|
Post by ollyonions on Apr 14, 2007 12:15:46 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 14, 2007 12:24:06 GMT -4
Heh, cute, and just as convincing as the real output of the conspiracists.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Apr 15, 2007 2:40:56 GMT -4
Did we just get spammed by someone promoting their own website who lcreated a usename the same as their website name? I generally don't check out such websites lest my computer get nasty plaugues/viruses
Pete
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 15, 2007 9:22:21 GMT -4
Did we just get spammed by someone promoting their own website who lcreated a usename the same as their website name? I generally don't check out such websites lest my computer get nasty plaugues/viruses Quite possibly, though if its spam its at least on topic as its a parody of the various HB arguments by applying them to the kiddies TV show " Lunar Jim". As to picking up nasties using an up to date copy of Firefox, a decent AV program and a firewall keeps them away quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Apr 15, 2007 17:27:56 GMT -4
I am also led to believe that Blogger run a fairly tight ship as far as the blogs they host is concerned, so there shouldn' t be anything nasty lurking beneath the toilet lid.
I particularly enjoyed the quote from Bill Kaysing, who can clearly add "Supernatural Being" to his supposed list of credits.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Apr 25, 2007 14:14:17 GMT -4
I would like to congratulate you all for proving me wrong, it would seem the clever people at various American aerospace engineering works (with the help of the Brits) did manage to produce and aircraft that could compare to the Harrier even if it was some 40 years after. This does not really prove anything does it? They could not do it in 1969 or 1979 or 1989 or 1999 could they? That seem a bit peculiar as they could make it to the moon but failed to build a successful VTOL until just recently? A round of applause for you all.
However I was right about Jays experiment and he still has failed to provide a satisfactory explanations to how the two different distance, density and amount of scaterers there would be at the poles compared to the equator.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 25, 2007 15:04:20 GMT -4
Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 25, 2007 16:13:16 GMT -4
I would like to congratulate you all for proving me wrong, it would seem the clever people at various American aerospace engineering works (with the help of the Brits) did manage to produce and aircraft that could compare to the Harrier even if it was some 40 years after. My those goalposts can certainly shift. You raised the Harrier in the context of hover control, and claimed it was too dangerous. Now that this has been shown to be rubbish, the Harrier is suddenly an example of the inability of the US aerospace industry to match their foreign competitors. Has it occurred to you that the reason that the US tried other VTOL concepts that were less successful than the Harrier was that Rolls-Royce already held the patents on the best concept? As to the abilities of the US aerospace industry, it might be significant that although the US had to import Harriers, the UK had to go to the US to get satellites launched.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 25, 2007 16:30:51 GMT -4
[...] This does not really prove anything does it? No, it doesn't. So why not go back to some relevant discussion instead of some shady side track.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 25, 2007 16:36:31 GMT -4
However I was right about Jays experiment and he still has failed to provide a satisfactory explanations to how the two different distance, density and amount of scaterers there would be at the poles compared to the equator.
No, you merely persist in your colossal ignorance of the experiment and of science in general.
The experiment in question is to align differently two otherwise identical receptors, one exactly normal to the solar influx and the other at some significantly different angle (say, 45 degrees). Then after each has come to equilibrium, measure the temperature.
If you perform that experiment with both receptors at the equator, and then again at the poles with both receptors, all the factors you cite will be controlled for. You will have effectively isolated the effect of angle of incidence upon the receptor and can faithfully correlate temperature to it.
I frankly don't care whether you consider that explanation "satisfactory." You have demonstrated almost complete and utter ignorance of how science works, so your judgment of what explanations satisfy scientific rigor don't matter at all. You have been instructed many times by many people. You have been given references to standard scientific works that illustrate the principles. You clearly prefer ignorance, and I will no longer indulge you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 25, 2007 17:31:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Apr 25, 2007 18:49:37 GMT -4
[As to the abilities of the US aerospace industry, it might be significant that although the US had to import Harriers, the UK had to go to the US to get satellites launched. Be fair, we only had to go to the US because we decided it was to cheaper, not because we couldn't do it. The UK launched the X3 Prospero satellite with a Black Arrow launcher in 1971. The Black Arrow programme had been cancelled BEFORE the first successful launch.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Apr 25, 2007 23:47:42 GMT -4
You have been given references to standard scientific works that illustrate the principles. You clearly prefer ignorance Interestingly, some HB's will even admit this preference for ignorance when cornered. I debated with one a few months ago (who had a tone and manner very similar to HeavenlyB btw), who freely admitted he preferred ignorance over knowledge. He followed with something to the effect of, "life's more interesting that way". I didn't really pay attention to what his followup comment was, because I was too busy picking my jaw up off the floor. BTW, if anyone has seen the movie "Slackers", let me know what you thought of it. I watched it last night and found it gave an eerily accurate portrayal of modern-day conspiracy theorists and how their minds work. If you can stay awake through the whole thing, it might give some a new insight into why CTs behave the way they do, and some of the common societal threads that bind them all together. The NASA CT in the movie had a slightly different take on things, but like most Apollo CTs, he didn't know when to clam up.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 25, 2007 23:57:02 GMT -4
Aw, but its fun to watch it beg and jump!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 26, 2007 0:01:35 GMT -4
I would like to congratulate you all for proving me wrong, it would seem the clever people at various American aerospace engineering works (with the help of the Brits) did manage to produce and aircraft that could compare to the Harrier even if it was some 40 years after. This does not really prove anything does it? Not in supporting your case, no. No comparison. Look up the budget for the Apollo program in today's dollars, as well as the task force hired to make it happen. Compare that to the investment in the new VTOL. No, you were not right. You're just living your own fantasy and applauding yourself. And you still failed to address my question to you. Want a repeat?
|
|