I thought of something related to you banning all of my accounts for 3 months for questioning your logic.
Your reasoning seems to be, “You asked about policy in the past, so therefore you may not ask about policy in the present. You also may not insinuate that I made a bad decision, otherwise I will ban you for three months.” Are you sure that’s productive?
Meanwhile, I just reported a security vulnerability in HN search that allows people to build a list of 894 YC founders’ HN usernames.
When I submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors to the front page, it took the site offline. I emailed immediately and the site was back online within about 10 minutes. How long would it have taken to diagnose why HN was suddenly taking 99% cpu?
I’ve been a community member for just as long as you’ve been.
You make correct decisions nearly 99% of the time. But those 1% of bad calls have long-lasting consequences, and there is no way to get you to reconsider your stance.
All of this could have been avoided by simply saying “I don’t think the topic was appropriate for HN, and so you were rate limited for a couple months. Check back then.”
You say I am a problem user and that you have no choice but to ignore me, when I am only asking “Hey, what is going on? Why is this happening?”
I don’t want to be writing these things publicly, but what choice do I have? You reject any attempt at dialog and treat people like worthless gnats unworthy of your time. Though it probably never seems like it from the swatter’s perspective.
Eyles has written a book Sunburst and Luminary: An Apollo Memoir, https://www.amazon.com/Sunburst-Luminary-Apollo-Don-Eyles/dp..., published earlier this year which recounts his role in designing and building much of the software in the Apollo guidance computer. It recounts much of this history and is a worthwhile read for space and Apollo junkies.
I second your recommendation of Digital Apollo - an excellent book.
I also rate How Apollo Flew to the Moon by David Woods (Springer Praxis, 2011) very highly. The cover is kind of cheesy but its full of the kind of technical detail that is hard to find without reading through old NASA docs.
The most curious screw ups to me are the badly photoshopped images to get rid of UFO activity. Just look at the testimony by former NASA workers who independently heard the full transcript regarding Apollo team's sightings of extra terrestrial vehicles monitoring them.
If you are talking about Buzz Aldrin et. all, no, no Astronaut on record ever confirmed seeing extra terrestrial vehicles "monitoring" them. [1][2][3][4][5]
no not Buzz but he certainly did do a little more than hint there's something going on but he can't say it for obvious reasons.
If you look at NASA streams they 'randomly' experience technical issues but it's widely observed that this typically happens when a UFO is detected.
there's so much we don't know and are not being told but what is clear is this-extra terrestrials possess technology that far exceeds our own and possibly this dimension, and this scares the shit out of superpowers.
It's supported by the fact that there is so much fake UFO with very real ones (ex. US Navy f-18 video) so you can't claim what is real and what isn't.
Also this happened to USSR with their trip to the Phobos moon when the satellite all of sudden disappeared and there's captured photos showing what appears to be cylindrical objects. We can't send satellites there because they keep disappearing.
The real theory as to why we haven't been back on the moon is because the extra terrestrials that are supposedly mining on the moon will not allow weaponization of space. I know this is shocking but it's the most logical conclusion following the various "technical difficulties" during the live coverage of the moon landing.
20 years ago nobody listened to the theory that the government is snooping on everyone because it was too out there.
We have multiple witness accounts from credible backgrounds being demonized and outcasted as mentally ill.
This is the greatest trick they pull. I mean look around, what has changed after Snowden? Absolutely nothing because there's fuck all we can do about it when everybody is focused on the carrot on the end of the stick.
Netflix isn't free, and testimonials are not evidence of anything. The idea that your reason is faulty is not a comfortable one. Believing in alien conspiracy theories is not rational.
> no not Buzz but he certainly did do a little more than hint there's something going on but he can't say it for obvious reasons.
He did not. If you mean his infamous quote about the monolith orbiting Phobos, he explicitly said it was a natural occurrence:
There’s a monolith, a very unusual structure on this
little potato-shaped object that goes around Mars once
in every seven hours. They’re going to say,
“Who put that there? Who put that there?”
Well, the universe put it there.
If you choose, God put it there.
As per the transcripts, Aldrin is 99.9% sure the "anomaly" was a panel floating around from the Apollo mission [2]
> there's so much we don't know and are not being told but what is clear is this-extra terrestrials possess technology that far exceeds our own and possibly this dimension, and this scares the shit out of superpowers.
Not understanding, nor possessing knowledge does NOT, in any way, give you a free pass to jump to conclusions… Missing information does not equate to it was aliens, that's just poor judgment and bad science.
> It's supported by the fact that there is so much fake UFO with very real ones (ex. US Navy f-18 video) so you can't claim what is real and what isn't.
