|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 4, 2007 15:48:51 GMT -4
At any rate, William Shatner played one of the biggest cultural icons in the US, Captain Kirk of Star Trek. And now he plays the current biggest cultural icon (at least in that character's own Mad Cow infested Republican mind ;D ) Denny Crane on Boston Legal: Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Nov 4, 2007 13:37:51 GMT -4
Lionking, are you a William Shatner fan too? If you are, that would seem to nail it.I don't know about him, but maybe I saw him in some movie. can't remember How can anyone not know about "The Bill"...? Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 21, 2007 6:18:20 GMT -4
First you disrespect Jay who is a noted and respected expert in the field, then you disrespect Canadians...?
hmmm... I really don' t think that is going to help you in your Quixotic quest to prove your misbegotten assumptions.
I hope you enjoy the rest of your short stay here...
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2007 20:09:18 GMT -4
...but he didn't translate the text you game him... Well, we don't know that. All we know is that he didn't post a translation. My point is that trying to verify where someone is from, or where they are claiming to be from, by having that person translate a word or a paragraph - especially in a forum such as this where we have no way to verify if HE/SHE is actually the person doing the translation - is almost as silly as what conspiromaniac is trying to do with his video analysis. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 18, 2007 18:57:22 GMT -4
If we speak to him in Russian, he could use Google to translate it. Yes, but if his responses must be translated into Russian by machine, they will not sound natural. I did not notice your test before, sorry. He's already been "tested", sort of... Back on page 2 I sent him a message which I translated to Russian using 2 different online translators. Since I wasn't sure if the Cyrillic text would show up properly on other browsers, I took screen caps of the translated text. I have also provided translations back to English from the respective translators. You have said that american were on the Moon, and you believe in this as in the god. Original English: "We believe this because there is a lot of easily verified evidence proving that Man went to the Moon as history shows. The evidence against it provided by those who do not believe it is easily disputed and scientifically and analytically proven wrong. We believe it because it would be impossible to keep the level of secrecy needed to prove the conspiracies. We believe it because, in the end, it is far easier to go to the Moon that it is to falsify it." AltaVista Babel Fish AltaVista Babel Fish Translation: "We believe to this because will be many easily confirmed proof proving that men it went to the moon in proportion to history it shows. Proof against it ensured with those they do not believe easily disputed both scientifically and analytically proven incorrectly. We believe to it because it is not possible to hold the level of secrecy necessary to prove konspiratsiyao. We believe to it because, at the end, far to legke to go to the moon that she must falsify it." Google Translation: "We believe this because it will be many easy podtverzhennogo evidence proving that a man went to the moon, as history shows. The evidence against him provided by those not believe easily challenged and analytically and scientifically proven wrong. We trust him because it would be impossible to keep the level of secrecy must prove konspiratsiyao. We trust him because, in the end, far from easy to go to the moon, that it has to falsify it." Google Google Translation: "We believe that this is because there are a lot of easy to verify evidence that people went to the moon, as history shows. The evidence against him, provided by those who do not think this is easily disputed and analytically and scientifically proven wrong. We believe that, because it would be impossible to maintain the level of secrecy it is necessary to prove conspiracy. We believe that because, after all, much easier to go to the moon, that falsify it." AltaVista Babel Fish Translation: "We consider that this because be much easy to verify the proofs that man went to the Moon, as history shows. Proofs against it, represented those, who do not think that this of easily questionable and scientifically and analytically they proved to be unjust. We consider that, since it was not possible to preserve the level of secrecy necessary to prove agreement. We consider, that since, after all, much more easily to pass to the Moon, what to falsify it." He apparently read it and at least understood as much of it as we understand of his translated posts: Many thanks. You have convinced me that I do not cost to change my translator. He such sh*t either as all rest translators. These automatic translators give the gibberish unconnected sense. If you have no at least initial preparation on language that deal hopeless. But I have caught the general sense of your text. Signifies, and you understand my. This gives confidence for me. You can see how the translations are fairly different in some areas from the original language and intent. Yet there was enough, I think, to get my point across. Unfortunately, none of that, nor ginnie's test will prove that he is from Russia. Also, IP addresses can be spoofed or changed through proxy servers.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 16, 2007 23:36:25 GMT -4
Video, which is pride of folk and NASA, you have declared unimproved! No, he is saying that the video you are basing your calculation on is not a good enough source to make reliable conclusions from. Even footage obtained from a NASA website may not be good enough because, for the most part, the video has been optimized for easy download. There are other ways to get high quality video files, from NASA and from other sources. But if you can't or won't use higher quality video to make your calculations, then your findings cannot be looked at as having any value. The person, who spent much time and money on this work, you have declared lazy! It is beautiful example of demagogies! Who are not lazy? This not lazy who blunt looks at screen and yells: "? we there were ?" with pail of popcorn and flask of coca-cola in hands?! I shall not pay half of its month salary for DVD disk! If you cherish honor of NASA, you will give me more qualitative variant this video. If you will not do this, it signifies you are simply bluff. But I shall work in any event, and you not will rejoice this. I promise! Then if you are not willing (or able) to get a better video source with which to make your calculations, you have to admit that your findings are not conclusive. When or if you get a better source video to use, then you can do a more accurate study. Saying that the Moon landings conclusively did not happen based on calculations done from a fuzzy, low quality video where you can't even see what you're measuring most of the time (the dust) is just ridiculous. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 14, 2007 4:20:49 GMT -4
After doing the back and forth translation that Ginnie did earlier using Google, I think that Google translates a bit better than Babel Fish. So here is the Google-ized version of my previous post: Мы считаем, что это потому что есть много легко проверить доказательств, что человек пошел на Луну, как показывает история. Доказательства против него, представленной теми, кто не думаю, что это легко спорной и научно и аналитически оказались неправы. Мы считаем, что, поскольку невозможно было бы сохранить уровень секретности необходимо доказать сговор. Мы считаем, что поскольку, в конце концов, гораздо легче перейти на Луну, что фальсифицировать его. Once again, if the text above did not come out right, try this: Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 14, 2007 4:06:30 GMT -4
You have said that american were on the Moon, and you believe in this as in the god. I hope this works... (translated to Russian using AltaVista Babel Fish)Мы верим этому потому что будет множество легко подтверженного доказательства доказывая что человек пошел к луне по мере того как история показывает. Доказательство против его обеспечило теми не верят легко оспорено и научно и аналитически доказано неправильно. Мы верим ему потому что было бы невозможно держать уровень засекреченности необходимо доказать конспирацияо. Мы верим ему потому что, в конце, далеко легке пойти к луне что она должна фальсифицировать ее. And in case the text did not come out right here in the post above: (English translation available upon request.)Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 11, 2007 17:28:18 GMT -4
Everybody say hello to our little friend greenmagoos from YouTube, who is lurking around here somewhere. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 4, 2007 3:20:00 GMT -4
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 4, 2007 2:58:50 GMT -4
Just watched it... was a good - and, of course, funny - interview. Gotta say that I was impressed that Colbert (well... the "Colbert" persona) showed Lovell a lot more respect , imo, than I have seen him show a lot of his other guests.
Definitely want to see "In The Shadow of the Moon" and hope it makes its way to Vancouver soon.
Question: who was it that sued Lovell? And was it strictly him involved or was it NASA and the other astronauts as well...? I'd known about the court case over the reading from Genesis on A8, but not the case that was mentioned here.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 4, 2007 1:19:03 GMT -4
It's on at 1130pm where I am... I'll hafta check it out tonight.....
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 3, 2007 2:14:19 GMT -4
Yes, but this picture has several fence posts that are visible clearly Yeah...heck with the track lights. It's the chain-link fence that first jumped out at me! What got me was this little known blooper pic that was taken as a test-exposure to make sure the lighting and shadows were right... they thought they had it hidden, but it was mysteriously e-mailed to me one day Cz edit: faded my logo into the foreground of the pic so that it can't be used by an overzealous HB who thinks they've found the latest incontrovertible proof
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 3, 2007 19:18:32 GMT -4
We stood by patiently with our cable releases at the ready, waiting for the Big Bang. And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Oct 3, 2007 15:09:46 GMT -4
Luxury. We had to rub two sticks together, and we had to whittle the sticks ourselves out of old mill wheel parts. Well of course we had it tough... we had to pound stones together for 4 hours just to get enough dust for one single flash, and then we had to wait for lightning to strike the rod attached to the flash pot.... Cz
|
|