[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:25:27 -0800

Paul,

Your forced, highly reserved, concession is of little value, but at least it is some progress towards any form of genuine debate.

If you really do have something interesting on your Super 8 reels, then I would be very careful to avoid railway crossings. Unless, of course, you view the odds that an author and his wife and daughter were just unlucky to be hit by a train on such a crossing, miles from anywhere, and that all copies, even distributed ones, of his 500-page report into the goings-on at NASA prior to Apollo 11, would naturally evaporate of their own accord, as being close to unity.

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:10:37 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

Neville J

From Neville Jones Mon Sep 3 22:50:06 2007

I could simply be wrong, that's true. Now, will you admit and agree that you could simply be wrong?

I apologise for missing this item but in my defence, the last three nights I have been busy answering lots of points. Well the question concerned Apollo specifically as I read it. You read all posts, as I understand things, thus you will have seen my outline of my long duration, abiding, and passionate interest in astronomy and space activities -- travel and exploration etc. You will also have seen my statements on several occasions that there is no such thing as certainty. This second statement compells me to admit that I could be wrong about my understanding of the Apollo program in toto. However, if you were to rate the possibility that you were wrong in toto on this issue as being marginally less than the survival chances of a snow flake in Hell, I would rate my possibility of being similarly wrong as significantly less than the survival chances of thistle down in hell.

what I was doing on 22 Jan 1969

Well it was meant to sound ridiculous. It was also intended to show just how easy it is to create logically consistent but utterly paranoid assessements.

... 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?... ... Real achievements by the American government agency, NASA, would likewise have been preserved I assure you. It's really a lot less difficult and expensive than producing virtual reality images.


There are several problems here. First I have only your assertion that NASA destroyed all the plans. They would after all occupy significant volume. That they destroyed much of these plans of how to remake an obselete vehicle I am not surprised. '1934 ford' returned 2,180,000 hits -- it is very popular with hot rod builders. Jack L would probably bear this out. But even though the Ford Motor Company may still have some records of these, I doubt they could tool up tomorrow -- or even next year -- to rebuild the series. 'The plans' for anything even as small as a car, consist of a great deal more than a plan, an elevation and a third angle projection in blue print format.

So in reality, while NASA probably did destroy much of the material concerned with the Apollo program, I'd seriously doubt that it has all gone to God.

Now about real footage, I have, I think -- it's a long time ago -- about 20 minutes of super 8 colour film taken from the Apollo VIII and XI missions. I've been thinking of having it transferred to video tape -- DVD today I suppose. It wouldn't take too much to overcome my hysteresis. Any interest? You might need to be quick however -- if NASA gets wind of it there might be a mysterious break-in at my domicile and minor theft.

Two other items from the subject post concern your non responsiveness. First, the reference -- low grade certainly but still indicative -- that Armstrong certainly made many more than one flight in the 'flying bedstead'. The other, the six part illustration showing non chaotic behaviour of non Earth centred solar systems. I put a lot of effort into that -- and for your benefit.

 

Paul D

Other related posts: