Apollo was a hoax, IMHO

[ngant17]

I've just watched the Aulis moon hoax video, and I must say it was abolutely astounding.
I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

This new book which claims to debunk the 'moon hoax' conspiracy is similar to the myriad of books which try to debunk the JFK conspiracy theorists - that Oswald could have made 3 head shots at a moving target in less than 2.5 secs, something which the FBI's best sharpshooters where unable to accomplish, using the same bolt-action rifle.

Physics isn't democratic!

[AstroMike]

Read http://www.clavius.org/ or http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm, and you will figure out the Aulis video is a load of unscientific crap.

[JayUtah]

I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

Okay, so you've heard one side of the story. Here you will get the other side.

I've spoken with the producer of that video and afterwards I believe the video is a calculated attempt to deceive. I have provided him with copious amounts of evidence which very strongly dispute -- and in some cases conclusively disprove -- his theories. His response has basically been to tell me to go away.

David Percy is a photographer. Very well, so are many of us. We don't have to take what he says about photography as the unbiased truth. We can perform our own experiments. And we have. It's not hard to reproduce the "anomalous" shadow directions and shapes.

Did you note how Percy, in his book and video, tries to speak expertly about how the photos were faked? He's very good about drawing diagrams, but he can't seem to actually reproduce any of the photos in his own studio. That's because I've tried to reproduce them and found that I can't. And I suppose Percy has discovered that for himself.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

Interesting. How many spacecraft have you designed?

See, some of us here are professional engineers. David Percy isn't, and neither is his co-author. I've seen them try to muddle their way through elementary physics problems. They can't do it. So they're not experts.

Human beings have one advantage over robots: the ability to heal. Radiation damage to electronics, once done, is permanent. People withstand small amounts of harmful radiation with a good chance of healing completely without ill effect.

Go talk to the people at Hughes, now Boeing's Space Division. Their spacecraft operate more or less continuously in the Van Allen belts. They know an awful lot about how much radiation is there, and what kind of hardening they need to use. None of these people doubts that Apollo succeeded.

Go talk to professor Van Allen. He helped design the translunar trajectory for Apollo. He believes it succeeded. See, that's the problem. Anyone who can speak intelligently about the Van Allen belts believes the Apollo missions were real. Those who believe the radiation is an impassable obstacle can only talk about the Van Allen belts in vague, handwaving terms.

This new book which claims to debunk the 'moon hoax' conspiracy is similar to the myriad of books which try to debunk the JFK conspiracy theorists

No, that's apples and oranges. Those are two completely different topics. There are, in fact, suitable scientific answers for the moon hoax believers' allegations. If you wish, we will provide you with as many of them as you want.

By the way, how many conspiracy theories do you currently believe in?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-16 18:09 ]</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

I will not allow any discussion to delve into Kennedy's assassination. We get enough off-topic posts with tempers flaring already.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cyberspaced on 2002-06-16 18:01 ]</font>

[Espritch]

I've just watched the Aulis moon hoax video, and I must say it was abolutely astounding.
I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

When you say you "know", do you mean "know" as is you took the time to verify the assertions made in the video through independent sources so that you are convinced that those assertions are consistant with the evidence, or did you mean "know" as in "the video said it, it must be true"?

Also, has watching this video made you an expert in Van Allen Radiation? Do you actually know what Van Allen Belt radiation is and what causes it? And if so, could you explain it to me so I'll understand why this "letal radiation" makes human space travel "practically impossible"?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-06-16 22:29 ]</font>

[jrkeller]

Don't be taken in a few arguments that sound convincing. I've studied this moon hoax stuff for a long a time and I can tell you, I haven't found one piece of material that convinces me the moon landings were fake. Actually, because of the fox show and my subsequent investigation of their claims, I am even more convinced that the moon landings happened than I ever was before.

I'll give you two examples.

First. In many of the moon hoax books and videos, there are statements to the effect that with the bulky gloves of the suits, it was be impossible to change the film magazines in the camera, use the tools, etc., How did these folks arrive at this conclusion? They looked at the gloves. Did they put their hands in ones and actually try to use it? No. These gloves typically aren't available to the public, that's why. Well I have used them and while it feels a bit odd trying to do simple tasks, it's hardly impossible. It's like any task your unfamiliar with, it takes time to learn.

Designing any tool for EVA use requires a lot time and testing. NASA has guidelines, which were developed in the 1960's and are still used today, which give designers outline on how to build a tool for astronaut use. ie don't make any grips smaller than this, it can't be hotter or colder than a specified range, etc. Once the tool is designed, it undergoes a series of tests. First, an attempt is made to operate the tool using an unpressurized glove. The test is then repeated using a pressurized glove. The pressure inside the glove is approximately twice the pressure that will be seen during use. Usually we use several different astronauts and we've used as many as six. If anyone of them doesn't like the tool or can't operate it, it's back to the drawing board.

Second, there are many arguments that the temperature of the moon is too hot or too cold for the film. Since the moon has no atmosphere, this point is meaningless. In a vacuum, what determines an objects temperature is how much solar energy it absorbs and how much heat it rejects by infrared thermal radiation. Any engineer or science major in college who has taken an introductory course in heat transfer has probably done this type exercise as a homework problem.

On last thing to remember, some of these folks, like Bill Kaysing, have lied and continue to about their credentials. In other words, they are not the experts they say they are.

[JayUtah]

I've studied this moon hoax stuff for a long a time and I can tell you, I haven't found one piece of material that convinces me the moon landings were fake.

I concur. I have extensively researched the moon hoax arguments and have found not only that they lack any sort of scientific validity or logical rigor, but that their proponents have failed to exercise due diligence before leveling their accusations. In other words, it's fairly easy to find counterevidence which the hoax believer's haven't considered or fail to understand.

Actually, because of the fox show and my subsequent investigation of their claims, I am even more convinced that the moon landings happened than I ever was before.

Well I have used them [space gloves] and while it feels a bit odd trying to do simple tasks, it's hardly impossible.

I too have worn space gloves and attempted to operate mockups of MMU controls while wearing them. While it's somewhat more difficult to flex your fingers, you can operate dextrously with them. I have seen the controls of, for example, the Hasselblad cameras and I don't think I would have a problem operating them, especially if I were given time to practice.

I think if I were going to have to work in them for six or eight hours at a time, I'd want more lower arm strength than I have now. Perhaps that's why mission specialists carry tennis balls around with them to squeeze in order to build up their finger strength.

Most hoax believers can't even accurately describe Apollo space glove assemblies, and so it's pretty obvious they haven't worn them or seen them up close. That makes their opinion of what can and can't be done while wearing them pretty insignificant.

Any engineer or science major in college who has taken an introductory course in heat transfer has probably done this type exercise as a homework problem.

Yes, and thank you for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

In other words, they are not the experts they say they are.

David Percy has legitimate credentials as a photographer, but no demonstrated expertise or education in photographic interpretation -- which is fairly different. Further, although he is an associate of the Royal Photographic Society, that credential can be granted on scholarly or artistic merit, not technical understanding.

He claims to be an "award-winning" filmmaker, but the only award he names is a nomination for filmmaker of the year for the British Association of Industrial Filmmakers. I looked up how that award is given: There's a gold medal, a silver medal, and a bronze medal. So since he mentions only a nomination I conclude he came in fourth.

Further, his resume states that "his" videos on a certain mental technique are being sold by the BBC. I have since discovered that the mental technique in question was invented by someone else who credits many co-authors and contributors, none of which is David Percy.

Finally, I have run Percy's arguments past professional photographers and lighting designers whose credentials are known to me and beyond question, and they have laughed quite soundly at Percy's conclusion.

But such "dirt" is largely irrelevant. The question is that these people offer arguments that exceed even their claimed credentials. It's always interesting to hear these authors talk about, for example, the "lethal" radiation in the Van Allen belts. They quote various scary-sounding quotes from experts in order to make the case that they're impassable. But the authors never seem to ask the one and only pertinent question: "Do you believe Apollo succeeded in safely traversing the Van Allen belts?" Seems that would be an important question.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

On 2002-06-18 02:40, JayUtah wrote:
But such "dirt" is largely irrelevant. The question is that these people offer arguments that exceed even their claimed credentials. It's always interesting to hear these authors talk about, for example, the "lethal" radiation in the Van Allen belts. They quote various scary-sounding quotes from experts in order to make the case that they're impassable. But the authors never seem to ask the one and only pertinent question: "Do you believe Apollo succeeded in safely traversing the Van Allen belts?" Seems that would be an important question.

Oh, they Ask the Question, Alright, The Answer, Just Never Appears on Film, Must be UFOs, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Ah, Seriously though, I am Truly Amazed, that they don't Get Thrown Out of Places, more Often, Like Creationists, Very Deservingly, are!

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-18 05:13 ]</font>

[ngant17]

"By the way, how many conspiracy theories do you currently believe in? "

Conspiracies? I think there's plenty of NASA conspiracy stuff out there. Some of the evidence is in the National Archives, especially the Nazi war criminal evidence.

Where to begin? NASA kept all those Nazi war criminals at Huntsville, such as Herr Rudolph who helped design the Saturn rocket booster. And he was the same Nazi general who renounced his US citizenship and left to go back to West Germany, to escape prosecution from US investigators who had the incriminated evidence on him. How about Oswald, who applied to work for NASA when he was in New Orleans hanging around with those shady 544 Camp St. guys, remember? It was in Jim Garrison's book, and also you can see some NASA conspiracy stuff in the Torbitt document which is widely available on the Internet now. Don't you just love the company they keep?

The reason I brought up JFK is because Pres. Kennedy would have abolished NASA had he lived in Dec., 1963, when NASA's fiscal appropriations would have been sent to his desk to be signed. Which he never did, of course. And NASA has to deify Kennedy today, to continue the myth(s).

BTW, conspiracy is a term which is defined in our legal system and I use it in the same sense. What's so wacko about that?

The Space Shuttle Challenger and the KAL 007 shootdown is another NASA conspiracy case. But we are in another topic now and I'll try to keep on the lunar conspiracy theme. I'm sure you'd love to share your political opinions with me, which could posibly be to the far-right somewhere.

Now I see your tactics. First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s). Do I want to waste quality time for this? No! Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

"See, some of us here are professional engineers. David Percy isn't, and neither is his co-author."

well, I don't get it at all just yet. Are you trying to beat me in the head with your credentials? I am not so impressed. For one thing, the 'professional' space scientists generally lives off the public dole, they exist as welfare recipients. There is no way for space science to ever become a profit-making enterprise. One example: I suppose you will agree that the moon is composed of 10% titanium. Titanium is an element with a high demand and a limited supply on Earth. The classical equation in capitalism. Wouldn't we all love to have titanium in our cars, and titanium bicycles, too? That's not even counting the military applications, especially if you're a war hawk and want to use titanium applications to invade other counties and try to take over. For democracy's sake, of course.

Be that as it may, all your brilliant rocket engineers have yet to figure out a way to profitably mine titanium on the moon and bring it back. It can't be done without spending more money than you could ever possibly make on the proposition.

Another example from economics. How 'bout those cell phones which we all know and love? Well, if their true costs were ever capitalized to reflect the price of rocket fuel, rocket systems hardware to put the satellites in orbit, to pay the space engineers without any of the traditional government handouts which cover all those costs, no one would be able to afford to have a cell phone.

A (ground) repeater station on Earth costs about $10 million to build. I am not talking about that, as those costs have in fact been capitalized by Sprint, ATT, ect. Satellite-based receptions and transmissions have not. It is assumed that the government must pay for this.

Space scientists may know very well how to add some numbers together in their heads, but they haven't figured out a way to earn a living in the real world of business. Except to work for unproductive public welfare agencies like NASA.

I'll believe they can be productive citizens for the country when they privatize NASA! This will never happen, of course. Otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. Kennedy probably understood this. I think Ike did, who coined the word, "military-industrial complex".

Everyone else has to work for an honest living in America. Why can't these guys do it too, if they're so smart?

(note: this comment doesn't apply to civil engineers, mechanical engineers and other 'real' engineers who have real jobs in the real world , on planet Earth, that is).

[Kaptain K]

One example: I suppose you will agree that the moon is composed of 10% titanium.

HUH?!?! Please cite a source for this information.

[widosm]

Sorry, this has got to be a troll. It would be quite funny if it wasn't so offensive.
Do you realise that when you where in education (yes, I'm making a bold assumption here) you where scrounging of the state? As when you called the police, an ambulance, or the fire-brigade? None of these make any profit whatsoever in the 'real world of business'. Im amazed and appalled that a self-confessed conspiracist, who supposedly fights/exposes the evils of governement and the big corporations, has such a materialistic view. NASA, like so many institutions, does not exist to make profit. It exists to advance science, to better mankind.
Your last section, regarding proper engineers, is pure troll-bait.

[sts60]

Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

OK, great. Never mind JFK, Nazis, and welfare cheats; let's stick to the merits of your assertion that Apollo was faked. Your first argument to support that claim was that

the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

Please give us the "factual evidence" to support this argument. Or better yet, read the detailed explanations debunking this argument elsewhere on this forum, and explain to us why they are wrong.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-18 05:21, ngant17 wrote:

Now I see your tactics. First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s). Do I want to waste quality time for this? No! Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

Are you reading the same forum as I am? Who cut you off and where did you see anything about anyone not being allowed? I saw the moderator step in to keep things on-topic, something good moderators of all boards, even conspiracy boards, tend to do, but that was it. With the exception of your post, I also didn't notice any name calling going on.

[kucharek]

A good conspiracy believer is now sure that Phill stepped in because he is part of the JFK conspiracy and was afraid that someone was going to blow the whistle. And the Apollo conspiracy is of course a conspiracy produced by the JFK conspiracists to distract people from the JFK conspiracy.
The whole conspiracy business is some kind of Möbius band...

Harald

PS: The FOX show will be aired here in Germany on 28 June on VOX. Fortunately, it's the version where they interrupt the FOX show every 15 minutes or so and then German science astronaut Ulrich Walter takes five minutes to debunk the crap.

[Donnie B.]

On 2002-06-18 10:28, kucharek wrote:
PS: The FOX show will be aired here in Germany on 28 June on VOX. Fortunately, it's the version where they interrupt the FOX show every 15 minutes or so and then German science astronaut Ulrich Walter takes five minutes to debunk the crap.

That sounds great! Is this version available in English, or with subtitles? I guess it's too much to hope that there's a transcript or (gasp!) a streaming video online...

[Donnie B.]

On 2002-06-18 05:21, ngant17 wrote:
Another example from economics. How 'bout those cell phones which we all know and love? Well, if their true costs were ever capitalized to reflect the price of rocket fuel, rocket systems hardware to put the satellites in orbit, to pay the space engineers without any of the traditional government handouts which cover all those costs, no one would be able to afford to have a cell phone.

I think you are either very confused or misinformed, or (as others have suggested) merely trolling for our reactions. Either way, you're quite incorrect about this issue.

Communications satellites (with the exception of a few that are dedicated to military use) are designed, constructed, owned, and operated by private corporations. They pay big bucks to NASA or other entities to launch them (and, of course, they insure them up the yin-yang in case of mishaps).

Of course, cell phones don't necessarily use satellite links, and so their cost structures are more earthbound. However, satellite phones are far more expensive to use for the very reason that the satellites cost a bundle of private dollars to launch and operate.

Now, I will grant you that none of this would be possible in the fist place, if not for the large public-sector investment in space technology that got the whole business off the ground (literally). But I guess that's just another example of how the government can't tie its shoes without oppressing a minority group... or whatever it is you're suggesting.

By the way, I for one am anything but right-wing, politically. I was marching against the war in Vietnam even as I was celebrating the Apollo triumphs. Just because Uncle Sam does it, doesn't make it automatically evil, my friend.

[kucharek]

That sounds great! Is this version available in English, or with subtitles? I guess it's too much to hope that there's a transcript or (gasp!) a streaming video online...

Nope. Nothing of these things at all.

[JayUtah]

Ngant17, you are all over the map. Why don't you find an Apollo-related subject and stick to it? One poster suggested you discuss the supposedly lethal radiation between earth and moon. I agree with that. Please give some evidence to support your assertion that manned space operations above low earth orbit are impossible due to the threat of radiation.

[Conrad]

Has ngant not mentioned the infamous Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory? (about the people who conspire to fake conspiracy theories in order to pull the wool over people's eyes/sell books). Then there's the Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory, about the people who attempt to debunk the people who make conspiracies, and the Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory ...

[Jim]

On 2002-06-18 10:50, JayUtah wrote:
Ngant17, you are all over the map. Why don't you find an Apollo-related subject and stick to it? One poster suggested you discuss the supposedly lethal radiation between earth and moon. I agree with that. Please give some evidence to support your assertion that manned space operations above low earth orbit are impossible due to the threat of radiation.

Good idea! But let's be even more specific...

Ngant, here is an article on the Van Allen Belts "radiation problem." Please read it and tell us why you agree/disagree with the author's conclusions.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

[JayUtah]

Good idea! But let's be even more specific...

An excellent article, but we don't have a burden of proof here. Ngant17 has asserted that manned space travel through the Van Allen belts is impossible, but has provided no evidence to support that.

Disagreeing with or successfully rebutting one or more of one's detractors does not equate to having proved one's point, as our recent experience with Dave Cosnette illustrates. An author's case may still fail for reasons not covered in any of the examined rebuttals. Thus for an author stating a proposition, it is insufficient to point out that one's detractors are wrong. One must take the extra step and actively prove that one's proposition is right.

I'm sure the topics in the article, and many more similar ones, will prove useful in the ensuing discussion, but it is rather premature to advance a rebuttal when we're not sure yet what the argument is. We have on the table only a proposition. We first require the statement of the line of reasoning that purports to establish that proposition.

[Jim]

...we don't have a burden of proof here. Ngant17 has asserted that manned space travel through the Van Allen belts is impossible, but has provided no evidence to support that.

No, we don't, and I didn't mean to suggest we did.

I was hoping providing ngant with a specific list of sub-topics would move the discussion off the arm-waving level and get us into the details. Sort of, here's our evidence supporting why it's possible, where's your evidence that it's not?

(I'll go back to spectating now.)

[JayUtah]

I think there's plenty of NASA conspiracy stuff out there.

So in other words you believe in quite a number of conspiracy theories that include NASA? Is that accurate?

How many of them have you personally investigated? Or have you just read various web sites and books and seen various videos that you took to be well-researched and factual?

Pres. Kennedy would have abolished NASA had he lived in Dec., 1963, when NASA's fiscal appropriations would have been sent to his desk to be signed. Which he never did, of course.

Pure supposition. Actually the original written text of Kennedy's 1961 speech proposing the moon landings included dollar figures he planned to ask Congress to appropriate for the enterprise.

BTW, conspiracy is a term which is defined in our legal system and I use it in the same sense. What's so wacko about that?

Because the legal system requires evidence in conjunction with an allegation of conspiracy. You cannot simply level an accusation and let it stand at that.

First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s).

On the contrary. This forum has a limited scope: the discussion of theories which state that the Apollo missions were in some way falsified. You proposed to introduce discussion of other conspiracy theories, which is not allowed. However, it has been my experience that those who profess a belief in moon hoax theories also believe in very many other conspiracy theories. This indicates it is the conspiracist mindset which compels belief, not necessarily the merits of any one theory. In fact, I have found that most conspiracy theorists don't even know much about each of the theories in which they profess belief.

Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

I concur. I would rather set aside your political implications and discuss what you may feel are scientifically justified points in your favor.

Are you trying to beat me in the head with your credentials?

Are you trying to imply that qualifications (and the education and experience they represent) are irrelevant?

For one thing, the 'professional' space scientists generally lives off the public dole, they exist as welfare recipients.

Wholly false. Welfare recipients generally do nothing in return for their stipend. Aerospace engineers, on the contrary, go to school for many years, are subject to public certification (much as doctors and lawyers), and produce some of the world's most advanced technology.

There is no way for space science to ever become a profit-making enterprise.

I disagree. I suggest you research Lockheed, Boeing Space Division, Hughes (now a division of Boeing), TRW, and other such companies. They operate commercially in the private sector and are reliably profitable.

Be that as it may, all your brilliant rocket engineers have yet to figure out a way to profitably mine titanium on the moon and bring it back.

A straw man argument. Just because you have cited one example of a possible space-based operation that is not currently profitable, does not mean there are no profitable space ventures, nor that for-profit space exploration and exploitation is unheard of.

Space scientists may know very well how to add some numbers together in their heads, but they haven't figured out a way to earn a living in the real world of business. Except to work for unproductive public welfare agencies like NASA.

Comparatively little of today's space technology is developed by or for NASA. You have a completely unrealistic notion of what constitutes the space industry.

In your rush to villify the space industry and characterize them as mooching layabouts, you have completely ignored the original question. Those who have advanced the moon hoax theories cannot generally lay any claim to the appropriate academic or professional expertise which bears on their hypotheses. Since their claims are easily answered by those who do have the appropriate training and experience, it begs the question why the moon hoax theory should have had any credibility associated with it at all.

In any case, you have expressed a willingness to provide factual evidence. We have suggested you start with the notion of cislunar radiation. Now as an engineer, I will not be satisfied with mere handwaving. If you wish me to believe that the Van Allen belts are invariably lethal to any astronaut that dares invade them, you had better be prepared to talk in very specific, quantitative terms about the nature of the radiation, its effect on astronauts, and any mitigating equipment and procedures that Apollo supplied.

[pvtpylot]

On 2002-06-18 10:28, kucharek wrote:
A good conspiracy believer is now sure that Phill stepped in because he is part of the JFK conspiracy and was afraid that someone was going to blow the whistle. And the Apollo conspiracy is of course a conspiracy produced by the JFK conspiracists to distract people from the JFK conspiracy.
The whole conspiracy business is some kind of Möbius band...

Unless I totally misread the clues in the BA's bio he would have been at best a toddler when he was involved in the JFK or even the Apollo conspiracies. I know, I know; facts like that rarely interest conspiracists.

BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1...
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-18 16:35 ]</font>

[Jim]

WHOLLY off topic, but...

"BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1... "

Your mouth to God's ears.

[kucharek]

Unless I totally misread the clues in the BA's bio he would have been at best a toddler when he was involved in the JFK or even the Apollo conspiracies. I know, I know; facts like that rarely interest conspiracists.

This is just a proof how sinister the JFK conspiracy was. They even used innocent babies!!! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1...
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

As I wrote in another posting: Germany's "unconditional solidarity" with America will be suspended for two hours on friday...
And if you wonder why the Germans wear black ribbons: Two days ago, the most famous German soccer player - and honorary captain of the German national team since many years -, who won the world cup in 1954, died. It's not because the German team already wants to express its sympathy with the US team who will not make it into the next round [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
But don't worry, you'll see Lance Armstrong win the Tour in four weeks, as Jan Ullrich will not take part due to injuries.

Harald

Disclaimer: The above is pure banter and not intended to start a serious off-topic flamewar. Actually, I'm not at all interested in soccer...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-06-19 03:47 ]</font>

[Simon]

I'm not touchin' this one with a ten-foot pole.

I just want to remind everyone to keep it cool, don't take it personally, and don't make it personal. And cite some real info; we've been doing this so long that sometimes we just say "Well, that other guy came on the board and thought the same thing a few months ago, and we debunked him, so that proves it."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon on 2002-06-19 05:12 ]</font>

[Phobos]

Regarding David Percy;

I read his bio on his website and I was surprise to see the referance to mind mapping. Let me tell you what I know about these issues ...

I met David Percy at his home once. He has a pleasant home (in Chelsea if I recall correctly), with framed posters of the face of Mars etc on the wall. He produced Richard Hoagland's address to the UN video (and is mentioned in it) and besides his interests in film and photography he is also connected with book production.

Regarding Mind Mapping, that is a technique invented by Tony Buzan. I happened to meet Tony as we are both members of British Mensa. Tony has had a BBC Tv series which teaches his memory mapping technique and it is this TV series that I suspect is being referred to on David Percy's website (if you look closely he never claims to have invented the technique). Tony is also the organiser of the world mind olympics (events such as chess playing, memorising multiple packs of cards in a few minutes etc).

By the way good luck to the USA v Germany, we beat them on their home turf whilst qualifying for the finals so they are beatable, but they are a good side.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-19 08:05 ]</font>

[Karamoon]

By the way good luck to the USA v Germany, we beat them on their home turf whilst qualifying for the finals so they are beatable, but they are a good side.

They are one of the worst German teams in recent memory (although they have had a half-decent World Cup, so far) and the USA has every chance of beating them. It really is the year of the underdog. I have never seen anything like it in the World Cup before. It's crazy.

South Korea for the cup!