|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 05:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What is wrong with the Drudge report? It mostly links to news articles. Both sides of the political aisle leak information through him.
I am confused. |
It's been well documented that Drudge will, well, link to news articles that further a certain (*ahem*right-wing*ahem) agenda over others (e.g. here, for starters).
|
Apparently, you do not read the report; only reports about the report.
Not very skeptical. |
Actually, I used to read it all the time when I was younger. But since then, I've stopped being a sheep.  |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 06:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Just one example,
Drudge will report every single mention of anyone questioning Global Warming, and will only mention the most mainstream reports of info backing up GW.
I will say it is much better than it used to be as far as balance and is still sadly one of the better news sites on the web. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 07:02:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So, you think that the presentation of the earliest know galaxy is a political statement?
|
No, it was implied that information disseminated through the Drudge report was somehow bias in favor of the GOP. I was pointing out that this is not so. It turns out Drudge did have the correct information; before it was released elsewhere, that had nothing to do with politics.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 13:31:22 [Permalink]
|
Then, congratulate yourself for knowing something about astronomy before I knew it.
Do you understand the implications of the find? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 18:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Then, congratulate yourself for knowing something about astronomy before I knew it.
Do you understand the implications of the find?
|
No congratulations needed. I was only pointing something out that many here seem interested in.
It implies that we have telescopes that can see very far into the distance and the past; yet can not see the moon landers on the moon.
Seriously, this means that more data is collected that seems to correlate with the idea of an expanding universe.
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 19:52:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes? |
Uh, because telescope time is precious and expensive, and no one wants to waste it looking at something we already know is there?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes? |
Uh, because telescope time is precious and expensive, and no one wants to waste it looking at something we already know is there?
|
They would make a mint selling those photos. In fact it would be great propaganda for the space program.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:06:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes? |
Yes, here you go.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?
Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image. |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:17:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes? |
Yes, here you go.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?
Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image. |
|
We have cameras that can read a newspaper I am reading sitting on a park bench.
That explanation holds no water in relation to all the technology we currently have in space.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:22:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have cameras that can read a newspaper I am reading sitting on a park bench. |
From how far away? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:27:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have cameras that can read a newspaper I am reading sitting on a park bench.
That explanation holds no water in relation to all the technology we currently have in space. |
If by "cameras" you mean satellites, then their resolution is dependent on the fact they're orbiting the Earth. Are there any high-resolution satellites orbiting the moon? And if not, exactly which part of that "doesn't hold water?"
I swear, Jerome, I knew you were dense, but you believe in the moon hoax too? Or if not, is this just you being "provocative" again?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:29:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
We have cameras that can read a newspaper I am reading sitting on a park bench. |
From how far away?
|
So your argument is that that we can focus far far away and very close but not in between. Ever seen the picture from a land based sports camera of the moon?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by dv82matt
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
By the way, do you know why no pictures have been taken of the lunar landers from any telescopes? |
Yes, here you go.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?
Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image. |
|
We have cameras that can read a newspaper I am reading sitting on a park bench.
That explanation holds no water in relation to all the technology we currently have in space.
|
Oh. Gods. The Moon Landing Hoax.
So your argument is that our technology is too primitive to take us to the moon, yet it is so advanced that we could easily photograph the lunar landers from lunar orbit? Thus only a NASA conspiracy prevents us from seeing the landers (that are not there)?
Does that sum up your alleged thoughts?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/11/2007 20:40:46 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Here is a photo of mars taken by earth satellites
Mars is about 35 million miles away.
Keep in mind with only telescopes man saw canals on mars.
Here is a photo of earths moon from earth
The moon is about 1/4 of a million miles away
Are you telling me we can see from earth canals on Mars from 35 million miles away but we can not see the lunar lander from 1/4 of a million miles away. That is 140 times father that mars is than the moon.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 20:46:56 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner said:
So your argument is that our technology is too primitive to take us to the moon, yet it is so advanced that we could easily photograph the lunar landers from lunar orbit? Thus only a NASA conspiracy prevents us from seeing the landers (that are not there)?
Does that sum up your alleged thoughts? |
NO
NO
and NO!
Stop guessing what I think. Try to answer the question.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
ASTRONOMERS SPOT MOST DISTANT GALAXIES EVER SEEN!
