Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[apollo_gnomon]

I move to declare this thread finished.

Second?

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by headlikearock

I'm surprised this hasn't garnered more interest, rather than a discussion of the OSI model and the different layers of TCP/IP, as interesting as that may be to computer nerds like me!

I'm interested

So, that would be a totally independent source verifying the LRO's imaging of Apollo landing sites. It appears we did land on the moon.

Seeing as we now have all the proof we need, and mandelbrot seems determined to discuss the structure and function of the internet and isostatic rebound and not the Apollo moon landings, I second a_g's motion.

[abaddon_ire]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

BTW, I have a Master's degree in Information Science, and studied along PhD students with a professor charged with granting proposals for the United States concerning research options on the latest techniques and algorithms for Information & Storage Retrieval.

Yes, I received the highest grade one can receive for that particular class, so, now, since you're not confronting a pizza delivery guy and anyone can verify my information, let the nasty posts come at me. They actually amuse me, and I look forward to reading them.

I doubt it. If you did, you would know that http is an application layer protocol, but you didn't. That's pretty basic.

[oooooooooo]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

LOL. I love it when a patronising poster unknowingly spouts complete bollocks as he attempts to lecture someone with the fruits of his ignorance - then gets completely owned by a poster who actually knows what he's talking about.

Hilarious.

yes, it is hilarious.
Great fun.

[king triad]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I move to declare this thread finished.

Second?

It's probably time since 71% don't believe what your spouting..

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

yes, it is hilarious.
Great fun.

You must be splitting your sides at mandelbrot's constant heaps of Fail, then.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by king triad

It's probably time since 71% don't believe what your spouting..

As opposed to 100% who don't believe your space commander bollocks.

[oooooooooo]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I move to declare this thread finished.

Second?

really ?
Are you saying "case closed.nothing to see here people. Move along now. Keep moving, dont look",

because of some very blurry blobs that are someones interpretation (an artists impression we used to call them back in the day).

Never had you down as a modern day book burner.
But i dont think threads are closed on the forum due to an outraged minority.

Oh well, you will be missed (if the guy holding that gun to your head lets you stop posting)

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

really ?
Are you saying "case closed.nothing to see here people. Move along now. Keep moving, dont look",

There's plenty to see, like rocks, gravity and on and on and on, but some people just don't have the ability to see past their own ignorance.

because of some very blurry blobs that are someones interpretation (an artists impression we used to call them back in the day).

The "blobs" that appear where the Apollo hardware and tracks should be, in every single picture of a landing site. Hmmm, in the real day they called people who can't see the obvious - blind or wilfully stubborn.

Never had you down as a modern day book burner.
But i dont think threads are closed on the forum due to an outraged minority.

Pish. Outraged? You and your psycho-babble.

Oh well, you will be missed (if the guy holding that gun to your head lets you stop posting)

Pathetic. The old "I must be right with my uninformed opinion, therefore people who really do know must be being coerced to refute the incessant bollocks" ploy huh

Debunking Hunchbacked's Claim that the Original LRO Images are Photoshopped - YouTube

Debunking Hunchbacked's Claim that the Original LRO Images are Photoshopped - YouTube

I move to oppose the motion to close this thread, on the grounds that it should be a monument to belief in the most stupidest hoax ever foisted on the world, though I doubt whether those with fixed belief systems, who regard themselves as "awake", will ever see this.

As for the minority, if we held a poll on a childrens forum as to the existence of Santa Claus, I'm sure we would get an equally inept result.

[oooooooooo]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

You must be splitting your sides at mandelbrot's constant heaps of Fail, then.

not really, i had other posters in mind.
I always find Brots posts informative.
(as i find most posts interesting whether from those fighting the good fight, or those protecting the heavily manipulated version of scripted history)
its all good.

Do you also believe the thread should be "closed" ?

Hidden away ?


Sounds like the onset of "space madness" to me.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

really ?
Are you saying "case closed.nothing to see here people. Move along now. Keep moving, dont look",

Nope, not at all what I'm saying. DIF has some of the worst thread topic discipline of any forum I've encountered. Because this is the "poll" thread I suppose we could keep it open for the general population to voice their opinions. The reason I think this thread is "done" is because you and Mandelbrot seem to have run out of steam on the current topics.

If you'd like to bump the megathread (actually, I think there are 2) back up or start another thread so we can keep the discussion more focused that would be helpful.

because of some very blurry blobs that are someones interpretation (an artists impression we used to call them back in the day).

Yeah, you go ahead and pretend that "blurry blobs" are the most important information we've presented. Nevermind the hundreds of posts discussing rocks, stars, the internal and external consistency of the entire photographic record and the volumes of scientific papers written based on the ALSEP data.

Never had you down as a modern day book burner.
But i dont think threads are closed on the forum due to an outraged minority.

Ha ha ha! Book burner indeed. As for outraged, no, I'm just bored with your lack of intelligent responses and Mandy's squishy inferential nonsense and off-topic microquibbling.

Also, it seems to me there are 4 or 5 of us arguing with 1.5 or 2 of you, so I don't consider myself in the "minority." Forum-wide there may be more "didn't go" believers than "yes they went" scientifically literate members, but DIF is in the minority on a larger scale.

Oh well, you will be missed (if the guy holding that gun to your head lets you stop posting)

I'm not going anywhere. You're boring so I don't respond to you very much. Do you read any of the other subfora? I do, and post on other subjects.

As for the gun to my head, that's actually in the hands of the Ballet mistress telling me to get back to the woodshop and finish some scenery instead of wasting time inside while I eat lunch. If I had a dollar for every time someone accuses me of being a paid perp or shill or something I could afford to get new blades for the table saw and miter saw.

[oooooooooo]

Originally Posted by truegroup

There's plenty to see, like rocks, gravity and on and on and on, but some people just don't have the ability to see past their own ignorance.



The "blobs" that appear where the Apollo hardware and tracks should be, in every single picture of a landing site. Hmmm, in the real day they called people who can't see the obvious - blind or wilfully stubborn.



Pish. Outraged? You and your psycho-babble.



Pathetic. The old "I must be right with my uninformed opinion, therefore people who really do know must be being coerced to refute the incessant bollocks" ploy huh

Debunking Hunchbacked's Claim that the Original LRO Images are Photoshopped - YouTube


I move to oppose the motion to close this thread, on the grounds that it should be a monument to belief in the most stupidest hoax ever foisted on the world, though I doubt whether those with fixed belief systems, who regard themselves as "awake", will ever see this.

As for the minority, if we held a poll on a childrens forum as to the existence of Santa Claus, I'm sure we would get an equally inept result.

"there is plenty to see"
then why try to bury it ?

People see what they wont to see within the "ink blots",

"pish, outraged"
then why suggest closing the thread ?
For what purpose ?
For what reason ?

"photo shopped" who said that then ?
You ?

The poll is not about santa, rather "did men walk on the moon in 1969", and all information for and against is held within this thread.
People have read it and formed an opinion.
Even after all your barrel scraping the vast majority are not having it.

Nothing wrong with been in the minority.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by abaddon_ire

I doubt it. If you did, you would know that http is an application layer protocol, but you didn't. That's pretty basic.

Yes. It's one of the application layers and the most common one used today, and it sits on top of the architecture. This is what I stated, and the quote isn't going anywhere:

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

The Internet is the communication between computers. The architecture uses the World Wide Web as its language, which sit on top of the architecture, and the data tranfer protocol for the World Wide Web is Hypertext Transfer/Transport Protocol.

A simple search would have revealed the following:

HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) - The standard language that computers connected to the World Wide Web use to communicate with each other.

http://www.getnetwise.org/glossary

Furthermore ...

Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the main access protocol of the World Wide Web, but it is only one of the hundreds of communication protocols used on the Internet. Web services also use HTTP to allow software systems to communicate in order to share and exchange business logic and data.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

And this relates directly to what I already explained to you:

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

In other words, there are no such thing as an Internet search engines, instead, these are World Wide Web search engines. The Internet, as I already stated is simply the communication computers have with one another - well - a bit more than that - but we'll try to simplify, since you're obviously using incorrect terminology. Plainly put, the Internet is a "global connection" of Networks.

Before the World Wide Web became popular, one would use FTP to access the Net using things like gopher and Archie. This was before the days of Graphic User Interface (GUI).

Since the World Wide Web search engine crawlers follow the hypertext documents on a page, what we use today is Hypertext Transfer/Transport Protocol. Note, a protocol becomes a standard, thus the OSI is seeking to standardize the communication to move beyond a protocol.

The application layers are referred in identifying one of the levels of the architecture, and the HTTP is just one among others in the application layer that sits on top of that architecture.

1. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the main access protocol of the World Wide Web

2. HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) - The standard language that computers connected to the World Wide Web use to communicate with each other.

3. HTTP is just one application layer that sits on top of the architecture, but it is one of the most commonly used today.

4. It shares the spot with the following: HTTP FTP Telnet Finger SSH DNS POP3/IMAP SMTP Gopher BGP Time/NTP Whois TACACS+ SSL



Me thinks you obfuscate and convolute the discussion a bit too much.

[mandelbrot]

Ah, but you just never know when to put it to rest.

Originally Posted by abaddon_ire

Completely unsupported pseudo-scientific babble.

Really? Journal Impact Factors, citation impact factors, and the new publishing venue called Open Access Journals are all "pseudo-scientific babble?"

http://www.sciencegateway.org/impact/

Journal Impact Factor is from Journal Citation Report (JCR), a product of Thomson ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). JCR provides quantitative tools for evaluating journals. The impact factor is one of these; it is a measure of the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a given period of time.

The impact factor for a journal is calculated based on a three-year period, and can be considered to be the average number of times published papers are cited up to two years after publication. For example, the impact factor 2012 for a journal would be calculated as follows:

A = the number of times articles published in 2010-2011 were cited in indexed journals during 2012

B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published in 2010-2011

impact factor 2012 = A/B

(note that the impact factor 2011 will be actually published in 2012, because it could not be calculated until all of the 2011 publications had been received. Impact factor 2012 will be published in 2013)

Huh? You must have had a very creative education.

[apollo_gnomon]

^^^ That's the off-topic microquibbling I was mentioning earlier, and THAT suggests the topic of moon landings is no longer interesting to Mandelbrot.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

"there is plenty to see"
then why try to bury it ?

Bury what? Your inane drivel, your consistent inability to respond to actual Apollo evidence?

Case in point.....

People see what they wont to see within the "ink blots",

As I said, HB blindness. Laughably we now have 3 theories to LROC pictures.

1. They are the Apollo landing sites.
2. Somehow, somebody has managed to edit the original raw data from a ka band transmission and fooled the ASU team.
3. The ASU team and other independent people such as gonetoplaid are incompetent and are just seeing blobs and tracks in exactly the same spot as the Apollo hardware and tracks.

Hahahahaha, you HBs, you are just so full of it.

"photo shopped" who said that then ?
You ?

Ok, so you are going with option 3 above then? How stupid?

The poll is not about santa, rather "did men walk on the moon in 1969", and all information for and against is held within this thread.

Not even remotely. The information is predominantly held in the ALSJ with hundreds of thousands of documents, reports, pictures, video, rock analyses etc. Not in this piddly little thread.

People have read it and formed an opinion.

Extremely doubtful. Most have never even gone near a site explaining all the crapola foisted by HBs, let alone read this entire thread. Fixed opinions don't require more information to refute them.

Even after all your barrel scraping the vast majority are not having it.

Copying my assessment of you and MBs "efforts", you can't even offer an original comment.

Nothing wrong with been in the minority.

Being not been (normally wouldn't say anything, but you keep doing it)

The minority here, amounts to nothing. Try the poll at apollohoax/baut/jref - you'd get a massive opposite majority.

People who examine the evidence, look at the hoax claims and make an informed opinion are few and far between on this forum, why would anybody expect anything else.

[philthy53]

I've brought this pointless poll up earlier with good ole Stelios. On this forum there could have never been any other result than the majority saying men have never landed on the moon. The posters here are not by any stretch or the imagination a cross section of the population. This is "Conspires Believer Central."

And before you ask why I'm here, I'm here because you HB'rs are just so darn funny. Just a couple of the funnier ones:

1. Apollo couldn't carry enough fuel to fire the rockets all the way to the moon and back.

2. Rockets have rudders.

Truly funny stuff.

Phil

[fiveonit]

Originally Posted by abaddon_ire

If mandelbrot wants to argue information theory, bring it on. I will bury him.

AMEN! I hold three separate degrees in Information Systems, all with perfect 4.0 GPAs. I was debating whether or not to respond to some of Mr P-n-P's previous Internet "Pearls of Wisdom", but sometimes its better (and more entertaining) to let a fool be a fool. It's great for comic relief.

[abaddon_ire]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Yes. It's one of the application layers and the most common one used today, and it sits on top of the architecture. This is what I stated, and the quote isn't going anywhere:



A simple search would have revealed the following:



Furthermore ...



And this relates directly to what I already explained to you:



The application layers are referred in identifying one of the levels of the architecture, and the HTTP is just one among others in the application layer that sits on top of that architecture.

1. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the main access protocol of the World Wide Web

2. HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) - The standard language that computers connected to the World Wide Web use to communicate with each other.

3. HTTP is just one application layer that sits on top of the architecture, but it is one of the most commonly used today.

4. It shares the spot with the following: HTTP FTP Telnet Finger SSH DNS POP3/IMAP SMTP Gopher BGP Time/NTP Whois TACACS+ SSL



Me thinks you obfuscate and convolute the discussion a bit too much.

Ah, I see you found the online equivalent of "TCP/IP for Dummies"
Specifically, this page.
Ain't Google great.

TCP, UDP, DCCP, SCTP, RSVP, et al. all rightly belong in the transport layer, without which the likes of Application layer protocols such as
DHCP, DHCPv6, DNS, FTP, HTTP, IMAP, IRC, LDAP, MGCP, NNTP, NTP, POP, RPC, RTP, RTSP, SIP, SMTP, SNMP, SOCKS, SSH, Telnet, TLS/SSL, XMPP et al would be unable to function.

[abaddon_ire]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

The application layers are referred in identifying one of the levels of the architecture, and the HTTP is just one among others in the application layer that sits on top of that architecture.

1. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is the main access protocol of the World Wide Web

By what measure?
Frequency of use?
Volume of data transferred?
Other?

What?

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

2. HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) - The standard language that computers connected to the World Wide Web use to communicate with each other.

http is a protocol, not a language. Surely you understand the distinction, yes?

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

3. HTTP is just one application layer that sits on top of the architecture, but it is one of the most commonly used today.

My point exactly. http is a mere protocol, sitting on the shoulders of giants.
ETA: You do realise that other communications are going on under the hood, as it were, yes?
Not using http as their protocol, yes?
Eg. Windows updates, what protocol do they use?
DNS, what protocol does it use? (Yes,I know it is a hook for the fish)

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

4. It shares the spot with the following: HTTP FTP Telnet Finger SSH DNS POP3/IMAP SMTP Gopher BGP Time/NTP Whois TACACS+ SSL

All of which fall over without TCP.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Me thinks you obfuscate and convolute the discussion a bit too much.

Methinks you have no idea.

If I hand you a TCP raw packet, do you think you could decode it?

ETA2: I almost forgot, what about all that UDP traffic I see on my trace software?