:03 GMT -4
The trouble with online research is that they can always explain something they don't agree with as "they" are spreading misinformation. "They" say there are geosynchronous satellites? Well, "they" are "known to be liars", so they don't need to be believed.
It's harder to argue with looking at the sky, and seeing something with their own eyes.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Mar 24, 2011 18:46:25 GMT -4
Well you know what happens to people so willfully ignorant of science of course, they get elected to the US Congress and start designing rockets...
|
|