Remember watching a mythbusters episode on the reflectors
can you sum it up pls?
Just to be clear, that was my quote. I will sometimes interleave my comments in blue within someone else’s quote, but in this case I overlooked the fact that James often colors his own text, so it probably wasn’t obvious.
I don’t doubt they have the technology for a laser that powerful, but is it accessable and affordable to the average American citizen?
They put reflectors on the moon. Strike II against the conspiracy theorists!
You seem to have the story seriously confused.
They couldn’t really prove that either. Search for anything that reflects some light. Claim that is your probe … too easy.
Yeah, it’s easy, but that’s the way it is in science. You enumerate the possible results you might get in a given experiment. You single out the one which conforms to your hypothesis. If you get that result, you say your hypothesis is “supported”.
In the case of the reflector, you either get a reflection back or you don’t. If you get a reflection back, that supports the hypothesis that man has been to the moon (strike against the conspiracy theorists). If you don’t, that falsifies it (strike for the conspiracy theorists).
james
Lasers wont reflect off moon dust as far as i know. …but they could have fired a mirror up there a lot easier than actually landing there.
Sry if i got you wrong, we all have basis we try to support.
Your point has been centered on what people can prove for themselves. Average people cannot do any of that for themselves. Thus there is no point for or against the conspiracy theorists nor the conspirators.
That’s true for ordinary people. If they’re suspicious enough about conspiracies to require proof, then watching Myth Busters, or even going to an observatory and having a professional interpret the results for you, will hardly be enough–it’s the whole red tape that is our institutions, the medium between man and God, all over again.
But here in this thread, I’m just having a little fun. You post something in support of the conspiracy theorists, I count that as a strike in their favor. You post something against, then that’s a strike against.
You are discussing vampires and werewolves. You largely favor the vampires. I slightly favor the werewolves.
You become a vampire by becoming a part of the prophet making scheme (sharing in the blood of the vampires; Trump, Clinton, Bush,…). You become a werewolf by learning that there are vampires making unjust prophets (getting bitten by a werewolf; whistle-blowers, Snowden, Wier,…). The vampire doesn’t want to give up his cash-cow made in and of the darkness and the werewolf doesn’t want to have to live and suffer in the darkness. Shining a little pure light on it all kills one and calms the other.
You want to say that the vampire is innocent until proven guilty and the werewolf is guilty until proven innocent. I prefer saying that until you know, you don’t know and every one is suspect, especially the wealthy and powerful. I am far more concerned about a dishonest policeman with a gun than a dishonest hobo with no place to live. I am far, far more concerned with the wealthy and powerful proving that they are innocent than I am concerned about the poor and impotent proving that they are innocent.
I have seen way, way, way too many confirmed lies to not accept the werewolves’ stories as having conditional credibility. The vampires live on lies, but that doesn’t mean they are lying every time.
The only point in attempting to go to the Moon was to fund orbital domination, the “Star Wars”. Whether they ever really got to the Moon is a bit irrelevant. They managed to get 1000’s of networked surveillance satellites up there and weaponize them. Their goal was to get that done before the Russians did. So it’s all done now except for more funding for more control centers in orbit to house those who deserve better than to have to live on the surface of a dirty planet (up in the untouchable vampire’s palace). For sake of that funding, “it is imperative that we get to Mars and establish a base” (again who cares if they actually do that as long as they get the funding to keep developing orbital control centers - endless vampire supremacy).
wow… um… WOW! 
So I’m an evil blood sucking vampire, and you’re a werewolf fighting for good.
You basically just threw an insult at me. A long, drawn out, elaborate insult which you obviously put a lot of thought into.
All that because I said this:
And from that you concluded that I’m an evil vampire who wants to join the ranks of Trump, Clinton, Bush, etc. and build a space station in which me and my vampire clan can live and rule over all you poor oppressed werewolves. WOW!
Are you a part of their profit making scheme? If the shoe fits…
I merely said that you favor them, because you are always on their side in these conversations. You see the world as “us good guys and those conspiracy theorists”.
Actually, I was expecting you to merely deny it, not be insulted. But in a way, I guess it is good that you see it as an insult. Think of all the insults that you have been throwing at the conspiracy theorists (who turn out to have been basically right more often than not).
There are two sides of bad, not merely those other guys.
I don’t remember once ever “being on their side” in any conversation. The closest I’ve come is to give them the benefit of the doubt because the context of the conversation was such that no proof had yet been given for any conspiracy theory. Doesn’t mean I was “on their side”, it just means I was serious about finding the truth as opposed to blindly believing some conspiracy theorist just because he says so.
The rest, you put in there.
You put that in there too, the underlined part. Do you not see how half of this is your own projections?
Yes, I am referring to the “conspiracy theorists” in this thread… because they exist. There are people who theorize that conspiracies occur… hence “conspiracy theorists”. If I want to talk about them, I need a label. I use “conspiracy theorist”.
I didn’t say anything about them being the bad guys, and I didn’t even say I wasn’t one of them. I tend to be a very suspicious and paranoid person myself, and I’m not so sure the Americans actually did land on the Moon (so I’m not sure which side I’d pick, if we’re picking sides at all).
Insults get thrown around these parts all the time–it’s part of the fun of playing here–so I don’t mind taking an insult now and then nor dishing one out.
But what I was trying to get at there is the manner in which it just came out of nowhere. It seemed to me that the conversation was going along quite well (along with our conversation in the thinking for yourself vs conforming thread), and I was beginning to think that maybe James and I can get along after all, and then you do this:
It strikes me as bewildering that you don’t recognize this as an example of needlessly injecting hostility into the conversation. You and I both agreed that discussions like this take a turn for the worst when one party perceives hostility coming from the other party. So I’m lead to believe that you either intend for hostility and don’t care (or relish) that the conversation degrades from that point on, or you honestly didn’t think that would come across as insulting, in which case you have some serious social skills to pick up. Given that you always whine and complain about how no one believes you, or that everyone dogmatically insists that they’re right and you’re wrong, or that we’re all conformists who are too afraid or stubborn or whatever to see the truth of your claims, etc., etc., etc., I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t realize how hostile you tend to be, but in that case, wake up!
As for the conspiracy theorists being right most of the time, that’s not something I’m in a position to agree with or disagree with. I haven’t seen the statistics. I don’t even know how you would gather the statistics (personally, I think conspiracy theories ought to be classified under “unfalsifiable claims,” along with psychoanalytic theory and paranormal studies, etc., seeing as how any proof you can get for or against it is often itself held to be suspect–paranoia is a bottomless pit). But more to the point, the crux of the insults I usually throw at conspiracy theorists is not that they are wrong, but that they (or the ones I’ve encountered) have wildly unrealistic expectations of what others should believe. A conspiracy is proposed to me, and I’m expected to simply agree with it because the person said so–no proof is offered, no evidence, no reasonable justifications, just “believe me or your a naïve conformist”. It’s annoying and insulting to the intelligence. One ought to understand that conspiracy theories are going to sound crazy at first, and that if one wants to convince others of their truth, calling them naïve or stupid or a communist or whatever at the first sign of skepticism is not the right way to proceed. Not only does it backfire but it confirms suspicions that the conspiracy theorist is unstable and prone to emotional thinking. If a conspiracy theorist were only but to exhibit a bit of humbleness and a willingness to humor a old neophyte like myself, I wouldn’t have nearly the same impetus to be insulting and contrarian.
What, vampires and werewolves, you mean? Sounds to me like you want to depict werewolves as the good guys and vampires as the only bad ones.
‘vampires and werewolves’ may be seen simply as an analogy, you don’t need to see it as hostile if e.g. We consider them as equally bad.
Though i don’t know how any of it helps us in our inquiry; to discover if the truth has been told concerning lunar missions and man into space generally.
I would like to know e.g. What the sun would look like if a photo of it was taken in space ~ if the existing ones have been doctored. Given that in space the earth’s atmosphere wont be magnifying the sun, it shouldn’t look the same size in space as it does from earth? the stars should look many times brighter and in many images they look dimmer? I watched a film of the shuttle go into space, and was surprised that even though the film specifically stated it was HD and thus should show stars more clearly, they were still very dim. originally the excuse for the lack of stars on lunar missions was due to the low resolution cameras ~ which I had accepted.
Dunno. What I do know is that we shouldn’t confuse the workings of the human eye with the workings of video cameras and other such technology. The stars may be bright for the human eye but maybe not for some piece of photo-sensitive equipment. Still though, I doubt that’s that case with most cameras.
Dunno. What I do know is that we shouldn’t confuse the workings of the human eye with the workings of video cameras and other such technology. The stars may be bright for the human eye but maybe not for some piece of photo-sensitive equipment. Still though, I doubt that’s that case with most cameras.
I filmed the stars at night on an old camcorder and noticed i couldn’t see any stars due to the then low resolution. I remember saying to my [ex]wife, that they must be right about old film and space missions. Then a year or two later i had a HD camera and i could see the stars on the recording. So now i am somewhat confused. 
Got this, but it says the sun is the same from earth’s orbit ~ roughly.
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/i … 111AApgGNC
The difference between seeing the Sun from the Earth’s surface and from space right next to the Earth is:
- From space, it is more intense, because there is no atmosphere to diffuse the light.
- It is smaller for the same reason. As the sunlight travels through the atmosphere (particularly the water vapor droplets), it gets knocked around a bit. the deeper into the atmosphere (sea level vs. mountaintop), the greater is the opportunity to diffuse.
400,000 miles.
πr²
238,900 miles to the Moon (although it seems that I said 250 million … oops).
Does that make a difference?
Actually, no. My calculations were based upon how much larger it must appear through the telescope vs how large it appears to the eye, not how far away it is. How far away is irrelevant.
Fucking Europeans and their kilometers.