Did Men Really Walk on the Moon?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

And you are a wriggling and a squirming whilst steadfastly refusing to admit your basic mistake.

Nope. No problem on my end:

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Anyways, one publishes to the Internet on the World Wide Web, because in doing so the connectivity of the Internet makes it public.

What is publication?
Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public. For further information see Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Publication.”

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Question: Email is an Internet application. Can you publish via email?

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Who is....

Jarrah White, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, David Percy, Ralph Rene?

Their real names.

BTW: I believe you meant, "who are ..."

BTW: we're discussing this image



Your image is the 3D visualizations of the lunar surface of the supposed Apollo 15 site.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Their real names.

BTW: I believe you meant, "who are ..."

Reading it back yes. But I meant who is a, who is b etc.
But hey touché (nb. admits mistake)

But anyway silly, are they physicists or professors?

A quote from gonetoplaid (google it to find out who he is!).

"For example, it is not the footprints themselves which are visible in the LRO photos of the Apollo landing sites. It is the yard-wide exposed subsurface soil kicked up by the astronauts, not the footprints themselves, which is shown in the LRO photos. Jarrah 100% knows this since it is clearly shown in all of the surface videos. Jarrah mixes lies with the truth to appear to be convincing."

BTW: we're discussing this image

The white bit on that image, as far as I am concerned is not the halo, what else is there to discuss?

Headlikearock made a very good post about this, totally ignored by you!
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....postcount=2158

Your image is the 3D visualizations of the lunar surface of the supposed Apollo 15 site.

No THE Apollo 15 site. Your quoted argument about inaccurate maps, contradicts the accuracy needed to create a set. Duuuhhhhhh.

BTW: Should that be singular visualisations?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Nope. No problem on my end:

Whatever. Pointless tapdancer is pointless.

http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/webpub/



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

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Let's try this again:

LOL. How many times are you going to embarrass yourself by patronising truegroup with a lecture on a FACT you got hopelessly, hopelessly WRONG?

This is cringeworthy. Please - give up.

You have been busted. Just let it go, will ya? Admit you were talking bollocks and move on with your life.

Strewth.....

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

You see you post to the Internet on the World Wide Web, meaning that the act of publishing is that you're making it available to the public via the Internet.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

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

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

But anyway silly, are they physicists or professors?

Did they ever claim to be physicists or professors?

Originally Posted by truegroup

A quote from gonetoplaid (google it to find out who he is!).

Yeah, I did. Is it this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/user/GoneToPlaid

Originally Posted by truegroup

Headlikearock made a very good post about this, totally ignored by you!
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost....postcount=2158

Well, you're right, headlikearock deserves an answer. However, not sure why you think you're one to dictate this option, since you tend to add impetus to the kinds of post flamingflynn just added. What is this? Middle school? Do you realize how much nonsense posts like that I have to go through before getting back to someone that is more worthy of debate, as is headlikearock, than the jejune party club you seem to hang with.

Of course, you could tend to your own matters and address the question I asked you:

Question: Email is an Internet application. Can you publish via email?

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Did they ever claim to be physicists or professors?

Pathetic. Did I make that claim for gonetoplaid?

Well, you're right, headlikearock deserves an answer.

Well gee, gonna give one? I quoted it back once and so did he.

Nothing in response.

However, not sure why you think you're one to dictate this option, since you tend to add impetus to the kinds of post flamingflynn just added.

You are the one that sent this whole debate down stupidity avenue with your whacky assumptions about my comment!

Do you realize how much nonsense posts like that I have to go through before getting back to someone that is more worthy of debate, as is headlikearock, than the jejune party club you seem to hang with.

Do you realise how many of those posts are from you

Of course, you could tend to your own matters and address the question I asked you:

Question: Email is an Internet application. Can you publish via email?

Yeah, right after you admit your mistake. Side tracking off topic(created by you) pish.

[flamingflynn]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Yeah, right after you admit your mistake. Side tracking off topic(created by you) pish.

Like your new avatar.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by flamingflynn

Like your new avatar.

It's just up for a day, I have the feeling there will never be an admission of said mistake.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6...knicholson.gif

[mandelbrot]

Here we go again through the puerile noise flux.

If you send a research paper to a journal - a peer reviewed journal - it does happen that the paper will be uploaded to the World Wide Web where the Internet supplies the service for the reader to browse the Web and read the paper. The peer reviewed journal will take great care to state, or the individual/individuals that wrote the paper, will distinguish on the title page of the paper that it is in the process of being accepted or published, and both will have qualifying dates, which will be in the entry of any particular citation style one is using (APA, MLA, etc).

