|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: We are Subject To Our HISTORY
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.
I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.
But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.
Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.
The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.
So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!
Emily
[ 27. May 2013, 23:09: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.
I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.
But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.
Let me see if I understand you: you are capable of analysing evidence so as to refute findings that conflict with your worldview, but you can't present evidence in a way that proves anything that is a part of your worldview?
[ 27. May 2013, 23:12: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.
So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?
The problem is, they've got the distance wrong ... and that's by design.
So, I'm helpless here because details on the surface are absurd and impossible given the official size and distances.
Not so. You claimed the moon is 10.8 miles in diameter and 50,000 miles away - but I can literally go outside tonight and see that can't be true.
If the moon were 10.8 miles in diameter, it would have to be just 10.8/0.0093=1200 miles away to appear as big as it does.
Alternatively, if the moon were 50,000 miles away, it would have to be 50,000*0.0093=465 miles in diameter to appear as big as it does.
The evidence of my eyes (anyone's eyes, really) is that one or both of your numbers must be wrong, quite independent of anything NASA says.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.
The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.
So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!
Emily
Again, here, the onus is on you to prove that your version is correct and that everyone else in the world has it wrong -- not just whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry on Edward VIII, but all the other historians and commentators who have written volumes on the subject. You haven't supplied anything except wild and unlikely conjecture and speculation to counter the "gossip and usual innuendo." Without serious, verifiable evidence, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Prove it.
I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.
But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.
Let me see if I understand you: you are capable of analysing evidence so as to refute findings that conflict with your worldview, but you can't present evidence in a way that proves anything that is a part of your worldview?
Right. All I have as "evidence" is photo images that I have worked on, re-rendered in which I see what the Official Images LEAVE OUT.
Nobody is going to accept this because they're going to say, I confabulated the re-rendering.
All I can legitimately do is raise the question, again and again--
"Is it okay that scientistic dogmatists are lying to us about what is going on in the skies over our heads?"
All my work PROVES nothing, in the current definition of PROOF.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I have no intention nor ability6 to PROVE anything to you in the current legalistic definition of "proof."
I only know what I know, by God!
EEWC
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Also. What I know about my father ... differs absolutely from the information in Wikipedia. Their "official account" is complete garbage, in alignment with all the other "official" renderings of his sad, sad story.
The people who write Wiki don't do any real research; it's all just gossip and the usual innunendos.
So I couldn't trust Wiki coming out of the gate!
Emily
Again, here, the onus is on you to prove that your version is correct and that everyone else in the world has it wrong -- not just whoever wrote the Wikipedia entry on Edward VIII, but all the other historians and commentators who have written volumes on the subject. You haven't supplied anything except wild and unlikely conjecture and speculation to counter the "gossip and usual innuendo." Without serious, verifiable evidence, why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I can't! I don't have the method to do so. I'm just a digital imaging techie.
But the scale of objects on the Moon is absolutely and totally absurd, given their dimensions and distances.
Emily - if you have a tape measure and primary school geometry, you have the method. It's only similar triangles. One of your numbers is wrong, either the diameter or the distance, even leaving out any other science. This is basic maths.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Don't sell her short, mertide - her numbers could both be wrong...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mertide
Shipmate
# 4500
|
Posted
Dave W. That is indeed possible, I didn't think of that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It just seems bizarre to me that an expert in crochet including pattern design doesn't have an intuitive as well as mathematical understanding of proportion. It's absolutely essential in scaling up patterns for different yarns and hooks. This is just a bigger scale.
Posts: 382 | From: Brisbane | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:
1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.
Some of these are actually good, with or without the Annunaki. If believing in them causes you to use less fossile fuels and care about your community, I would be the last one to object.
Some great ideas. Yes! magazine is a good source of similar ones, and how everyday people are putting them into practice.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How have these digital images been fraudulently edited ?
How can I replicate the originals ? By what technology ?
If I did, what would be the difference ?
What is the current definition of proof ?
What should it be instead ?
What has God revealed to you that cannot be revealed to me ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
All I can legitimately do is raise the question, again and again--
"Is it okay that scientistic dogmatists are lying to us about what is going on in the skies over our heads?"
If it were true, then no it would not be OK. But as there is no reliable (or even believable) evidence to support the conjecture, and oodles of reliable and believable evidence against it, I see no reason to believe that said lies are actually being told.
I'm certainly not going to change my entire worldview based on a bunch of photoshopped pictures of clouds that don't even show what they're being alleged to show after being photoshopped.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How have these digital images been fraudulently edited ?
How can I replicate the originals ? By what technology ?
SOURCE ORIGINALS are available at
http://areo.info/mer/ ... Mars
http://www.apolloarchive.com/ ... Moon
http://www.ciclops.org/ ... Saturn
and other official sites.
If I did, what would be the difference ?
Mars images are unresolved in their focus, mis-scaled, falsely colored
Moon images were taken in both white and black light, the white light were strictly fly-bys and the black-light images strictly in a soundstage.
Saturn images are black-and-white in an era of full color; and details of human figured are blacked- and LINED-OUT!
What is the current definition of proof ?
That's up to the viewer.
What should it be instead ?
An agreed-upon technology that provides CLARITY, crisp focus, full color and depth-of-field.
What has God revealed to you that cannot be revealed to me ?
... Whatever I asked God that you didn't ask yet.
He tells me ONLY what I ask, nothing extra.
He's not here merely to indulge my curiosity. I have to go out and learn something, also.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
