|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 11, 2005 14:56:14 GMT -4
For people living in the U.S.: In the rest of the english speaking world, "boffin" is a slang noun referring to scientists.
For those of you living elsewhere: Here in the U.S., "boff" is a slang verb, as in, "I here Brad Pitt is boffin' Angelina Jolie, these days."
Either way, he would have had a tough time in middle school gym class! Fortunately for him, his first name may indicate that he's french.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Aug 12, 2005 4:38:17 GMT -4
Fortunately for him, his first name may indicate that he's french. Never let pronunciation stand in the way of a good pun.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 15, 2005 4:46:50 GMT -4
Trying to steer this thread back on topic, David Darling has altered his page on the VLT: www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/VLT.htmlIt no longer mentions number plates, but now says two metres resolution at Lunar distance. I think this scores one for apollohoax.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 15, 2005 11:44:14 GMT -4
Dr. Darlng, is a renowned astrophysicist with a PhD in Astronomy. I don't think he would make such comments off hand without knowing what the VLT is capable of doing. Dr Darling is prepared to correct his mistakes. It's a pity that this approach is not more common, particularly among the HB sites.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Aug 15, 2005 17:56:15 GMT -4
[ I consider the director of the VLT, whom I quoted above, as well as the quotes from Dr. West and Dr. Darling, far more credible than Wikipedia, an "encyclopedia" of dubious reliabilty where information can be edited by anybody on the internet. Seeing as how you hold these gentlemen in such high esteem, can we assume that if they would vouch for the authenticity of the Apollo missions, you would rethink your position?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 15, 2005 20:05:06 GMT -4
It states on Darlings site that it is 2m resolution at the near infrared wavelength (1 micron)...and is designed for seeing stars (very high brigtness and contrast), not solar system objects. I'm not expecting anything earthshattering if they point it at a lunar landing site...not what it was designed or optimized for.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2005 0:47:25 GMT -4
That's actually a good point. The diffraction principles that limit the optics of any instrument are based on the scenario of observing two points of light against an essentially black background such that the diffraction patterns thus produced would be clearly delineated. To observe instead details on a broad expanse of illuminated surface -- such as a planetary surface -- is a different situation. The contrast between adjacent bright and dark patches would not be sufficient to allow direct observation of the diffraction patterns. Thus the effective resolution would be much less for that kind of observation.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 17, 2005 1:25:25 GMT -4
Below, I've posted the email correspondence between myself and Dr. Darling. He was kind enough to modify his webpage on the VLT based in part on the information I forwarded to him from Dr. Boffin.
I've had several e-mails recently on this subject and will look into it. Please check back at my VLT page in a week or so.
Regards, David Darling[/i]
> Dr. Darling, > > I received a response to my inquiries regarding the VLT and Apollo > landing sites last week. I am forwarding it to you as it provided the > information I was looking for. > > Kindest regards, > > ...
Thank you for this,.... I may include some of these comments on my VLT page.
Best wishes, David[/i]
Certainly the best in their fields can be prone to errors or hyperbole, as Jay mentioned, and which I concede was the case in this instance. I think it serves as a lesson for all of us, regardless of where one stands on any of these issues, that information needs to be verified, whenever possible, from the source before making claims based on them.
I intend to verify claims for both arguments, if I'm able to, before using them as sources in my postings.
In my view, Dr. Darling has certainly proved to be a man of integrity by making the modifications to his webpage. So yes, his views, based on my own interactions with him, would hold considerable weight if I should have the opportunity to discuss the Apollo project with him. I don't see him having anything but an impartial view from what I have seen to date.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 17, 2005 3:09:18 GMT -4
In my view, Dr. Darling has certainly proved to be a man of integrity by making the modifications to his webpage. So yes, his views, based on my own interactions with him, would hold considerable weight if I should have the opportunity to discuss the Apollo project with him. I don't see him having anything but an impartial view from what I have seen to date. That's nice, as his page on Apollo: www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Apollo_Project.htmlgives a good summary of the project without a hint of a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 17, 2005 3:23:14 GMT -4
Certainly - I had already read his Apollo page. I would like his opinions through a one to one interaction, as relating to specific questions. That is different than reading his website, as we already know. Not that it would result in any changes, just that you get detailed responses to exact questions that are impossible any other way. Of course, I wouldn't presume to request he take his time on it out of the blue, just that it would be a great thing to be able to do. He doesn't know me from Adam and it was just meant as a wishful thought. It's like someone wanting to ask Neil Armstrong all about Apollo (from a HB or non NB position) - nice idea but not likely to happen. Not like Sibrel went about it, needless to say!
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 17, 2005 9:08:37 GMT -4
Turbonium, have you managed to find any bona fide expert who agrees that the moon landings were hoaxed?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 17, 2005 13:22:06 GMT -4
Honestly, I wouldn't be suprised if some well-known computer geek actually believed it. I just read some bit by a network guru about how "Intelligent Design" is real science, and it reminded me just how prone how such people are to believing really stupid things. I think it's because they are often intelligent, and are so used to being able to play with neat hardware and software, that they think (a) everything can be programmed or wired to work a certain way and (b) they've been able to move bits so well that they think they must know everything..
I propose a rule that computer/network/information gurus in general be immediately squirted with a hose any time they start blithering on trying to assert how the real world actually works. And I say that as someone who has spent plenty of time being a computer geek (in the aerospace world) for money.
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Aug 17, 2005 14:03:10 GMT -4
I`d like to second sts60s proposal though it wouldn`t only apply to such a small minority.I`ve often had the "pleasure" of dealing with people who have letters after their names and like to think of themselves as professionals.Most,though not all,in my humble but honest opinion,deserve a special seven letters behind their name beginning ( you may need to be from the U,K to get this bit) with W......You`ve got it....Wallies! I myself have these letters after my name,MOHR,member of human race.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 17, 2005 16:00:22 GMT -4
So far, no one has pointed out that telescope time is valuable and calibrating the instruments for this highly specialized observation is time-consuming. Is the reputable research organization that runs the VLT going to give time & resources to what is essentially a vanity project, instead of giving it to someone who writes a legitimate scientific research proposal?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 17, 2005 16:10:48 GMT -4
Maybe if a group of hoax believers pooled enough money together to buy time with the telescope they could settle this themselves.
|
|