Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: New debunking website - with very funny "HB checklist"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    6
    Swing by this new debunking website:

    http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk

    It has some good stuff including a "HB Checklist":

    Quote: "HB Checklist

    Next time you visit an Hoax-believer's site, why not amuse yourself by calculating it's level of silliness using the simple checklist below.

    Start with a score of zero and add the appropriate amount for each item on the checklist that you find:

    +1 for each use of the term 'Astro-not'

    +1 for each unreferenced photgraph.

    +2 for each HB Howler used.

    +2 for excessive use of UPPER CASE text to emphasize points."

    ... and the checklist has several other items, such as this one:

    "Promises to provide startling new evidence. For a price. (+50)"

    I also love the statement at the very bottom of the page:

    "Please note: If you are the subject of this website, and you feel in anyway maligned, ridiculed libeled, misrepresented or otherwise wronged, do not hesitate to send us an e-mail, which we shall subsequently ignore"

    http://www.nasastooge.fsnet.co.uk

    PS: It also has links to Clavius and BA under the headline "The Good Guys - follow these links and you'll learn something" !!!!!

    JJ



    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JJ on 2002-04-28 10:04 ]</font>

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Looks great. I'm going to be browsing this one for a while. I especially like "Howler #4--Seethruart". HWSNBN actually has an entire category to himself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Oh, and welcome aboard JJ. Thanks for the link.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    145
    Cool link. Thanks.
    My goodness! Is HWSNBN still around? I haven't even seen him at JREF for ages. I thought the guy had finally been rubber-roomed.
    Lisa

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    HWSNBN? JREF?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    50
    On 2002-04-28 18:06, johnwitts wrote:
    HWSNBN?
    He who shall not be named? (Who that is, I have no idea).

    The (Go ahead, name me. See if I care) Incubus

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    872
    He Who Was Not To Be Named was a bloke who claimed to see images in magnified pixels in jpeg images, never realizing the way that jpeg images distort actual bit-map images.

    If you take a picture of a person standing against a white wall, and convert it to jpeg format, you will probably see a strange blurry outline around the person's silhouette. This is because the jpeg format has "compressed" the entirely of the white wall into a large data region of "only white." It makes the image take up a lot less space on your disk drive. But it also means that a lot of data is "lost" and then "reconstructed" by the image algorithm.

    I'm not very good at web pointers, but you can probably find examples of what I'm trying to describe.

    This poor bloke, seeing these compression artifacts, insisted that they were real. This led him to imagine that he saw faces, spaceships, cities, etc., where there actually weren't any.

    You can actually do the same for yourself: take a digital camera, and go out to your backyard: take a nice close-up picture of a square yard of your lawn. Then bring the image back to your computer and convert it to jpeg format.

    Now, look at it closely. Enlarge it. Pore over the details. At first, you will only see blades of grass... But soon, soon... You'll start to see triangles, squares, pyramids, towers... The longer you look, the more you'll see: faces, letters of the alphabet, familiar shapes... The coastline of Gibraltar... An eagle... An angel... A 54 Ford...

    The fault is not in our photographs, but in ourselves: the human eye and the human visual cortex are highly specialized at discerning patterns. This is a valuable survival trait in a state of nature -- it's well worth it to be able to pick out a gazelle amidst a clump of acacia trees -- but it can lead a naive person into error.

    HWWNTBN specialized in that kind of error.

    Silas

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    165
    On 2002-04-28 18:06, johnwitts wrote:
    HWSNBN? JREF?
    Piper aka Seethruart(IMO Pipe-up-his-butt)

    A really, really annoying(damned family site rules) HBer from before when BA went to this version of his BB. Dude must have an incredible imagination, that's about all I'll give him. Then again, he does have a very well known habit of using a magnifying glass on Apollo pics that are on his computer screen. No joke.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,816
    According to "Acronym Finder",
    http://www.acronymfinder.com/
    JREF = James Randi Education Foundation

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    John knows quite a bit about JPEG compression. And about Seethruart. I know about JPEG compression intimately, and the ugly artifacts of the Discrete Cosine Transform.

    DCT-compressed images are not meant to be examined microscopically. The algorithm is meant to preserve only those graphical elements which are significant to human vision at the macro level.

