It's ridiculous but true, but I'd add a word. "That is clearly an INFINITESIMAL possibility" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
--Tommy

Since the physics of space travel are mostly Newtonian, we'd have to go back to the late 1600s and early 1700s and convince old Sir Isaac to fudge his masterwork.

Simplicity itself. You see, it all goes back to Roswell. We just used the temporal relocation devices we back engineered from the alien craft. That allowed us to see that JFK was going to give us a deadline we couldn't possibly meet, so we went back to see Newton, cajole him into fudging his work (he was part of the Illuminati, see, so it wasn't hard to convince him) so we could fake the moon landing.

See? It all adds up!

__________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
Argh!! They booby-trapped their sun!!****--Invader ZIM

So all those experiments we did in High School to work out and verify Newtonian Physics were all fake too? I always thought my Physics teachers were dodgy.

With time-travel capability NASA could have jumped ahead in time and selected dates for the flights that they knew were free of any solar particle events.

Me too. In my lab we found that ALL of the theories were fake. But the evil professors and lab assistents would not listen to us! They discounted our evidence on "improper" use of equipment, "sloppiness" in setting up the conditions, and "carelessness" in our measurements.

So what if we couldn't reproduce our results? That only PROVES that there are no consistent laws in this universe!
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

--Tommy

Actually, thinking about it, our Physics experiments almost never worked. Maybe Physics is wrong? Or was I too busy staring the a** of the girl who sat in front of me?

[whimsey](Wonder where she is now, and if she's still got a great a**?)[/whimsey]

<absolutely straight face>
Ah, but that would violate the Blinovich Limitation Effect. They could only go into the past.
</absolutely straight face>


_________________
Jeff Schwarz
__________________________________________________
I have Invader's blood marching through my veins
like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants
command me! Do not ignore my veins!
--Invader ZIM

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Geo3gh on 2002-07-22 19:12 ]</font>

"Hokey-Pokey is a troll, doo-dah, doo-dah"

(To the tune of 'Camptown Ladies')

LOL John! I know what you mean. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Come to think of it,at uni my lab experiments rarely worked correctly, and i also spent a fair amount of time um,seeing the sights. The war cry of the 1st year physics student seemed to be." Error bars, but if i draw those you cant see the result,they`re 3 times larger!"
Theres a trend developing (with the dodgy results and the staring, at least in the uk it seems)

As we all know, there is no proof that natural numbers - and the whole mathematics build on them - are really existing. Here comes Peano with his axioms. AXIOMS! Anyone with an open mind knows that an axiom is just another word for a lie no one can disprove.
Maybe two and two is five and O'Brien and my little son are smarter than I. I'm indoctrinated since more than three decades with this natural numbers/Peano BS. I'm narrow minded.

Harald - not in danger to go gaga

Maybe two and two is five

It is, for sufficiently small values of five.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Seems to me that sufficiently small values of five would only be achieved (in this instance) by adding sufficiently large values of two. {mode:1968} Cause and effect, man, cause and effect. {/mode:1968}

_________________
Cheers,

Loreto

(minor edit)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-07-23 12:17 ]</font>

If you talk to some 'o these accountants, CEOs, CFOs and what not, 2 + 2 = the Fifth...

"It's five Jim, but not as we know it..."

(clinton voice)It all depends on what the meaning of the word "five" is.(/clinton voice)

Well, I think 'and' and 'is' are much more items we should discuss in depth than 'two' and 'five'. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Harald

It may be a little late in the thread but I'm new. I was at Jack White's site. Doesn't look like you can even post unless you "donate" $20. Screw that! Bad Astronomy is free!

Also, congrats to JayUtah for the most comprehensive moon hoax debunking site on the net--and I've seen lots of sites.

Jack White's posts at JFK regarding Apollo are being discussed at http://www.apollohoax.com/forums courtesy of a fellow named 'eagle'.

The policies at JFK Research are draconian. You must pay for post access, or demonstrate that you are unable to pay. You must represent that you are a JFK researcher, and the administrator (Mr. Rich della Rosa) does not accept "posing" as a JFK researcher just to talk about Apollo. In short, Mr. della Rosa is not willing to ban Apollo discussion, but neither is he willing to accept it as a full-fledged topic.

In case it's not obvious, JFK Research is basically a platform for Jack White to ramble essentially unchallenged about whatever conspiratorial topic catches his fancy. Any serious challenge to Mr. White's conclusions is interpreted to fall under the forum's strict behavior guidelines. Since refuting many of Mr. White's conclusions involves pointing out that Mr. White doesn't seem to know much about Apollo, or the photographs taken during it, or photographic analysis in general, those are easily dismissed as a "personal attack", which is grounds for dismissal from the forum. The problem is that Mr. White's conclusions are characterized by his supporters as coming from an expert and eminent photographic analyst. If that is the case, then Mr. White's understanding of these topics is not only relevant, it's the only thing that's relevant.