![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Did I make it look easy? Actually I spent quite a long time over those edits. Thanks for pointing out that the Guardian commentator was not accurately quoting Panarin -- I had missed that. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, great additions to the article! Math Cool 10 Sign here! 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. What is the actual source of the image on the Panarin article, please? Jonathunder ( talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Administrator,
Since when the accused is obliged to give evidence of innocence before the prosecutor? What about the
presumption of innocence? Isn't the prosecutor who should provide the necessary evidence of guilt?
Лъчезар (
talk)
15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, Wikipedia is not a court - it's much worse! Everyone who claims authorship of a work must provide evidence, such as the photo camera with which he created the photo, the pencil with which he created the sketch, the computer with which he created the table or chart. He must provide at least 2 sober witnesses who had carefully watched him while he was creating it. After an year-long trial deciding whether he really created the work, it may solemnly be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons under the sounds of the nearest military brass band.
Congratulations on getting Igor Panarin promoted to a good article. Nice work. Jonathunder ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. Teapot george Talk 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. Teapot george Talk 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. Teapot george Talk 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the IPA of your name, I would say "Lut-shay-zar" would be a reasonable English transcription of your name. "u" is usually the best vowel to use for a schwa; "she" is /ʃi/ in IPA so the closest we can get is "shay" /ʃei/. Take care. Samboy ( talk) 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have failed this article's GA nomination for the reasons I gave at the talk page. It's well-organized, comprehensive and balanced, but the actual prose needs more cleanup than I can reasonably do myself. Once that's done, it could probably be renominated successfully. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 11 liftoff through first staging Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 8 - you can see the staging, you can see the flames of the second stage engines, and see the rocket pull away from the first stage. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And Apollo 15. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
When I measured the lengths of the flames of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B and Saturn V (respectively from here and here) against the visible length of the respective rocket on screen. The flame length turned out to be 75 m and 190 m, respectively. Such a large difference (1:2.5) completely excludes also the usage of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B in the Saturn V, as Popov supposes. I think that what's most probable is using "deforced" by 20-22% F-1 engines, as Pokrovsky supposes. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"velocity that must be at most 2400 m/s. " where did you get that figure? Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I respect your opinion. But others may have a different one. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What if the source mentioning him is not scientific? -- Лъчезар ( talk) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, then be sure that I won't add such a source. It had better be a scientific one then. By the way, would you publish a paper with an anti-thesis to his thesis? :) -- Лъчезар ( talk) 10:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's great you studied spacecraft design. Actually, a spacecraft does have most of launch rocket's elements, including engines. Interestingly though, the language wasn't an obstacle for you to determine that his work is non-scientific. Finally, one can speak for oneself but can't know what other people think. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I understand now. Then a paper that confirms his thesis in one or both of his papers may be more likely to appear than a refutation as supporters of his would be much more enthusiastic and thus determined than deniers :) -- Лъчезар ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Does the paper have to be published in the Air & Space Magazine to be notable? Isn't the "notability threshold" for hoax proponents raised too high to be ever reached? I've known since I started my struggle here that the Wikipedia "neutrality" is an euphemism, a joke. It's not neutral at all, of course, it always sticks to the "official version". The excuse is that the "reliable sources" stick to it, so does Wikipedia. But which sources are considered reliable? Only those who stick to the "official version" :( -- Лъчезар ( talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop these unilateral changes. The hoax article is controversial and changes must be discussed first. If you get into an edit war, you'll run the risk of being blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea for you. Why don't you all find a good reason and ask an administrator to block me? I'm obviously the only one causing all of you headache. Once I'm blocked, you'll all live in perfect happiness and peace and enjoy your favourite opinion that Apollo Moon landings occurred. Thus everybody will be happy. I'll find something better to do, and you'll soon forget that I've existed at all. Happy end! -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's pointless too because as you see, almost everything I propose is rejected. Thus the page remains orthodox and locked for any doubt[er]s. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the revelation, Monsignor. Inquisition, including cyber-inquisition, can only retard progress but never fully stop it. " E pur si muove!" -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not personal, the problem is of Wikipedia as a whole. Who ignores scientific proof (of Stanislav Pokrovsky) in our dispute? -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What counterexample? Sorry that I don't remember exactly :( -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Popov "smashed to smithereens" all Apollo landing "evidence" here several years ago. Note that he places the burden of proof at NASA, and note his arguments why this must be so. You can use the Russian-made on-line translator for machine translation of the page. In my opinion it's better than the Google translator. It does produce understandable text, albeit it sounds strange sometimes. What's most interesting is that there's specific anti-PAN evidence on Apollo 11 and 13. If you're curious, let me know and I'll provide it. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you, I learned one more English word with negative meaning, but nothing more, as the above is just your personal opinion. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You can see the US pulling ahead in the early part of the Gemini Program. Some things done by the US that were necessary to go to the Moon:
