Friday, February 16, 2018

Stand by for some flagrant errors on Saturday night

James Concannon writes...

        The announced topic for The Other Side of Midnight Sat/Sun 17/18 February is:

"Did President Kennedy's abrupt decision in 1963 -- to end the "Space Race" ... and go to the Moon together with the Russians -- stem directly from the CIA's sudden, top secret, "Project Corona" confirmation, in 1963 ... of ancient ET ruins on the Moon?"

        Broaching this self-evidently ridiculous topic with Richard Hoagland is none other than frisbee expert Robert Morningstar. Morningstar claims to be "a specialist in photo interpretation, geometric analysis and computer imaging."

        Project Corona was a series of reconnaissance satellites targeted at the USSR and China running from June 1959 to May 1972, initiated and managed by the Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Science & Technology. It is the same surveillance project as the one often referenced as Keyhole, and after a series of embarrassing failures 102 missions returned useful information, the film being dropped out of orbit and captured by USAF aircraft.

        Why do I write "self-evidently ridiculous"? Simply because Corona had nothing to do with the Moon. Writing on Facebook today, Morningstar claimed "I know very well that Corona was a USSR-China spy satellite, but it could be rotated and focused on the Moon, as well." What poppycock! If Morningstar truly was any kind of specialist in geometric analysis he would never dare to make that claim.

Data:
Corona camera lens focal length: 610mm
Film frame width: 70mm
Orbital altitude: 160km, later improved to 121km
Distance of the Moon: 370,000km
Diameter of the Moon: 3,474km

From the above data, the field of view was 2 x (arc tan 35/610) = 6.524°
Width of a frame on the Earth surface 2 x (160 tan 3.262°) = 18km, improved to 13.8km

At the distance of the Moon, the image width would have been 42,291km. The entire face of the Moon would therefore have occupied 0.082 of the film width—about like this:


Ancient ET ruins MY ASS.

        I have provided the above information to both Hoagland and Morningstar, but no doubt they will ignore it and treat their audience to three hours of absolute rubbish on Saturday night.

Update:
        I've now seen a technical document indicating that the camera optics underscanned, using only 54.5mm of the total film width 70mm. In that case the field of view would have been 5.04°, and the best ground image would have a width of 10.6 km. At lunar distance the image width would be 32,560km and the Moon diameter almost exactly 10%.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Russians are fond of things as ancient aliens and such...Even under Communism, they would have readily trumpeted any such "Alien Ruins"....Case in point, the "missing planet/asteroid belt" theory. I clearly remember the Soviets talking about this in the mid 50's, along with similar ideas..So if the Russians/Soviets knew about the "Ruins" on the Moon, why did they not mention it or send their own probes to the locations?? I really feel sorry for these persons who believe this idea without any evidence...

Two Percent said...

Why wait for Saturday night for flagrant errors when you can make them immediately?

So, you're trying to tell me these high-powered spy satellite cameras had a viewing angle of about 6.5 degrees.

About the same as a decent pair of binoculars.

And that somehow proves your point?

I think you're a bit confused there Jimmy.

Or you're just trying to baffle us with bullshit.

As I understand it, each side of The Pentagon is only 281 metres, so the Wikipedia article photo must be massively cropped.

I'm sure you can explain.

james concannon said...

That photo is cropped, yes.

Speaking of the wikipedia article, please notice that the best resolution ever achieved was 1.8m. That was on a planet 120km away. What resolution do you think the same optical system would have had to offer on a Moon 370,000 km away? Anything at all useful, would you say? Mmmmm?

Two Percent said...

What evidence do you offer for cropping?

Best resolution:

"A single mission was completed with a 1 foot (0.30 m) resolution but the limited field of view was determined to be detrimental to the mission."

Help yourself to the flagrant error bucket.

I still say you are making false assumptions about a unique camera system.

Without getting out of bed, I think that yields a resolution of 380k/121 feet on the moon. Using a simple mental approximation, that's about 360k/120 ~=3,000 feet. Slightly over 1/2 mile.

Probably not enough to identify ancient (human scale) ruins, but that doesn't negate the other inaccuracies.

expat said...

What strikes me about these figures is that the resolutions are much worse than was reported (speculated?) at the time. Reliable sources such as Aviation Week & Space Technology were talking about Keyhole being able to read car licence plates from orbit.

james concannon said...

>>What evidence do you offer for cropping?<<

The fact that the width of the image is less than the best the optics could offer.

OneBigMonkey said...

Keyhole and Corona cameras did indirectly play a role in taking very high resolution images of the moon as the technology involved ended up in the Apollo Panoramic Cameras - those cameras were capable of resolving lunar modules as well as unmanned probes on the ground.

OneBigMonkey said...

Still on the subject of the Panoramic Camera, as an indicator how well it would have performed resolving lunar images, this is an image taken by Apollo 17's Panoramic Camera of Earth while it was in lunar orbit.

https://i.imgur.com/Mi2JciJ.jpg

It's not entirely representative as it was an incidental capture rather then a deliberate aim, but it should give the idea that you wouldn't be able to tell much about human civilisation from that.

The earlier lunar orbiter probes also had very impressive resolving capabilities, and when they looked at Earth took very nice photos

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160827.html

but again, there is no way you could claim to identify buildings or other structures in that photograph.

OneBigMonkey said...

Oops - my mistake - the Apollo image I posted was taken from a Metric Mapping Camera image, not a Panoramic one. The MMC did not have as good a resolution as the Panoramic Camera, though it was still pretty good.

My point still stands: the resolution of the Corona camera is totally inadequate for resolving small objects n the moon. A close look at any image of Earth taken from lunar orbit with similar resolving capabilities (eg the LRO, Lunar Orbiter) shows that you would not see buildings.

The only artificial structures you will find on the moon are those that humans put there.

Alienmojo said...

OneBigMonkey in that pic from APOD of the earth I have a question. This will probably sound stupid to you guys... but why does the earth appear so large? Is it just a zoom? When you see pics of the earth from the surface of the moon by the astronauts it is always so small.

Two Percent said...

"The only artificial structures you will find on the moon are those that humans put there."

A bold statement, to say the least.

Thing is, every time I look up at the moon, I see massive maria. As Wikipedia and scientists claim, they are:

"large, dark, basaltic plains on Earth's Moon, formed by ancient volcanic eruptions."

They appear to cover about 50% of the "near" side.

Yet, they are "flat", plains.

What magical "volcanic eruption" mechanism brought this about?

Not to mention the question of how the Moon got there in the first place. Does the Earth's geologic record give us any clues as to when the Moon arrived? Most likely, it formed in orbit around Jupiter...

jourget said...

Dwayne Day wrote an excellent article back in 2010 about a backup option to the Lunar Orbiter missions that had been explored back in the mid-60s. In case Lunar Orbiter didn't work out, the plan was to send a manned Apollo to lunar orbit with a modified KH-7 optics system to photograph potential landing sites and then return to Earth:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1734/1

It's a great piece, but more relevant to your article are the implications: If it was possible to get good photos of the Moon with a Keyhole satellite without leaving Earth orbit, then why send one to the Moon? Anyway, I don't think Hoagland's listeners really concern themselves with pesky trivialities like, you know, geometry and the laws of physics.

jourget said...

Two Percent said...

"Most likely, it formed in orbit around Jupiter..."

You know, sometimes I wish I was the kind of person whose worldview could be altered by a blog post by Some Dude. "Two Percent said that most likely, the Moon formed in orbit around Jupiter. Guess my whole worldview has changed. Glad I'm taking a stand against those Establishment Scientists!"

I know I'm being salty, but that's because it's Saturday night and I've had couple nice abbey ales. But seriously, man, get a hold of yourself. THIS is why the alternative community is a laughing stock by the mainstream. This right here. Not because your ideas are unconventional (hell, imagine how Heisenberg would have sounded if he came completely out of nowhere). But because you just say random shit, and expect people to take you seriously.

Tell us, WHY did the Moon most likely form around Jupiter? If you're going to play scientist, then you have to play by science's rules. You must be able to explain why the Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios look like the Earth's? How an object the size of the Moon was somehow able to escape from Jupiter's massive gravity?

Or maybe the average reader should just chuckle, roll their eyes, and ignore your comments?

OneBigMonkey said...

@AlienMojo - mainly because it has been cropped to make it look so large.

This is the original image taken with its 80mm lens:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/1102_h2.jpg

and this one with the 24" one:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/images/preview/1102_med.jpg

It is not a bold claim to state that there are no artificial structures on the moon other than those of human origin. It is a factual one. There is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary. By 'evidence' I don't mean some sort of tin foil hatter plucking made up crap out of thin air and using it to sell books, I mean actual recorded and repeatable observations.

As for basaltic plains, not all volcanic processes involve massive explosive eruptions. Basaltic lava is low in silica, which means it flows very easily and a long distance. Any kind of fissure oozing basalt will lead to it moving long distances and forming an even covering. There are theories suggesting that the near side's interaction with Earth's gravity is what allowed these basaltic plains to form, as opposed to the much more rugged and cratered far side.

The general consensus of theories of the moon's origin still base themselves around some sort of collision, with the moon as we know it then forming in Earth's orbit. Any theories about it being formed elsewhere and then magically arriving in its current form at Earth are totally without foundation and defy lots of the laws of physics.

OneBigMonkey said...

Without listening to the radio show, this is the image they post from a Corona type satellite:

https://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/kh-208-2z-enhanced.jpg

The date on it matches with a Corona mission, and it definitely isn't from any lunar probes at the time. The moon's phase is an exact match for the date as viewed from Earth.

The image quality is less than you would get from a terrestrial telescope - I have lunar atlases from the 1960s comprising telescope images with higher detail. A few months after this image was taken Lunar Orbiter 1 was beaming back much better images.

Interesting though - it would be nice to actually have the source confirmed and any other images taken at the time made available.

james concannon said...

Thanks, Monkey. I've appended that image to today's bloggery.

Two Percent said...

Thanks guys for your comments. Not enough time today to reply. Tomorrow, I hope.

Meantime, OneBigMonkey, a question or two:

"As for basaltic plains, not all volcanic processes involve massive explosive eruptions. Basaltic lava is low in silica, which means it flows very easily and a long distance. Any kind of fissure oozing basalt will lead to it moving long distances and forming an even covering.

Have you honestly thought about this in any depth?

Do you believe this is an adequate explanation - even, a plausible one, for what we see?

Two Percent said...

OneBigMonkey:

"It is not a bold claim to state that there are no artificial structures on the moon other than those of human origin. It is a factual one. There is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary. "

Not a single shred! How do you know this? I beg to differ.


"Any theories about it being formed elsewhere and then magically arriving in its current form at Earth are totally without foundation" ...

So you say. How so? Even magic obeys the laws of physics. Accordingly, you must know every theory, including my own?


" ... and defy lots of the laws of physics."

Can you point to a single event in the entire cosmos (including the Earth and its surrounds, of course) that defy any (even just one) of the laws of physics?

Myself, I cannot. Therefore, the arrival of the Moon in Earth orbit from somewhere else must obey (have complied with, perfectly) the laws of physics.

I look forward to further discussion, and hope you will not disappoint.

Two Percent said...


Sorry, bad proofing. That should read:

... a single event ... that defies any ...

Two Percent said...

Hi jourget,

It's a pleasure. I like a straight talker, even if some alcohol may have contributed. ;-)

I was hoping OBM might respond and wanted to give him that chance before I get too deeply into this, but I will say, I try to avoid making statements that I can't put up a pretty good argument for.

"But seriously, man, get a hold of yourself."

If only I could!

"THIS is why the alternative community is a laughing stock by the mainstream. This right here."

You mean this is an example of why... I don't carry the entire alternative community on my shoulders. In fact, I don't even support or agree with a lot of what its members say. To the contrary, I strongly disagree with a lot of it.

Let me explain a bit. I tossed out that closing comment just for the hell of it. Just to see what bites I might get.

Why? Because I'm tired of the continual puerile ad hom attacks on the same publicity stuntmen, Bara, M*, Hoagie etc. It seems such a total waste of time, when there is SOOO much more, far more deserving pseudo-science out there that could be picked apart. The problem is, that doesn't seem to be what this blog is really about.

However, the explanation for the Lunar Maria are a great example of utter crap science spouted by the mainstream science community as if it's "good enough" and doesn't warrant the ridicule it rightly deserves.

So I chucked out that comment, for a bit of fun. Serious fun, mind you.

"Tell us, WHY did the Moon most likely form around Jupiter? "

You may not find this answer adequate, but my logic is very simple. Just look at the Solar System. Look where most of the big moons are, and where they aren't.

Except, I think, for two, they are all orbiting one of the two gas giants, Jupiter or Saturn, where they most likely formed. I haven't checked all the data, so don't hold me to that. However, at this point, I'm happy to go out on a limb.

(In our Solar System, it seems to me that) Jumbo moons only formed around gas giant planets. I guess, to answer your question of why, one reason is that the gas giant regions had matter to spare, as evidenced by the sizes of the two gas giants. Heck, Jupiter is not far off being big enough to become a star, I believe.

Further, I'm going to say, Jumbo moons do not form around small planets, like the Earth. There are no doubt a multitude of complex reasons why not, but I'm going to point to angular momentum as a likely big contender. In addition to the lack of spare material. Is there a cosmological rule about this? I don't know, but maybe there will be.

Anyway, have a look at the moons and planets of our solar system.

Even the ice giants do not appear to form Jumbo moons.

Aha, you say, there's Triton around Neptune.

You know what? I'm gonna say that it too, most likely formed around Jupiter. It could possibly have formed around Saturn, but I'm going with Jupiter for a couple of reasons.

Clearly, Triton around Neptune is entirely anomalous. This has even been recognised by the Establishment, it seems:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2152917-neptunes-other-moons-were-normal-until-triton-crashed-the-party/

For a start, it's retrograde...

So there, right there, we have possible evidence for moons "jumping" orbits, not just orbits, but host planets even. And reversing direction, no less.

So, I reckon I have a pretty good hold of myself.

I have to say, if one moon can jump to a new planet, so can another.

Looking at the Moon in the context of these other details, I say that it too, in its orbit around Earth, is highly anomalous. It didn't form there. Couldn't have.

Further still, I'm going to say that these two events (Moon to Earth and Triton to Neptune) are inextricably interlinked.

But I'm probably over the word limit, so that will do for now.
...

Two Percent said...

...

"If you're going to play scientist, then you have to play by science's rules. "

Actually, I disagree with that too. Very much so. Science has taboos. In other words, its actually governed by Politics, making it unscientific. The Moon is one of the Taboo subjects, hence "Lunar Maria are formed by volcanic eruptions."

expat said...

That this blog should be criticized for being "puerile" at the same time as being called out for ad hominem attacks is pretty funny. HA-HA. Two percent, go to your room.

jourget said...

"If you're going to play scientist, then you have to play by science's rules."

Actually, I disagree with that too.


Hence your "most likely formed around Jupiter" and "It didn't form there. Couldn't have." being supported by stuff like "it seems to me that" and "I'm going to say", I guess. Stupid scientific method, with its demand that conclusions be supported by more than one's gut instinct! If should be acceptable to take a sample size of eight planets and extrapolate to the universe, don't they see?!

Yes, I know you provided some things that I assume you meant to be evidence in support of your position. So let's pick it apart.

First of all, Neptune and Triton. Yes, Triton was probably captured by Neptune after forming elsewhere, maybe the Kuiper Belt. A point of evidence in favor of that is that, like you said, its orbit is retrograde. It's tilted relative to Neptune's equator too. You know what's orbit isn't retrograde, or inclined very much relative to its primary? The Moon.

Frankly I'm a little confused as to why you included Triton in support of your argument. It's got clear characteristics in favor of capture that the Moon doesn't have. And the fact that the majority of astronomers believe that it was captured means they don't have any conspiratorial reluctance to discuss a subject like that, so they'd bring it up if the Moon showed anything similar.

The only central thread I can find in your argument is "Big moons form around Jupiter and Saturn, so all big moons must have formed around Jupiter and/or Saturn". That's...pretty ridiculous. Hell, you shouldn't be including Saturn if that's the case. Follow me here: Triton looks like it was captured so it must have formed around Jupiter, and the Moon doesn't look like it was captured so it must have formed around Jupiter. Saturn also only has one really big Moon, Titan. So it must have formed around Jupiter.

Another fun thing: You use the scientific term "jumbo moons". Meaning what, exactly? If you mean moons that are more or less spherical under their own gravity, then all four gas/ice giants have them, plus Earth. And then of course there are several asteroids and Kuiper belt objects. Did they all form around Jupiter? Or are "jumbo moons" whatever works for you?

Two Percent, you fascinate me. First you tell expat that he needs to lay off the ad hominems, that there is "far more deserving pseudo-science out there that could be picked apart". This implies that you're in favor of a evidence-based approach, yes? But then you follow up with this goofball thing about the moons that, as far as I can tell, boils down to "I feel like this might have happened, so that's what must have happened. It's wild, man.

Two Percent said...

Two Percent is a naughty boy.
Two Percent is a naughty boy.
Two Percent is a naughty boy.
Two Percent is a naughty boy.
Two Percent is a naughty boy.
...
2% is a naughty, naughty boy.


Can I come out now...?

Please?


Please, please.



Pretty, pretty, please...?

Two Percent said...

Hi jourget,

I was rather looking forward to your response. But I guess that this just isn't one of those times when...

" I wish I was the kind of person whose worldview could be altered by a blog post by Some Dude. "

At least you are honest about it. You must have other reasons to be here.

Maybe I'm just a willow tree, but I find that other people's blog posts do quite often provide valuable information that I didn't have before. That ultimately, may affect my worldview. WebSDR (by Chris) on this blog was definitely one of those.

Admittedly, books do it far better and more often.


Ummm... Hate to admit it, but this thread has had that worldview changing effect too.

That said, I'm entirely with expat:

" expat said...

What strikes me about these figures is that the resolutions are much worse than was reported (speculated?) at the time. Reliable sources such as Aviation Week & Space Technology were talking about Keyhole being able to read car licence plates from orbit."

I seem to remember that rumour. Probably put out deliberately to confuse the enemy. Or, maybe just to impress the taxpayers. Or both. Really, these days, it's hard to know what to believe, but I guess the Technical Article referred to is correct. It would have been a difficult compromise between resolution and coverage, given the limited amount of film that could be carried, but I haven't sat down to work it out. Anyway, the data capture rate is still phenomenal.


I'm afraid I just don't see your issue(s) with my provisos:

"most likely formed around",
"it seems to me that" and
"I'm going to say".

I can't really distinguish these from those in your own statement:

"Yes, Triton was probably captured by Neptune after forming elsewhere, maybe the Kuiper Belt.


As for

Stupid scientific method, with its demand that conclusions be supported by more than one's gut instinct!

Not quite sure who or what you refer to, but maybe you're mistaking me for Bara? Or JZ Knight?


"If should be acceptable to take a sample size of eight planets and extrapolate to the universe, don't they see?!"

Nope. They don't. Nor do I. Go ahead, extrapolate to the universe if you wish. Waay too wild for me though.


"Frankly I'm a little confused as to why you included Triton in support of your argument."

Naturally...


"... so they'd bring it up if the Moon showed anything similar."

Of course they would! Faultless logic. Maria, where are you?


However, your logic here completely defies (my) understanding:

"The only central thread I can find in your argument is "Big moons form around Jupiter and Saturn, so all big moons must have formed around Jupiter and/or Saturn". That's...pretty ridiculous. Hell, you shouldn't be including Saturn if that's the case. Follow me here: Triton looks like it was captured so it must have formed around Jupiter, and the Moon doesn't look like it was captured so it must have formed around Jupiter. Saturn also only has one really big Moon, Titan. So it must have formed around Jupiter."

I can't follow you there at all, sorry. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you quiet shorely ewe dunna 'ad jis' a wee two muchly of dat abbey ale diss time?


"Another fun thing: You use the scientific term "jumbo moons". Meaning what, exactly?"

Sorry, maybe I should have explained that a little for the simple scientists here. They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg

Hint: in my "definition" there are only seven "Jumbo moons". Can ya find 'em all? ;-)

Or, try this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite

...

Two Percent said...

...

There's a visual table 2/3rds of the way down the page. On my screen, the first line contains images of 7 moons, but yours might show 14? Or any number between.


"But then you follow up with this goofball thing about the moons that, as far as I can tell, boils down to "I feel like this might have happened, so that's what must have happened. It's wild, man."

Yeah, man! It's wild. Feelings.... Uhhh. I think that's the other hemisphere, maann.

"...this goofball thing..."

Yeah, man. I agree. There's nothing like a good, hearty, premature, pejorative label to help people understand and accept new concepts and ideas before they have even been properly expounded. Galileo would understand, I'm sure.


Maybe I went overboard with the provisos, but I wasn't about to follow OBM's lead.

Like almost everything in science, it's only a theory. Yep, we can make up all the formulas, laws and rules we want, and, like Newton's Laws, they only work until they don't.

But a good theory is an awesome thing!

Shame you didn't get to hear this one.

What I don't understand is why you decided to attempt a hatchet job on this so soon. Live by the knife, die by the knife, I guess.

Anyway, I thank you sincerely for helping me adjust my worldview on this question. Writing this answer also helped me make another discovery. Thanks for that too.

jourget said...

Sorry, maybe I should have explained that a little for the simple scientists here. They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moons_of_solar_system_v7.jpg

Hint: in my "definition" there are only seven "Jumbo moons". Can ya find 'em all? ;-)


Exactly my point. You're basing this whole thing on a group of moons that you yourself just one day decided should go in a group together. Because they're big. We call that cherry picking, or an argument from fine tuning:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

Or if that's too elitist for you, it's the equivalent of saying: "This makes sense because I picked the things that it makes sense with."

And that's why people laugh at ideas like this. Not because of a conspiracy and not because The Establishment can't look at alternative ideas. Because ideas like this might as well be in a comic strip for all the logic they're held together with.

Forgive me if I'm not that excited to hear about the new "discovery" you thought up while writing a comment in a blog post.

Two Percent said...

jourget said:

"You're basing this whole thing on a group of moons that you yourself just one day decided should go in a group together."

Gee, man. I really hope you are right on that. But I don't hold out a lot of hope...

Anyway, thanks for the potential recognition. That I might be the first. And you might be right. Googling "groups of moons" brings up:

Moons of Jupiter - Wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Jupiter

where the Galilean moons are specifically grouped. Likewise, the article specifically groups the Jovian satellites into Regular and Irregular, but no Jumbo Moon-type group that I have found.


Even the previously mentioned page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite with its nice Euler diagram:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euler_diagram_of_solar_system_bodies.svg

doesn't have a group for my "Jumbo Moons". Oddly, it doesn't even mention moons. That must be an "oversight"! Not to mention that one group appears not to be labelled.

Indeed, the several pages of sample Google results I have looked at only group moons by host planet.

So, apparently, 2% said it first! Jumbo moons. Yeah, I like it. It's wild!


That said, I'm clearly not the first to group Solar System moons other than by host planet. This link pertains:

https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/file/Solar_System_How_Many_Moons.pdf

Most interesting, on page 2, right in the middle of the paragraph numbered 5, you'll find the answer to this question:

"Why do inner planets and outer planets have such different numbers of moons?"

I'm sure you'll find the answer consistent with my comments.


But I digress.

Let's consider science:

noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Observation... Looking, seeing, noticing things.

In fact, I venture to suggest that all great advances in science are made by individuals who observe something that no one else has taken up, and investigate what they have observed. I'd go further by suggesting that the definition above is a bit lacking in that it doesn't stress this process of investigation or analysis - trying to understand and figure out why what they have observed happened, which is where I'm at.

Then, following the announcement of any challenging new discovery, there are groups of people who feel angry, offended, threatened, disoriented, disadvantaged and so on, and reject the new discovery, often mocking, ridiculing and disparaging it. In history, machines have even been wrecked and books burned by such people. That is part of the normal process, and seems to be where you are at. Apparently, there is quite a group of you:

"We call that cherry picking, "

As you said, people often laugh (at new or challenging ideas), ideas that might upset the cosy status quo:

"... that's why people laugh at ideas like this."

Your fear of new ideas must be very great:

"... might as well be in a comic strip for all the logic they're held together with"

since this comment is very premature.


Frankly, I have no time for irRational Weeki which I find to be riddled with hypocrisies, but you could at least have picked a better article.

Header strip:

This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Argument from fine tuning could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.


"Whatever is credible" says it all.

It's wild, man. Enjoy!

Ozzie James said...

Ahh Ha-HAAaa

'Your Gay' got pooned.

Like TOTALLY man

james concannon said...

Could you decode that, please?

Ozzie James said...

On-Line gaming...

(Har)pooned.

Like nailed, smashed, wasted, only worse!