pap

I don't see how this adds to your point. In cinema, filmmakers often composite different components together to form a coherent scene. In the case of the two events we are now referencing, they are years apart. You are trying to make the case that because we see dust from Surveyor 1, and dust from the footprint, that the lunar rover must be on the moon because of the way the dust behaves. You don't know it's dust, you're taking a leap of faith, and are wilfully excluding other possibilities as a result of that faith. On feasibility at least; you're nailed, mucker. You have unfailingly tried to convince me that a number of things just aren't possible, and you've been proven wrong each and every time, retreating into specificity, outlandish proof-finding business trips or more imagery from NASA. And come on. Are you really able to assert with total confidence that one set of dust is the same as another? Are you Batman?

Then you've proved nothing except you have a video of a lunar rover, and a photo of a footprint. One doesn't imply the other. In fact, all your evidence seems to be of the "Of course my leprechaun exists. You can ask my pixie if you don't believe me!" variety.

Have you got a video that shows the lunar rover moving about with this pristine footprint in shot?

Oh, and once again, your entire proof based is on the assumption that your video shows dust. You can't possibly know this. You even engaged your creative side to assist me, positing fine-grained uranium as the only possible solution. Nah. Sand.

I've just posted a vid. Does that help?

A dune buggy, going a lot faster than the lunar rover. [video=youtube_share;YLmPJ7nTeTw]

Dry beach sand.

Predicated on the assumption that the material is what you think it is.

Different material than dust, Charlie. You just ignored it, mate. Lot of that about atm. I think I've answered your every question. Btw, is getting the rest of the forum to call me a horse's ass your victory condition?

You're dodging every question on feasibility, Charlie. To save you a lot of time and trouble, I'm probably not going to be in a position to provide any of the proof. Most of the physical evidence is 240K miles away and travel is impractical.

Tokes, I admire your defence of hypo. Many would kick the fella when he is down. Props to you for not doing that. That said, he has gone well off the rails a few times, and probably needs to be aware that not everyone reading his posts is going to have read all previous encounters, or know what he's like, or know that he's joking. Sounds like the fellow is returning anyway; a break might do him some good. Of course, if the bullies descend on him day one then we're back at square one.

There is footage of light flashing above the astronauts. This could be the flash off the antenna, or it could be a wire. There is also footage that could be interpreted as an astronaut being yanked up by a wire. This is exactly how the retroreflector argument went down. You cry unfeasible, I show otherwise, then you want specific proof. On your final point re: feasibility of dust clouds. Once again you are making some large assumptions based on what you believe to be true. How do you know what material that even is? Can you honestly tell me that there is no other material in the world that would behave in that way?

Interestingly, Charlie - my main man Jarrah White, the fellow ultimately responsible for your comprehensive retroreflector defeat (and highly amusing climbdown), uses the Mythbusters footage to show how the low grav was accomplished. See. The crafty buggers did a wire-walk and a slow-motion walk. Neither was a decent approximation of 1/6 gravity. Both looked off. They never did an experiment which combined the slow-motion and wire techniques. Mr White slowed down the wire footage and guess what? Corresponds almost exactly with the low grav footage.

Ooh. This is the first actual call for a ban. Nice.

I almost gave up. I have no hope of winning against such insurmountable odds. Pipe-hittin' buctootim is in the mix, once again breaking his vow to never engage with me again. These threads tend to turn angry pretty quickly, so once again, props to those who have played nice. Preliminary analysis of the anger indicates 33% opportunist bullying ( "hey pap has really dug himself into a hole here. Let's pour lava on the c##t" ), 33% anger because a vicarious achievement is being questioned. The rest of it is split between skipping over an awkward point or tacit Nazi rocket scientist worship

Yeah, but the basis of your proof is 1) pictures you've seen. 2) your research into the Apollo missions Besides, you only got specific after I told you about the Russian retroflectors. Others told me I simply didn't understand 1960s robotics (I don't, in truth). I could make a similar case for unicorns being real on similar evidence. I've seen pictures. Hell, I've even seen video. The Tom Cruise film "Legend" has one in it. It's very convincing. So why don't I believe in unicorns? Well, I've never seen one for a start, and I have never met anyone who has. Same thing goes for those NASA retroreflectors, except there are only a handful of men who can confirm it. You really are placing a lot of stock in those retroreflectors being exactly as described.

Ah, yeah, but if I concoct an answer, as I did when you said it was impossible to put retroreflectors on the moon without a man ( "a job for human hands"' or alternatively, nascent Soviet robotics and know how ) it'll just be a theory, and I'll have no proof. Back to square one, then.

The mechanism for transit to Button Moon has been tried and tested for years. You simply follow Mr. Spoon.

No-one is lying about a blue light. The following points aren't congruent. 1) Astronauts cannot see the moon 2) Astronauts cannot see the sun 3) Craft 72 hours into mission 4) Loads of blue light coming through the panels ( literally nothing else ) 5) Light appears to be coming through side facing portals. I think we can both agree that by any definition, visible means observable through a window. Before we go any further, where do you think that light is coming from? [video=youtube;-czSAgTtQmk] All done within about 2mins of video starting.

The phones we get the kids are normally free on the contracts they're on. One of them lost her phone once. We replaced it with one of the older handsets in the house until her upgrade. Sorry to hear about your phone loss. It's gutting when it happens; wouldn't wish it on anybody. I'd love for you to be right about the Raspberry Pi; but I worry that kids have gotten used to a level of abstraction that is just going to make it unattractive. There was a meme doing the rounds on Twitter awhile ago about a toddler trying to treat a still image in a magazine as if it were an iPad. I shall test your theory on my kids at Chrimbo; it's very low tech, but even so, I remember having tremendous fun writing crappy programs in BASIC years ago.

I agree that learning is its own reward, but think back to your own general education. Did you enjoy every subject? Was every subject well taught? Every teacher engaging? Sure, the money was a wee bonus but the main objective was for her to get the grades she needed for A level. I'll probably give her cash for A level grades too, but again, the main objective will be getting grades for Uni. These events are once in a lifetime achievements. The money is soon spent but those certificates endure. If there is any particular maxim I bore my kids to sh!t with, it's that once you get a qualification, it's always behind you and no-one can take it away. Priceless, in other words.

I didn't have smartphones when I was a kid, but I had computers. That early exposure led to a career in them. These smartphones are little more than the C64s or Spectrums of their time, only now they're awesome. I've had no compunction about introducing my kids to technology early on. The stuff teenagers can do effortlessly amazes me. They've grown up with this stuff, and it enables a lot of creativity. On the subject of the effects that bestowing gifts upon your kids has, I don't know. They're not disconnected from the fact that ms pap and I have to earn the bloody money in the first place. They also know that they have their jobs to do; which is to bring home the academic bacon, do their chores and not to bring shame to the family in public (I have exclusive rights). My eldest had a cash incentive for each GCSE grade and cost me a lot of money. What if instead of "demanding kid being placated by hapless time-poor parent" we went for "hardworking kid rewarded for efforts". That's how it goes down in my gaff, at least.

I can see where you're coming from, and I've got to say - it's very depressing to see the black mirror zombies transfixed on a few inches of glass. In terms of family management and peace of mind, they're invaluable, especially in a big city like this.

Cheers for this, deano6. I was trying to determine whether insurers face any risk; clearly they do. I think I'm perhaps guilty of projecting my personal experience with insurance onto the wider whole. I briefly worked for Comet; the famous extended warranty chain that just went bust. I also pay out a lot of car insurance, seemingly only to better my no-claims. Do you know how granular the postcode algorithms are? My street is a good case in point. We live in a quiet cul-de-sac which is in the middle of a dodgy area. No-one comes down our street unless they live here, or are delivering something to someone who lives here. Crime is non-existent statistically, but I reckon my premium reflects the wider district.

If it was a simulation, then teleportation would be a cinch. Any object in a 3D game has a set of xyz co-ordinates. Imagine if travel was as simple as saying "yep, not actually here. I'm there" by messing with all your vectors Does anyone have cheat codes for this thing?