Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 234
377
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



When I made my Rock & Roll post
I assumed that all samples were returned in the Rock Boxes.
Because thats how NASA pitched in their documents.
My main question was how they managed to increasingly fit so many samples in those two small boxes.
And where NASA placed those samples in the CM.


You assumed that all the samples were returned in the "Rock Boxes." That has nothing to do with NASA "pitching" it that way. It has to do with your making an argument from your assumptions before researching the premise fully. In answer to your question: "Where did they stow them in the CM?"
history.nasa.gov...


Looking into it deeper, indeed my original assumption that those two rock boxes only held up to 40 pounds of material each was proven correct, but indeed NASA used for additional or excess samples extra BAGS.


Your original assumption was shown to be incorrect:


This ALSRC was used in July 1969 during Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. The sample-laden container was opened under controlled conditions in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Houston Manned Space Center. It carried 21.8 kg (47.7 lbs) of lunar material from the Sea of Tranquility.

Smithsonian Air and Space Museum



And, this also meant that NASA, by bringing lunar material in bags, had basically contaminated the samples from the get go. Why would they do that?


Because they assumed, over-optimistically it turned out, that any sample sealed in the lunar vacuum would be vacuum sealed. I would have assumed as much, but apparently the various seals and plastic bags were not air tight enough to last four days.


But also the LACK of documentation of supposedly bringing back the first materials from the moon.
The un-boxing of the rock boxes should have been widely covered. Not only for promotion, but also for
proving how much they actually brought back.
Every rock and sample should have been unpacked and recorded on film like it was gold from King Tuts Tomb.
Maybe it was done, but at this point, I cant find it.


Seek and ye shall find:






Twenty-five years ago, rocks from the Moon were delivered to a laboratory in Houston that was a marked contrast to the methodical, almost serene laboratory in which the Moon rocks are curated today. In July 1969, action in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory was intense. Technicians working in the gloved-cabinets had scientists excitedly looking over their shoulders for a first glimpse of the rocks from the Moon. The scientists had the media eagerly awaiting some pronouncement about the appearance and composition of the samples.

Elbert A. King, the first Lunar Sample Curator, reported "The moment was truly history, but there was little we could observe or say. We counted the rocks and described the size and shape of each piece, but they looked like lumps of charcoal in the bottom of a backyard barbecue grill. The pervasive dark lunar dust obscured everything for the time being." (King, 1989).

Even reporting the results of chemical analysis was hurried. S. Ross Taylor recalls getting lunar samples about noon on July 29th knowing that he would have to produce the results of a good chemical analysis by emission spectroscopy for a press conference at 4:00 p.m. He carried out this analytical work behind the biological barrier, working the sample inside of a nitrogen cabinet. Adding to the tension was the surprise discovery of 5000 ppm Cr in the Apollo 11 sample which obscured the primary calibration lines, so other lines had to be hastily substituted.

Judy Allton I urge you to read the entire article. At the time, the chief contamination fear was that some horrible lunar disease would be carried back in the samples. I believe the novel "The Andromeda Strain" may have had something to do with that.

I believe I posted a link to this site earlier: Lunar and Planetary Institute Each of those numbers is a link to a large PDF file containing all the documentation you seem unable to find. There are photographs and multiple analyses of each sample, with citations that allow you to find the protocol and results of each test published in the scientific journals of the time.




posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



When I made my Rock & Roll post
I assumed that all samples were returned in the Rock Boxes.
Because thats how NASA pitched in their documents.
My main question was how they managed to increasingly fit so many samples in those two small boxes.
And where NASA placed those samples in the CM.


You assumed that all the samples were returned in the "Rock Boxes." That has nothing to do with NASA "pitching" it that way.


Of course it is. Most NASA documentation on the samples do not discuss using extra bags.
Its this exact reason why you guys were trying to argue that two rock boxes were enough
to do the job when NASA clearly stated the limit!
Just like how most, if not all, of you participating on this thread assumed that all cameras were
left on the moon.



answer to your question: "Where did they stow them in the CM?"
history.nasa.gov...


Thats not answering my question!
I know where they were stowed in the CM.
Thats in my Rock Box post.
Show me where they stowed it on the LM!






Looking into it deeper, indeed my original assumption that those two rock boxes only held up to 40 pounds of material each was proven correct, but indeed NASA used for additional or excess samples extra BAGS.


Your original assumption was shown to be incorrect:


Wrong! My assumptions are backed by NASA's own statements.
Yours are not. This is the exact reason why serious debates on this subject
can never occur.






This ALSRC was used in July 1969 during Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. The sample-laden container was opened under controlled conditions in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory at the Houston Manned Space Center. It carried 21.8 kg (47.7 lbs) of lunar material from the Sea of Tranquility.

Smithsonian Air and Space Museum


So what? I asked about the BAGS!
And where is the VIDEOS of those BAGS and BOXES
being brought out of the CM, and unpacked in the LAB?








And, this also meant that NASA, by bringing lunar material in bags, had basically contaminated the samples from the get go. Why would they do that?


Because they assumed, over-optimistically it turned out, that any sample sealed in the lunar vacuum would be vacuum sealed. I would have assumed as much, but apparently the various seals and plastic bags were not air tight enough to last four days.



But also the LACK of documentation of supposedly bringing back the first materials from the moon.
The un-boxing of the rock boxes should have been widely covered. Not only for promotion, but also for
proving how much they actually brought back.
Every rock and sample should have been unpacked and recorded on film like it was gold from King Tuts Tomb.
Maybe it was done, but at this point, I cant find it.


Seek and ye shall find:






Oh, is that all you have?
See what a mean about lacking.





Judy Allton I urge you to read the entire article. At the time, the chief contamination fear was that some horrible lunar disease would be carried back in the samples. I believe the novel "The Andromeda Strain" may have had something to do with that.

I believe I posted a link to this site earlier: Lunar and Planetary Institute Each of those numbers is a link to a large PDF file containing all the documentation you seem unable to find. There are photographs and multiple analyses of each sample, with citations that allow you to find the protocol and results of each test published in the scientific journals of the time.




I wonder if they were as concerned with what the Russians were bringing back. LOL.
At any rate, that site you provided and which I have gone through is proof positive that NASA
has something to hide. Its full of dead links, there is a lack of media showing how the samples
were returned. And dont you just love it:


Disclaimer 1
This edition of the Lunar Sample Compendium contains succinct summaries of ~150 lunar samples. Every effort has been made to reference the data to the original publication, which the reader should use for accuracy. Only basic information related to the particular sample is discussed in this Compendium. The reader must refer to the original publications for information of a highly technical nature.



Disclaimer 4
The nomenclature for lunar samples is confusing and not well conceived. In this Compendium, the names given rock samples are those used in the literature. Stoffler et al. (1980) provides a well-reasoned framework for naming lunar highland rock (breccias), but it has proven difficult to implement.



Disclaimer 5
As of 2008, this Compendium is entirely the work of Chuck Meyer who takes full responsibility for mistakes, omissions, misinterpretations etc.


After 40 years, this is the best that NASA provides online.

LOL.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




Wrong! My assumptions are backed by NASA's own statements.
Yours are not. This is the exact reason why serious debates on this subject
can never occur
.
Ohh god!


The only reason a serious debate hasn't happened is only because of the bogus material you bring to the table. Plus your down right inability to address logical fallacy of your argument, plus that you beat around many bushes instead of answering questions.

Nothing more, nothing less.

edit on 30-10-2010 by theability because: rephrase
edit on 30-10-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by FoosM
 




Wrong! My assumptions are backed by NASA's own statements.
Yours are not. This is the exact reason why serious debates on this subject
can never occur
.
Ohh god!


The only reason a serious debate hasn't happened is only because of the bogus material you bring to the table. Plus your down right inability to address logical fallacy of your argument, plus that you beat around many bushes instead of answering questions.

Nothing more, nothing less.

edit on 30-10-2010 by theability because: rephrase
edit on 30-10-2010 by theability because: (no reason given)


Im sorry if I am not investigating a more sexy area of Apollo.
And area not usually covered.

But I have brought several issues on the table.
It appears that you and many others dont want to address them
because you are afraid to see what they uncover.

Now you wasted a post attacking my resolve, and you
failed to offer anything substantial to the debate.

Where did they store the rock boxes in the LM?
Where did they store the extra bags in the CM?



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But I have brought several issues on the table.
It appears that you and many others dont want to address them
because you are afraid to see what they uncover.


ABSOLUTE BALD FACED LIE. A review of the posts by you, and the hundreds of replies by many, many others which completely demolish ALL of your "issues"and show them to be indicative of, in various degrees, either a simple misunderstanding of science, on your part, or a blatant MISREPRESENTATION (deceit) as well. Intentional twisting, altering the info from sources by quote mining out of context.

The actions of a desperate loser in a discussion, and are deplorable. Unfortunately for you, the evidence remains, for ALL to see, in all its (often hilarious), sometimes face-slappingly, groan-worthy glory.


Where did they store the rock boxes in the LM?
Where did they store the extra bags in the CM?


Clear, solid irrefutable evidence of your actual failure, at every turn and every one of your attempts. It's almost as if you don't realize that the history of this thread has gone down in posterity, and will be looked at, by many.

This is the clearest indication of them all, of late, the tactics you have used continually. Asking "questions" over and over and over again, when answers have been written already, in many ways, and from several different people, WITH PICTURES TOO!

Grow up. A child who first learns the unique "power" of the word "why" usually grows tired of that "game". That is YOUR game, here....one would think you'd grow out of it by now, or get tired of it. Others certainly are fed up with these endlessly inane antics. These are the SAME type of crap games that "Jarrah White" (noise) employs. And HIS reputation has already been dragged into the mud, to anyone who bothers to have paid attention, here. Do you really wish to stand "by" him, as he sinks into the quicksand of obscurity and stupidity?? To be looked upon as a "laughingstock", as "JW" (noise) and his sort are??

Well, it IS your right, I suppose. What size dunce cap shall we provide?? English, metric or American size??



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 



But I have brought several issues on the table.
It appears that you and many others dont want to address them
because you are afraid to see what they uncover.


ABSOLUTE BALD FACED LIE.


No lie, sorry.
And writing it in caps wont make you any more right either.
And I'll prove it, watch this:




The actions of a desperate loser in a discussion, and are deplorable. Unfortunately for you, the evidence remains, for ALL to see, in all its (often hilarious), sometimes face-slappingly, groan-worthy glory.


Ok so...


Where did they store the rock boxes in the LM?
Where did they store the extra bags in the CM?






Clear, solid irrefutable evidence of your actual failure, at every turn and every one of your attempts. It's almost as if you don't realize that the history of this thread has gone down in posterity, and will be looked at, by many.


and...




This is the clearest indication of them all, of late, the tactics you have used continually. Asking "questions" over and over and over again, when answers have been written already, in many ways, and from several different people, WITH PICTURES TOO!


and...




Grow up. A child who first learns the unique "power" of the word "why" usually grows tired of that "game". That is YOUR game, here....one would think you'd grow out of it by now, or get tired of it. Others certainly are fed up with these endlessly inane antics. These are the SAME type of crap games that "Jarrah White" (noise) employs. And HIS reputation has already been dragged into the mud, to anyone who bothers to have paid attention, here. Do you really wish to stand "by" him, as he sinks into the quicksand of obscurity and stupidity?? To be looked upon as a "laughingstock", as "JW" (noise) and his sort are??


and finally...



Well, it IS your right, I suppose. What size dunce cap shall we provide?? English, metric or American size??





Weed, Im sorry to tell you but
the Apollo Moon Landing was science fiction and you became a Sci-fi Fantasist.
You have to stop believing that everything politicians tell the public is true.
Their job is to lie and manipulate the voters, usually out of their paychecks.
I know the idea of landing on the moon is an attractive fantasy, but just like Elvis sightings, its
the result of an over active imagination and wishful thinking.

Now I'm doing my best to chip away at this fantasy, but you have to make an effort as well.
You can't always count on my help in this regard.
If you don't actively begin to question these false realities, then you will continue
basing your life decisions by it. And thats not healthy.

I mean, seriously, think about it.
Men on the moon, back in the '60s?




posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Where did they store the rock boxes in the LM?


According to the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Checklist, the SRCs went in the Left Hand Mid Section Stowage. The OPS (Oxygen Purge Systems) were stored in that location during decent and between the EVAs. You can see that it mentions they are in adapters, because the SRCs had a mechanism on them to lock into these locations.



The red arrow is pointing right to the area where the OPS/SRCs would go in this aft view:



Once the SRCs were onboard and locked in, the OPS were stowed secured to the floor.

Here are the OPS units as installed on the Eagle. This is where the SRCs would go.

edit on 30-10-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Foosm

What will you say WHEN proof that even you cant argue with is given ie an independant source pictures the sites with enough detail that even you cant lie about it.

What will you say to everyone about all the BS you have spouted on here.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Great thread dude, im on the pro-side that we did land on the moon for obvious reasons...anyway can't see the videos right now because im downgraded to dial-up until the 5th.

Will look it up though, interesting find.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Here's a very special link for FoosM and any of the other dwindling apollo deniers:

I Give Up: The Apollo moon missions were UN-fakeable

Yes, another denier sees the light.

That shows what happens when a denier actually steps back from their desperate need to believe it was faked, and applies science, knowledge, wisdom and logic while properly researching the records. They come to the inevitable, and correct, conclusion that the missions were not faked, and simply could not have been faked.

Given that applying science, knowledge, wisdom and logic while properly researching leads to a conclusion that the Apollo missions happened as historically recorded, and that none of the deniers posting here have been able to reach that conclusion.... I'll let the reader decide why that is.

And this is a classic case of a thread that is crying out for moderator input. Should it really be going in the ridiculous circles that FoosM is now running in, going back over and over and over stuff previously raised, and denying it was answered?



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

And this is a classic case of a thread that is crying out for moderator input. Should it really be going in the ridiculous circles that FoosM is now running in, going back over and over and over stuff previously raised, and denying it was answered?


I agree with this 100%.

But perhaps there might be a more sinister explanation for the lack of moderator input. One we cannot rule out at this time is that users supporting the hoax arguments could be some sort of advanced bot or botnet. I will not name users but I will put forward this thought provoking idea.

The sophistication of the script is essentially in the realm of "arteficial intellegence". The parameters chosen to maximise thread activity by methods of incoherent and abrasive dialogue. The bot relies on knowledge aquisition up to a certain number of pages before there is sufficient data to transition to circular argument. A component of the model could be an artifical nerual network, the youtube videos prepared well in advance by psyops experts and well skilled in the art of pure spin. The embeding of videos controlled by advanced random number generators.

Fast fourier transfom of the thread content may reveal circular theme elements. I suspect there are some that occur over single page cycles, 5 page cycles and possibly long period themes up around the 100 page mark. The artificial neural network may adjust the cycle parameters dynamically.

Other parameters may involve maximizing youtube revenue to pay for ATS site bandwidth. This would imply that ATS is perpetuating the myth.

This is the conclusion I have come to after eliminating rational explanations behind why this thread is being allowed to continue in this manner.

It wouldnt surprise me if the moderator deletes this post because certain perturbations to the bot model may cause it to crash. But I will stick to this conclusion either way.

Att: CHRLZ, im just taking the piss (aussie slang), Those presenting their first hand accounts at the time of Apollo is truly stimulating to read. I wasnt born till much later. I was convinced when TV technicians at Parkes described in intimate detail the effort needed to broadcast the mission live. I believe this was at a conference with another group from San Diego or LA presenting involved with the restoration of the landing footage. Keep up the good work!!



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


VERY, very interesting take on this.....would be interested in its possible merit, as I have no idea the technology you referred to.

However....well, was going to ask if this supposed "web-bot" was still a juvenile. because I think it (he/she) has nearly exhausted the ATS supply of
smilies.... ( joke...
) Does the over-use of
in nearly every post indicate a Human behind the keyboard? Could it be a form of the "Turing Test"? Of course, I suppose, as you mentioned with the YouTube vids, they could be pre-programmed.

What's interesting--- thinking out loud here as I type ---another indication that lends some credence to your hypothesis could be in the posting pattern style and tones, that seemed to have (from just ONE ATS member) a distinct dual-personality aspect, it seems. A combination of a Human, and a 'bot, interlacing and alternating posts?? (When a "reply" is typed, with quoted text to the respondent, and the mess of smilies, compared to the other style of post, that flies off on a tangent, asking the repeat questions, in a circular way, as you noted....)

What a clever idea you had, in puzzling out this puzzling behavior.
(Not saying it's a fact for certain, just worthy of more investigation and consideration). FINALLY!! A possible "conspiracy" to actually sink one's teeth into, instead of this dead-and-buried "Apollo hoax" nonsense.

edit on 31 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: spell



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Interesting theory. That would explain the over-reliance on quote mining and why FoosM was unwilling or unable to reply when I issued this challenge: which of these samples is from the Moon and which from the Earth?





A bot would be incapable of actually "seeing" the pictures. it would just be a string of BBS code. That would also explain this post:



Seek and ye shall find:

[/quote


Oh, is that all you have?
See what a mean about lacking.


It simply counted two embedded images. Rather than acknowledge that a single photograph would have refuted its claim that there was no such documentation, it went with a standard pre-programmed response: is that all you have?" A human being would know that there is obviously much more that could be posted, but a bot, lacking imagination and comprehension, would assume that the two embedded objects constituted the whole universe of possibilities. A bot, lacking imagination, would also be incapable of conceiving of the uses of mesh netting and bungee cords for stowage purposes. In evaluating this post, a bot would seize upon the new material inserted ("mesh netting and bungee cords") and use it in a rhetorical fashion in order to achieve a functional contextual definition. Fascinating. Let's see what happens.
edit on 31-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.
edit on 31-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Very interesting take, it would seem quite plausible. However the bot appears to simulate an individual after a lobotomy that is unable to mentally grow or learn, so it is still lacking in a lot of respects. I think there is a very long way to go before this bot is capable of simulating a fully coherent adult with even basic reasoning skills.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


This just yells XKCD...




posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pezza

Originally posted by CHRLZAnd this is a classic case of a thread that is crying out for moderator input. Should it really be going in the ridiculous circles that FoosM is now running in, going back over and over and over stuff previously raised, and denying it was answered?

...
I agree with this 100%.
But perhaps there might be a more sinister explanation for the lack of moderator input...

That's a fascinating concept. I must admit to being extremely puzzled by the complete lack of mod involvement on this huge thread. (I'm not talking about responding to alerts, I'm talking about actually *posting* and being truly involved. At the beginning, I thought the thread could serve some purpose, but it has degenerated terribly. Might be worth creating a summary version though...


Att: CHRLZ, im just taking the piss (aussie slang)

Oh, I dunno - think you're onto something!


Those presenting their first hand accounts at the time of Apollo is truly stimulating to read. I wasnt born till much later.

If you've seen 'The Dish' (a quirky, funny, and somewhat historically inaccurate movie, but well worth seeing) - that little kid was me (even looked like me!). The nerdy little science freak who ate up everything on the Apollo mission, had all the models, listened to the live radio and was absolutely riveted to the tv on that fateful day in July 1969. I lived and breathed the Apollo missions, and to me they are mankind's pinnacle achievement in terms of pushing the science and engineering envelope.


I was convinced when TV technicians at Parkes described in intimate detail the effort needed to broadcast the mission live. I believe this was at a conference with another group from San Diego or LA presenting involved with the restoration of the landing footage. Keep up the good work!!

Thanks, but I've pretty much dropped out of this thread now that the FoosM effect has destroyed it. WRT Parkes, I travel the long road from Brisbane to Adelaide quite a bit, and most times I call in to Parkes (The Dish). It still gives me goosebumps when you first see that huge dish looming up as you drive across the flat countryside. The first time I visited was not long after Apollo, and I got the chance to talk to some of those involved. They were immensely proud of what they had been involved in, and unlike the deniers hereabouts, were incredibly skilled and aware technicians, who understood every tiny aspect of the operation of that beautiful piece of engineering. Multiply that out to the hundreds of thousands of folk involved in the Apollo project, all of whom were the experts in their fields, and all of whom understood exactly what they were doing, and what was required. Compare that to the pathetic little band of apollo deniers who prove over and over and over again that they haven't a clue. It's sad that a great achievement gets soiled by such idiocy.

But the good thing is that the people who are reading this are obviously swayed against the apollo denial - I see NOT ONE person on this thread who has been swayed by the deniers, but there are obviously several who have realised the denial folly.

So from that aspect, we should be thankful that the 'best' deniers are as incompetent and ill-informed as they have shown here.



posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Might be worth creating a summary version though...


I had been pondering this myself. It would be a good thing to reference to, for those who think going in circles is appropriate.



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Might be worth creating a summary version though...


I had been pondering this myself. It would be a good thing to reference to, for those who think going in circles is appropriate.



I was sorta thinking that a new thread might be justified, with the initial post as a table of a contents dividing up the main claims into functional areas, probably:

1. Photographic Analysis
Film and video 'anomalies' and analysis

2. The Lunar and Cislunar Environment
Gravity, vacuum, temp/heat, radiation, dust

3. The Vehicles & Technology
Saturn V, CM, LM, CSM, etc, and other equipment, space suits, comms, experiments

and maybe..
4. The Impossibles
All the stuff that simply could not have been faked, and perhaps a summary of the more ridiculous denier claims and obfuscations (fully cited - hi jw, foos, ppk, wwu, dragnet..)

Yes, I think it might be worthwhile to flesh it all out, and pretty much everything has been covered here...

I just feel a bit guilty because I *still* haven't finished my radiation stuff (although others have covered this pretty well anyway). I'd like to do that first (or maybe along the way..)... But thankfully my time is likely to be coming a little more free soon.

I'm happy to take up the cause... anyone interested or want to help?



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
CHRLZ


And this is a classic case of a thread that is crying out for moderator input. Should it really be going in the ridiculous circles that FoosM is now running in, going back over and over and over stuff previously raised, and denying it was answered?



pezza


I agree with this 100%.
But perhaps there might be a more sinister explanation for the lack of moderator input. One we cannot rule out at this time is that users supporting the hoax arguments could be some sort of advanced bot or botnet. I will not name users but I will put forward this thought provoking idea.


The sophistication of the script is essentially in the realm of "arteficial intellegence". The parameters chosen to maximise thread activity by methods of incoherent and abrasive dialogue. The bot relies on knowledge aquisition up to a certain number of pages before there is sufficient data to transition to circular argument. A component of the model could be an artifical nerual network, the youtube videos prepared well in advance by psyops experts and well skilled in the art of pure spin. The embeding of videos controlled by advanced random number generators.

Fast fourier transfom of the thread content may reveal circular theme elements. I suspect there are some that occur over single page cycles, 5 page cycles and possibly long period themes up around the 100 page mark. The artificial neural network may adjust the cycle parameters dynamically.

Other parameters may involve maximizing youtube revenue to pay for ATS site bandwidth. This would imply that ATS is perpetuating the myth.
This is the conclusion I have come to after eliminating rational explanations behind why this thread is being allowed to continue in this manner.
It wouldnt surprise me if the moderator deletes this post because certain perturbations to the bot model may cause it to crash. But I will stick to this conclusion either way.



weedwhacker


What's interesting--- thinking out loud here as I type ---another indication that lends some credence to your hypothesis could be in the posting pattern style and tones, that seemed to have (from just ONE ATS member) a distinct dual-personality aspect, it seems. A combination of a Human, and a 'bot, interlacing and alternating posts?? (When a "reply" is typed, with quoted text to the respondent, and the mess of smilies, compared to the other style of post, that flies off on a tangent, asking the repeat questions, in a circular way, as you noted....)



DJW001


Interesting theory. That would explain the over-reliance on quote mining and why FoosM was unwilling or unable to reply when I issued this challenge: which of these samples is from the Moon and which from the Earth?

A bot would be incapable of actually "seeing" the pictures. it would just be a string of BBS code...

It simply counted two embedded images. Rather than acknowledge that a single photograph would have refuted its claim that there was no such documentation, it went with a standard pre-programmed response: is that all you have?" A human being would know that there is obviously much more that could be posted, but a bot, lacking imagination and comprehension, would assume that the two embedded objects constituted the whole universe of possibilities. A bot, lacking imagination, would also be incapable of conceiving of the uses of mesh netting and bungee cords for stowage purposes. In evaluating this post, a bot would seize upon the new material inserted ("mesh netting and bungee cords") and use it in a rhetorical fashion in order to achieve a functional contextual definition. Fascinating. Let's see what happens.



AgentSmith


Very interesting take, it would seem quite plausible. However the bot appears to simulate an individual after a lobotomy that is unable to mentally grow or learn, so it is still lacking in a lot of respects. I think there is a very long way to go before this bot is capable of simulating a fully coherent adult with even basic reasoning skills.



debunky


This just yells XKCD...



Oh boy oh boy, the opposition just had a group meltdown.

I can see how you guys can so easily believe in manned moon landings.


Or, should we assume that these "personalities" are actually made up of one or two persons with multiple accounts? Because I see this pattern in other threads. They attack in packs, one supporting the other. Handing out stars like its USGOV surplus cheese. Dude, dont you get bad headaches splitting your personality like that?


nataylor I'm reviewing your post and will respond soon, but I just had to comment on this.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
377
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join