Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

NASA today opened a new chapter in our understanding of the moon. Preliminary data from the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, indicates that the mission successfully uncovered water during the Oct. 9, 2009 impacts into the permanently shadowed region of Cabeus cater near the moon's south pole.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

TrueBlue

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So they weren't smokestacks at all!

They were steam vents!

Moon River

"Moon River
#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-13 07:17 PM"


wider than a crater.

We'll dig it up later.

(apologies to Johnny Mercer)

Can we have a "groan" flag?

Why? Do you want to set the record?

So they weren't smokestacks at all!
They were steam vents!
#1 | Posted by vernon at 2009-11-13 06:56 PM

SUCK IT NON-BELIEVERS! (Strike now alien overlords!):]

SUCK IT NON-BELIEVERS! (Strike now alien overlords!):]

#6 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-11-13 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

C'mon, Red, get your quotes correct:

"I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords."
--Kent Brockman

Water on the Moon?

Excellent news!

Now, the next group of astronauts who go there will be able to make their own lunar slurpees in order to wash down all that green cheese.

/No, NOT an astrophysicist.
//How could you tell?

Be Well.

/As he do
stage left.

The bacteria on mars turned the moon into cheese.


rwd

doesn't mean shit if you can't capture one of them little 3 foot green motherfuckers...

Uhmm...shouldn't we take of the mess down here before creating another one on the moon?

of course it was....obama was born there, so says orly tavitz

#11---- Wouldn't want to send anymore astronauts up there--- would be importing global warming, resulting in rising crater water levels.

#13

I think you mean #12.

Having a ready source of hydrogen will make generating oxygen on the Moon a lot easier.

Funny BB is missing here? Kidnapped by Moon Critters?

Funny BB is missing here? Kidnapped by Moon Critters?


Did you know 2 weeks are equal to one lunar day?


I hope this discovery of water on the Moon, which could make lunar bases more feasible and less expensive, might finally get Washington to loosen their purse strings to fund NASA with more money for space exploration.

So they bombed the moon and found water?


They still have to cart up a bunch of stuff to colonize--if that were the ultimate goal.

NASA should take donations for the enterprise.

Sell trips and such.

Any research paid for by the folks who want the research done.

Sell products down here--

Moon-Coffee

Tranquility Water

Man in the Moon Cheese!

The original Man in the Moon.

www.archive.org

Murphy --

It was fascinating though, the way the scientists were able to shoot a rocket directly into a darkened crater of the Moon and have it come up with water intermingled with the debris.

Water on the Moon -- not just a small isolated pocket of ice, but water spread across the lunar surface.

Think about what that means. Whenever you have water, you usually have some form of life.

One more observation from the article --

...The LCROSS rocket blasted a crater on the moon's south pole in October 2009, creating a 60- to 100-foot-wide hole in the lunar surface and generating a plume of lunar debris that included "at least 24 gallons of water," writes the New York Times....

Everyone scoffed about BuffaloBob's "smokestack on the Moon." But if an object hitting the Moon (in this case the LCROSS rocket) can create "a plume of lunar debris" why couldn't an astroid or other space object have hit the lunar surface with the same amount of force causing it to also spew a plume which, for lack of a better term, might have caused the plume to give the appearance of "a smokestack on the Moon"?

CC--as they claim there is water on the moon--they have also proclaimed that there is No life on the moon.

24 gallons fills up the bath tubs on a Cialis commercial.

Can something be sustained with help from us?

That remains to be seen.

-----

As for BB and the smokestack--he thinks there really is a smokestack. Actually--I think he thinks the moon shots are faked and they accidently got a picture of a smokestack.

He's so confusing..

Denies gas escaping from the inner crust--nothing seen in the shot coming from above to hit the surface and cause the plume.

-----

All in all--they should lay off the taxpayer money and go with private funding--collaborate with other govt's and such.

I've never scoffed at BBob....the plume looked real to me. The moon has no atmosphere, what you see should be black and white, eh? Color is transmitted only in an atmosphere, you need gases to excite the molecules, eh? Therefore no light scatter.You wouldn't be seen the blue and red of the American flag. Am I wrong?

www.gi.alaska.edu


seen = seeing

According to the link you provided, yes, you're wrong. Unless of course the American flag were made out of gas.

If you were to suck the air out of a glass tube with a red feather in it, would you also suck the red out of the tube? Would the feather suddenly appear grey? That's essentially what you are saying.

No, you see the red because you are in an atmosphere, you would have to be in a vacuum. What was taped was not in a vacuum.

If you were in an absolute vacuum, you should not be seeing color.

...But what if it was a Dyson...

Having a ready source of hydrogen will make generating oxygen on the Moon a lot easier.

#14 | Posted by s1l3nt_c0y0t3 at 2009-11-14 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag: FLUNKED HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY

Did you know 2 weeks are equal to one lunar day?

#17 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-14 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are astronauts unionized?

This new datum is a great step forward. Mahalo Nui Loa.


We all know that the Dyson vacuum cleaner range comes in a multitude of colors but have you ever stopped to think what your color choice may indicate about your personality.

Well, just for a bit of fun, let us examine some of the more popular choices and analyze what it says about you!

* White: you are pure, innocent and possibly naive. You probably are a bit of a perfectionist but desire simplicity.
* Red: you are strong and full of vitality but also maybe a bit aggressive and impulsive. You probably do not see any fault in yourself though!
* Orange: you are a social animal and rather flamboyant with it. You love a bit of luxury but can also be a bit of a drama queen. However nobody dislikes you for it because of your kind nature.
* Yellow: you are a bit of an intellectual with a vivid imagination. You are happy and wise but are not too keen on responsibility.
* Blue: you are an upright, compassionate and caring person. You may worry a little too much for your own good but you are patient and loyal.
* Green: you are kind, gentle and sincere and always willing to stand up for the minorities. However your modesty and peaceful nature may leave you open to exploitation by others.
* Lime green: you are either color blind or bought yours because of the price reduction to clear!
* Purple: you see yourself as a unique individual. Sensitive and witty but possibly a bit temperamental, you will certainly be the boss in your house.
* Black: you are a deep and dignified individual. You do not like showing off and prefer to be enigmatic and mysterious.

So what color is your Dyson vacuum cleaner?

I'm leaning towards black.

So what color is your Dyson vacuum cleaner?


Posted by dxlingr at 2009-11-14 11:04 PM | Reply

I have a Kirby

CC runs an orange Dyson. Trust me. ;)

I suppose there's a distinct possibility that you know what you're talking about, but my feeling is that you're misunderstanding some aspect of color, light, etc.

According to what you're saying, then, photographs of astronauts should be in black and white? i.timeinc.net

You remind me of this: www.cooperativeindividualism.o
rg

[* Orange Dyson Vacuum Cleaner: B>you are a social animal and rather flamboyant with it. You love a bit of luxury but can also be a bit of a drama queen. However nobody dislikes you for it because of your kind nature.]

CC runs an orange Dyson. Trust me. ;)

#35 | Posted by dxlingr at 2009-11-14 11:10 PM


Thanks at least for including me in the last line about a kind nature. lol

You might be surprised, dxlingr, as it pertains to the rest. Sure, I like a bit of luxury -- same as anyone else. But I'm not a high maintenance female and can have just as good a time with a guy who can only afford to spend $25 on a date as I can with a guy who'll spend $100 -- just as long as he's interesting and fun to be with.

I'm also a bit more shy in person than when here on DR. Can't always tell from a blog, can ya. : )

HI CC-

Just funnin' with ya :) It is your kind nature that caused me to think of that.

#36....I don't know much about physics and light, but I try put forth an honest opinion. It just seems logical that in the absence of matter i.e. atmospheric gases... that colors will not be detected, but please don't compare me to a cartoon.

But thanks for the notice.

Moonbats need water too!

The world is a complicated place, Hobbs

Whenever it seems that way, I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner.

HI CC-

Just funnin' with ya :)

It is your kind nature that caused me to think of that.

#38 | Posted by dxlingr at 2009-11-15 12:56 AM


Oh, I know you were just kidding around!

You're really a sweet guy, dxlingr. Always have been.

(Geeze, hope I didn't just blow your tough guy image on DR with my comment. lol)

We see color because of the relection and/or absorbtion of light reflecting off the surface we are viewing. I dont think a vacuum changes that.

And in Bob's defense....he never said he believes it's a smokestack. He said he calls it that because the video maker calls it a smokestack. He has always claimed he doesn't know what it is.

He said he calls it that because the video maker calls it a smokestack. He has always claimed he doesn't know what it is.

Yet he vociferiously denies any other explanation put forth. He adamantly refuses to consider any other possibility. In that respect he does support the conclusion it is a smokestack.

A vacuum gives the truest color. Light going through an atmosphere has certain wavelengths absorbed and scattered depending on the composition of the atmosphere.

Yet he vociferiously denies any other explanation put forth. He adamantly refuses to consider any other possibility. In that respect he does support the conclusion it is a smokestack.

good point...

I'll apologize for comparing you to a cartoon. You didn't present your ideas like opinions, though; they came off as factual statements.

Nice C&H reference in #41.

Yet he vociferiously denies any other explanation put forth. He adamantly refuses to consider any other possibility. In that respect he does support the conclusion it is a smokestack.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2009-11-15 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:


I have never heard anyone put out any other explanation other than the magic appearing, moving, fading, and disappearing smudge on a still picture in less than 1/6th second. I would accept that if someone could answer the questions.

How did they explain the smudge suddenly got on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge changing shape on the still picture? How did they explain the smudge fading from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the still picture? How did they explain the smudge doing all this from a still picture in 1/6th second?

I have never heard anyone put out any other explanation...

Thank you for proving my point. Everyone else who has read these threads has heard other explanations. That you openly admit you haven't is clear proof that you see only what you want to see and completely ignore and forget the rest.

Again, thank you for your honesty.

Of course there's water on the moon. How do you think Neil and the boys made Tang?

"Of course there's water on the moon. How do you think Neil and the boys made Tang?
#51 | Posted by cbob at 2009-11-15 02:18 PM"

From what I remember, there was a bit of excitement for Neil during the final landing moments.

So maybe there's water on the Moon NOW ;-)!

Everyone scoffed about BuffaloBob's "smokestack on the Moon." But if an object hitting the Moon (in this case the LCROSS rocket) can create "a plume of lunar debris" why couldn't an astroid or other space object have hit the lunar surface with the same amount of force causing it to also spew a plume which, for lack of a better term, might have caused the plume to give the appearance of "a smokestack on the Moon"?


#21 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-14 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag


The main flaw with that scenario is that the smokestack was there before the object hit the area, and the smokestack was there after the object hit instead of a crater. I have to say no object hit the area.

www.youtube.com

However, your explanation makes more sense the magic smudge.

Thank you for proving my point. Everyone else who has read these threads has heard other explanations. That you openly admit you haven't is clear proof that you see only what you want to see and completely ignore and forget the rest.

Again, thank you for your honesty.

#50 | Posted by Punk Boy at 2009-11-15 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which of those "other explanations" do you find compelling pUnk bOy?

In addition, just because I don't accept the magic moving and fading smudge, doesn't mean I think it is a smokestack. I don't know wtf it is---but it is there.

Which of those "other explanations" do you find compelling pUnk bOy?

What do you mean "which other explanations? You said there were none. Now you are asking which ones are compelling.

So which is it? Are there other explanations or not? You claim both.

It must really suck being confused all the time

What do you mean "which other explanations? You said there were none. Now you are asking which ones are compelling.

I never said there were other explanations--YOU said there were other explanations--I said I never heard of any other explanations.

So which is it? Are there other explanations or not? You claim both.

No, you claim there were other explanations, and now you are punking out on that claim, just like you punk out on everything.

It must really suck being confused all the time

You should know. Other than Califchris's explanation, and the magic smudge--both which have been rebutted, I haven't heard of any explanations. You opened your mouth---now let's see you back it up for once. LOL

Waiting on you

;-)

#55 | Posted by pUnk bOy at 2009-11-15 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

good point...

#47 | Posted by Shredder at 2009-11-15 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag

Still think he has a good point?

doucheboob...

I never said the smudge moves in the still picture...

I said it was a video, in which they take the still and zoom in on it. the "motion" induced by the zoom, and crappy video playback create what you are seeing is what I said.

I know you'll still here that as a smudge moving in a still shot, but that was never what I said.

hear.... not here

Hey Buffalo Bob send RCADE Your permission to send Me Your home Address, Your physical Home Address and I will personally send You a picture with a smudge on it so You can study it and decipher what the smudge might be. I'll even personally hand sign it suitable for framing. What say You Buffalo Bob??

Larry

What say You Buffalo Bob??

Larry

#60 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-16 12:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

I say you are a fumduck.

I never said the smudge moves in the still picture...

Yes, you did.


I said it was a video, in which they take the still and zoom in on it. the "motion" induced by the zoom, and crappy video playback create what you are seeing is what I said.

Taking a still out of a video makes it a still picture dumbass. Since the whole sequence is only 2 seconds long, and the "smoke" is 1/6th second, who do you think went to all that trouble--NASA, or NOVA? Your "explanation makes no sense---why would the smudge suddenly appear in only one place, and the rest of the picture remain static? The effect lasted for 4 frames. Why was no other portion of the picture affected? Isn't it a great coincidence that the smudge just happened to happen where there was a large protrusion jutting up from the moons surface on all four frames? How about you try to duplicate the effect? How about you find the effect duplicated anywhere else on the planet?

I know you'll still hear that as a smudge moving in a still shot, but that was never what I said.

It is exactly what you described. Moron.

#58 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2009-11-16 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag

Its worse than you think.
They're outsourcing our jobs to the moon.
fucking walmart.

I say you are a fumduck.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-16 12:47 AM | Reply

Ummmmmmm what's a dumfuck??I thought it was a Dumbfuck?? or more accurately to try and get out of a dump it would be a Fumbduck. BTW I hope that RCADE doesn't dump Your comment to Me cause I found Fumduck positiviely commical.

Larry

BTW I hope that RCADE doesn't dump Your comment to Me

Why would Rcade dump that,you're getting a little too sensitive Larry,Take a break

Ummmmmmmmm Bruce RCADE has in the past Dumped comments made by people who call another poster a Dumbfuck and not just towards Me. Just FYI.

Larry

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm dumbfuck is pretty tame compared to what I read in the dumped files.
FYI
Fuck You Ingrate?
Rcade,Rcade

Just playing Larry,
I love your posts,just wondering when do you sleep

From the same post:

--I said I never heard of any other explanations
---
Other than Califchris's explanation...I haven't heard of any explanations.

#56 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-15 08:47 PM

LOL As I said, bOoB, it must really suck being so confused all the time.

Once again, I thank you for proving my point that you see what you want to see, ignore the rest, and are extremely confused and addled. Your words prove it.

Once again, I thank you for proving my point that you see what you want to see, ignore the rest, and are extremely confused and addled. Your words prove it.

#69 | Posted by pUnk bOy at 2009-11-16 06:08 AM | Reply | Flag

When I oosted that, I hadn't seen Califchris's post, so what I said was factual. It is also factual you are punking out again---thanks for remaining the consistant pUnk that you have always been,

I hope this discovery of water on the Moon, which could make lunar bases more feasible and less expensive, might finally get Washington to loosen their purse strings to fund NASA with more money for space exploration.

#18 | Posted by CalifChris

To what immediate end?

At this point in our developmment, what can really be done by manned missions that cannot be done by unmanned missions?

Robotics and "smart" computer systems are getting better all the time.

The cost of sending up mini ecosystems to support human crew is ridiculously expensive.

When I oosted that, I hadn't seen Califchris's post,

Your words speak for themselves. You ain't fooling anyone with you weak excuses except maybe yourself. (and you are indeed so gullible that you can probably actuall do that! LOL) Aside from CC there have been many other plausible explanations. The fact you claim you didn't see them proves my point.

'Nuff said.

what can really be done by manned missions that cannot be done by unmanned missions?

Colonization.

It is also factual you are punking out again---

???

By reposting your own contradictory words?

Whatever, bOoB.

There was no contradiction pUnk bOy. I said I hadn't seen any other explanations in post #49---I hadn't read Califchris's post at that time.

You make yourself to be a liar and a pUnk.

Still waiting for the other explanations you claim. Oops--sorry---you already pUnked out on that didn't you. LOL

Not waiting on you.

;-)

There was no contradiction

LOL No, none at all:

--I said I never heard of any other explanations
---
Other than Califchris's explanation...I haven't heard of any explanations.

#56 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-15 08:47 PM

You truly are able to fool yourself, aren't you? LOL

what can really be done by manned missions that cannot be done by unmanned missions?

Colonization.

#73 | Posted by goatman

We've been own this road before.

We do not have the tech or the economic wherewithal for colonizing anything in the short or long term on the Moon. Note I use the word colonize, not just set up a Moon base. That we can do, but at great cost.

Nor are we prepared to literally launch a new species of man. For once they are out there for a while, they will change, they will adapt to the new, non-Earth environment. More than likely, they will not be able to come back down to Mother Earth, at least not without very special and specific accommodations being made. Once a new generation is spawned, they will not be of this Earth. Living in artificially environment with lower gravity will render them unsuitable for Earth normal.

Who knows how we will change psychologically.

This ain't no Star Trek episode where everything is all spacious and clean and gravity normal and plenty of food and water and air and you can zip around at FLT. Unfortunately, this is probably the way that most people see space travel.

The more realistic sci-fi space travel movies, 2001 and 2010, didn't even allude to the subject of long-distance space travel and its effects.

Atlantis is supposed to go up again soon on a resupply mission to ISS and also retrieve a US woman astronaut who has been up there since August. I would like to know what has to be done to rehabilitate her to Earth normal after 4-5 months in LEO and zero G, with the Earth in full view.

Think about months, if not years, away from the Earth, literally trapped in an area about the size of a small trailer.

We've got a long ways to go before we should even consider colonization of any sort. Hell, the way we're crapping up our own near space with all sorts of cast-off space junk, it's getting rapidly to the point where we'll have to start developing some sort of junk collection system to clean it all up.

I was focusing more on colonization of the Galaxy.

I understand everything 100% zot and you are for the most part correct. However, it is baby steps we have to take. We didn't go from being a completely flightless species to landing on the moon in one step. The Wright brothers could never have built a Saturn V rocket. Technology begets technology and we keep building on it.

We will never colonized the stars until we take the baby step of colonizing the moon.

I was focusing more on colonization of the Galaxy.

I understand everything 100% zot and you are for the most part correct. However, it is baby steps we have to take. We didn't go from being a completely flightless species to landing on the moon in one step. The Wright brothers could never have built a Saturn V rocket. Technology begets technology and we keep building on it.

We will never colonized the stars until we take the baby step of colonizing the moon.

Really no arg with y'a, Goat. But considering where we are today, what we need to do today, where we are technology today, Moon colony stuff is fluff. Hideously expensive fluff. Unmanned systems can easily gather the info at a 10th of the cost, plus help develop and test risk free propulsion systems that may one day get us somewhere "locally" in days and weeks, and not months and years.

Unfortunately, mebbe the US needs to pump it up and get some facilities on the Moon just to establish a presence. Because the Chinese are surely going there with the help of the Rooskies.

Can someone explain where the H2O on the moon gets the O, so it can be H2O?

Can someone explain where the H2O on the moon gets the O, so it can be H2O?

#81 | Posted by midtowncowboy

That's one of those things they're gonna have to figure out. The water didn't originate there. Maybe a comet impact long ago from the same comet storms that provided the Earth with its water.


#76 | Posted by pUnk bOy at 2009-11-16 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag

Taking posts out of context simply proves you to be a liar pUnk bOy. I guess you are too dim to realize that simple point. When I said I hadn't heard of any other explanations, I hadn't read Califchris's post yet.

Still pUnking out on your claim to other explanations with your weak, lying deflection I see. You insist on proving yourself a pUnk bOy post after post. LOL--keep it up.

;-)

Taking a still out of a video makes it a still picture dumbass.

are you that f*&(ing stupid?

I didn't say take a still from a video...

take a photo...put it on a computer...zoom in and out, and video tape the process.

The resultant video is the video of which I am speaking your f*)(*)king moron.

You claim to have an open mind, yet you can't wrap your mind around the fact that someone took a crappy video, used some editing software to zoom in sections and the resulting video of that is what you are seeing. and that anything there is the result of noise introduced in that process. To you that is the lesser of the likely explanations.

You're so fucking stupid it makes my head hurt.

I didn't say take a still from a video...

You didn't? It sure looks like that is exactly what you said here:

I said it was a video, in which they take the still and zoom in on it. the "motion" induced by the zoom, and crappy video playback create what you are seeing is what I said.

Zooming in and out does not create the results shown in the video. Zooming in and out of a still picture has never, in the history of photography, produced such a result.

As stated, the whole sequence is only 2 seconds long. It came directly from NASA to NOVA. Any zooming was done with the video camera and remote attached to Apollo 8---not NOVA.

However. if you can show an instance of zooming that produces anything CLOSE to the effect, I will give your moronic suggestion more consideration. I doubt NOVA would have crappy zooming equipment. I doubt NOVA would take a still, zoom in and out for a 2 second clip, and not examine it before putting it in the video. If NOVA did take a still as you suggest and zoom in and out, I think they would have compared the results with the original, and noticed the discrepancy.

