Some of you have been naughty (Jim) some of you have been nice, but you all get Christmas presents from me this year. Here’s the list.
To James Oberg – A life sized poster of the Tin Woodsman from the Wizard of Oz.
Expat – A life sized poster of the Scarecrow.
To Ken Johnston – A copy of The Red Badge of Courage.
To The Hoagy - The Nobel Prize for Physics you so richly deserve.
The Fool – An autographed copy of my “Who Mourns for Apollo” articles.
To Biological Unit – A DVD of Schindler’s List.
To "Dr. Phil" Plait – A full “Plait” of crow for your Christmas dinner, you charlatan.
To my brother – The book contract you so richly deserve. May this year Bring you Starbound Light
To Lee Ford, Mike Kohary, Joe Cipale, my ex-wife, and all the other naysayer’s I’ve endured over the years; a copy of the New York Times Bestseller lists from November 2007 and a copy of Rush Limbaugh’s See, I Told You So
That's it! Enjoy the holidays and see you next year! There are several surprises coming that I'm sure some of you are going to find most unpleasant. Can't wait for 2008!
Posts
20 comments:
Mike, Who is Biological Unit? Schindlers list sounds a little grim for a family memeber. Just curious. Every else was HI-larious!
Merry Christmas!
A DVD of Schindler's List proves that there are DVD's of Schindler's List.
Remind us who we are dying for, without any form of gratitude, in the Middle East, puhlease !
I've read "your" papers and I'll decline your autograph. Thanks for the motivation to prove you wrong. I hope you are ready, and man enough to post what will destroy and humiliate you!
BTW, do you have a clue as to what the Wizard of Oz is really about?
Have a Happy Holiday to Everyone in the TEM family.
PLease note that my library copy of Dark Mission arrived today so I was able to freely check it out for reading over the Holidays :D :D :D
When done I will return it to the library where the librarian actually will likely have second 'dibs' on the copy :D
In So joyous a mood I almsot hate to bring this up...but it MUST be put out there for folks to respond to about Mr. Oberg's initial email to Ms Ferrari.
A NEW thread at AboveTopSecret has been started ( and yes I mispelled MEANSTREAM MEDIA )...did anyone MISS the point? I don't think so..and you also DID promise to post the results you got from Mr. Boyle of MSNBC well BEFORE you received it at ATS in another thread...they and we are still waiting.
MEANSTREAM MEDIA SLIME
Happy Holidays to all friends family and let's hope is something does hit Mars...it stays well away from Cydonia :D
Bob...:D
http://commonsensecentral.net/
Hey Big Mike. What about me? I was the first comment you ever had!
What I really wanted, Mike, was a reason to leave you to your own sandpile and the denizens thereof, and as I've several times specified, all it would take would be a statement from you and/or Hoagland that on further consideration you've realized that I was never a colleague of Johnston's at the Manned Spacecraft Center (since I never was even AT the Manned spacecraft Center) in Houston, and hence never 'knew' his credentials were all accurate (somebody made that up -- it's just not true), and hence did not act unethically at the behest of the dark forces when I inquired to NASA if the JPL-posted CV he had given them actually had any documentation to back it up (I don't like attacks on my professional ethics from people who never seem to be able to produce any evidence, just suspicions). You don't even have to wrap it in pretty paper.
Hello Mike. I just finished reading the article posted in the deleted sections.
ESA images 305-230906-3253-6-co2 and co1 are amazing.
I can clearly see intelligently design buildings on some of the mesas. Is there any plans to enhance theses images?
Thanks
Britain set to release secret UFO files
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/12/23/britain_set_to_release_secret_ufo_files/3551/
Getting a book published is an arduous process requiring concentration and repetitive reviews and adjustments, and once it's in print, satisfaction and congratulations are proper responses.
These sales numbers are also impressive, and deserving of admiration.
The NY Times 'best sellers' lists for November can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/books/bestseller/1118bestpapernonfiction.html and you can advance or retreat the date by 7-day increments.
Dark_Mission made the 'Also Selling' list, just below the full-blown 'Best Sellers' list -- a praiseworthy accomplishment.
Mike, you earned your bragging rights.
Just try to describe the accomplishment accurately.
PT - Sorry about that. You did deserve an X-mas present. Next year.
ks15,
I've done the best I can. Maybe Keith Laney can do better. He's the best image processor I've ever seen.
Jim,
The list we were on is called the "expanded New York Times Bestseller list," according to my publisher.
Thanks much for the kind words, bro.
db
Mikw: "The list we were on is called the "expanded New York Times Bestseller list," according to my publisher."
Well, I'm all for cutting you that slack in any such possibly ambiguous boundary. Getting on ANY such book list is an achievement that makes ALL authors and would-be authors envious.
Attaboy.
Mike
I reread Who Mourns for Apollo and it does provide a good refutation of most of the key points in the Landing Hoax theory. When I read the WMFA series for the first time, which was in 2001, I had just been introduced to the idea of a Moon Landing Hoax and I was totally skeptical. I remained so for another 5+ years. However, I began to do a little research and the idea of a Landing Hoax did not seem so outlandish.
Although you presented a good analysis of the Van Allen Belts, I still have doubts as to whether or not humans can survive a trip through them. Also, the way the Lunar Rover "kicked up dust" on the Moon seemed a tad inconsistent with the way "dust" should behave in the Lunar environment. So, I still thought it was unlikely that the Hoax was real, but the possibility did exist in my mind.
Fast forward to now. I am extremely skeptical of anything that "Government" is involved with. I know that "Government" has lied to its populace about almost everything it is and does. I have also become skeptical about anyone who vehemently defends their position in a rude and condescending manner, as though there is no possibility that they could be wrong. Now that I'm 42 and have lived a little I know that nothing is Black and White. There is Grey everywhere.
That said, there are two bits of evidence that I have come across that put the Moon Hoax Theory in a whole new light for me and I think for anyone who has an open mind and understands what "Government" is capable of. The link to this evidence is here:
Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis
The major points:
Dr. Groves, who is a Physicist and Computer Image Analyst, analyzed the photo of Buzz Aldrin descending the ladder from the LM and he was able to determine that there was an artificial light source used in the picture and he was also able to determine where it was placed in relation to the camera. There is a "hot spot" on Aldrin's right boot which Dr Groves is able to analyze and prove that the artificial light source was placed between 24-36 cms to the right of the camera that took the photo. According to NASA, they did not use artificial lighting, so this revelation causes huge problems for the credibility of the Moon Landing.
The argument that the lighting is Earthshine does not hold water. The lunar surface luminosity is so low it can't illuminate the shadow side of the smallest lunar rocks. A picture of the LM shows the light source, the sun, in the camera but the backside of the LM is fully lit. It should be black, unless there is back lighting.
The picture of Aldrin with the reflection in his visor has serious problems. The lighting is not uniform. The center of the image should be at his abdominal area, but it’s over his lower right leg which shows the camera was placed at eye level and pointed down. The camera was supposed to be a chest level.
Brian Welch, The Director of Media Services of NASA says about Dr. Groves’ analysis,
“It’s pseudo-scientific, nitpicky, claptrap and I wonder why we are spending even a minute talking about it”.
I’m sure he would say the same thing about the work of TEM.
Thanks for raising the question of shadow fill-in, since Mike has elsewhere raised it as an argument for the existence of overhead reflective structural elements.
The 'classic' explanation is that the light comes from retroreflection off the lunar surface, a reflective property demonstrated in some of the down-sun views of Apollo surface photography.
Such retroreflection would behave exactly as you are proclaiming it would NOT -- it would not, for example, illuminate rock shadows NEAR the lunar surface (and it does not). It would very nicely backfill shadows ABOVE the surface -- and it does.
My sympathies to Groves for being a target of Welch's vitriole, as I have been myself (Welch died about ten years ago, btw).
The fundamental problem with Groves' analysis result claims, as with many of those by Hoag/Bara, is that they rely on analysis algorithms that have never passed a double blind test. They just keep giving the same results, which is fine if you only apply them to situations where you WANT those results from the beginning.
But I've never seen them applied to test situations in which there IS no hot backlighting, or no 'sky structures', and then they produce answers that say,'Nope, no hot spots, no sky structures, sorry!'.
Has that ever been done, to your knowledge?
Incomprehensible.
Jim
Did you even watch the video?
Mike
Where is your refutation? I'm not married to this evidence. It's not mine. I'm just waiting for you to 'set the record straight'.
Fool,
I haven't had time to watch the video yet, I'm in the process of moving and I can't watch Youtube from my work computer.
That said, IF there was a second light source, i.e. a light bulb, then everything in these images would have two shadows -- they do not.
Further, there is a lot of fill in from from the lunar surface, as we covered in the WMFA series. I will have more to say after I view the video, but I have to say I am already dubious for the reasons I just mentioned.
I'll leave the question of any second light source to Mike, since he raised the possibility that this could be shown to exist, and could be reflection from supposed lunar structures. This seems to have been just a suggestion subject to invite discussion, not a formal claim, and so I consider it a tentative idea until Mike feels better about making it into an argument for prooof.
Post a Comment