For example:

Journal of Astrobiology: Panspermia: network of the stars. Accepted March 15th, 2012.

Journal of Astrobiology: Panspermia: network of the stars. Published March 15th, 2012.

Just because you upload the document/file to the World Wide Web does not constitute as being published.

Just because these images and pictures are made available upon the World Wide Web, doesn't mean that they have been scrutinized by a peer review process accessing the data. Otherwise, you're just repeaters of information and Appealing to Authority.

More tomorrow, or the day after.

Wow. Simply wow.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Do you realise how many of those posts are from you

You tell me. Do the math.

In approximately six-months I have 645:


Mandelbrot:
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 644

In aprroximately 24 months you have 6,373.

Truegroup
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Whackamole Central Publishing on the Web!!
Posts: 6,373

How many more do I need to catch up to you. Base it of an AVG. You like whacking moles, so this should prove no contest for you.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Here we go again through the puerile noise flux.

If you send a research paper to a journal - a peer reviewed journal - it does happen that the paper will be uploaded to the World Wide Web where the Internet supplies the service for the reader to browse the Web and read the paper. The peer reviewed journal will take great care to state, or the individual/individuals that wrote the paper, will distinguish on the title page of the paper that it is in the process of being accepted or published, and both will have qualifying dates, which will be in the entry of any particular citation style one is using (APA, MLA, etc).

For example:

Journal of Astrobiology: Panspermia: network of the stars. Accepted March 15th, 2012.

Journal of Astrobiology: Panspermia: network of the stars. Published March 15th, 2012.

Just because you upload the document/file to the World Wide Web does not constitute as being published.

Just because these images and pictures are made available upon the World Wide Web, doesn't mean that they have been scrutinized by a peer review process accessing the data. Otherwise, you're just repeaters of information and Appealing to Authority.

More tomorrow, or the day after.

Wow. Simply wow.

As far as I am concerned, I published this when I put it on the web:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/C...cross-the-Moon

Care to read it? It kind of proves the photographs of the earth were taken from space during the Apollo missions.

As far as the many web publishing companies are concerned, you publish on the internet.

As far as the police are concerned, if you access dodgy images of children on your computer, you published them on your computer.

Email is not publishing on the web, it is a means of getting a message from one person to another. If I choose to post the contents of an email on the internet and make it public, I have published it.

A journal paper does not have to be peer-reviewed to be valid. Evidence does not have to be published in an academic journal to be valid. My own document I link to above has not been peer reviewed, but it is still valid research and the conclusions I have drawn from it are correct.

You appear to complaining that we are appealing to authority, then appealing to authority by insisting on only referring to peer-reviewed papers. How can you complain that we are merely repeating information when you insist on unexplained wall of text quotes from the same information to support your own arguments? You insist on academic credibility and then complain when you get academically credible data that prove you wrong.

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers based on Apollo samples and data, how about reviewing some for us.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Here we go again through the puerile noise flux.

No, here we go again with just more diversion, and now you demonstrating that you don't actually know that uploading anything to a website is known as publishing.

Just because you upload the document/file to the World Wide Web does not constitute as being published.

The process of doing the upload is known UNIVERSALLY as publishing.

Wow. Simply wow.

Your ignorance on such a basic thing is stunning. Your insistence on not acknowledging your mistake, is THE most pathetic thing I have seen from any poster on this forum.

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

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

That is my final word on the subject, it seems your ego driven stubborness means you are simply incapable of ever altering your stance on anything, regardless of proof.

[mandelbrot]

Originally Posted by moving finger

As far as I am concerned, I published this when I put it on the web:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76882844/C...cross-the-Moon

Moving Finger, Scribd is a self publishing service, and I applaud you for making your work available through this service. You're self publishing for a reason, and I would suspect to make your document more visible to the public. Tumblr supplies a service for publishing via email. The World Wide Web and email are Internet applications.

Truegroup is using the word publishing as it pertains to one definition of the word, i.e., "To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce." Then he is discussing the format for publishing in something like a markup language.

When I asked truegroup the following: "Do you think those are the publication of a web hosting site, or the property of NASA and ASU?"

He responded - finally: "ASU server and website."

He's wrong, because the credit for the LROC images on the NASA and ASU site are listed as NASA/Goddard/Arizona State University/Smithsonian Institution. And that is how they should be cited when referenced in a paper, whether a self published or peer reviewed paper. In addition, the web server, whether hardware or software application is simply the means to deliver it to the Internet.

This is why I stipulated that there is a difference between a paper being available on the Internet from a Web page that stipulates as whether it was "accepted" as opposed to the date it was "published."

Of course, I realize that there are issues with peer review, because I'm the one that brought up that topic on this thread. I explained the problems with citation impact factors as it relates to being published in a High Impact Journal. I also added that that is the reason some academics are resorting to Open Access Journals, but the acceptance and popularity of using the latter varies depending on the particular science field.

Furthermore, I teach information literacy to students, and I am careful to explain to them what constitutes and authority file. In other words, I distinguish between something posted on Scribd as opposed to an academic online database. Why do you think a site like Wikipedia has people working for them for vetting the information that is posted, while also adding disclaimers that the information on a Wikipedia page might not adhere to the sites vetting process.

If you're going to create a curriculum vitae for yourself, you're going to have to add a greater impact for the papers you self published than merely you uploaded/posted it to the Scribd site.

Originally Posted by moving finger

Care to read it? It kind of proves the photographs of the earth were taken from space during the Apollo missions.

"Kind of proves?" Nah. It has to be reviewed, and you need to quote a particular from the paper as it pertains to the specifics being discussed here.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Truegroup is using the word publishing as it pertains to one definition of the word, i.e., "To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce."

NO I AM NOT!!!

The word is the accepted one for uploading code to the web. One that you said ....

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

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

You really don't know when to stop with your ridiculous off topic ramblings do you?

Then he is discussing the format for publishing in something like a markup language.

NO I AM NOT!!! You are. The word used in the context of your MISTAKE was all that was discussed. Everything that followed is obfuscating diversion in your pathetic efforts to not acknowledge your mistake.

When I asked truegroup the following: "Do you think those are the publication of a web hosting site, or the property of NASA and ASU?"

He responded - finally: "ASU server and website."

These are published on the ASU server and website. Which part of that confounds your obfuscating brain??? Oh, the credits. Moving them old goalposts. They were uploaded/published BY ASU TO AN ASU SERVER.

Duuuuhhhhhhh

"Kind of proves?" Nah. It has to be reviewed, and you need to quote a particular from the paper as it pertains to the specifics being discussed here.

It proves. He was being flippant. To any critical thinker, which excludes you from the process.

I can see why you would avoid it like the plague.

Originally Posted by truegroup

That is my final word on the subject, it seems your ego driven stubborness means you are simply incapable of ever altering your stance on anything, regardless of proof.

Almost. I hadn't catered for MB's incessant inability to drop this and move on. If you keep it up so will I. If you drop it, in a few pages nobody will be any the wiser as to your idiotic mistake.

[apollo_gnomon]

and you need to quote a particular from the paper as it pertains to the specifics being discussed here.

The "specifics being discussed" aren't being discussed, though. You're just continuing with yet another episode of "I'm losing the argument so I'll change the subject."

Meanwhile, I would like to point out the irony that while this discussion has "raged" Encyclopedia Brittanica has decided to stop producing their "dead tree" edition and exclusively produce an online product.

So are they no longer publishing? Or are they still publishing?

[brucel]

Originally Posted by truegroup

haha. laffs at nasa 1970 photoshop.... grayscale composite before-n-after.

[mandelbrot]

Truegroup,

Is this your final-final word?

Question: Why do some Web sites have licensing agreements, terms & conditions, and disclaimers posted regarding the material therein? How does this relate to proprietary rights?

Some of the Apollogists remind me of the shanedk in his response to Jarrah White and others. The beginning of the video consists of Astrobrant2, where he actually calls anyone questioning the NASA missions, or conspiracy theorists, as terrorists of the state and a threat to the government. I kid you not. But take a look around the 6:00 mark of the video and its a good example how I picture some posting here responding as they type a post.

MoonFaker: LRO, LRRR & LOLA Addendum. PART 3 - YouTube

MoonFaker: LRO, LRRR & LOLA Addendum. PART 3 - YouTube

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by mandelbrot

Truegroup,

Is this your final-final word?

Yep*. Is it yours?

Go and review Moving Finger's documents, find fault.

It proves that the weather patterns taken with weather satellites match moving pictures, pictures in cislunar space, Lunar orbit, on mission control monitors, over all missions.

Pictures and video that could not possibly have been manufactured from a geostationary or leo satellite, since they are different angles, different terminators with consistency 100% throughout(even allowing for that fact that you couldn't do it anyway with 69-72 technology!)

Also, gonna answer HLRs post?

* Unless you continue to make assertions about my posts that are incorrect!

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by brucel

haha. laffs at nasa 1970 photoshop.... grayscale composite before-n-after.

Haha, "laffs" at Bruce. The picture to the left is a production of Japan from the Jaxa/Selene mission.

[HBollocks]Yeah but, Japan is obviously in on it, so are ASU with LROC[/HBollocks]