    The problem is that the JPEG strategy is to break up the image into square zones (8x8) and compress each zone individually. When expanded again, pixels at the zone boundaries do not correlate anymore across the boundary.

    The DCT algorithm is like the Fourier transforms many of us studied in engineering. It is based on the principle that a complex signal can be closely approximated by summing a set of simpler waveforms (i.e., cosine waves) of varying wavelengths, amplitudes, and phases.

    Within each zone, the value of each pixel is recorded in a precise order. This ordered list of values is a "signal" in the signal processing sense. You could draw a graph of pixel value over "time". You can approximate this signal with a set of tuned cosine functions. The more precise the functions, the closer the signal is approximated. Then you just save the function parameters as the data that approximates this zone. The "quality factor" of JPEG compression indicates the precision of the stored parameters.

    Now if the zone is all one color, the pixel values are all the same. This is very easy to encode -- you only need one function with an amplitude of zero (biased, of course, for the constant color value). For you DCT junkies, the DCT coefficient matrix is all zeroes except for C(0,0).

    If the zone is partially a patch of solid color, and partially a foreground object with complex coloring, the pixel value list (or graph, if that's how you prefer to think of it) is flat for a bit, then complex, then flat again, then complex. That's a devilishly hard thing to encode, especially with only a few functions. Imagine trying to make a flat line with a series of lumpy cosine curves.

    So at the boundary between foreground and single-color background in a zone, some of the background colors have little off-color spots. This is where the DCT failed to make a clean transition between the flat and wavy parts of the signal. It can't do a perfectly flat wave under those conditions, so it fudges a little.

    The DCT can do sharp boundaries, but only in the horizontal and vertical directions. If a slightly angled sharp boundary is presented, it may be easier to start with the horizontal or vertical boundary, and then try to fudge it in one direction or another. If you zoom in on that block, it will look artifically horizontal or vertical.

    All very complicated, I know. I've simplified it a little. But the moral is that if you want to do image analysis at the microscopic level, do not use lossy compression techniques.


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-04-29 00:29 ]</font>

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    108
    he does have a very well known habit of using a magnifying glass on Apollo pics that are on his computer screen. No joke.
    I used to wonder what would happen if I put a picture under a microscope. Would I see the fibers of the paper on which the film was printed, or would I see the microscopic elements of the things in the picture? Then I turned 8 and realized the answer.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    I remember seeing Sneakers with an imaging processing guy. He fidgeted in his seat when they magically enlarged and "enhanced" the license plate number photographed from a distance. He was muttering, "You can't [expletive] do that!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    Old Piper (Maybe it's safe to say his name now?) used to pop up again and again whenever anyone mentioned him or his photos. He was so intractable and rude about his "arguments" that he did nothing but stir up the flames every time he appeared.
    The members of this board finally figured out that he just wanted attention, even if it was negative. He finally disappeared when people just stopped responding to his posts. I don't know what happened to him, but I guess the new sign-up requirements have kept him out of here at least. Has anyone else seen any trace of him on any other boards this year?

    But his "site" is still up (it's actually just a pic hosting site), so you can check out his nonsense if you're interested.

    http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/...ame=seethruart

    (If you like his stuff, you might go on to check out the SIBS. They're my favorite photo anomaly experts, and they're ever so much fun. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] )

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    6

    On 2002-04-29 02:42, David Hall wrote:
    Has anyone else seen any trace of him on any other boards this year?
    As late as January 28, 2002, he posted here:

    http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi...c&f=2&t=000012

    Quote: "Topic: Anomalous Discrepancies in NASA Apollo Photos

    posted January 28, 2002 07:09

    After reading the rest of the messages in this part of the forum, I realized this is an appropriate place to post this link.
    http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?seethruart
    The link contains images of anomalous discrepancies in NASA Apollo photos (among other things).

    There is a lot there, so you may want to bookmark the site and come back again and again. There is also more to come.


    Seethruart

    --------------------

    Speak softly and carry a big stick."

    It seems that he is Member 511 and you can read his posts here:

    http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi...sts&u=00000511

    JJ



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,683
    On 2002-04-29 03:37, JJ wrote:

    It seems that he is Member 511 and you can read his posts here:

    http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi...sts&u=00000511

    JJ
    Thanks JJ. It seems he was still posting as of March 5th, and still ingratiating himself to others with his rude and antagonistic ways. Although in this case he was strangely not talking about little figures in the dirt:

    http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi...&f=25&t=002216

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    On 2002-04-29 03:37, JJ wrote:
    Quote: "Topic: Anomalous Discrepancies in NASA Apollo Photos
    Anomalous discrepancies: brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    145
    Remember when he accused the military, NASA employees and contractors, and scientists of murder? Hmmm, military, NASA employees/contractors, and scientists. As far as this board goes, I don't think he left anyone out.
    Lisa

  18. #18
    HWSNBNs other problem seemed to be that he was not only looking at jpegs too closely, he was looking at them through a magnifying glass while on his computer screen. Go figure.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    On 2002-04-28 10:01, JJ wrote:
    It has some good stuff including a "HB Checklist":

    Quote: "HB Checklist

    Next time you visit an Hoax-believer's site, why not amuse yourself by calculating it's level of silliness using the simple checklist below.

    Start with a score of zero and add the appropriate amount for each item on the checklist that you find:

    +1 for each use of the term 'Astro-not'

    +1 for each unreferenced photgraph.

    +2 for each HB Howler used.

    +2 for excessive use of UPPER CASE text to emphasize points."

    ... and the checklist has several other items, such as this one:

    "Promises to provide startling new evidence. For a price. (+50)"
    I guess this site gets the Grand Prize. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    32
    I was checking out the links on crank.net and saw this piece of work:

    http://www.anomalog.com/bergrun.html

    Is this a joke or is this guy serious? If he's serious I can't believe he has the credentials he claims he does. What a maroon..

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Art Vandelay on 2002-04-29 16:42 ]</font>

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,158
    On 2002-04-29 16:41, Art Vandelay wrote:
    I was checking out the links on crank.net and saw this piece of work:

    http://www.anomalog.com/bergrun.html

    Is this a joke or is this guy serious? If he's serious I can't believe he has the credentials he claims he does. What a maroon..
    I was trying to make a list of things this guy doesn't seem to understand. Here's what I came up with:

    - lens flare (page 6)
    - hair on a print (page 7)
    - looking at the LM from a different direction (page 17)
    - perspective/LM partially over horizon (page 18)
    - bootprints (page 19)
    - retractable visor (page 25)
    - that the astronaut might actually have done something between shots, like pick up rocks (page 35)

    I agree that it's really hard to take seriously. However, I think Bergrun and He Who Shall Not Be Named should be introduced - they'd have lots of fun together.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Jay wrote: John knows quite a bit about JPEG compression. And about Seethruart.

    I was with you this far. (Thanks, BTW).

    I know about JPEG compression intimately, and the ugly artifacts of the Discrete Cosine Transform.

    OK, the first part of the sentence, I'm still with you...

    DCT-compressed images are not meant to be examined microscopically. The algorithm is meant to preserve only those graphical elements which are significant to human vision at the macro level.

    The problem is that the JPEG strategy is to break up the image into square zones (8x8) and compress each zone individually. When expanded again, pixels at the zone boundaries do not correlate anymore across the boundary.

    The DCT algorithm is like the Fourier transforms many of us studied in engineering. It is based on the principle that a complex signal can be closely approximated by summing a set of simpler waveforms (i.e., cosine waves) of varying wavelengths, amplitudes, and phases.

    Within each zone, the value of each pixel is recorded in a precise order. This ordered list of values is a "signal" in the signal processing sense. You could draw a graph of pixel value over "time". You can approximate this signal with a set of tuned cosine functions. The more precise the functions, the closer the signal is approximated. Then you just save the function parameters as the data that approximates this zone. The "quality factor" of JPEG compression indicates the precision of the stored parameters.

    Now if the zone is all one color, the pixel values are all the same. This is very easy to encode -- you only need one function with an amplitude of zero (biased, of course, for the constant color value). For you DCT junkies, the DCT coefficient matrix is all zeroes except for C(0,0).

    If the zone is partially a patch of solid color, and partially a foreground object with complex coloring, the pixel value list (or graph, if that's how you prefer to think of it) is flat for a bit, then complex, then flat again, then complex. That's a devilishly hard thing to encode, especially with only a few functions. Imagine trying to make a flat line with a series of lumpy cosine curves.

    So at the boundary between foreground and single-color background in a zone, some of the background colors have little off-color spots. This is where the DCT failed to make a clean transition between the flat and wavy parts of the signal. It can't do a perfectly flat wave under those conditions, so it fudges a little.

    The DCT can do sharp boundaries, but only in the horizontal and vertical directions. If a slightly angled sharp boundary is presented, it may be easier to start with the horizontal or vertical boundary, and then try to fudge it in one direction or another. If you zoom in on that block, it will look artifically horizontal or vertical.


    Yeah...(Nod like I may actually know what you're saying...)

    All very complicated, (No ****) I know. I've simplified it a little. But the moral is that if you want to do image analysis at the microscopic level, do not use lossy compression techniques.

    And that's just the simple explaination? So, what is really involved in jpeg compression? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-04-29 18:55 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-04-29 18:56 ]</font>

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,447
    JPEG is a hodge-podge of accepted standards. JPEG is not a file format. That's technically known as JFIF. JPEG is not a compression scheme. That's the DCT. In fact, JPEG images need not be lossily compressed. It's just that the DCT provides such an excellent compromise between file size and presentability.

    Unfortunately to explain this type of compression fully I would have to type in large portions of signal processing texts, and the Bad Astronomer would thwack my head with a thimble for it.

    Discrete Cosine Transform. "Discrete" because it works on discrete data, i.e., the intensity of pixels in an image, as opposed to continuous data. "Cosine" because the trigonometric cosine is the basis function. "Transform" because it transforms a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency domain.

    That last sentence is probably going to toast your noodle unless you really go nuts over signal processing and can do convolutions while watching "Jerry Seinfeld" and petting the cat.

    Think of the graphic equalizer in WinAmp, or on your 1980s stereo. Each one of those little sliders corresponds to a frequency band in the total sound spectrum. The higher you slide the knob, the more that particular band is amplified. Now imagine you have a recording of a trumpet holding one note for hours on end, and you play that through your equalizer. By changing the relative volume of different bands, you can adjust the harmonics of the sound to make it sound like different instruments. So let's say you found a combination of settings that makes it sound like a violin. You could write down that combination and send it to your friend with identical equipment, and he could reproduce the sound at his end.

    This is a one-dimensional example of how the DCT works. The DCT actually works in three dimensions -- two spatial dimension and one intensity dimension. That is,

    z = f(x,y)

    where x and y are the pixel location and z is its intensity. Imagine the graph of

    z = cos ( x * y )

    It looks like that egg carton foam padding stuff. Obviously if you put coefficients on the result you can control the amplitude

    z = a cos ( x * y )

    And if you put coefficients on x and y, you can control the wavelength in the x or y direction.

    z = a cos ( bx * dy ).

    (The actual DCT equation is quite a bit more complicated.)

    Instead of a linear bank of sliders, the DCT uses a square bank of 64 sliders (8x8). Each of those can be set to a different value. They each control a "band" of information in the image. The "image" is the intensity information for an 8x8 block of pixels.

    Here's where it gets a little weird. The upper left position, C(0,0), controls the basic intensity of the entire output region -- the "low frequency" information. If you play with that slider, the entire block will go light or dark. The lower right coefficient, C(7,7), controls basically every other pixel -- the "high frequency" information. Put all the other sliders at zero and play with C(7,7) and you'll get a checkerboard pattern fading in and out.

    Each of the positions in the DCT coefficient (slider) square corresponds to a predetermined set of coefficients for the cosine equation above. That is, for every C(i,j) there is a set of "b" and "c" coefficients. The slider controls "a", and can go positive or negative.

    As I said before, the sliders are roughly arranged in order from coarse adjustments to fine adjustments. C(0,0) controls a cosine "surface" whose "b" and "c" coefficients are so large it covers the entire 8x8 patch. C(7,7)'s "b" and "c" are chosen so that their wavelength corresponds to a single pixel. Sliders on the diagonal, C(i,i), correspond to cosine "surfaces" where "a" and "b" are equal. Sliders at the opposite extremes correspond to surfaces where either "a" or "b" is fixed. For example, if you manipulate the bottom left slider, C(0,7), you'll get horizontal stripes because the coefficients are small in one dimension and big in the other dimension. C(7,0) produces vertical stripes.

    Now for any 8x8 patch of pixels the encoding problem is to find all C(i,j) such that the convolution of all those cosine surfaces produces the source image -- or reasonably close to it. There's math to do that.

    Each slider can go from -1023 to 1024, or 2048 possible values, requiring 11 bits to store. But the intensities themselves were probably only 0 to 255, or eight bits. So we've "compressed" the image data into a DCT coefficient table that takes more space to store. D'oh!

    So we quantize the DCT coefficient table. Instead of the sliders moving smoothly across their ranges, we introduce detents, or click-stops for each slider. That means each slider's value can still range from -1024 to 1024, but only in discrete steps. So we introduce a quantization table -- an 8x8 grid of step sizes, one for each slider in the DCT coefficient table.

    So let's say the step size for coefficient C(0,0) is 16. That means there are 128 detents on that slider. That only needs 7 bits. If the coefficient's value is 473, you store it as 30, meaning "detent number 30 is closest to this coefficient's actual value." To recover the original coefficient, you multiply the stored value by the step size: 30 * 16 = 480.

    The reason we have different step sizes for each coefficient instead of one step size for the whole table is that each coefficient has a varying degree of influence over the appearance of the final influence. You can get away with larger step sizes for some bands. The larger the step size, the fewere detents and the fewer bits needed to store the detent setting. In general, the upper left wants small steps and the lower right wants large steps.

    The other factor that affects the step size is the JPEG quality. The higher the quality, the smaller the step size. That means the quantized coefficient will lie closer to the actual coefficient.

    For 75% JPEG quality, the step sizes vary between 16 and about 120, requiring between five and seven bits to store each coefficient. In reality, they aren't just stored in a list, one after the other.

    Sigh.

    You traverse the quantized coefficient table in a particular zigzag pattern from upper left to bottom right, copying out the coefficients. The result is a long string of bits representing the entire table. The traversal pattern takes advantage of the likely patterns in the data. When data occurs in patterns, a particular compression system called Huffman encoding works very well.

    Huffman encoding represents recurring patterns of bits by replacing them with an abbreviation, a shorter pattern of bits.

    For example, consider an 8x8 patch that is light in the upper left and dark in the lower right, with a reasonably soft diagonal straight-line boundary between them. C(0,0) would be some value, say -50, to bias the entire patch. C(1,0) and C(0,1) would be the same value, say 200. All the rest would be zero.

    Quantize them with a step size of 16. C(0,0) would be -3, or 11101 in one binary encoding. C(1,0) and C(0,1) would each be 12, or 01100.

    Now traverse the table. It's a little hard to describe the traversal order in text, but we would have C(0,0), C(1,0), C(1,0), C(1,1), ... C(7,7). The bit pattern is

    111010110001100 followed by 320 zeroes.

    Let's say the Huffman encoding looks at this bit pattern and says,

    "10" represents "01100"
    "11" represents "11101"
    "0" represents "0000000000000000"

    Those equivalents are stored as the Huffman table, then the string of bits is rendered as

    "11" "10" "10" followed by 20 zeroes.

    The actual symbols in Huffman encoding are more carefully chosen so as not to be ambiguous.

    The Huffman table itself can be stored in about 50 bits while the Huffman codes require only 26 bits. Less than 100 bits or so. And all this encodes/compresses an 8x8 patch of pixels that would have otherwise taken 512 bits.

    Now do you think Seethruart could understand any of this?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    44
    I have a strong feeling that this site (http://www.anomalog.com/bergrun.html) is a joke. He is almost more obnoxious than SeeThruMan! It seems to me that he is taking obvious things and just reaching into a grab bag to come up with something totally off the wall. I'm sure the picture of the author as well as all of his 'credentials' are pure b.s. I'll bet he had fun putting this site together as a total rip-off of all of the 'legitimate' HB sites.

    But, if it is true.........God help the poor man.


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Jay, thanks for the explaination of JPEG compression. I got most of it, especially the bit about the sliders. In the UK we have NICAM Stereo TV transmissions and I once read how it was transmitted, with next to no bandwidth. It was awsome. Most of the info from the origional sound is lost, and what we get is a rough approximation, but we can't tell the difference. I guess it's also like mp3 compression. I've got a minidisc recorder, and I've mp3'd some CD's onto my PC. The minidisc is a 4xLP model, using it's own compression, and mp3's also have their own compression methods. The result of this is that sometimes, when putting an mp3 track onto minidisc, even though it sounds fine when I'm playing it on my PC, the recording sounds very 'warbly'. I'm guessing that the origional is playing with bits missing that we don't notice, which almost harmonise with the bits that the minidisc is missing, as the two compression formats go in and out of phase. It is analogous to interference patterns produced by light passing through slits.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    32
    On 2002-04-30 10:22, jagster wrote:
    I have a strong feeling that this site (http://www.anomalog.com/bergrun.html) is a joke. He is almost more obnoxious than SeeThruMan! It seems to me that he is taking obvious things and just reaching into a grab bag to come up with something totally off the wall. I'm sure the picture of the author as well as all of his 'credentials' are pure b.s. I'll bet he had fun putting this site together as a total rip-off of all of the 'legitimate' HB sites.

    But, if it is true.........God help the poor man.

    I don't think it's true but I don't think it's a parody either. It seems that Dr. Bergrun (aka Popeye) wrote a book that says the rings of Saturn are being artificially produced by aliens. He made this discovery by mis-interpreting images from Voyager I. I guess he's branching out and mis-interpreting images from Apollo now. See:
    http://www.ringmakersofsaturn.com

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,158
    Dr. Norman Bergrun
    author of "Ringmakers of Saturn", is a highly respected scientist, engineer and author. Bergrun has made a detailed study of photographic data sent back from the planet Saturn by Voyagers I and II spacecraft missions. Bergrun has concluded that these NASA photos demonstrate that the rings of Saturn are the result of EMV's (electromagnetic vehicles) spewing emissions along the length of gigantic cylindrical bodies while orbiting the sixth planet from the sun and are in part, responsible for Saturn's ring system. Dr. Bergrun was a research scientist for 12 years with NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) predecessor of Ames Research Center, NASA and has inspected over 100,000 images. Bergrun's just completed, "Earth's Moon...Why We Never Returned!" contains unsettling discoveries from our Apollo Missions. Bergrun holds a ** degree from Cornell University, an LLB from LaSalle University Extension, and a DSc (Hon) from World University.
    - speaker's biography from the www.bayareaufoexpo.com/speakers2000.html+norman+bergrun&hl=en&ie=utf-8]Bay Area UFO Expo 2000[/url]

    I want to know how he managed to become a NACA research scientist with only a bachelor's degree.

    _________________
    "... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-04-30 16:54 ]</font>

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,158
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  29. #29
    Hello All!

    I'm the perpetrator of the the site mentioned at the top this thread.

    As I say on my page, I still can't make my mind up about HWSNBN. I don't understand how somebody can be that deluded and confused and still function well enough to be able to switch on a computer.

    These 'hyper-trolls' are so much more persistant than the common, definately stupid variety, i sometimes wonder if they are actually sane people doing some sort of research, maybe an investigation into the psychology of internet users, seeing just how bizarre they can act and still get a reaction. Plausible?

    Or maybe he's actually PRO-Apollo and is trying to damage 'legit' HBers credibility (as if they need any help)

    Whats the verdict? Is he for real?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    43
    On 2002-04-30 21:26, NasaStooge wrote:
    ... I still can't make my mind up about HWSNBN. ... Whats the verdict? Is he for real?
    Long-timers here (from the old board) put up with an awful lot of this particular person's "hyper-trolling" with varying degrees of patience...but I don't think that any of us ever got the impression that he was anything but perfectly sincere in his beliefs.

    Incredibly (even terminally, perhaps) out-to-lunch...but perfectly sincere.

Similar Threads

  1. Neil Haggaths new debunking website Space And Sanity
    By Breakdancing Moonwalker in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-01, 09:20 AM
  2. "funny" website
    By Astroliz in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Nov-02, 04:12 PM
  3. "Anomalies" in photos - debunking website updated
    By Kiwi in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-13, 02:16 AM
  4. Sudenly I need a point-by-point debunking of "A Funny Thing
    By Jigsaw in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2002-Sep-19, 06:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: