And just when we had him on the ropes! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

And just when we had him on the ropes! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Sure, but in my last post to that thread I brought up some points that Squirm has raised on ApolloHoax. Nothing, for example, prevents us from opening a new discussion on Apollo 1 issues, or Thomas Baron.

Honestly, weren't you tired of talking about James Bond?

I think we all were.

I would like to propose a new topic for discussion here: Jay (and the illustrious BA, if he so desires), what is the minimum evidence (type, amount) that would be required to convince you that in fact the Apollo landings were faked?

In short, I require evidence that meets an epistemological standard of falsifiability -- that is, evidence whose only possible explanation is that the landings were faked. This equates in practical terms to evidence of the hoax event, not merely affirmed consequents and circular reasoning.

See, most hoax arguments are centered around something about the missions which is thought to be fishy. Then a hypothesis is formulated which explains the fishiness as the product of a hoax. But no evidence of the hoax itself is ever presented. The "proof" for the hypothesis is the anomaly itself, which is consummately poor reasoning.

I would be compelled by the testimony of someone unmistakably associated in a public and prominent way with the Apollo project who admits explicitly that they were falsified or staged, has personal direct knowledge of the falsification, and has corroborating physical evidence for his story.

If this sounds like an inordinately high standard of proof, it's because the evidence in favor of Apollo being genuine is so monumental and comprehensive that it would take something equally extraordinary and unmistakable to tip the scales in the other direction.

Unscientific gibberish and supposedly mismatched shadow lengths just don't do it for me.

<a name="20020216.10:26"> page 20020216.10:26 aka Where?
On 2002-02-16 00:54, JayUtah wrote: To: 20020216
HUb' 10:28 A.M. by this time, having fallen of the pace
{PACANTI} far enough not to be able to catch up
without taking shortcut, i've gone to search
currently by date and their4 got here via29]Lunar Conspiracies[30]Locked Topic[31]odysseus01012002-02-15
-- press space for next page --[LINK]
oh my once again
29]Lunar Conspiracies[30]Locked Topic[31]odysseus01012002-02-15
-- press space for next page --[LINK]
and a new approach 4me? so you see
not 2shure just wher i've come down? maybe on the dark side

Are all his posts like that?

I don't know. I don't even know who or what HUb' is.

__________________
~AstroMike

Yep, pretty much. There are two main theories as to who (or what) HUB' is:

1) An AI program running on a computer at a university in the pacific northwest.

2) A visually impaired human using an ancient computer with a non-GUI interface (DOS?).

Take your pick. I lean toward #2. The more you read, the easier he is to understand.

Proofreading could save a lot of editing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-02-17 02:26 ]</font>

Have you tried BABB search yet? I think it's pretty good, so far. Seems quick enough, too bad we can't link to specific posts (of course, HUb' has found a way!)

<a name="20020217.7:24"> page 20020217.7:24 aka hub@hubert.rain.com
On 2002-02-17 00:12, AstroMike wrote: To: 9 AHAU 18 PAX
<a name="20020217.7:26"> LINE= 20020217.7:26
On 2002-02-17 00:07, Squirm wrote: To: 7:26 A.M.
Are all his posts like that?


I don't know. I don't even know who or what HUb' is.
7:27 A.M. HUb' I just "TRY" to reINtroduce the
"parameter" into the Equations, mostly so y=x becomes y=t, x=t; only in 3D not Two? No I don't understand it eithor

<a name="20020217.7:32"> page 20020217.7:32 aka "PARAMETER"
On 2002-02-17 09:00, HUb' wrote: To: HUb' 7:32 A.M.
.1 I have a 1.2 gig hard drive.
2: I can ony format it to 500 K bytes
3? I think the reason i cannot format it to 1.2
was because a low lovel format erased the
HARD DRIVE parameter? {although i donno}
any comments appriciated
yes even ill-revernt 1's

7:27 A.M. HUb' I just "TRY" to reINtroduce the
"parameter" into the Equations, mostly so y=x becomes y=t, x=t; only in 3D not Two? No I don't understand it eithor
& onto my 1.2 gig HD [clue ? INT 13 ? F8&9 ?]

Use Fdisk in DOS mode and remove the primary DOS partition. Then create a new one, enabling large capacity drives and make the partitian the maximum size. You will lose all info on this drive. Format the drive then hey presto. What OS are you using? The drive may only format to 500k because it is seriously corrupted. I've got a 60GB drive but it will only format to 58 or so.

Keep this on topic please.

I'll try, but we seem to have several discussions going at once here.

So, we aree that we had Squirm firmly on the run over the 'could be a whistle blow in 007'. And we've discussed that the amount of evidence required to prove the Moon Hoax has to be at least as compelling as the stuff that proves we did go. We've even tried to understand the nature of HUb', which is even more mysterious that the 007 stuff.
My 10c worth, if one of those proposed virtual rovers was sent to the Moon and couldn't find the leftover hardware from Apollo, I'd have to think again.

(Back on topic. Back on topic. Fire.)

Ok, johnwitts wrote this in the 'Locked Thread' (...ed ...ed ...ed (fading off into the distance))

"With this Diamonds are Forever thing, yes, it could be a whistle-blow. However, it's not very likely. James Bond films have always been a bit 'Minxy' in their approach. They tend to poke fun at current serious events. It's just the British sense of humour. I still regard James Bond films as comedy dramas, rather than serious pieces of theatrical genius. It's a big like all those seriously implausible gadgets, really cool, yet totally unbelievable. I suspect they are meant to be taken as seriously as Star Trek, or Indianna Jones."

Honestly John, didn't you know that all Star Trek tech is based on real science! The trekkies cultists have proof in 'The Physics of Star Trek' and the ST tech manuals! Star Trek is renowned for teaching people about science in it's show! Just look at the Voyager episode where they were caught in the singularity and Janeway and Be'lonna(sp?) led Voyager back out of the crack in the event horizon!

BTW, JMS (the Babylon 5 writer) must have been an insider on a BIG government hoax. Just look at the Crusade/X-files crossover episode "Visitors from Down the Street'. Defintely whistle blowing there on the whole alien/UFO thing. (I also liked the Grey in the court scene in "Grail", first season B5.)

The Lurker's Guide page on the episode
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countr...guide/015.html

The Lurker's Guide page on the "Visitors from Down the Street" episode
http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countr...guide/512.html

Kizarvexis
(This post is full of silly humor. Don't take it seriously [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

2 responses,
1.The moon lander scene was not in the book. Hence not likely a "whistle blow" from Ian Flemming.

2. <off topic> 1 GB is actually 1,024 Mb. Manufactures use 1000 as a Gb to up the GB size on the box. </off topic>

Sorry for the off topic it was a glaring question I HAD to answer. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Darasen
(note to self: Learn to type)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Darasen on 2002-02-21 23:37 ]</font>

Yeah, and 1Mb = 1024Kb and 1Kb = 1024 bytes.
So. 1Mb = 1,048,576 bytes
1Gb = 1,073,741,824 bytes

FWIW 1024 = 2^10

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

<a name="xyz"></a>
There comes a point where even if you're open to the possibility of a hoax, you start realizing that the promoters are grasping at straws and you start questioning your questioning. For example, I've seen a lot of stuff on the Kennedy conspiracy, some of which really makes me wonder. But I've also seen a lot of total rank speculation, to the point where just about everyone in the background of the Zapruder film is seen as suspicious (he's holding an umbrella, he must be giving a signal to someone), and dozens of disparate groups/people/organizations are all involved in a conspiracy. This goes too far for me. I may still have my suspicions, but they are overwhelmed by a sheer number of claims that makes seperating the solid evidence from rank speculation difficult at best. So I've raised the bar considerably, and I won't accept anything at face value until/unless it's proven beyond a doubt.

I see the same thing with the Apollo Hoax claims. Nitpick after nitpick, rank speculation, and complex motivations for supposedly simple things are the norm (This rock has a 'c' on it. It must be a fake rock!). I have no desire to wade through all this anymore (except for pleasure when it leads me to some interesting tidbit I never knew before [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]). So, like JayUtah, I won't accept any claim if it can be explained reasonably in a better way (The 'c' is actually a photographic contaminant). And even if I'm shown something of a conclusive nature, I think a single piece of evidence wouldn't be enough (depending on it's nature of course). The hoax claim goes against such a large body of evidence FOR the landings that I would need a preponderance of evidence or a REALLY large "smoking gun" to truly discount them. It may be enough to make me question, but I'm not going to accept ANY evidence uncritically and without looking at the big picture.

