The Moon is within Earth's atmosphere.

Nope.

You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par with the flat earth believers.

They have absolutely no knowledge about anything that Kepler, and all the other scientific giants during our last 500 years, tried to teach us until we eventually managed to catch up with what the Christian Church managed to destroy during almost two millennia.

Now we are back almost to where we were 2000 years ago. Unfortunately it seems like we're once again back to stale mate thanks only to the global patent
system. There will be no more scientific progression until we, like we managed
to defeat the priests, defeat the patent trolls.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par with
the flat earth believers.

As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that there's a difference between "believing" and "knowing".

The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Hello Bj�rn,

The Moon is within Earth's atmosphere.

Nope.

You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par with the flat earth believers.

Au contraire.

The six manned moon landings belief is based on inconclusive
evidence, as none of the claims have been independently verified,
thus making those claims less than credible.

The extent of the Earth's atmosphere is established fact, and
has been noted and verified by scientists around the world -

https://apple.news/A8OgIHSfkRJK-UNdgWeaI3g

Since mankind has never left Earth's atmosphere, it has never
been to outer space. "To boldly go where no man has gone before"
is still going to take us a good while to get there ...

They have absolutely no knowledge about anything that Kepler, and all the other scientific giants during our last 500 years, tried to teach us until we eventually managed to catch up with what the Christian Church managed

to

destroy during almost two millennia.

How do you prove a claim that cannot be independently verified?
Especially if mankind does not have the ability to do what has been
claimed?

Now we are back almost to where we were 2000 years ago. Unfortunately it seems like we're once again back to stale mate thanks only to the global patent system. There will be no more scientific progression until we, like we managed to defeat the priests, defeat the patent trolls.

There is something to that. The Birthday Song proves it.
Although long in the public domain, many people around the
world have been bilked having to pay royalties. But that's
another subject. :)

--Lee

--
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

There's a a recent study or two which claim the earth is surrounded by a large hydrogen cloud (a geocrona) which extends out to about twice the radius of the moon's orbit.

Space is not a perfect vacuum. It contains a few atoms per m^3. That does not mean that they belong to Earth's atmosphere, defined by the atoms and molecules that are retained by Earth's gravity.

So if you count that as part of the earth's atmosphere,

You don't. If you do, the entire universe lies inside Earth's atmosphere.

https://bigthink.com

I'd take what's on that site with big scepticism. The article you linked to is full of errors and pseudoscience. I can only assume it goes for the rest of their articles as well then.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Bj�rn!

26 Apr 19 23:35, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

They have absolutely no knowledge about anything that Kepler, and
all the other scientific giants during our last 500 years, tried to
teach us until we eventually managed to catch up with what the
Christian Church managed to destroy during almost two millennia.

Well, Kepler himself was a theologian, like Newton and many others. The science
they did can only be understood properly in the light of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, Christian religion was from the beginning split into various "confessions" (or different ways to believe/understand their religion) that were then fiercely fighting each other. These conflicts were transferred to politicians, rulers, scientists, and practically everyone else, certainly not fostering civilisation in general for a long time.

There will be no more
scientific progression until we, like we managed to defeat the
priests, defeat the patent trolls.

Well, I guess that's exaggerating things. Science works well enough for me. Maybe you're more thinking about engineering here. There is always room for improvement, we need to work on.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 9:35AM up 10 days, 17:56, 7 users, load averages: 0.43, 0.33, 0.30

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: America, America the western dream is gone (2:240/12)

Hello Bj�rn,

On Saturday April 27 2019 09:54, you wrote to nathanael culver:

There's a a recent study or two which claim the earth is
surrounded by a large hydrogen cloud (a geocrona) which extends
out to about twice the radius of the moon's orbit.

Space is not a perfect vacuum. It contains a few atoms per m^3.

In intergalactic space. Interplanetary space in Earth orbit vicinity is less perfect. It nevertheless is a lot better than the vacuum in in the old vacuum tubes. Open one up on the moon and the gas would /stream/ out.

That does not mean that they belong to Earth's atmosphere, defined by
the atoms and molecules that are retained by Earth's gravity.

"Gravity bound" is indeed a common definition used by astronomers.

Other definitions are in use as well, but by no definition generally accepted by the science community, the moon is within earth's atmosphere.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Maybe you're more thinking about engineering here.

Unfortunately not solely. In 1952 the USPTO made the mistake of adding 'processes' to the patentable "items".

