Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh, don't worry, we'll get back to that, despite your implied attempt to have the thread closed.

Originally Posted by abaddon ire

Ain't Google great.

Depends. If one can recognize what constitutes an authority file, yes, I encourage people to use it, especially to fact check. Google Scholar is a handy tool for those that lack access to academic online databases, as Google Scholar will assist the researcher in seeing the number of times a peer reviewed paper has been cited.

However, be warned that a high rate of citation impact factors from journals with a High Impact Factors are sometimes dubious, because journals with the latter do not publish at a rate of volume as Open Access Journals, thus, often though the papers in journals with High Impact Factor are cited often, within just several months of publishing the information has been found to be dubious based off double-blind peer review follow up, or the testing of the data/research within those particular papers.

I take it you're not a fan of

Content farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On one hand, your team jumps up and down like children begging their parents in the mall for a new gadget or toy insisting on proof and verification, but when someone does source the information you then ridicule them for actually using the sources that are used to access any such information.

In fairness to Headlikearock, he actually sources good material to back up his claims. The rest of you litter this thread with smear and invective insults, and Apollo_gnomon has the temerity to accuse me of distracting from the topic of the thread.

What I'm stating recently on this topic is pertinent against the ad nauseam attack I receive for quote mining, even though I supply the links to what I quote, and sometime even the cited references.

Most of academic databases I currently have access to, pertains to whom I teach information literacy to, i.e., cardiovascular sonography, diagnostic sonography, and radiography students, but I do have access to some other academic online databases.

Would you next like to discuss how an online academic database differs from Web search engines, and how the former differentiates between a search producing high recall results, as opposed to relevancy results, and how these are measured for full text materials based upon relevancy to distance as opposed to angle within the points of 1 & 0 based upon indexing in a storage system - and how this relates to a search query and retrieving results for maintenance and fast retrieval of a particular research subject.

Hint:

1. The academic online databases can often access the World Wide Web, but not vice versa.

2. Any researcher using such a system to increase relevancy for a particular search query, will not reply, as was suggested on this topic, and I paraphrase: "I don't know remember if those are my words or not."

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Oh, don't worry, we'll get back to that, despite your implied attempt to have the thread closed.

With more quote mined crap, and ignored rebuttals.

On one hand, your team jumps up and down like children begging their parents in the mall for a new gadget or toy insisting on proof and verification, but when someone does source the information you then ridicule them for actually using the sources that are used to access any such information.

Your references are from people and organisations that totally dispute your quote mined conclusion.

In fairness to Headlikearock, he actually sources good material to back up his claims. The rest of you litter this thread with smear and invective insults, and Apollo_gnomon has the temerity to accuse me of distracting from the topic of the thread.

This whole off topic crap is as a result of you running off into the wilderness with an assumption made from a simple statement. Here we are 2 pages later and you are just waving your arms around and ignoring points showing your general ignorance.

What I'm stating recently on this topic is pertinent against the ad nauseam attack I receive for quote mining, even though I supply the links to what I quote, and sometime even the cited references.

Supplying links, then taking small excerpts and underlining them, ignoring other parts that make your interpretation wrong.

That is called quote mining

Any researcher using such a system to increase relevancy for a particular search query, will not reply, as was suggested on this topic, and I paraphrase: "I don't know remember if those are my words or not."

More bullshit. Are you suggesting I made up the contact? Or that the person doesn't know their own work?

The reply was made after a few minutes from a Blackberry. The report was submitted in 2009 and was co-written by Larry Bell and Olga Bannova

"I certainly never suggested that Apollo wasn't possible or that enough hadn't been done to protect the LM relative to avoidable micrometeroid risks which were small. Actually, I don't remember writing those particular passages...but if they are mine, would only mean that those risks, however small, would increase (slightly) for 2 reasons. The larger modules would present bigger targets, and their longer residencies would extend risk probability. There's nothing very remarkable about either of those assumptions. As for damage assessments, bigger rocks make bigger impacts, but at hypervelocities, even tiny ones can make for a very bad day."

The irony is not lost, that this was YOUR quote mined evidence for the opposite of what the writer says. Critical quacking by you as usual

[apollo_gnomon]

I officially withdraw my suggestion that the thread be closed. Obviously, mandelbrot has more to say on this off topic topic.

But I don't see much point to the thread.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by abaddon_ire

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

All a protocol means is that it adheres to a set of rigid rules and structures that are needed, in this case, for computers to communicate with each other. The next step is to have the protocol "standardized," which is what the OSI is/was setting out to do.

In other words, humans can communicate using language and understand each other without following strict rules of grammar. No wonder you don't want me to source and cite this material, because it is exposing your obfuscation. I suggest you look up "common language protocol" in a Web search engine, especially as it relates to how first responder units want to incorporate it.

However, your search will probably rely on retreiving Hypertext Markup Language pages transmitted to you by the Web using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which is part of the TCP/IP suite of protocols.

In the same sense, a lawyer will hire linguists to interpret and help edit legal material, due to the fact that a misplaced comma can change the entire meaning of any said legal document, or, at least the sentence of such a document. So, yes, language in this case, would be a protocol or seek a standardization of grammar for any said legal document.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

I officially withdraw my suggestion that the thread be closed. Obviously, mandelbrot has more to say on this off topic topic.

But I don't see much point to the thread.

Translation: Apollo_gnomon wants abbadon_ire to have the last word.

Since when are you the one to decide these matters, or, at the very least place it in such a one sided proposition?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

More bullshit. Are you suggesting I made up the contact?

Nope. I'm suggesting that if said person did make that statement, I wonder how he compiles and indexes his research, and how he works with another person's research in producing the paper.

Originally Posted by truegroup

Or that the person doesn't know their own work?

You tell me (viz), "I don't remember writing those particular passages...but if they are mine, would only mean that those risks, however small, would increase (slightly) for 2 reasons."

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Well, it seems your bafflingly vague meanderings have arrived at the conclusion - the data processing involved in conversion has been cocked up or they don't know what they are doing. Comedian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ

Gonetoplaid has taken the same raw data and arrived at the same thing, albeit with different adjustments to colour and contrast etc. The bits, shadows, tracks, all in the same place, just where Apollo landed and where the astronauts travelled. On the Moon.

Now, a critical thinker would say that it was game set and match for the people who do this - as against any HB who plucks his theories from the biased uninformed place where the Sun doesn't illuminate

All this off topic shit is deliberately covering up posts.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Nope. I'm suggesting that if said person did make that statement, I wonder how he compiles and indexes his research, and how he works with another person's research in producing the paper.

He co-wrote it 3 years ago and answered me quickly on a Blackberry. I suggest he doesn't always refer to his compilations and indexing when answering emails on his phone. Duuuhhh.

THE POINT - if you are remotely able to see it?! He contradicted the conclusion you quote mined and clarified how you were completely wrong

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Huh? Publish on the Web? You don't publish on the World Wide Web.

Utter fail. So wrong it hurt my forehead

http://www.netmechanic.com/news/vol5/beginner_no24.htm
http://www.webhostingsearch.com/arti...ur-website.php
http://www.wysiwygwebbuilder.com/publish.html

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

An Internet site is uploaded to a server, and all words, images, and hyperlinks therein provided, and a hypertext link might come in the form of accessing a PDF file.

Yeah, that would be the publishing bit. Hahahahaha.

http://www.washington.edu/itconnect/web/publishing/
http://www.beginnersguidetohtml.com/...-is-publishing

"When we publish web pages what we are basically doing is putting our HTML files onto a computer that can be accessed by anybody. These computers are known as web servers. The name server comes from the fact that these computers are designed to do one thing - serve up web pages to their visitors."


Got anything to say about this one? Just a simple "I was wrong" will suffice. Really, I'll never mention it again.

[mandelbrot]

Speaking of comedy in the sense that you constantly insult your fellow posters' intelligence, I would like you to explain what difference this would make it placing arrows next to dots and supposed tracks on the moon that could easily adhere to the studio mock up?

Or what information have you vetted to know that this is the actual route and track of the said Apollo missions?

Originally Posted by truegroup

The bits, shadows, tracks, all in the same place, just where Apollo landed and where the astronauts travelled. On the Moon.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Translation: Apollo_gnomon wants abbadon_ire to have the last word.

Since when are you the one to decide these matters, or, at the very least place it in such a one sided proposition?

Please don't put words in my mouth. My posts can be read at face value. I made a suggestion. Agreement was not unanimous. I withdrew the suggestion and somehow you choose to use that as another opportunity to act like a prick.

Thanks. I haven't read enough asshole ignorant posts on DIF yet today. You're doing a fine job helping the forum meet the daily quota for rudeness.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

He co-wrote it 3 years ago and answered me quickly on a Blackberry. I suggest he doesn't always refer to his compilations and indexing when answering emails on his phone. Duuuhhh.

Are you serious? You're telling me that if this guy was at a cocktail party with big name R&D people, University board members, or folks from the likes of the Rand Corporation, or even philanthropists, he's going to offer the excuse that he doesn't remember what he wrote three-years ago on a critical paper regarding what will be used for a multi-billion dollar project to the moon for a manned mission?

I'm spitballing here of course, but I'm thinking these people are also going to question as to how this guy goes about his research.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Speaking of comedy in the sense that you constantly insult your fellow posters' intelligence, I would like you to explain what difference this would make it placing arrows next to dots and supposed tracks on the moon that could easily adhere to the studio mock up?

Or what information have you vetted to know that this is the actual route and track of the said Apollo missions?

All you have to do is look at the photos, and the videos taken from the LMs when they take off, and the photographs taken by the astronauts from the surface. Actually look, not just stare blankly at them and wish they didn't show what they do.

As I pointed out earlier, it isn't just the hardware that is a match. Apollo astronauts took photographs of the surface. Specific features of those images can be found in the LRO images, and they would also have to be 'photoshopped in' to make them work. The fact that they aren't photoshopped (see truegroup's video link earlier) doesn't help you, so you'll need to find a different explanation for that. There was no studio mock up, it was on the moon.

How about you stop arm-waving about arrows and actually look at what is in the photographs? How about finding some features in the photographs that aren't visible in Apollo images? You can prove them fake right here and now.

You could actually answer any of the questions put to you, but all you'll do instead is wave what you claim are academic credentials around and pretend you understand the topic, when all you actually have is bad google.

Your post above is a perfect example of you appealing to your own alleged authority:" Look everyone, I know what a journal is". Unfortunately for you, you are debating with people who also know what a journal is, how to reference it, and who understand the content. Dusting book shelves is no substitute for reading books.

Oh and your argument that http is a language is bollocks. By that analogy the human larynx is also a language. I write code. Notepad is not the code. The world wide web is also not a language. It is a by now fairly meaningless catch phrase used by internet 101 newbies.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Huh? Publish on the Web? You don't publish on the World Wide Web.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

An Internet site is uploaded to a server, and all words, images, and hyperlinks therein provided, and a hypertext link might come in the form of accessing a PDF file.

Originally Posted by truegroup

Yeah, that would be the publishing bit. Hahahahaha.

http://www.washington.edu/itconnect/web/publishing/
http://www.beginnersguidetohtml.com/...-is-publishing

"When we publish web pages what we are basically doing is putting our HTML files onto a computer that can be accessed by anybody. These computers are known as web servers. The name server comes from the fact that these computers are designed to do one thing - serve up web pages to their visitors."


Got anything to say about this one? Just a simple "I was wrong" will suffice. Really, I'll never mention it again.

No surprise mandlebrot has ignored your request in order to babble about something else.

Perhaps our resident 'Web Lecturer' should grab a copy of this before he embarrasses himself even more....

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Huh? Publish on the Web? You don't publish on the World Wide Web.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Utter fail. So wrong it hurt my forehead

Could be from embracing your inner agent far too long. Make sure it doesn't become chronic. I understand it can zap one's energy.

Did you look at what the first paragraph of your first link stated? Here, let me help you out:

One of the most common questions we receive from beginning webmasters is "How do I get my Web site on the Internet?"

They're talking about Web hosting. Web hosts provides space on a server. If you're talking about publishing, as in, making an announcement, then what good is the announcement without Internet connectivity to braodcast the announcement? Hhmm?

Remember, I stated that people confuse Web search engines with using the wrong term Internet search engines?

Here, let's try to simplify this for you. If you write an article for a journal publisher, and they accept it, would you consider it published if that journal is never distributed? Furthermore, let's say that someone uses some of the ideas in your paper that had no access to you or your article, and you attempt to sue them. Do you think you're going to have a case going forward by the courts if your article was never distributed?

Now, in the case of the LROC images. Do you think those are the publication of a web hosting site, or the property of NASA and ASU?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

Please don't put words in my mouth. My posts can be read at face value. I made a suggestion. Agreement was not unanimous. I withdrew the suggestion and somehow you choose to use that as another opportunity to act like a prick.

Don't play the self-righteous indignation card with me. You don't do it very well. It's not the words that I place in your mouth, but the words missing from your mouth, i.e., you mention my name without mentioning your compatriots. It takes two to tangle, and yet again you demonstrate your bias.

One from your team accused me at one time on of these Apollo topics of taking issue with a poster for changing the subject, but that is not what I did. The issue I had was that the poster in question copied and pasted a very long page from a Web site – the entire page.

That's the problem when your team takes issues and plays semantics with everything posted, because all those non-thought-out responses tend to end up biting you in the ass.

[mandelbrot]

Yes, flamingflynn, I concede that it was sloppy on my part to refer to that as an "Internet site," which, in reality, is a Web site, but I was talking about the accessing of information. My bad. However, without the network, which is for all practical purposes is the Internet that we're discussing for these purposes, you have no connectivity to access the web site that is loaded up on a server. And I believe I did make that distinction when I stated some pages back that the Internet is the connectivity and communication of computers on a Network.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

How about you stop arm-waving about arrows and actually look at what is in the photographs? How about finding some features in the photographs that aren't visible in Apollo images? You can prove them fake right here and now.

You have not come anywhere close to demonstrating that you have knowledge of how the information is vetted before it is released for public viewing. But will return to that after this rough and tumble, because we're going back to my previous post where I showed how NASA has been accused before of fudging the data as it pertained to global warming.

Originally Posted by moving finger

You could actually answer any of the questions put to you, but all you'll do instead is wave what you claim are academic credentials around and pretend you understand the topic, when all you actually have is bad google.

Nah. We're not playing let's see if we can throw multiple pitches at a single poster, and then try to play the tough-guy drunken frat boy with me to see if I can answer them all. Don't worry your little finger, we will becoming back to this topic, too.

BTW, "bad google?" As opposed to "good google." Do you listen to yourself. It's not the Web search engine that I was discussing, but rather, understanding how to ascertain what constitutes an authority file in discerning the information. That argument isn't going away either, just because you misrepresent it in your usual callous manner.

Originally Posted by moving finger

Your post above is a perfect example of you appealing to your own alleged authority:" Look everyone, I know what a journal is". Unfortunately for you, you are debating with people who also know what a journal is, how to reference it, and who understand the content. Dusting book shelves is no substitute for reading books.

Yeah, well, I wasn't discussing what a journal is. I was stating what comprises as a High Journal Impact Factor as it relates to how reliable a particular paper with a high citation rate equates to its validity.

In fact, your reading comprehension skills are so obviously lacking here, because I was actually arguing against what is the established authority. Ergo, a paper with a high citation rate doesn't equate to the information in the paper being accurate. Although, I imagine for someone that relies on appealing to the authority of NASA might be uncomfortable with that.

You posting is also a good example of how your side will engage in sloppy language, but never concede to it, since it is only to be rude in some ill attempt to establish and give volume to some point you try to make through clumsy attempts to extract contrition from your interlocutor.

We're not talking about a monograph, so I'm not sure why you’re mixing metaphors with mentioning "books." I was discussing the High Impact Factors accorded to journals. A journal usually publishes works/papers by multiple authors - right?

And since you’re a person that claims an affiliation with science, you do then know that a person in the sciences is less likely to access a read an entire book. Instead, as opposed to someone in the humanities, a person in the sciences will use the index and go to a specific page for researching a particular subject.

[mandelbrot]

Moving finger,

I would also note that many of your compatriots have claimed what their degrees are in academia, but have you read something from me that has resorted to insults at the level that you're doing towards me. I accept them at their word, and, instead, concentrate on what we're discussing.

At long last, man, have you no discipline over your emotions?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Did you look at what the first paragraph of your first link stated? Here, let me help you out:

I didn't need to. I actually know what putting a website on the internet is called. It is known as publishing. You were wrong and no matter how much flannelling and side stepping you do, it doesn't alter that.

Now, man, admit your error like any academic would.

They're talking about Web hosting. Web hosts provides space on a server.

They are. You weren't.

If you're talking about publishing, as in, making an announcement, then what good is the announcement without Internet connectivity to braodcast the announcement? Hhmm?

Astonishing. He talks, he obfuscates and is still frickin' confused for some reason. Just go and google it ffs.

http://www.webhostingsearch.com/arti...ur-website.php

http://www.beginnersguidetohtml.com/...-is-publishing

"Publishing Your Web Pages

So far we've been doing all of our HTML coding on our own personal computers. This is a great way to develop a website because it allows you to keep checking, refining, and re-checking your HTML without having to worry about visitors seeing any unfinished web pages.

Once you are completely happy with the way your web pages look and function it is time to get them up on the internet so that you can show them off to people all around the world. This process is called publishing your web pages.

When we publish web pages what we are basically doing is putting our HTML files onto a computer that can be accessed by anybody. These computers are known as web servers. The name server comes from the fact that these computers are designed to do one thing - serve up web pages to their visitors."

Here, let's try to simplify this for you. If you write an article for a journal publisher, and they accept it, would you consider it published if that journal is never distributed? Furthermore, let's say that someone uses some of the ideas in your paper that had no access to you or your article, and you attempt to sue them. Do you think you're going to have a case going forward by the courts if your article was never distributed?

Now, in the case of the LROC images. Do you think those are the publication of a web hosting site, or the property of NASA and ASU?

You've gotta laugh at this bloke. He makes a blatant balls up over a standard term for uploading data to the web, then presumes to lecture me about it