Did man land on the moon or NOT!?

[felix]

yeah, i was gonna mention transhumanism and the elite's modern day quest for the elixir of youth through a somewhat disturbing manifestation of fusing man with machine, in a bid to download the soul into a suitable vessel to create an avatar of high technology, in essence, to fulfill a self belief in their intrinsic difference from the unwashed masses, or useless eaters as henry kissinger quite openly refers to the elderly as. (and for elderly read: anyone but the elite) in his book 'final days'. it sounds crazy but apparently its the big thing with all the billionaire ceo's nowadays. transhumanism, globalisation and population reduction are the big three hardon inducing subjects for them


total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ted turner, audubon magazine interview

“the planetary regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” obama’s Science czar john p. holdren, from a book he helped write ‘ecoscience

Well, I suspect that someone will have to make those uncomfortable decisions in the future. I'm also pretty sure that some poor working class unimportant oik from Scotland won't be amongst the chosen few. Ah well.

I'm not often racked with feelings of existential desolation, but this is one of my triggers. I honestly could burst into tears thinking about it. So I won't. :D

I suspect that a couple of you know where I'm coming from here.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

It's good to see you around BHM

thanks max, youre such a sweetie





*to all of you ive had pm's from, thanks n stuff. replies soon.. yes really

 

[zzz101]

they did land on the moon

 

[Vurtual]

I think if we make 'machines' that have got the properties of brains like consciousness, they'd have to be so different from our idea of machines as to be difficult to easily distinguish in principle from 'organic' brains/minds, and the usual stereotype of cold unfeeling machine consciousness likely wouldn't apply (that's after all a projection of our own lizard-minds). I also suspect that the most exciting singularity could involve nothing other than the power of human minds connecting together by relatively conventional means like the internet (scale free networks and that) - revolutions are a type of singularity after all; a phase change in the collective consciousness (or some such pseuds bollocks)

 

[Sammy G]

revolutions are a type of singularity after all; a phase change in the collective consciousness

You could say much the same about all-out biological warfare. I know which of the two my money's on, anyhow.

 

[felix]

I think if we make 'machines' that have got the properties of brains like consciousness, they'd have to be so different from our idea of machines as to be difficult to easily distinguish in principle from 'organic' brains/minds, and the usual stereotype of cold unfeeling machine consciousness likely wouldn't apply (that's after all a projection of our own lizard-minds). I also suspect that the most exciting singularity could involve nothing other than the power of human minds connecting together by relatively conventional means like the internet (scale free networks and that) - revolutions are a type of singularity after all; a phase change in the collective consciousness (or some such pseuds bollocks)

In that vein, it strikes me that any post-singularity immortal entities who go forth and explore deep space will probably look back on their meatspace humanoid ancestors as an insignificant irrelevance to their mission. We'll be lucky if they even send us a postcard. And they won't even need a Goldilocks type planet like Earth to exist either; things like breathable atmospheres and H20 are gonna seem as relevant and necessary to them as baby cribs and kiddie car seats are to a human adult.

I just hope that we can somehow programme them to rely on our involvement at some level, so that humanity can at least get something out of it all. Hmmm.

 

[Vurtual]

Sammy: Well in the strict definition of a singularity as something impossible to predict past you sort of could, but not really the same thing, as there's usually something extra happening after the singularity in the normal story. Revolutions are a natural property; near-instantaneous phase-changes of a complex system to a novel, more complex, and often more stable state - this happens frequently in nature and evolution and in human society (if it didn't there'd be no substantive progress at all, in society or evolution) - being the complex systems this happens to are largely on the edge of chaos, it's difficult to predict when or even if it'll happen, especially from a 'single-cell' perspective of a person in a society.

Felix: i don't think it'll be such a division, as we will be those future people. And i do think that consciousness will always be interested in other consciousness (look at how eager we are to meet aliens); even if it's in a relationship like we have to other mammals - the advanced among us don't hurt them even if we know we're superior cognitively (though we do eat a lot of them...) (the really 'advanced' people know we're not 'superior' anyway imo).

 

[Sammy G]

It was a throwaway quip. Cool yer jets.

 

[Vurtual]

I think my jets are cool - i just can't resist an opportunity for self-righteous waffle (especially with you as my foil).

I watched a well wacky moon conspiracy video the other week - can't remember the name [edit: clementine conspiracy], but it was about a dragon that lives on the moon. It was narrated by anonymous or stephen hawking - went through the usual stuff about lunar artefacts (some bits interesting, like the lights bhm mentioned), but focused on this one photo were there was a blurry frame (NASA said it was a blurring algorithm filling in a gap) - he then proceeded to go over how he shoved this picture through a load of photoshop filters with the result that it showed there was a dragon as big as manhattan there (it doesn't look like a dragon - he goes on for ages before showing the photo about how you have to train your eyes to see it properly). He then went on about how the chinese mentioned dragons lots showing the influence of these dragons on human history - and that one of the chinese characters for dragon if you move it about a bit, sort of looks like a squiggle on the NASA logo for some sattelite mission (but doesn't really). Makes the moon landings fake seem quite plausible in comparison. I'll try and find it for your delectation.

Edit: here it is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOKnRjAWjh4 - skip to near the end to see the 'dragon' (no offence to anyone who believes this - i don't know what's really real (but if we're betting...)

 

[felix]

Felix: i don't think it'll be such a division, as we will be those future people. And i do think that consciousness will always be interested in other consciousness (look at how eager we are to meet aliens); even if it's in a relationship like we have to other mammals - the advanced among us don't hurt them even if we know we're superior cognitively (though we do eat a lot of them...) (the really 'advanced' people know we're not 'superior' anyway imo).

That is pretty reassuring and I'm sure you're right. Nice perspective.

Thanks.

 

[moneyboy]

Adolf Hitler went to the moon much earlier, Germany started the space program in 1943, with the Haunebu spaceship it was a piece of cake gettin to the moon. The brilliant nazi engineers even established a base on the dark side of the moon to evacuate Adolf Hitler. The Nazis are still on the moon and in the hidden base at Neu Schwabenland (Antarctica).

 

[felix]

Hell yeah. :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/?ref_=nv_sr_1

 

[Dark Side]

/thread

 

[Shambles]

and of course, even the age of the moon is controversial, many reputable labs have dated moon rocks at a billion years older than the oldest such rocks observed on earth. if as appears, this is true - the collision theory goes out the window. which is why the dating is argued over so fanatically

As far as I can make out that would actually be evidence supporting the collision theory as it fits well with the proposed timing of the event. No Earthbound rocks survive from that period due to geological forces essentially recycling them so any material that was "chipped off" the ProtoEarth block would be approximately a billion years older than any rock currently found here.

And on the Moon's size being such a remarkably good (if still imperfect) fit for making eclipses especially pretty, this is what is predicted by standard models. The Moon has (and still is) moving away from the Earth at approximately the same speed as continents drift apart on Earth (or the average fingernail grows). The fact we happen to have evolved to a point we can notice this at just the right time for it to be at its most impressive (and seemingly spookily so) is essentially coincidence. If we evolved a couple hundred thousand years from now (or earlier) the eclipse effect wouldn't be nearly as impressive.

Other than that, great post. It's not that there's nothing odd or interesting about the Moon so much as precious little that is (at least on the surface) likely to be held to scientific scrutiny.

 

[felix]

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcWweblGjnU

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

As far as I can make out that would actually be evidence supporting the collision theory as it fits well with the proposed timing of the event. No Earthbound rocks survive from that period due to geological forces essentially recycling them so any material that was "chipped off" the ProtoEarth block would be approximately a billion years older than any rock currently found here

if the moon did in fact coalesce (perfectly positioned, as mentioned) as a product of a collision between earth and thea or whatever celestial body - theyre should be no date discrepancy, particularly one of a billion years, 25% on top of the earths fairly well agreed age. i dont understand what youre claiming, that every single rock older than the 4.5billion years was destroyed but those less so haven't been, what phenomenon could you possibly ascribe that to?

And on the Moon's size being such a remarkably good (if still imperfect) fit for making eclipses especially pretty, this is what is predicted by standard models. The Moon has (and still is) moving away from the Earth at approximately the same speed as continents drift apart on Earth (or the average fingernail grows). The fact we happen to have evolved to a point we can notice this at just the right time for it to be at its most impressive (and seemingly spookily so) is essentially coincidence. If we evolved a couple hundred thousand years from now (or earlier) the eclipse effect wouldn't be nearly as impressive

i have no clue what youre on about. standard models predict.. what? the movement away from earth is a phenomenon of gravity which will gradually decrease in speed over time, so that even now at its current rate - it will take half a billion years to move enough so that the sun is no longer covered, and when we factor in predicted declination the likelihood is it will be doin it thing for well over a billion more years. you understand the fact that it just so was at the perfect position for humanity's evolution and the birth of civilisation isnt really helping the nothing to see here base of your argument yknow ;p

ther than that great post. It's not that there's nothing odd or interesting about the Moon so much as precious little that is (at least on the surface) likely to be held to scientific scrutiny.

again.. humongous, sweeping over generalisation and poor understanding. even generic moon rocks that have been studied relentlessly for fifty years are constantly in demand by labs, institutes and universities from all over the world.


not only are there scientific attractions, but technological ones also. the moon is host to many scarce earth elements and rare or completely new composites and exceptionally pure metals seldom if ever present in such states on earth - and this is only what we know of, literally scratching the surface of lunar mineralogical potential and all of which have implications again, for space/microchip age manufacturing. if it truly is as rare mineral rich/unique as appears, then soon as technology catches up a wee bit - therell be cunts all over that big cheese, rest assured young man

 

[Shambles]

if the moon did in fact coalesce (perfectly positioned, as mentioned) as a product of a collision between earth and thea or whatever celestial body - theyre should be no date discrepancy, particularly one of a billion years, 25% on top of the earths fairly well agreed age. i dont understand what youre claiming, that every single rock older than the 4.5billion years was destroyed but those less so haven't been, what phenomenon could you possibly ascribe that to?

That is precisely what the collision theory states and also what geology states about the age of Eartbound rocks. Only Creationists argue the toss about the age of Earthbound rocks. The rest of us believe in the various geological cycles. No rock has ever been found on Earth that dates to more than around 3.5bya yet nobody (Creationsists aside) disputes that the Earth is around 4.5b years old. That billion year discrepency is precisely the period the collision theory is talking about and the reason we have no Earthbound rocks of that age is that the Earth's crust has been recycled several times over since then (obviously more so in some places than others depending on tectonic activity and the local thickness of the crust at any given period). This is GCSE level geology.

i have no clue what youre on about. standard models predict.. what?

That if the collision theory is correct the Moon would be at the distance (and thus perceived size from the Earth) it currently is.

 

[BlindHelperMonkey]

if its gcse level, youve failed spectacularly.

i think your atheistic bile spewing has confused your poor, long suffering brain. no fossils have ever been found older than 3.5billion years, perhaps you meant that. you cant have meant anything else, because zircon crystal has been accurately dated at 4.4billion years.



and as for the collision 'model', again, proving a little knowledge is dangerous - it says precisely fuck all about resultant non erratic orbital trajectory, or anything more than general theory of the moon's creation. you could collide two worlds a million times and not have it repeated once. nevermind base a model on it. nonsensical drivel

 

[Shambles]

My selective autoditacticism is more accurate than yours so neh

 

[Vurtual]

BHM: Are you hinting that the moon is artificially made by aliens unknown, or are you hinting at general creationism - either way, occams razor isn't favouring you i'd say.