Well, enough of this on-topic stuff. let's get to the more interesting off-topic discussion. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I believe HUb' uses/runs on a Linux OS. Keep reading his posts and you'll start to see his communication style.

Yes, there is a way to link to your own posts, but you have to set it up ahead of time. When creating/editing your post, you can put an HTML target anchor line like this at the top: &lt;a name="xyz">&lt;/a> .
(using any character string you want). Then, when you want to link to it, you include the target at the end of the URL of the page: &lt;a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=607&forum=3#xyz>

Let's try it and see if I got it right:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...07&forum=3#xyz

If I did it right this link should go to the top of this post (Note, the actual target anchor is invisible).

_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it."

<font size="-1">(Nope, didn't get it right at first. Made a stupid mistake.)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-02-23 23:34 ]</font>

<a name="20020224.6:16"> page 20020224.6:16 aka Locked Threads
On 2002-02-23 23:17, David Hall wrote: To Eight's My guess
1: {looks like a 9 to me} oh well
2:I've already CON SEEDed {whats the point}
3:"YOU got it right" at least to me?
4:now back to the Locked Thread D`Bait
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10 Sure I espouse Locked thread
1: 4get this line though
2: Lovked threads are really great
3: So great there should be a
4: {um what the word }
5: Topic ? Forum ?
6: where nothing exists excapt Locked threads
7: {maybe 1 or two possibly three Messages Max}
8: oh well
9:
20 Speaking of the "THOUGHT POLICE"
1: yeah yeah don't get me started on
_________________2: 2inteleze
3arn? now why does that 2 appear out of
4:line 2me ? hmm.. anyway yeah the thought P
5: ok -tP's were thick 2day
6: I barely got in and had to HANG UP
7: once alreday on a lookup BA.
8: that BA as in BA BA BLACK SHEEP
9: have U any woll {hm Wool Whold Wold OLD}

<a name="20020225.5:21"> page 20020225.5:21 aka Par2
1:yep? pretty much cas in Time & Space by now
2:Soon though i'll attempt a PURE Parameter thread
3:exactly what that means i've no idea
4nly that i thing that there are more
5arameters that can be reintroduced
6:than just the TIME parameter.
7:
8:
9:
10i've no actuall ide of how to begin
1:so I began with HARD DRIVE parameters
2:as i've had a HD paramater problem that
3:i've not been able to solve
4:for those versed in the subVERSE lingo
5f DOS & hos i'll mention INT 13 Fun 9
6:not that i can explain this..
7:I cannot.I can not even explain Fun 8
8:
9: and tis shoulde be EASY
20
1:Anothe Parameter Question Lurks in
2:the far recesses of my memory
3:currently not frothing forth
4:however I know there are other
5arameters that can be adjusted
6:and mayhaps i'll remember those 2
7:sometime?
8:vaguely? is ther not a parameter table
9nce the boot process has been complete
30
1 But int 13 {in my opinion} Reads [in Fdisk]
2 something alreeady on the disk befor ForMAT
3 even occures. and if thats no there the defaults 2 ? 500

And that is what HUb' does, but it only works to link to HUb''s posts when he's done that, and you know about it. It'd be handier if you could do it for arbitrary posts.

That way, the board software (when it says, do you want to view your new post) could go to it directly also.

<a name="20020227.10:00"> page 20020227.10:00 AKA Gr#1
On 2002-02-25 07:37, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 6 OC 8 KAYAB
Its not that I oppose ANY flavor of LieNext
I do not. its JUST that 1 gigs just 2 much Bs
for me but heres BDS anyway {maybe}
bsd
and again?
http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/install-guide.html
But now 10:05 A.M. to cases. when JPG's are
posted as part of a post I {text only} just see [ININE] and know theres a picture there but dont see it. my bug points that I should be able to use D.oenload to download it if only the path were given as TEXT [darnit]