What seems most likely to have happened is exactly what you see. The film from Apollo 8 recorded exactly what is shown. No tricks. No elaborate editing practices with crappy eqipment and incompetent editors for a 2 second clip.

Bob's right, it is a smokestack.

A smokestack on the moon.

#85 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'll credit the BoOb for having strong faith in his beloved Great Smokestack in the Sky, but faith didn't really help the Catholics deal with Copernicus. I don't know if he's been sniffing paint for 20 years or was simply born stupid, but for whatever reason BoOb is incapable of embracing anything but the most far-flung and scientifically unsound position on any issue.

A word of advice to Batshit Bob: Get in touch with reality, or get used to being a running joke.

Giant steps are what you take
Walking on the moon
I hope my legs don't break
Walking on the moon
We could walk forever
Walking on the moon
We could live together
Walking on, walking on the moon

Walking back from your house
Walking on the moon
Walking back from your house
Walking on the moon
Feet they hardly touch the ground
Walking on the moon
My feet don't hardly make no sound
Walking on, walking on the moon

Some may say
I'm wishing my days away
No way
And if it's the price I pay
Some say
Tomorrow's another day
You stay
I may as well play
Sting

but for whatever reason BoOb is incapable of embracing anything but the most far-flung and scientifically unsound position on any issue.

#87 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-11-16 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I say the camera recorded what it saw---the batshit crazy shit is that magic smudges appear, move, fade, and disappear in less than 1/6th second.

If shipdits like you think that believing a camera took a picture of exactly what it saw is a far-flung and scientifically unsound position, and magic smudges are sound reality----I can live with that--if you can.

BBob: Which seems more likely, - smokestacks on the moon, or crappy equipment/incompetent editing?

BBob: Which seems more likely, - smokestacks on the moon, or crappy equipment/incompetent editing?

I'm sure he'll blame incompetent editing... by aliens.


BBob: Which seems more likely, - smokestacks on the moon, or crappy equipment/incompetent editing?

#90 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-11-16 04:21 PM | Reply | Flag

Just because it is called a smokestack doesn't mean it is a smokestack. It looks like a smokestack, but I have said several times that I don't think it is a smokestack like we know on Earth. It has to be called something--I call it what the people in the video call it.

Do you think NASA sent crappy equipment to the moon? Cameras and film equipment were well developed in 1968---do you think NASA sent the cheapest stuff they could get their hands on, or do you think they sent the best available. I'd like to hear your answer.

As to the crappy editing, I doubt the film was edited at all. But if you think the 2 second sequence was edited poorly, explain exactly how it was edited so badly. Answer the questions.

How does crappy editing explain a smudge suddenly appearing in the video? How does crappy editing explain the smudge changing shape? How does crappy editing explain the smudge fading from the video? How does crappy editing explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the video? How does crappy editing explain the smudge doing all this in 1/6th second?

Why would anyone need to edit a two second sequence? So far your explanation is the same as Bad Astonomy's "something happened". I'm asking---what happened. Can you answer?

Please answer my question BBob. Which do you believe is more likely, that there is something akin to a smokestack on the moon or that this is a case of crappy equipment/incompetent editing?

So God puts water on the moon but his chosen people in a desert?

What a joker.

But is there manna on the moon?

Could the lord part the waters in the Sea of Tranquility?


Please answer my question BBob. Which do you believe is more likely, that there is something akin to a smokestack on the moon or that this is a case of crappy equipment/incompetent editing?

#93 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-11-16 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe I answered your question---unless you are too stupid to discern what all those words meant, and I don't think you are that stupid. How about answering my questions?

So, if I understand your answer correctly... you think that it is more likely to be crappy equipment/ incompetent editing? Actually, BBob, you never answer the question at all. You avoided the question with a lot of excess verbiage. But you never answered it. (And it was such a simple direct question.)

Moder8

I guess you are that stupid after all. Yes, I believe it is more likely that there is something akin to a smokestack structure on the moon smokestack than crappy equipment or incompetent editing.

Now, how about you answering the questions, or are you going to rely on the old magic moving smudge, and "something happened" as your explanation to the video?

1. Do you think NASA sent crappy equipment to the moon?

2. Do you think NOVA used crappy equipment in programming their show?

3. Do you think NOVA edited a 2 second sequence that was not referenced at all in their video "To the Moon"?

4. How does crappy editing explain a smudge suddenly appearing in the video?

5. How does crappy editing explain the smudge changing shape?

6. How does crappy editing explain the smudge fading from the video?

7. How does crappy editing explain the smudge suddenly disappearing from the video?

8. How does crappy editing explain the smudge doing all this in 1/6th second?

Does "something happened" explain it all for you? Fine--it doesn't do it for me.

BuffaloBob -

This may have to be in two parts. And I did a lot of typing so hope you take the time to read.

In packing up things up here at the house getting ready to move, this weekend I came across a manila envelope addressed to my father from JPL which included the enclosed letter (which I 've retyped verbatim) and other material about the Surveyor I. My Dad worked for JPL as a test pilot for awhile which was the reason he received this letter I retyped below along with other JPL employees.

JPL
4800 Oak Crove Drive
Pasadena, California 91103

July 6, 1966

Dear Fellow JPL Employee:

It is with a great deal of pleasure that we make available as a small token of appreciation this set of photographs selected from the more than 10,000 taken by Surveyor I after it had landed safely on the lunar surface.

This historic accomplishment is a tribute to mankind in general and particularly to those many people who directly or indirectly have contributed to this result. Certainly everyone at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory falls within the latter category. Also, of course, do the people at Hughes Aircraft Company, Lewis Research Center, General Dynamics/Convair, and many other organizations and locations.

Surveyor I remains on the lunar surface - a quite unique feature compared to the rest of the lunar landscape. Someday men exploring the face of the moon will seek it out and wil recognize it as both an early pioneer in the exploration of the moon and as a monument to the society anbd the people who created it.

Very truly yours,

R.J. Parks
Surveyor Project Manager


Also enclosed were five 8" x 10" separate black and white glossy photos of the lunar surface taken by Surveyor I, six sheets (of 12 -- don't know what happened to the rest of them) of a glossy publication about the Surveyor I from the "Office of Public Information" and a 39-page book from NASA entitled -- "SURVEYOR I - A Preliminary Report" (NASA SP-126 ). I had never seen these photos or letter before and didn't know my Dad even had them.

Naturally, I thought of you when I saw the five black and white glossies enclosed as they showed a number of odd shaped formations on the lunar surface. I figured if these photos showed what looked like oddities on the lunar surface, maybe your "smokestack" photo wasn't such a stretch after all. Not to say it was actually "smoke" shown in your video, but who knows where that picture came from or exactly what it was. If these Surveyor I black and white photos showed very weird formations, well....

Some day if there is any way for you to get a P.O. Box (for your own privacy) I would be willing to send xerox copies of all of it to you. I won't put my return address as I want to keep my own privacy too. But I am quite busy right now so don't know when I could get around to it for the time being. In the meantime, you might be able to get a hold of the NASA Surveyor I publication (SP-126) just to read if you are interested. Still, you would not have the copies of the individual 8x10s sent to my Dad unless I mailed them to you. Perhaps once my moving is squared away and I've had a chance to finally catch my breath, I'll buy a scanner and can upload them here for everyone to see. Whatever.

Had it not been for all the "smokestack on the moon" threads I would probably not have given this material a second glance when I came across it here at the house. So glad to have been informed enough via reading all those threads to have stopped and really taken a good look through everything in the manila envelope -- something I probably might not have done.

Okay, have things to do around here.

Re #99 - Letter from JPL

...anbd the people who created it = ...and the people who created it."

There was no typo in the actual letter from JPL -- it was me retyping it with a typo.

Also forgot to indent the letter as a quote.

Califchris

Thank you for the effort. I would be very interested in seeing those pics. When you get the capablilty, let me know and I'll send you my address through email. I don't think you'll stalk me or compromise my address.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov

Looks like Moder8 saw something shiny.

;-)

BBob, I like you. I think you are an interesting guy. I really disagree with your belief that there is any type of conspiracy to cover up alien constructions (or what have you) on the moon. But I am content to leave well enough alone. I am not so arrogant as to disbelieve that I too at various times in my life have placed my faith in far fetched notions.

Moder8

In my first postings about this video, I gave the alternative that it is a natural phenomena--an outgassing of some sort. The proposition was that either science was wrong about the moon being dead, and science needed to reevaluate its position on moon geology---or that there was something not natural happening there. Alien life being a definite possibility. That NOVA would edit a 2 second video clip that wasn't referenced in the slightest in its video is a stretch too far for me to believe--yes--if it isn't a natural phenomena, then I believe it is alien rather than some unknown technical accident. "Something happened" is not as credible as there is "something there" to me.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not.

#101 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-16 11:02 PM

Califchris

Thank you for the effort.

You're welcome.

I would be very interested in seeing those pics. When you get the capablilty, let me know and I'll send you my address through email.

Okay. I'll keep these photos aside and out of the packing box. However, as I said, it will be awhile until I get the chance to make copies and get them mailed. I'm up to my neck in repairmen, etc. this week but I promise you I will not forget to send them even if it takes a few weeks. I hope xeroxing them will keep some of the same clarity as the original glossy photos but you should be able to see enough for them to be of interest to you.

I don't think you'll stalk me...

Oh please, spare me. Sounds like you've watched too many re-runs of Fatal Attraction. lol

Don't worry. I have never "stalked" anyone in my life. And whether someone lives near or far from me, I make it a practice to keep my blog buddies separate from my real life when it comes to meeting in person. I've seen here on DR (with two other bloggers) what can happen when your personal life gets mixed together and things don't go too well. I enjoy blogging on DR too much to let that happen to me.

However, I will make our one exception. A bet is a bet so to me that's different. I will still keep my word about meeting on December 21, 2012 when YOU LOSE the the Mayan prophecy bet and have to pay for my prime rib dinner. lol I never welsh on my bets.

...or compromise my address.

I would never give out your email or residence address. I certainly wouldn't want someone to do it to me so why would I do it to someone else? Of course your privacy will be respected, BuffaloBob. And when I get the copies made, I'll give you an email address I have set up on Yahoo because, for privacy's sake, I've made it a point to not hand out my real email address on DR -- something I'm sure you understand.

BBob --

When I get copies of those 5 black and white glossies made for you, I'll ask if they can be copied onto the same type of glossy photo paper rather than just make a xerox copy. It's only 5 pictures so it'll be no big deal for me to do it.

BBob --
When I get copies of those 5 black and white glossies made for you, I'll ask if they can be copied onto the same type of glossy photo paper rather than just make a xerox copy. It's only 5 pictures so it'll be no big deal for me to do it.
#106 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-17 04:12 PM

If they can be digitized for free I'd love to see them. You could set up a flickr account under CalifChris or just have them emailed.

We can work something out if that's not out of your way at some future time. Moving is best spent planning each space, not feed the conspiracy nuts!

BBob --

When I get copies of those 5 black and white glossies made for you, I'll ask if they can be copied onto the same type of glossy photo paper rather than just make a xerox copy. It's only 5 pictures so it'll be no big deal for me to do it.

#106 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-17 04:12 PM"


If they can be digitized for free I'd love to see them. You could set up a flickr account under CalifChris or just have them emailed.

We can work something out if that's not out of your way at some future time. Moving is best spent planning each space, not feed the conspiracy nuts!

Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-11-18 01:08 AM


I'll check out what you suggested. As you can tell, I'm not real saavy with how to go about digitizing regular photos but I'll find out if my the photo section at my CVS Drug Store here in town can do it.

And don't worry about the digitizing being done for free. If I have to pay to have the five photos digitized it's no big deal. Certainly can't cost much so I'll just have it done and then either email them or link the photos for anyone who wants to see them.

And you're 100% right about "moving is best spent planning each space...." before taking on anything else. I've more than got my hands full now, let me tell you. But give me some time and I'll get it done.

ps -- I love feeding the conspiracy nuts. On certain subjects I'm one of them myself. *grin*

I'll check out what you suggested. As you can tell, I'm not real saavy with how to go about digitizing regular photos but I'll find out if my the photo section at my CVS Drug Store here in town can do it.
And don't worry about the digitizing being done for free. If I have to pay to have the five photos digitized it's no big deal. Certainly can't cost much so I'll just have it done and then either email them or link the photos for anyone who wants to see them.
And you're 100% right about "moving is best spent planning each space...." before taking on anything else. I've more than got my hands full now, let me tell you. But give me some time and I'll get it done.
ps -- I love feeding the conspiracy nuts. On certain subjects I'm one of them myself. *grin*
#108 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-11-18 03:07 AM

Awesomeness, thanky! My favorite part of moving is when it's complete.

"Nuts are healthy in proportional quantities", not just involving a Cialis ad.:]

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable