|
Post by alex04 on May 28, 2009 5:46:29 GMT -4
It is known that these areas are geologically unstable. So , the gradiant may have changed. Photos from the 1960's would be better to use. To erase all of the vegetations in a mountainscape, could they have possibly used SAR synthetic aperture radar? SAR shows no vegetation and would show up the same as rocks because the radar reflections are so similar. This is what I've heard from HBs. Inconceivable - i agree - maybe the landscapes have changed, and maybe a photo from the 60's would be more helpfull. Unfortunately, the pictures shown as they are, will not convince anyone - other than people who want to be convinced. If anyone still disagrees, i'd recommend (in fact encourage) they research the location (if possible), and search for some older photos. If i felt that strongly about it, that's what i'd do.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on May 26, 2009 17:13:33 GMT -4
Cheers Alex04 Wow. I'll can hardly wait to see the back peddling, goal post moving and possible 10 part Youtube expose by the HB camp on this one. Then again, we might be blessed with complete silence. Damning evidence like this seems to do that. But on second thoughts if I shut my eyes the both the Hadley mountain and the Hawaiian one do look identical. No probs, only took a minute or two. I just don't understand. These guys would rather argue (if you want to call it that) to death, then objectively test their own claims. Not worried about back-pedalling - to me, a discussion with a conspiracy theorist is a complete waste of time. If they want to believe their BS, that's fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on May 26, 2009 6:13:35 GMT -4
okay, they look similar. Hmm i think we've got a tabletop at the local motocross track that looks almost exactly like it too. Anyways, i did an overlay in Paintshoppro (try it yourself if you think i fudged it) - i used magic wand which accurately removed the black background, so i could paste it over the earth photo. It's deliberately placed slightly lower that the one on earth. While i admit it's quite similar looking overall when viewed separately, the gradients on the left side are clearly different. (edited to correct typo)
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 28, 2008 17:14:44 GMT -4
thanks guys.
I was actually sure i'd read an in-depth discussion on this, somewhere on this forum a while back - but searches have yielded no results.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 27, 2008 18:32:51 GMT -4
This may be a difficult one to answer,
but is there any way to gauge the difference in cost, between,
- having a mission to the moon back in the 1970s
- having a mission to the moon at present day
?
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 25, 2008 4:42:39 GMT -4
Always remember, the evil govt. shills will always triumph....
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 25, 2008 4:41:20 GMT -4
My employer has offered to pay for my university fees if i choose to study mechanical engineering. Part time, while working full time is a bit of a commitment, but I am giving this some serious thought at the moment!
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 24, 2008 7:42:14 GMT -4
"Gravitational Drag" Yes folks, apparently gravity has much the same effects as air resistance does. Don't believe me? There's someone on the IMDB board for Mythbusters who keeps insisting that the LRV should have been capable of speeds of up to 90 miles per hour because the lack of "gravitational drag" on the Moon. Basically, anything should be capable of traveling six times faster on the Moon because it has one-sixth the surface gravity of the Earth. The poster's name is "Jon_Death," and the board is here (you might have to register to read it, though): us.imdb.com/title/tt0383126/board/threads/tell the guy i think he's an absolute legend. So if i could land a lunar rover on an asteroid (with say, several thousanths of a G), hmm ... think of the theoretical speeds i could attain!
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Sept 24, 2008 7:32:36 GMT -4
We had to make two trips to bring him all his "essentials": LCD TV, PS3, Computer, Home Theater, Laptop, games, movies, CD's...oh, and some other stuff called clothing and bedding. ;Dlol - all the essentials i see
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 18, 2007 16:42:05 GMT -4
Thanks Jay, interesting.
It's definitely a well known site, every science forum i've been on refers to it whenever a moon hoax discussion comes up. I watched all of that show, it was good to see they gave the hoax believers time to express their opinions and explain their reasons.
I think the people who want to vent, simply go to youtube.com now haha
Out of curiosity, what research (specifically) did Sir Arthur ask of you? (if you don't mind me asking)
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 14, 2007 0:59:19 GMT -4
Jay,
was just curious to know what kind/ how many emails you receive at clavius.org?
I'm mainly interested to know how many hoax believers email you, maybe point out stuff they feel is incorrect? Or any attempts to try and 'debunk' your site?
Or even the range of emails in support?
People / organisations (of note) that have emailed you?
Just wondering, hope you don't mind me asking!
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 24, 2007 23:05:37 GMT -4
D How do you make someone gay? Proselytize, proselytize, proselytize--especially the young. . No offence, but as a heterosexual friend to many gay people, i feel qualified to say that this is the biggest load of BS i've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 11, 2007 4:32:21 GMT -4
to put my 2c in, i replied yes to the OP.
I couldn't particularly care less if gay couples marry, good on 'em if they want to. Other than religious issues (which i also don't care about), i can't for the life of me see what the problem is??
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Jul 11, 2007 7:27:55 GMT -4
I bit 3 bullets (no hits), but my understanding of 'god' is limited to my exposure of theology (which is quite limited itself) For instance - there are questions which ask stuff about the capabilities of god - how am i supposed to know what a god can and can't do? Is this a limitation of my understanding, or is it really the limitation of the likelihood of their being a god? (based on the contradictions of what a god can and can't do) Given how low i sit in the scheme of things, it would be clear that it's really just a limitation of my understanding. Unfortunately i've never heard anyone convincingly define what god is & isn't capable of - that doesn't bring up some form of contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by alex04 on Aug 29, 2007 6:19:04 GMT -4
just watched a part of it so far, loved the comment from Val McClatchey - pretty well much sums up the CT movement for me -
"I feel that some of these people have too much time on their hands, and they need to get a life"
|
|