By then they thought of e.g. the Pilkington process of float glass making and similar. But three decades later computer software was given process status
by the USPTO. Big mistake...



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Bj�rn!

27 Apr 19 13:30, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

By then they thought of e.g. the Pilkington process of float glass making and similar. But three decades later computer software was
given process status by the USPTO. Big mistake...

I can't say I feel very much concerned...


Regards,
Gerrit

... 2:42PM up 10 days, 23:03, 7 users, load averages: 0.37, 0.36, 0.33

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: Tall orders to fulfil (2:240/12)

I can't say I feel very much concerned...

Lucky you. I take it then that you're not involved with any Open Source projects?

With more than half a million US software patents it's almost impossible to avoid any infringement when you try to introduce new software. Ergo: future software development is effectively put to a halt.


..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 04-27-19 19:39, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-

I can't say I feel very much concerned...

Lucky you. I take it then that you're not involved with any Open
Source projects?

With more than half a million US software patents it's almost impossible to avoid any infringement when you try to introduce new software. Ergo: future software development is effectively put to a
halt.

And many of those are now held by patent trolls who didn't even do the original "innovation", but merely bought the rights then did nothing.


... My way is not your way, it's possible that we may both be wrong.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Hello Bj�rn!

27 Apr 19 19:39, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Lucky you. I take it then that you're not involved with any Open Source projects?

Oh well, I guess I am, in many ways.

With more than half a million US software patents it's almost impossible to avoid any infringement when you try to introduce new software. Ergo: future software development is effectively put to a
halt.

Just look around, and you'll see that the opposite is true. github and others host an ever-growing number of OSS projects. Software as such cannot be patented in the EU.
However, I see your concerns. Patents are difficult beasts, but that's truth independent of being "software" or "hardware" related. Just remember, e.g., that Konrad Zuse, who invented the world's first programmable computer, was in the end not able to get a patent on this work.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 9:02PM up 11 days, 5:23, 7 users, load averages: 0.27, 0.32, 0.32

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: Things I already know (2:240/12)

And many of those are now held by patent trolls who didn't even do the original "innovation", but merely bought the rights then did nothing.

Sadly true. Did nothing but blackmailing developers -- pay $200k in license fees or go to court for a couple of years and pay $2M trying to prove that you are not infringing.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Software as such cannot be patented in the EU.

That's true. And yet the EPO has granted more than 50,000 such patents.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

I'd take what's on that site with big scepticism. The article you linked to is full of errors and pseudoscience. I can only assume it goes

I'm not endorsing the content, merely linking to it. It has been widely reported elsewhere, however, not just in the article I linked to, and the following is oft-quoted in those reports:

"Igor Baliukin of Russia's Space Research Institute, the lead author of the study on the subject, explained that "the moon flies through Earth's atmosphere.""

Perhaps that's a bad translation from Russian, but if the lead scientist
said, "the moon flies through Earth's atmosphere", then I take that to mean there's a legitimate scientific discussion to be had on the topic.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

"Igor Baliukin of Russia's Space Research Institute, the lead author of

the

study on the subject, explained that "the moon flies through Earth's atmosphere.""

Perhaps that's a bad translation from Russian, but if the lead scientist said,

Lead author of a study is not the same as the lead scientist.

there's a legitimate scientific discussion to be had on the topic.

None that I'm aware of. There seems to still be a general consensus about the gravity "clause", i.e. when atoms are closer to the Moon than to Earth (gravity wise), they will be captured by the Moon's gravity and become part of the Moon's atmosphere.

YMMV...



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 04-27-19 23:47, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

And many of those are now held by patent trolls who didn't even do the original "innovation", but merely bought the rights then did nothing.

Sadly true. Did nothing but blackmailing developers -- pay $200k in license fees or go to court for a couple of years and pay $2M trying to prove that you are not infringing.

Yep, what a way to stifle innovation. :(


... I like stuffed animals; oven baked with bread crumbs.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

None that I'm aware of. There seems to still be a general consensus about the gravity "clause", i.e. when atoms are closer to the Moon than
to Earth (gravity wise), they will be captured by the Moon's gravity and

This doesn't preclude the moon *and* its atmosphere from being entirely encompassed by the earth's atmosphere.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Bj�rn!

27 Apr 19 23:50, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Software as such cannot be patented in the EU.

That's true. And yet the EPO has granted more than 50,000 such patents.

Not for software as such, but for software in combination with something else. Just read the European Patent Convention, Article 52, paragraph 2, which excludes from patentability, in particular

---
1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
2. aesthetic creations;
3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
4. presentations of information."
---

As I said, the matter is rather complex, and it's cheap to criticise certain aspects. However, can you come up with a better solution?


Regards,
Gerrit

... 9:53AM up 11 days, 18:14, 7 users, load averages: 0.27, 0.30, 0.29

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: We are the second generation (2:240/12)

As I said, the matter is rather complex, and it's cheap to criticise certain aspects. However, can you come up with a better solution?

BOC! Only machines should be patentable. As it was originally. And originally it was for ten years -- that should be long enough according to The Long Tail theory.




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

This doesn't preclude the moon *and* its atmosphere from being entirely encompassed by the earth's atmosphere.

Rereading the article, it would seem the hydrogen cloud is in roughly the
shape of a Cassini oval (due to solar winds?), with the earth located at the inner focus.

I also take the words, "extends up to 630,000km away," to reference the distance to the further edge of the oval; the nearer edge would therefore be significantly closer, but whether it lies inside L3 I don't know.

Given that Lagrange L2 lies at a distance of about 450,000km from earth
center, then both the moon and any atmosphere accompanying it would pass entirely within the hydrogen cloud at least as the moon passes between earth and the further edge.

*IF*, therefore, one were to define earth's atmosphere as inclusive of the hydrogen cloud then it would seem that, for at least a part of its orbit, the moon does lie within the earth's "atmosphere".

For flat earthers and lunar landing skeptics, this does not mean the
distance to the moon has changed, but only suggests that earth's atmosphere
may extend significantly further out than was previously considered.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Well, Kepler himself was a theologian, like Newton and many others. The science they did can only be understood properly in the light of their religious beliefs.

Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century were
monks or priests, often Jesuits, and the Catholic Church underwrote many of
the scientific discoveries of the day. The origins of modern astronomy, for example, can be traced back to the Catholic Church's attempts to better fix
the date of Easter, and cathedrals served as the leading astronomical observatories of the era; while many engineering and architectural
advancements in the Middle Ages were made in service of building bigger and better churches.

Bjorn has an anti-religious bias that causes him to wax a bit
melodramatic at times.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello Bj�rn!

28 Apr 19 13:51, Bj�rn Felten wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

As I said, the matter is rather complex, and it's cheap to criticise
certain aspects. However, can you come up with a better solution?

BOC! Only machines should be patentable.

Why is there a difference between a physical and a virtual machine? What about software that is part of a machine?
What you call a "software patent" is only valid in the EU if the software is part of a solution for a technical problem. Having a patent for a slide rule is
evident for you, but most machines aren't that simple anymore nowadays. Software more and more becomes a vital part of pretty much everything. As I said, it is hard to believe that Zuse was not able to get a patent for his Z3.

As it was originally.

Not really. "Software" just didn't exist before.

And
originally it was for ten years -- that should be long enough
according to The Long Tail theory.

Which is just that: a theory. Important parts have never been proven.

BTW: We do have something in Germany called a "Gebrauchsmuster" (utility model)
which is valid for 10 years (patents are valid for 20 years).


Regards,
Gerrit

... 7:30PM up 12 days, 3:51, 7 users, load averages: 0.28, 0.29, 0.30

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: We are a nation (2:240/12)

Hello nathanael!

28 Apr 19 23:37, nathanael culver wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century
were
monks or priests, often Jesuits, and the Catholic Church underwrote
many of
the scientific discoveries of the day.

Furthermore, the advent of protestantism also led to a significant rise of natural (and other) sciences.

Bjorn has an anti-religious bias that causes him to wax a bit
melodramatic at times.

I sometimes wonder why people are so miffed even by topics only vaguely related
to religion. Maybe it's just bad experiences.


Regards,
Gerrit

... 8:12PM up 12 days, 4:33, 7 users, load averages: 0.37, 0.38, 0.31

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: All carefully conceived (2:240/12)

Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century were monks or priests, often Jesuits,

Really? Like who? Most that I think of were noblemen and similar. Anyway, all those were people that wasn't forced to work 14/7, so they had time to spend on their science.

Why they didn't officially turn their backs to the Church is obvious -- those that did were burned at the stake.

and the Catholic Church underwrote many of
the scientific discoveries of the day.

Only those that fitted their narrow minded perception of the world they lived in, proving that their God, his Son and the Holy Spirit existed.

Bjorn has an anti-religious bias

Who hasn't, considering all the atrocities that religion has, and still is, causing?



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hi Bjorn,

And many of those are now held by patent trolls who didn't even do the TL>> original "innovation", but merely bought the rights then did nothing.

Sadly true. Did nothing but blackmailing developers -- pay $200k in
license fees or go to court for a couple of years and pay $2M trying to prove that you are not infringing.

I thougth they had to prove that you are infringing them,
not you to be innocent. That's the opposite way.
Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, right ?

Henri.

---
* Origin: Computing Apart Together (2:280/1208)

Really? Like who?

Let's see...

Copernicus - priest
Mendel - Augustinian monk
Oresme - bishop
Nicholas of Cusa - cardinal
Steno - Catholic saint
Robert Boyle - theologian
Robert Gossetese - bishop
Pope Sylvester II
Pope John XXI
Albert the Great - bishop
Georges Lamaitre - priest
Roger Bacon - Franciscan friar (championed by Pope Clement IV)
Gothus - archiboshop
Lobkowitz - Cistercian

Descartes, Leibniz, Bayes, Euler, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James
Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Edward Arthur Milne, Sir Robert Boyd, Georg Cantor and Lord Kelvin were other significant scientists who were also religiously devout Christians.

those that did were burned at the stake

(What was I saying about your tendency for melodrama?)

Nice CYA -- first act shocked that most leading scientists were churchmen,
then invent an excuse for it.

You can only point to two examples: Servetus and Bruno, both of whom were executed for their theological heterodoxy, not their scientific discoveries.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Furthermore, the advent of protestantism also led to a significant rise
of natural (and other) sciences.

True. The myth that religion and science are at war was a 19th century invention.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

not you to be innocent. That's the opposite way.
Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, right ?

The problem is, in the US at least, that companies have entire rooms full of patent lawyers whose job it is to file patent claims for every idea that flashes between the synapses of an employee on company time. Cobble
together a high-falutin' description, toss in a few CADCAM diagrams, and
voila! The USPTO is easily impressed. Problem is large majority of those patents are never developed beyond the initial concept.

Then they have other rooms of more patent lawyers whose job it is to scour
the world for anything that vaguely resembles a patent already held by the company.

The result is there are so many spurious patents today that it becomes very difficult to develop non-infringing new technologies.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Hello David,

As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that

there's

a difference between "believing" and "knowing".

The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

*Everybody*???

Nobody wanted to be taken for being a sucker.

And how does everybody know that?

Because people aren't stupid.

Were they all standing there watching each of the landings?

What for?

Everybody knows that eagles soar without ever any need to land.
It was all fake news. As soon as Neil Armstrong opened his big
mouth declaring "Eagle has landed" everybody knew right away it
never happened.

In most cases we don't know shit - only what we are told....

And look how many were deceived.

"Eagle has landed" - the biggest lie in NASA history.

--Lee

--
Change Is Cumming

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in
imaginary deities?

Who sez they are imaginary?

Have you seen any of these deities?

Only in my own mind, as others see things only in their own minds.

Did you take a photo with your phone?

My visions are only imaginable to me, when I am in a state of ecstacy.
At least, as far as I know. However, it has been recorded that it is
possible for visions to be shared. Paul, who used to be known as
Saul, wrote about it in his book of Acts. Something about some dead
guy walking around with holes in his hands and feet as if he was
very much alive.

Somebody actually took a picture of it, using a shroud as photographic
paper. Not sure what kind of camera or phone was used back in those
days, but the shroud (with picture) is on display in Turin, Italy.

Care to post it?

Posting with words does not have near the same impact. If they
did, those visions would truly blow your mind. And that is something
you and others might not be able to handle ...

Will we believe such a photo or claim Photoshop?

True Believers will believe anything.

--Lee

--
Get Her Wet Here

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

And look how many were deceived.

And look how many hundreds of thousands of people involved that managed to keep a secret for more than half a century. Impressive.

Usually it takes only three persons involved for a secret to eventually be revealed.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

As I said, the matter is rather complex, and it's cheap to

criticise

certain aspects. However, can you come up with a better solution?

BOC! Only machines should be patentable. As it was originally. And originally it was for ten years -- that should be long enough

according to The

Long Tail theory.

There's a similar problem with copyrights in this country. The
song "Happy Birthday" was written by Mildred and Patty Hill in the
1930s, but the trolls who now own the rights to the song still sue to
get public performance royalties - your kids singing it to another kid
at a birthday party. Mildred and Patty have both been dead for years.

