[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 15:10:43 +0000 (GMT)

From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 20:01:40 2007

If it is the second time that I have had to ask you, then why do you not 
[desist] persist in maintaining arguments like military-style extreme rehearsal 
and precautions? It is common knowledge that Armstrong made one and only one 
attempt at flying the thing, no matter how many were shipped to NASA. ["It's 
not what folks know -- it's what folks know that ain't so". Mark Twain] There 
simply were not any extensive rehearsals, as you suggested. As for the crash 
being a "failure in the attitude control motor," that may or may not be the 
case, but the fact is that Neil (not Neal) Armstrong could not control it on 
his one and only attempt to do so in a far less hostile and unforgiving 
environment than being a quarter of a million miles away with no atmosphere. A 
USAF pilot being willing to take such a risk without the military precaution 
that you yourself alluded to? Very stupid. Very stupid indeed. Almost totally 
unbelievable and incredulous, wouldn't you say?
 Of course it's unbelievable and incredulous -- that's why so very very very 
few people believe your stories.

If your house is silent, then perhaps you ought to get out a little. Speak to 
people. Get to appreciate that the real world is strangely different from the 
utopia of everyone being nice and truthful that you might imagine, though you 
clearly only "learn" that which you want to "learn" and which you already 
believe to be true. Neville I do get out. If did not mix with normal folk 
regularly, there is a very faint possibility that I might begin to doubt and 
distrust everyone. That I might begin to believe that there are vast ethnically 
and/or financially well defined groups of people enslaving us. That the Devil 
is waiting in every shadow to ensnare me. There is almost no end to the evils 
which I might begin to imagine if I didn't get out.

You have to open your eyes, Paul. As Jack did. As I did. Yes, I spent years 
believing the Apollo claims and teaching them to others.

As for the monitor men, you say, "More particularly, even if they had been so 
instructed, you give no hint of why this is suspicious or menacing." Actually I 
do. I am trying to get you to question something. It was you who were making 
out that so many people could not be misled or dishonest. I was trying to get 
you to appreciate how easy it is to mislead people, that's all. So then, your 
are saying that you manufactured this little assertion just to influence me 
rethink my position?

"Or it might just be that the operator was required to make a judgement along 
with the observation. Computers are still not good at that. Are they not? It's 
a simple IF-THEN DO statement. Neville if this is so, then GU 3.0 should not 
have been released with only one of the planets (other than Earth) actually 
working. As they were all engineers how do you know this? , Clearly I am 
demonstrating my trust in my fellow man. my guess is that their most important 
function was to report problems to their section supervisor so that rapid 
action might be taken when required. No one got up and rushed around, though. 
Pretty standard stuff really. We could have another look at the "real" footage, 
but oh I forgot, NASA destroyed it. Along with the plans for the Saturn V. 
Along with the plans for the lunar lander. Oh well, that's probably standard 
procedure as well, isn't it? I suppose I must address this or you'll accuse me 
of avoiding some damning 'truth'. Do you
 preserve every financial, legal and social document pertaining to your life? 
Can you show me documents which would prove to me that on the night of 1969 Jan 
22 between the hours of seven and eleven thirty in the evening, you were not 
loitering in the vicinity of the home of an aquaintenance with whom it is known 
that you had recently had an altercation? I thought not. Then that indicates 
that almost certainly you were so loitering and with malice aforethought. See 
how easy it is? Oh and if that date is covered, I've got lots more.

Finally, you say, "bearing in mind the state of computer technology in the 
1960s," yet you will not accept that this technology is also to be believed as 
getting a craft to the Moon and back, looking after the life support systems, 
telecommunications systems, navigation, temperature, ... By your own standards 
and admission, is this not a trifle hard to accept? Of course it's not hard to 
accept. At the same time as Apollo was going on, nuclear submarines were 
successfully navigating the world not getting lost, controlling their 
environment, communicating (sometimes), maintaining life support. So were 
intercontinental aircraft with very small crews. So were a thousand other 
endeavours being successfully executed and all with the same or lower level of 
technology. A good example of what can be achieved with little technology is 
the wartime bombing of the USA direct from one of the Japanese main islands 
using little more than paper, string, little bags of
 sand and a barometer. Oh, of course there were also several bombs.
I worked the last 17 years of my career in an environment saturated with 
microprocessor based systems which did quite complex tasks. I also wrote 
applications in assembly language for processors of the era. I have a 
reasonably good appreciation for what can be done with little if you try hard. 
It is easy to believe that other much smarter folk could achieve much more. Are 
you aware that even today, the Mars rovers run on 80C85 microprocessors? This 
processor archiecture dates from the middle 1970s. It still works. One 
reference = http://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/Microcomputer_invention.htm and yes 
I know Apollo considerably predates 1975. All that shows is that 
microprocessors were not used, thus other means were employed. (The first 
microprocessor was released in 1971).
From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 20:44:49 2007
-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:19:26 +0000 (GMT)

Concerning the matter of 'physical reasons' why an Earth based observer should 
be believed over a -- for instance -- Mars observer however, I have a problem. 
You don't actually have to be there to determine what you will see. Agreed: 
I presume the main point here is that if Earth is not the Centre of Everything, 
then chaos results. Check the accompanying pic -- there is no chaos to be seen. 
I suspect that your model is in error.


Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Attachment: Centres.JPG
Description: image/pjpeg

Other related posts: