|
Post by tomblvd on May 7, 2010 11:34:04 GMT -4
Anybody recall that discussion? Plautus Satire It's all flooding back to me now. He once spent at least a week on Wikipedia in an edit war over whether "Osama" bin Laden should be spelt "Usama". You just don't see those colorful, psychotic HBs anymore.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 7, 2010 11:30:19 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 7, 2010 11:25:50 GMT -4
Anybody recall that discussion? The Plautus Satire thread? BINGO! That thread was up there with some of the early Clyde Lewis threads. Why did I know it would be you to remember Jay?
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 7, 2010 6:13:15 GMT -4
And therein lies the problem. This guy sees the term "atmosphere", and makes the comparison to Earth, even though it is 100 trillionth of Earth's. But he's incapable of understanding how different the two really are. Some of us here debated a guy a good few years back on, I believe, a Yahoo forum and he made the mistake of claiming sound waves could travel in space. (No, I cannot for the life of me recall what the genesis of the discussion was). After being called on such a basic mistake, he then spent page after page arguing that space wasn't a "pure" vacuum, but filled with plasma. So sound waves had the media to travel thru. We tried over and over to demonstrate that the number of molecules of plasma in a cubic meter of space was next to nothing, so the sound waves couldn't propagate. But it didn't matter. He had his life preserver, and he clung to it for hundreds of posts. I couldn't bring myself to read or use the word "plasma" for months after that. Anybody recall that discussion? Did you post the correct link? Link to what?
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 21:43:50 GMT -4
The moon does have an atmosphere. Not much of one though... And therein lies the problem. This guy sees the term "atmosphere", and makes the comparison to Earth, even though it is 100 trillionth of Earth's. But he's incapable of understanding how different the two really are. Some of us here debated a guy a good few years back on, I believe, a Yahoo forum and he made the mistake of claiming sound waves could travel in space. (No, I cannot for the life of me recall what the genesis of the discussion was). After being called on such a basic mistake, he then spent page after page arguing that space wasn't a "pure" vacuum, but filled with plasma. So sound waves had the media to travel thru. We tried over and over to demonstrate that the number of molecules of plasma in a cubic meter of space was next to nothing, so the sound waves couldn't propagate. But it didn't matter. He had his life preserver, and he clung to it for hundreds of posts. I couldn't bring myself to read or use the word "plasma" for months after that. Anybody recall that discussion?
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 20:32:39 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 6, 2010 10:33:24 GMT -4
I've only found one account of observations of the impact plume, but there is no mention of any analysis of the chemical content, just the physical size. www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Smart1/#DustI think that SMART 1 gained its information on lunar chemistry from on-board instruments before the impact. Thanks, that's about what I read also. Chalk up another Sibrel lie.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 5, 2010 21:09:29 GMT -4
If I'm sending this in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll (as I usually do) shut up. But there is an identical thread on the ATS board started by the same guy. It has, of course, taken on a life of its own and here we are, 31 pages and hundreds of posts along, I see this quote: "In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts." It comes from Bart Sibrel's FAQ. I've seen absolutely nothing about this. Does anybody know anything about it? And as I said, it really means little, because you would expect different types of rock in different areas of the moon, and one report I read said it may have impacted a ridgeline. But the quote is obviously a bastardization of something, and I'd like to see what. www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg31#pid8738036You should look around, lots of woo for everyone.....
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 5, 2010 13:49:34 GMT -4
Can anybody remember the amazing diagrams done by one of the posters either here or BA demonstrating the launch trajectory of one of the Apollo missions as related to the VA belts? That would be Bob B.'s Apollo 11 Translunar Trajectory page. Excellent, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 5, 2010 11:00:58 GMT -4
Since my last post is appearently being ignored, I guess the answer to this question... Is anyone here "getting" this? ...is no. I guess that I was in error to think that "like minded" individuals posted to this board...bottom line is I don't belong here. This will be my last post. Don't let a disagreement like that chase you away. It isn't worth it. Heck, I was just lumped in with creationists and homophobes (ironic because my BS was Biology and have a gay sister ), just because I don't accept the gloom-and -doom of AGW. There will be disagreements. Ignore them and move on.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on May 5, 2010 10:55:48 GMT -4
Can anybody remember the amazing diagrams done by one of the posters either here or BA demonstrating the launch trajectory of one of the Apollo missions as related to the VA belts?
The were very well done and demonstrated how the flights avioded the majority of the belts.
If anyone could point me to those, that would be great.
TIA
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 27, 2009 13:42:28 GMT -4
<I>I'm not ignoring facts. You continue to miss the point. Baron was STILL gathering information. Newspapers were STILL giving him a platform. He was quoted as saying his work wasn't done. He MAY have been writing a book. You're hung up on the timeline, and its immaterial.</I>
No, the timeline is completely relevant. You are implying (no matter how hard you try to deny it) that he was killed to silence him. For that to be even remotely true, he would have been killed <I>BEFORE. he. testified. before. Congress.</I>
You're just grasping at straws now by saying he was "still investigating". If he hadn't come up with anything as an anonymous insider, there's no way he would find anything new as a well-known whistleblower.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 23, 2009 14:07:50 GMT -4
[/b]And once again gary, I ask, if he was viewed by someone as enough of a threat that he needed to be silenced, why wait until after he compiles 500 pages of evidence AND testifies before Congress? By that time it was too late.[/b] First, I'm not saying that Baron was silenced. But to answer your question, maybe Baron's enemies didn't know about the 500 page report until he mentioned it during his testimony. His death was a week later. Maybe said persons didn't act before he testified because they had read his 58-page report and knew it was a lot of nothing. Maybe he wasn't viewed as threat until he and Holmburg testified that Baron was gathering information from employees still working at the Cape.[/quote] You are completely ignoring the fact that they allowed him to testify before Congress. They knew he was going to do it, why not off him before he testifies? The timeline makes absolutely no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 18, 2009 18:44:59 GMT -4
And once again gary, I ask, if he was viewed by someone as enough of a threat that he needed to be silenced, why wait until after he compiles 500 pages of evidence AND testifies before Congress? By that time it was too late.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Nov 18, 2009 16:26:23 GMT -4
Point of clarification: Baron submitted his 500-page report to a Congressman, but it was supposedly returned unread. The committee had only perused his 58-page report, not the 500-page report. Baron asked to submit it and the committee pooh-pooh accepting it and printing it because of its size. It's unclear whether they accepted it as an exhibit or not. I don't believe they did. It's not part of the record. So if Baron didn't submit his report at that time, there was always a chance he could be recalled by the committee, or he could have been trying to turn the report into a book. Instead, Baron dies and the report disappears. No, I believe that the Comittee merely did not choose to include the report in the final findings. The fact that he submitted it, and it was available to anyone who wanted it confirms my point that if someone wanted to silence him, they would have done it BEFORE he testified. Why didn't they do it before he testified?
|
|