What is supported? We don't know anything but it's extra terrestrial because of what? The incident described by you [3] concludes what exactly? Aliens? Seriously?
> Also this happened to USSR with their trip to the Phobos moon when the satellite all of sudden disappeared and there's captured photos showing what appears to be cylindrical objects. We can't send satellites there because they keep disappearing.
We can't even get a constant stream via satellite TV without interference.
> The real theory as to why we haven't been back on the moon is because the extra terrestrials that are supposedly mining on the moon will not allow weaponization of space. I know this is shocking but it's the most logical conclusion following the various "technical difficulties" during the live coverage of the moon landing.
Logical, how?
> We have multiple witness accounts from credible backgrounds being demonized and outcasted as mentally ill.
We have multiple accounts of credible people of nonsense, we call that anecdotal evidence.
> This is the greatest trick they pull. I mean look around, what has changed after Snowden? Absolutely nothing because there's fuck all we can do about it when everybody is focused on the carrot on the end of the stick.
Sure, pull in a totally unrelated conspiracy that turned out to be true and say "See, they were right, therefore I must be"
I am not even sure why I am responding, none of this is even worth of a reply, all I hope is that someone, getting pulled into this nonsense takes a second look and judges more sceptically, instead of jumping to "We don't understand, it must be aliens and there is an elite that wants to BLAHBLAHBLAH"
Also, the "scripture" to the OP I am responding to is the "documentary" from ufologist Steven M. Greer, recently featured on Netflix called "Unacknowledged". I'd advise anyone who has seen the movie to look at this review[4], or watch it with a good sense of humor.
It would be easier to take this article seriously if:
1) The author didn’t misspell the names of the people he’s talking about. It’s George Filer. (“Filir”? Really?) Also, Ed Snowden, not “Snowdon.”
2) The author didn’t denigrate witnesses of significant stature who would be trusted as impeccable sources if they offered opinions on something other than UFOs (multiple NASA astronauts, highly placed intelligence officials, former heads of state, NATO commanders…you know, people who just might possibly know a tad more about the subject than the author)
3) The author knew the full history Carl Sagan, who concluded in his seminal book with the Russian scientist Shklovskii that Earth is likely to have been visited by space faring civilizations at least “every 10,000 years.” And this was decades before we knew earthlike planets pervade the universe.
Then again, nobody would come to skeptic.com expecting anything but blind skepticism toward subjects that are already ruled off-limits by professional pseudoskeptics like Michael Shermer.
Sure, copy the criticism of the comments and repost 'em here (Hah, he misspelled a name, therefore I am right, and he is wrong), and "impeccable sources"? Anecdotal is still anecdotal. 3. Bullshit and 4. Personal attack, classy
Also, please address my points, instead of bashing exactly one of my mentioned source
24 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 54.1 ms ] threadYour reasoning seems to be, “You asked about policy in the past, so therefore you may not ask about policy in the present. You also may not insinuate that I made a bad decision, otherwise I will ban you for three months.” Are you sure that’s productive?
Meanwhile, I just reported a security vulnerability in HN search that allows people to build a list of 894 YC founders’ HN usernames.
When I submitted https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors to the front page, it took the site offline. I emailed immediately and the site was back online within about 10 minutes. How long would it have taken to diagnose why HN was suddenly taking 99% cpu?
I’ve been a community member for just as long as you’ve been.
You make correct decisions nearly 99% of the time. But those 1% of bad calls have long-lasting consequences, and there is no way to get you to reconsider your stance.
All of this could have been avoided by simply saying “I don’t think the topic was appropriate for HN, and so you were rate limited for a couple months. Check back then.”
You say I am a problem user and that you have no choice but to ignore me, when I am only asking “Hey, what is going on? Why is this happening?”
I don’t want to be writing these things publicly, but what choice do I have? You reject any attempt at dialog and treat people like worthless gnats unworthy of your time. Though it probably never seems like it from the swatter’s perspective.
I don’t get you.
I also rate How Apollo Flew to the Moon by David Woods (Springer Praxis, 2011) very highly. The cover is kind of cheesy but its full of the kind of technical detail that is hard to find without reading through old NASA docs.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110721050308/http://astrobiolo...
[2] https://sservi.nasa.gov/?question=apollo-11-ufo-sighting
[3] https://www.skeptical-science.com/skeptic-news/did-buzz-aldr...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/10...
[5] https://www.csicop.org/si/show/ufos_and_aliens_in_space
If you look at NASA streams they 'randomly' experience technical issues but it's widely observed that this typically happens when a UFO is detected.
there's so much we don't know and are not being told but what is clear is this-extra terrestrials possess technology that far exceeds our own and possibly this dimension, and this scares the shit out of superpowers.
It's supported by the fact that there is so much fake UFO with very real ones (ex. US Navy f-18 video) so you can't claim what is real and what isn't.
Also this happened to USSR with their trip to the Phobos moon when the satellite all of sudden disappeared and there's captured photos showing what appears to be cylindrical objects. We can't send satellites there because they keep disappearing.
The real theory as to why we haven't been back on the moon is because the extra terrestrials that are supposedly mining on the moon will not allow weaponization of space. I know this is shocking but it's the most logical conclusion following the various "technical difficulties" during the live coverage of the moon landing.
20 years ago nobody listened to the theory that the government is snooping on everyone because it was too out there.
We have multiple witness accounts from credible backgrounds being demonized and outcasted as mentally ill.
This is the greatest trick they pull. I mean look around, what has changed after Snowden? Absolutely nothing because there's fuck all we can do about it when everybody is focused on the carrot on the end of the stick.
I paid nothing to see it.
> no not Buzz but he certainly did do a little more than hint there's something going on but he can't say it for obvious reasons.
He did not. If you mean his infamous quote about the monolith orbiting Phobos, he explicitly said it was a natural occurrence:
As per the transcripts, Aldrin is 99.9% sure the "anomaly" was a panel floating around from the Apollo mission [2]> there's so much we don't know and are not being told but what is clear is this-extra terrestrials possess technology that far exceeds our own and possibly this dimension, and this scares the shit out of superpowers.
Not understanding, nor possessing knowledge does NOT, in any way, give you a free pass to jump to conclusions… Missing information does not equate to it was aliens, that's just poor judgment and bad science.
> It's supported by the fact that there is so much fake UFO with very real ones (ex. US Navy f-18 video) so you can't claim what is real and what isn't.
What is supported? We don't know anything but it's extra terrestrial because of what? The incident described by you [3] concludes what exactly? Aliens? Seriously?
> Also this happened to USSR with their trip to the Phobos moon when the satellite all of sudden disappeared and there's captured photos showing what appears to be cylindrical objects. We can't send satellites there because they keep disappearing.
We can't even get a constant stream via satellite TV without interference.
> The real theory as to why we haven't been back on the moon is because the extra terrestrials that are supposedly mining on the moon will not allow weaponization of space. I know this is shocking but it's the most logical conclusion following the various "technical difficulties" during the live coverage of the moon landing.
Logical, how?
> We have multiple witness accounts from credible backgrounds being demonized and outcasted as mentally ill.
We have multiple accounts of credible people of nonsense, we call that anecdotal evidence.
> This is the greatest trick they pull. I mean look around, what has changed after Snowden? Absolutely nothing because there's fuck all we can do about it when everybody is focused on the carrot on the end of the stick.
Sure, pull in a totally unrelated conspiracy that turned out to be true and say "See, they were right, therefore I must be"
I am not even sure why I am responding, none of this is even worth of a reply, all I hope is that someone, getting pulled into this nonsense takes a second look and judges more sceptically, instead of jumping to "We don't understand, it must be aliens and there is an elite that wants to BLAHBLAHBLAH"
Also, the "scripture" to the OP I am responding to is the "documentary" from ufologist Steven M. Greer, recently featured on Netflix called "Unacknowledged". I'd advise anyone who has seen the movie to look at this review[4], or watch it with a good sense of humor.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDIXvpjnRws
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubMJLO4xjMs
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/12/19/ufo-departme...
[4] browsercoin ↗ It would be easier to take this article seriously if: [dead] b2ccb2 ↗ Sure, copy the criticism of the comments and repost 'em here (Hah, he misspelled a name, therefore I am right, and he is wrong), and "impeccable sources"? Anecdotal is still anecdotal. 3. Bullshit and 4. Personal attack, classy browsercoin ↗ I think my point has been made and no I won't engage in endless banter with someone who uses an unreliable secondary resource.
1) The author didn’t misspell the names of the people he’s talking about. It’s George Filer. (“Filir”? Really?) Also, Ed Snowden, not “Snowdon.”
2) The author didn’t denigrate witnesses of significant stature who would be trusted as impeccable sources if they offered opinions on something other than UFOs (multiple NASA astronauts, highly placed intelligence officials, former heads of state, NATO commanders…you know, people who just might possibly know a tad more about the subject than the author)
3) The author knew the full history Carl Sagan, who concluded in his seminal book with the Russian scientist Shklovskii that Earth is likely to have been visited by space faring civilizations at least “every 10,000 years.” And this was decades before we knew earthlike planets pervade the universe.
Then again, nobody would come to skeptic.com expecting anything but blind skepticism toward subjects that are already ruled off-limits by professional pseudoskeptics like Michael Shermer.
Also, please address my points, instead of bashing exactly one of my mentioned source