IMO the copyright should die with the original owners, although I might
make an exception and allow one generation of children to hold it, and
if the rights are sold they should not again be transferable and should
then expire after ten years
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)

On 2/05/2019 00:41, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

*Everybody*???

Nobody wanted to be taken for being a sucker.

And how does everybody know that?

Because people aren't stupid.

But how do they *know*? Because some conspiracy mongers tell them?

Were they all standing there watching each of the landings?

What for?

To observe the people not getting out of the lander...

Everybody knows that eagles soar without ever any need to land.
It was all fake news.

And the evidence for that is...?

As soon as Neil Armstrong opened his big
mouth declaring "Eagle has landed" everybody knew right away it
never happened.

How does *everybody* know that? Were they all privy to this alleged conspiracy?

In most cases we don't know shit - only what we are told....

And look how many were deceived.

By those who maintain the earth is flat, that man never landed on the moon?

"Eagle has landed" - the biggest lie in NASA history.

As proved by what?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 2/05/2019 00:42, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

Have you seen any of these deities?

Only in my own mind, as others see things only in their own minds.

What were you smoking/consuming at the time?

Did you take a photo with your phone?

My visions are only imaginable to me, when I am in a state of ecstacy.

Aha - I've not tried that substance.

At least, as far as I know. However, it has been recorded that it is possible for visions to be shared. Paul, who used to be known as
Saul, wrote about it in his book of Acts.

Fake news perchance? Could Paul/Saul actually write Very few in that time could
not.

Something about some dead guy walking around with holes in his hands and

feet as if he was

very much alive.

Maybe ecstasy was available in those days - or maybe smoking dried camel dung...

Somebody actually took a picture of it, using a shroud as photographic paper. Not sure what kind of camera or phone was used back in those
days, but the shroud (with picture) is on display in Turin, Italy.

And since determined to be fake.

Care to post it?

Posting with words does not have near the same impact. If they
did, those visions would truly blow your mind. And that is something
you and others might not be able to handle ...

So we should just take their word for it?

Will we believe such a photo or claim Photoshop?

True Believers will believe anything.

Indeed - without any evidence what so ever.

Of course, that *is* what "believe" means according to the online dictionaries (I cannot lay hands on my paper version at this time).

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 2/05/2019 01:22, 2:203/2 wrote:

And look how many were deceived.

And look how many hundreds of thousands of people involved that managed to keep a secret for more than half a century. Impressive.

Usually it takes only three persons involved for a secret to eventually be revealed.

I thought that a secret ceased to be as soon as a second person was made aware of it.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

Hello David,

Have you seen any of these deities?

Only in my own mind, as others see things only in their own minds.

What were you smoking/consuming at the time?

I cannot recall. Everything was kinda hazy at the time ...

Did you take a photo with your phone?

My visions are only imaginable to me, when I am in a state of ecstacy.

Aha - I've not tried that substance.

I am sure you have. If only you can remember.

At least, as far as I know. However, it has been recorded that it is
possible for visions to be shared. Paul, who used to be known as
Saul, wrote about it in his book of Acts.

Fake news perchance?

No way! Saul was a Jew, and the #1 persecutor of Christians.
Then he saw the light after getting himself knocked off his horse,
and changed his name to Paul. After that experience, he went and
found Peter, who could not believe what he had seen.

Could Paul/Saul actually write Very few in that time could not.

Saul was a scribe, and took orders from the priests at the temple.
Jesus never bothered to learn how to read or write, and tried her
best to stay out of the temple. Except for one brief time when
she had lost her temper.

Something about some dead guy walking around with holes in his LLhands

and feet as if he was very much alive.

Maybe ecstasy was available in those days - or maybe smoking dried camel dung...

Roman soldiers gave her some when she was on the cross. That
really woke her up, at least for a time.

Somebody actually took a picture of it, using a shroud as photographic
paper. Not sure what kind of camera or phone was used back in those
days, but the shroud (with picture) is on display in Turin, Italy.

And since determined to be fake.

Not at all. It is possible to take pictures using fibers of plants
and flowers placed on cloth. A Mexican peasant did it a few hundred
years ago, taking a picture of the Virgin Mary by placing flowers
in his clothes. The picture is on display, and can be viewed by
the general public. Our Lady of Guadaloupe. Truly a sight to behold.

Care to post it?

Posting with words does not have near the same impact. If they
did, those visions would truly blow your mind. And that is something
you and others might not be able to handle ...

So we should just take their word for it?

Of course. I never lie. Except maybe once. Or twice.
Or whenever I feel like it.

Will we believe such a photo or claim Photoshop?

True Believers will believe anything.

Indeed - without any evidence what so ever.

You have my word for it. Isn't that enough?

Of course, that *is* what "believe" means according to the online dictionaries (I cannot lay hands on my paper version at this time).

Jesus never went around preaching with bible in hand.
She always asked others what the scriptures said.
That way, nobody could ever contradict a thing she said.

Who is to know who she is, or was, if we have only her
claims and the claims of others? The best we can do is
believe, truly believe, what is claimed to be.

--Lee

--
Everybody Loves Our Buns

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

*Everybody*???

Nobody wanted to be taken for being a sucker.

And how does everybody know that?

Because people aren't stupid.

But how do they *know*? Because some conspiracy mongers tell them?

Forrest Gump knew he wasn't stupid. Ran around the world, in his
sneakers, telling everybody all about it. Then he went and caught
some shrimp, made a mint, and retired.

Were they all standing there watching each of the landings?

What for?

To observe the people not getting out of the lander...

The only lander Commander Armstrong was in crashed during training.

Everybody knows that eagles soar without ever any need to land.
It was all fake news.

And the evidence for that is...?

I have seen eagles fly. I have seen eagles nesting. But I have
never seen eagles landing. Except once, when an eagle miscalculated
when mating. It did not survive.

As soon as Neil Armstrong opened his big
mouth declaring "Eagle has landed" everybody knew right away it
never happened.

How does *everybody* know that? Were they all privy to this alleged conspiracy?

A conspiracy means at least two are in on it. And NASA claims
there were three on the craft that allegedly went to the Moon.
So, we know as absolute fact it was a genuine conspiracy.

In most cases we don't know shit - only what we are told....

And look how many were deceived.

By those who maintain the earth is flat, that man never landed on the

moon?

Those who wrote the books in the holy bible knew the earth as being
flat. Even Jesus viewed the earth as being flat. That was the world
they lived in. Even today, there are many who continue to believe
the earth is flat, as depicted in the United Nations logo and flag.

So who is to say man really landed and walked on the surface of the
Moon? It is merely a claim, not believed by even a majority of the
population here on earth.

"Eagle has landed" - the biggest lie in NASA history.

As proved by what?

Nobody saw it land. Nobody except those who claim to have
been there has seen anybody set foot on the surface. We only
know what we have been told, by those who claim to have been
there? What horse hockey! Only a fool would believe such
a tale ...

--Lee

--
Our Nuts, Your Mouth

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

And look how many were deceived.

And look how many hundreds of thousands of people involved that
managed to keep a secret for more than half a century. Impressive.

Usually it takes only three persons involved for a secret to
eventually be revealed.

I thought that a secret ceased to be as soon as a second person was made aware of it.

It takes two to make a conspiracy. Three to make a crowd.

--Lee

--
I Take A Sheet In The Pool

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your
phone? Care to post it?

*chortle*

You got any photos of Middle C? How much does it weigh? What's its temperature? Does it have a birth certificate?

No? Then how about mathematical evidence of the existence of cats?

Hmm. Maybe photographic evidence of quantum waves? Audio recordings of a rainbow? The heat signature of triangularity?

Nada? How about the breadth and height of love? Scientific evidence of the number 23? An algebraic proof for fire?

You don't got much, do you?

You need to google "category error".

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

Copernicus was a Catholic priest. Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics, was an Augustinian monk and abbot. Georges Lamaitre was a Catholic priest who discovered the expansion of the universe, proposed the Big Bang theory and developed Hubble's Law. And it's hard to imagine a more
significant figure in the birth of modern science than Roger Bacon, who was a Franciscan friar.

All pretty significant scientists. But maybe you have a different opinion.

Bishop Nicole Oresme's work on celestial mechanics and celestial motion were revolutionary in the 14th century, and precursed the heliocentrism of the
17th.

Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa did significant work in mathematics and astronomy
in the 15th century.

I could go on.

do you really regard e.g., popes, cardinals, bishops and even
saints(!) to be significant scientists?

Are you implying you DON'T consider the likes of Copernicus, Mendel and Bacon to be significant scientists? Every name on the list I posted pops up with regularity in histories of science, which is reason enough to consider them significant.

...than I and many with me

I don't know who those "many with you" may be and, if their world view is as ideologically constrained as yours, I'm not really interested in knowing.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who employs ad hominem fallacies?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists>

Ah, look: Pope Sylvester II. And I'd carelessly omitted Pierre Teilhard de Chardin from my earlier list. And I hadn't forgotten, but hadn't yet
mentioned, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which "holds a membership
roster of the most respected names in 20th century science, including such Nobel laureates as Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck, Otto Hahn, Niels Borh,
Erwin Schodinger, and Charles Hard Townes." And further down, the page lists
at list 45 additional Nobel-Prize-winning members, including its two most recent presidents. Oh, look. Even Steven Hawking was a member.

Not too shabby for a Church which is supposed to be at war with science.

But I suppose there are those in this discussion who don't consider any of
the above names of much significance.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (jenandcal.familyds.org:2323) (3:712/886)

On 1/05/2019 13:27, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in
imaginary deities?

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who employs ad hominem fallacies?

As displayed by...?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 1/05/2019 21:29, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:

Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your
phone? Care to post it?

*chortle*

You got any photos of Middle C? How much does it weigh? What's its temperature? Does it have a birth certificate?

I can hear "middle C".

No? Then how about mathematical evidence of the existence of cats?

Do you dispute the existence of cats?

Hmm. Maybe photographic evidence of quantum waves? Audio recordings of a rainbow? The heat signature of triangularity?

Are you suggesting that a deity has all o0f these things - without any optical presence?

Nada? How about the breadth and height of love? Scientific evidence of the number 23? An algebraic proof for fire?

Nope I cannot do those things. Nor can I apply any of those "proofs" for the existence of a deity.

Seeing is believing.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

Hello Bj�rn,

other significant scientists who were also religiously
devout Christians.

Don't forget Albert Einstein, whose religious belief made him waste the

last

half of his life trying to prove that quantum mechanics was a hoax,

because

"Gott w�rfelt nicht".

Religiously devout Christians?

https://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/item/15861-betrayal-of-trust

Albert Einstein considered himself as being a cultural Jew,
not so much a practicing Jew. Kind of like Bernie Sanders, a
US politician who is running for president. I hardly believe
either Einstein or Sanders would ever do what has been written
about certain "religiously devout Christians" in the above
book (long out of print but reproduced in its entirety online).

BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even

saints(!)

to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with me.

Not all men and women were/are saintly people. The church in
Paris that was almost completely destroyed by fire a few weeks
ago was built by rationalists, not religionists. Built over
a period of some 200 years, intended to last until the end of
time. Think about what this means.

Up until the middle part of the 20th century, most people lived
in mud huts or houses made of sticks or straw. This church was
built out of stone, and huge timbers that can never be replaced.
Even with modern technology, it cannot be repaired to what it
once was, certainly not in our own lifetime, and probably never.

If you were an adult living in a mud hut and walking to and from
work, this humongous cathedral would have seemed like heaven itself.
A monument to rationalism, what man could do when he set his mind
to it.

Had somebody told you the cathedral would be destroyed in a day,
you would either have laughed your head off - or slugged him for
being an infidel.

Long ago, a temple in Jerusalem was built. Wasn't quite finished
at the time, but very much in use. Jesus told his gang of teenagers
that the temple would be destroyed in one day. Nobody believed a
word of what he said, but we all know his words came true.

--Lee

--
I Take A Sheet In The Pool

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Nathaniel,

Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your
phone? Care to post it?

*chortle*

You got any photos of Middle C?

Yes. One on my left. And one on my right.

How much does it weigh?

I hold it up in the air and all it tells me is the direction
as to which way the wind is blowing.

What's its temperature?

That depends on which end I place it in.

Does it have a birth certificate?

Yes, but I'm not telling.

No? Then how about mathematical evidence of the existence of cats?

Try dangling a piece of string with middle C to find out.

--Lee

--
Change Is Cumming

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 04-30-19 01:41, Bj�rn Felten <=-
spoke to Nathanael Culver about Human progress <=-

BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops
and even saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I
understand -- you simply have another definition of a
significant scientist than I and many with me.

You are messing up your set inclusion or logical analysis here. You
were told that much of set A (scientists)was included in set B (clergy)
-- which does by no means imply that set B is included in set A.


Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:02:50, 30 Apr 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Hello Nathanael,

not you to be innocent. That's the opposite way.
Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, right ?

The problem is, in the US at least, that companies have entire rooms full

of

patent lawyers whose job it is to file patent claims for every idea that flashes between the synapses of an employee on company time.

I seriously doubt Tom Jennings has a patent on Fidonet (or Fidonews),
despite his claims to the contrary.

Cobble together a high-falutin' description, toss in a few CADCAM

diagrams,

and voila! The USPTO is easily impressed.

His gay partner might be impressed, but I doubt anybody else is.

Problem is large majority of those patents are never developed beyond the initial concept.

Fidonet is an idea, which is not a patentable product.
Jennings doggie and diskette ascii drawing is his own artwork,
and he does own copyright to that. Whether he chooses to sell
any rights to that artwork is up to him. But he has absolutely
no right to patent a community of sysops who freely call their
own network as "fidonet".

Then they have other rooms of more patent lawyers whose job it is to scour the world for anything that vaguely resembles a patent already held by the company.

Hey, let's get a bunch of folks together and play a game of baseball!
Nine sysops per team! What a neat idea, don't you think? Does that
give me, or you, or anybody else the right to patent (or trademark)
that idea? Of course not. Regardless of how long they might make the
claim, it is frivolous.

As Donald Trump would say, it is all "fake news"!

The result is there are so many spurious patents today that it becomes

very

difficult to develop non-infringing new technologies.

Yeah? Let's see how long it takes Tom Jennings & Co. to sue sysops
and non-sysops who continue to infringe on his "patented" product of
Fidonet (tm).

--Lee

--
Laying Pipe Since '88

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Bj�rn!

28 Apr 19 23:02, Bj�rn Felten wrote to nathanael culver:

Not only Kepler; most of the leading scientists in the 16th century
were monks or priests, often Jesuits,

Really?

Jesuits decided somewhen in the mid 16th century to found schools that also were to teach logic, maths, astronomy, and physics (among other things).

Like who?

Christoph Grienberger
Giuseppe Biancani
Franciscus Aguilonius
Christoph Scheiner
Paul Guldin
Gregorius van St-Vincent
Niccolo Cabeo
Johann Baptist Cysat
Giovanni Battista Zupi

Ah, well, just pick some for your own, like from here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists>


Regards,
Gerrit

... 8:30PM up 13 days, 4:51, 7 users, load averages: 0.14, 0.24, 0.28

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: All carefully conceived (2:240/12)

Hello Ward,

You must remember that the moon landing hoax believers are in par BF>with

the flat earth believers.

As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that

there's

a difference between "believing" and "knowing".

The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

--Lee

--
Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello David,

BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even
saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply
have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with
me.

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?

Who sez they are imaginary?

--Lee

--
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

30 Apr 19 18:47, you wrote to nathanael culver:

I seriously doubt Tom Jennings has a patent on Fidonet (or Fidonews), despite his claims to the contrary.

I'd be surprised if anyone ever claimed he had a patent on Fidonet. Unless they
were confusing patents and trademarks, two very different things.

However Fidonet was registered to Tom as a trademark in 1987. It was cancelled in 2008:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:4j1oye.2.1

--- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: X (3:633/267.7)

On 1/05/2019 05:24, Lee Lofaso -> Ward Dossche wrote:

As someone who was educated in the sciences you could also add that there's
a difference between "believing" and "knowing".

The Moon-landings are a scientific fact, no belief required.

Oh, I agree. I totally agree. However, none of those so-called
landings were manned. Everybody knows that.

*Everybody*???

And how does everybody know that? Were they all standing there watching each of
the landings?

In most cases we don't know shit - only what we are told....

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 1/05/2019 05:25, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in
imaginary deities?

Who sez they are imaginary?

Have you seen any of these deities? Did you take a photo with your phone? Care to post it?

Will we believe such a photo or claim Photoshop?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

Hello Nathanael,

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in
imaginary deities?

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who employs ad hominem fallacies?

That is something folks from around the world have been trying to do
with the POTUS. So far without success.

10,000 lies and counting ...

--Lee

--
Often Licked, Never Beaten

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

other significant scientists who were also religiously
devout Christians.

Don't forget Albert Einstein, whose religious belief made him waste the last
half of his life trying to prove that quantum mechanics was a hoax, because "Gott w�rfelt nicht".

BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with me.



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 30/04/2019 09:41, 2:203/2 wrote:

BTW, do you really regard e.g. popes, cardinals, bishops and even saints(!) to be significant scientists? Then I understand -- you simply have another definition of a significant scientist than I and many with

me.

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

How does one hold a meaningful debate with someone who /believes/ in imaginary deities?

You are right, mate. I really should know better than to waste my time like that.




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)