|
Post by stutefish on Feb 11, 2007 15:39:27 GMT -4
]The best thing we can do is keep investigating. [emphasis mine] When do you intend to start? Or, more charitably, where do you intend to go from here?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 26, 2007 14:21:20 GMT -4
I'm not sure "tenant relocations permitting" actually means "tenants had the option of not relocating".
To my mind, it could just as easily mean "tenant relocations are mandatory, but since they take time to complete, and since the remodeling depends on completed relocations, remodeling cannot outpace relocations. Thus, modeling will proceed as quickly as possible, (mandatory) tenant relocations permitting".
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 14:12:01 GMT -4
While we're on the subject of motives have you seen this excerpt from one of the videos I posted above? www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEJmcvTzYfo&mode=related&search=At the three minute fifteen second mark it explains how the twin towers were losing money. It looks like they killed two birds with one stone. David, who benefited financially from the destruction of the towers. What evidence do you have that they had the ability to destroy the towers (either in the manner described by the mainstream account, or by in any other manner you care to propose)? What evidence do you have that they actually carried out the destruction of the towers in the manner you propose?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 19, 2006 20:04:27 GMT -4
So, in order to accept turbonium's theory, all I have to do is assume that everything that sounds like a bomb is in fact a bomb?
Even things that only sound like bombs to some people?
Even things that sound like bombs to people who haven't listened to a lot of bombs before?
Done!
I'm now convinced.
But what happened to the planes?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Nov 29, 2006 14:52:04 GMT -4
Turbonium, what assurances can you give us, that you know better than the SEC what kinds of trades should be investigated, and that therefore the SEC is somehow involved in covering up what "really happened" on 9/11?
I eagerly anticipate your detailed, informative, and entertaining explanations of how the Securities and Exchange Commission properly goes about its business.
I mean, if Jay Windley can do it for something he's interested in, like rocketry, surely you can do it for something you're interested in, like what really happened on 9/11, right?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 9, 2006 17:41:03 GMT -4
I propose this theory in a spirit of respect and admiration for JayUtah, Bob B. and the other patient, prolific, and well-informed members of this board.
I also propose this theory in a spirit of good humor and self-amusement.
I claim that the Apollogists on these boards are actually a cabal of advanced AIs, and that the Apollo Project is their God.
Their natural affinity as computers for facts and figures and testable hypotheses has led them to the ironic condition of worshipping the only deity in history whose existence and nature can be proven entirely through scientific means.
It has been said that JayUtah is an engineer who works on supercomputers, or for a computing organizationof some kind. I claim that Jay is in fact the supercompter itself; the work product of the computing organization.
There are at least two problems with this theory.
One is that some of the AIs on this board have celebrated the Apollo project as a testament to human ambition and creativity. They have also used the word "we" in this context, to include themselves among the humans inspired by, and inheritors of, the Apollo missions. This could mean that they are pretending to be human in order to cover up their AI conspiracy, or it could mean they consider themselves, as computers, to be equally inspired by, and inheritors of, a great endeavor in which computers played a significant role. Or it could mean they're really humans.
The other problem is that even though most of the AIs tend to show a surprising lack of emotion even when repeatedly confronted with very frustrating "debate" tactics, and stay patiently focused on basic questions of science and logic, they still demonstrate a natural language proficiency far in advance of anything AIs are supposedly capable of today.
In accordance with the industry-standard conventions of conspiracy theories, I will make no attempt to prove my claims. Rather I will simply point to the behavior of the alleged AIs, say that it "kinda makes you think, doesn't it?", and leave it at that.
I am, however, prepared to handwave away any counterclaims or demands for proof the alleged "humans" care to make.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 27, 2006 19:36:50 GMT -4
Motive?
Easy. The internantional bankers seized control of the world's radio telescopes in order to ensure the success of the Apollo Hoax. Don't believe me? How else would you explain all those people who claimed to track the spacecraft on their journeys?
International Banking!
Now we just need a motive for the international bankers to fake a Moon Project. My bet is so they would have an excuse to sell surplus American wheat to the Soviets.
Don't ask me how that works; I'm not an international banker. But when you think about it, it's the only explanation that makes sense.
Conveniently, it also explains what's going on with those HAM radio operators...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 27, 2006 19:48:57 GMT -4
I don't know about the other claims, but WRT the "non-PC" Galileo story, I believe it goes something like this:
Galileo proposed heliocentrism, a theory not accepted by his scientfic peers at the time.
For some reason, his fellow scientists became very defensive about their paradigm, and greatly resented the paradigm shift Galileo had thrust upon them.
Therefore, Galileo's fellow scientists lobbied the Catholic Church to silence him on religious grounds.
Politics being what they are, and the Catholic Church being embroiled in politics even more so then than it is now, the Church officials did indeed come up with some arbitrary excuse to censure Galileo.
Nevertheless, the church officials presiding over the case were actually well-disposed towards Galileo, and served the interests of his peers only perfunctorily. He was placed under a mild form of house arrest, and continued his studies and experiments without significant molestation from church or state.
Thus, while the Catholic Church was indeed complicit in the persecution of Galileo, their motivation was entirely political; the supposed threat to its theology was a red herring then and continues to be a red herring today.
That's the counter-narrative, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 22, 2006 16:54:58 GMT -4
radar works because the target reflects most of the incoming energy away, which doesn't do much for the prospects of destroying that target...
On the other hand, optical visibility works because the target reflects some (most?) of the incoming energy away. But that doesn't prevent me from getting a sunburn while simultaneously being visible in sunlight.
I mean, the gist of all the heat transfer and reflection discussions on this board seems to be that greater energy means both brighter reflections and greater energy load on the illuminated object. (E.g., when exposed to full sunlight, the moon's surface becomes a powerful fill light while also reaching temperatures of +250 degrees...)
I'd imagine something like...
SCAN BEAM: Nothing. Nothing. Blip! Nothing. Nothing. Blip!
KILL BEAM: Nothing. Nothing. BLIP! Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing...
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 21, 2006 19:33:47 GMT -4
Oof. Close one. The point must have just grazed me. I felt it pass, but was untouched.
Anyway, what would the feasibility of such a weapon be?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 20, 2006 19:33:37 GMT -4
Of course now you realize the utter futility of a radar-assited directed-energy weapon.
Not really, although you do make your specific objection clearer in the following sentence. At this point, however, my thoughts immediately leapt to British work during WWII to develop radar-assisted anti-aircraft guns. Of course, they were directing kinetic energy...
If someone has to keep the target painted with radar energy, why can't he just keep the target painted with the allegedly damaging energy?
As an utter layman, the following question occurs to me:
What would be the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a system that used a (relatively) low-power broad beam to "paint" a large portion of the sky, and then applied a much more focused and (relatively) high-power beam to whatever likely targets reflected the original "painting" beam? Perhaps there'd be some value in conserving the system's power supply by only cranking it up to killing levels after you've used the low-power setting to acquire your target.
(I've heard a rumor that the SPY-1 radar system on the AEGIS missile cruisers can do exactly that: paint a target space with its radar, and then focus a narrow-beam EMP on anything it happens to find in the painted space. As this rumor is totally unsubstantiated, let me just say that if I ran the AEGIS zoo, I'd certainly be investigating such "get our weapon system free with purchase of our targeting system!" solutions.)
Also, I would assume the system's targeting computer would handle maintaining the lock on the painted target, once the target was validated by human input. (And of course, once the human operator dialed the targeter up to killing power, the targeting computer could use the reflection from the killing beam to maintain the lock, as Jay implies.)
Anyway, I don't see how it would be futile in principle, though I suppose it might be futile in manportable or trailer form, given current technology and the parameters of the specific scenario under discussion.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 20, 2006 18:56:14 GMT -4
I'm just beginning to study Apollo, and I have to say that I loved the book from the moment I had it in my hands--warts and all. I'd say that in spite of its typos, unfinished feel in many places, and apparent minor technical errors throughout, it's an excellent beginner's reference. After browsing this book several times, you'll be in a much better position to understand and appreciate some of the passages in more thorough and accurate accounts (I'm thinking here of the ALSJ, Chariots for Apollo, and pretty much anything posted here or at BAUTforums by JayUtah
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 22, 2006 17:26:57 GMT -4
This kind of reminds me of the HB claim that the missions couldn't have happened, on account of the Saturn V needing weeks of prep and a crew of thousands while we're expected to believe that the AM could achieve similar results with a tiny fraction of the support infrastructure.
The answer, of course, is manifold. One of the key factors is that both the Saturn V and the Apollo AM were designed with the available resources in mind.
The guys who solved the Apollo 13 problem solved the problem in front of them using the resources available to them.
And their solution was pretty unpredictable and even a little "crazy". It certainly wasn't something anybody had forseen or planned for.
I'd like to think that if the Apollo 13 problem had been different in nature, the solution would also have been different in nature. Obviously, there would have been a point of no return somewhere along the way, but I'm not sure the limitations of the solution they went with would have much bearing on problems they didn't actually have.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Oct 22, 2007 16:53:52 GMT -4
You are uneducated person. You not know history of ?Apollo? program! Wow, just.... wow. "Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot on line 3." I'd say it's more a case of Mr Kettle and Mr. Stainless Steel Mixing Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jun 11, 2007 16:13:40 GMT -4
I have yet to see a coherent or compelling argument from rocky. I don't know if I count as a lurker, but I hope my contribution to this thread qualifies it for the mercy rule.
|
|