Spacewalking was also perfected (yes the USSR had the first one - 10 minutes, but that was all) during the Gemini program, but it isn't really necessary to landing on the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on! With the recent argument on whether the article is pseudo-science or not, the denial of all my proposals to add, including the very well-sourced one about Robert Gilruth, and the closely guarding of all my actions during the last 2 days, it's all clear to me that this article is doomed to basically stay "as-is". Not a single gram of "undue weight" to "conspiracy theorists" and "pseudo-scientits" (even with the highest possible scientific degrees) is allowed anymore. Well, if you think that this article can convince any non-PAN ("hoaxter" in your terminology) in the reality of the Apollo Moon landings, then you don't have a slightest sense of reality on how people think. Any article trying to push a point of view (especially an orthodox one as yours) automatically causes a counter-reaction in the reader. It's the Third Law of Newton! The only way you it could be made persuasive is to present both positions and let the reader make his conclusion himself. Something that many of Wikipedia's articles do. But not this one! Well, Gentlemen, it's August and you should be on vacation this month. I release you. Go out and enjoy summer time! I won't cause you more trouble here anymore. Why waste my time when the result is not even zero but even below zero?! Obviously Wikipedia is not the media that can contribute to opening people's eyes in this case. Well, despite the mighty presence of it in all Google's search and mighty impact that Wikipedia has on people's minds, it's still not the only one. As a Bulgarian song says, "Боряно, Борянке, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли знаеш да пееш?" ("are you the only maiden, is it only you who can sing?"). There are other means to open people's eyes, and I'll surely use them as much as I can. Now you can reply that I don't know what Wikipedia is, that my goals are different than its, and this may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. To end, do you know what's the worst thing of all? It's that when the "mainstream" sources start to reveal the truth about "Apollo", you will all change your positions to 180 degrees according to the new "wind of change", and will suddenly forget what you've claimed the day before. Then, it will perhaps be time for me to come back here and defend the poor NASA from you. Until then (probably next year), goodbye and as I said, forget me and enjoy the summer, I won't bother you again – a good reason to rejoyce, isn't it? ;-G -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(Please don't comment this here – it's been commented enough there but if you want to add yet another comment there, you can still do it, of course.)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Did I make it look easy? Actually I spent quite a long time over those edits. Thanks for pointing out that the Guardian commentator was not accurately quoting Panarin -- I had missed that. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW, great additions to the article! Math Cool 10 Sign here! 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. What is the actual source of the image on the Panarin article, please? Jonathunder ( talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Administrator,
Since when the accused is obliged to give evidence of innocence before the prosecutor? What about the
presumption of innocence? Isn't the prosecutor who should provide the necessary evidence of guilt?
Лъчезар (
talk)
15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know, Wikipedia is not a court - it's much worse! Everyone who claims authorship of a work must provide evidence, such as the photo camera with which he created the photo, the pencil with which he created the sketch, the computer with which he created the table or chart. He must provide at least 2 sober witnesses who had carefully watched him while he was creating it. After an year-long trial deciding whether he really created the work, it may solemnly be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons under the sounds of the nearest military brass band.
Congratulations on getting Igor Panarin promoted to a good article. Nice work. Jonathunder ( talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prediction of the United States collapse in 2010. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Darrenhusted ( talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. Teapot george Talk 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. Teapot george Talk 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Christopher Martenson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. Teapot george Talk 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the IPA of your name, I would say "Lut-shay-zar" would be a reasonable English transcription of your name. "u" is usually the best vowel to use for a schwa; "she" is /ʃi/ in IPA so the closest we can get is "shay" /ʃei/. Take care. Samboy ( talk) 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I have failed this article's GA nomination for the reasons I gave at the talk page. It's well-organized, comprehensive and balanced, but the actual prose needs more cleanup than I can reasonably do myself. Once that's done, it could probably be renominated successfully. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 11 liftoff through first staging Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Apollo 8 - you can see the staging, you can see the flames of the second stage engines, and see the rocket pull away from the first stage. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 23:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
And Apollo 15. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
When I measured the lengths of the flames of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B and Saturn V (respectively from here and here) against the visible length of the respective rocket on screen. The flame length turned out to be 75 m and 190 m, respectively. Such a large difference (1:2.5) completely excludes also the usage of the engines of the first stage of the Saturn 1B in the Saturn V, as Popov supposes. I think that what's most probable is using "deforced" by 20-22% F-1 engines, as Pokrovsky supposes. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"velocity that must be at most 2400 m/s. " where did you get that figure? Bubba73 (talk), 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. I respect your opinion. But others may have a different one. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
What if the source mentioning him is not scientific? -- Лъчезар ( talk) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, then be sure that I won't add such a source. It had better be a scientific one then. By the way, would you publish a paper with an anti-thesis to his thesis? :) -- Лъчезар ( talk) 10:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's great you studied spacecraft design. Actually, a spacecraft does have most of launch rocket's elements, including engines. Interestingly though, the language wasn't an obstacle for you to determine that his work is non-scientific. Finally, one can speak for oneself but can't know what other people think. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I understand now. Then a paper that confirms his thesis in one or both of his papers may be more likely to appear than a refutation as supporters of his would be much more enthusiastic and thus determined than deniers :) -- Лъчезар ( talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Does the paper have to be published in the Air & Space Magazine to be notable? Isn't the "notability threshold" for hoax proponents raised too high to be ever reached? I've known since I started my struggle here that the Wikipedia "neutrality" is an euphemism, a joke. It's not neutral at all, of course, it always sticks to the "official version". The excuse is that the "reliable sources" stick to it, so does Wikipedia. But which sources are considered reliable? Only those who stick to the "official version" :( -- Лъчезар ( talk) 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You need to stop these unilateral changes. The hoax article is controversial and changes must be discussed first. If you get into an edit war, you'll run the risk of being blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea for you. Why don't you all find a good reason and ask an administrator to block me? I'm obviously the only one causing all of you headache. Once I'm blocked, you'll all live in perfect happiness and peace and enjoy your favourite opinion that Apollo Moon landings occurred. Thus everybody will be happy. I'll find something better to do, and you'll soon forget that I've existed at all. Happy end! -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That's pointless too because as you see, almost everything I propose is rejected. Thus the page remains orthodox and locked for any doubt[er]s. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the revelation, Monsignor. Inquisition, including cyber-inquisition, can only retard progress but never fully stop it. " E pur si muove!" -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not personal, the problem is of Wikipedia as a whole. Who ignores scientific proof (of Stanislav Pokrovsky) in our dispute? -- Лъчезар ( talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What counterexample? Sorry that I don't remember exactly :( -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Popov "smashed to smithereens" all Apollo landing "evidence" here several years ago. Note that he places the burden of proof at NASA, and note his arguments why this must be so. You can use the Russian-made on-line translator for machine translation of the page. In my opinion it's better than the Google translator. It does produce understandable text, albeit it sounds strange sometimes. What's most interesting is that there's specific anti-PAN evidence on Apollo 11 and 13. If you're curious, let me know and I'll provide it. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to you, I learned one more English word with negative meaning, but nothing more, as the above is just your personal opinion. -- Лъчезар ( talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You can see the US pulling ahead in the early part of the Gemini Program. Some things done by the US that were necessary to go to the Moon:
Spacewalking was also perfected (yes the USSR had the first one - 10 minutes, but that was all) during the Gemini program, but it isn't really necessary to landing on the Moon. Bubba73 (talk), 14:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on! With the recent argument on whether the article is pseudo-science or not, the denial of all my proposals to add, including the very well-sourced one about Robert Gilruth, and the closely guarding of all my actions during the last 2 days, it's all clear to me that this article is doomed to basically stay "as-is". Not a single gram of "undue weight" to "conspiracy theorists" and "pseudo-scientits" (even with the highest possible scientific degrees) is allowed anymore. Well, if you think that this article can convince any non-PAN ("hoaxter" in your terminology) in the reality of the Apollo Moon landings, then you don't have a slightest sense of reality on how people think. Any article trying to push a point of view (especially an orthodox one as yours) automatically causes a counter-reaction in the reader. It's the Third Law of Newton! The only way you it could be made persuasive is to present both positions and let the reader make his conclusion himself. Something that many of Wikipedia's articles do. But not this one! Well, Gentlemen, it's August and you should be on vacation this month. I release you. Go out and enjoy summer time! I won't cause you more trouble here anymore. Why waste my time when the result is not even zero but even below zero?! Obviously Wikipedia is not the media that can contribute to opening people's eyes in this case. Well, despite the mighty presence of it in all Google's search and mighty impact that Wikipedia has on people's minds, it's still not the only one. As a Bulgarian song says, "Боряно, Борянке, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли си мома, сал ти ли знаеш да пееш?" ("are you the only maiden, is it only you who can sing?"). There are other means to open people's eyes, and I'll surely use them as much as I can. Now you can reply that I don't know what Wikipedia is, that my goals are different than its, and this may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. To end, do you know what's the worst thing of all? It's that when the "mainstream" sources start to reveal the truth about "Apollo", you will all change your positions to 180 degrees according to the new "wind of change", and will suddenly forget what you've claimed the day before. Then, it will perhaps be time for me to come back here and defend the poor NASA from you. Until then (probably next year), goodbye and as I said, forget me and enjoy the summer, I won't bother you again – a good reason to rejoyce, isn't it? ;-G -- Лъчезар ( talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(Please don't comment this here – it's been commented enough there but if you want to add yet another comment there, you can still do it, of course.)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |