HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:34:22 GMT
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1hk5e5INN34t@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes...
>In article <roelle.724974838@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>=graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>=
>=>In article <1992Dec18.145633.15270@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes...
>=
>=>>He also claims that the only reason the Mars Observer has a camera
>=>>is too investigate the "face" and that NASA knows something but
>=>>is keeping the public in the dark.
>=
>=>What I dread is that NASA/JPL may claim that they could not get a shot
>=>of the Cydonia region.  This is entirely possible.
>=
>=>The unfortunate part of this is that their failure to image that region
>=>with MO will be taken as further fuel to the conspiracy of silence.
>=
>=>So, I would think that it would be in their best interest, if there
>=>is no conspiracy, to go out of their way to get images of the region.
>=
>=On the other hand an attempt by NASA to intentionally image that
>=particular region -- especially going out of their way to do so
>=(whatever that means and however they do so) -- with MO can also fuel
>=the conspiracy of "See there!  Something funny's going on at Mars, and
>=NASA knows something they aren't telling!"
> 
>True, and quite unfortunate, since the face-freaks managed to convince a few
>key Congressmen to enact a bill that specifically requires MO to look at
>Cydonia.  NASA was already planning to take a look anyway, but the Congressmen
>decided to kill a few more trees so that the already-planned mapping would have
>their imprimature.

Yes.  I thought I'd heard this before.

I wonder why NASA has never mentioned that they are _legally bound_ to
do this?

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
> 
>Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
>understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
>unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
>organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
>hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: the healing of the paralytic, in Greek and English
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 10:48 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Sorry to waste bandwidth, but did anyone happen to save the article
I posted with the Matthew, Mark, and Luke accounts of the healing
of the paralytic, with both the Greek and the NAS translations?  If
so, could you please email me a copy?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucifixion of Jesus?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:56 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec21.223132.5220@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes...
>In article <19DEC199217041764@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec19.192457.26807@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO) writes...
>>>In article <NICHAEL.92Dec18095658@kariba.bbn.com> ncramer@bbn.com writes:
>>>>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>The authors of the various synoptic Gospels _aren't_ simply telling
>>>>the same the story.  They are by and large, in detail, using the _same
>>>>words_.  Moreover, where they vary from each other --including the
>>>>introduction and exclusion of specific materials-- it is done in a
>>>>consistent and clear manner.
>>> 
>>>2) I think you exagerate a bit.  Yes, the passages are similar but
>>>I don't think a "diff" of the synoptic gospels will be very kind
>>>as you seem to imply.  As I said, IMO it is more accurate to think
>>>of them based off of a common source or working document.
>>
>>Have you compared the Greek?
> 
>No, have you done so?  Is the Greek word for word identical in the
>majority of cases in all three Synoptic Gospels?  All the texts
>that I've read seemed to imply the contrary.  I would be most
>curious to know first hand, however... 

I haven't done a systematic study, but I have compared the wording
of some passages with a Greek interlinear translation and identified
word-for-word copying.  (I don't presently own such a translation and
so can't give any examples, but you can get a good idea by looking
at a harmonization of the gospels and comparing the English translations
of parallel accounts.  Look, for example, at the account of the
paralytic lowered through the roof of a house and healed by Jesus
in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:18-26 (also Matthew 9:2-8).  The wording
is not identical, but there are many of the same words used, and
the sentence-by-sentence pattern is the same.)

Jim Lippard           Lippard@ccit.arizona.edu
Dept. of Philosophy   Lippard@arizvms.bitnet
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Hoagland? What's the deal?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:06:57 GMT

In article <1hk5e5INN34t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>True, and quite unfortunate, since the face-freaks managed to convince a few
>key Congressmen to enact a bill that specifically requires MO to look at
>Cydonia.  NASA was already planning to take a look anyway, but the Congressmen
>decided to kill a few more trees so that the already-planned mapping would have
>their imprimature.

Hoagland claims to have convined Robert Roe but they eventually had
a falling out.  Does anyone have a docket number or whatever it is
you need to get a copy of the bill.  I've not heard of this before.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: kenl@origami.cc.bellcore.com (Ken Lehner)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:47:38 GMT

In article <eharbin.725572840@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
|> In <1992Dec28.192307.14583@walter.bellcore.com> kenl@origami.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Ken Lehner) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
|> 
|> >|> It was in Christian societies that both modern science and 
|> 
|> >Have you heard of Arabic numbers?  Where exactly did geometry originate?
|> 
|> There were of course interesting approaches to the sciences in Arab countries,
|> classical Greece, India, and China. But the critical combination of
|> mathematics and observation that we think of as modern science came to life
|> in the cathedral schools of Paris, Bologna, and Cambridge. 

Big of you ("interesting approaches", indeed).

|> Most Christians have trouble with none of the above. What Christianity
|> had to contribute was a metaphysics which accepted simultaneously immanence
|> and transcendence: nature was a created good in which truths may be found
|> which reflect a transcendent order. And some other wrinkles. But put the
|> shoe on the other foot, - why _did_ Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, [long
|> list follows] come from a Christian environment, if that environment were
|> not in some way friendly to their development?
|> 

You still do not state what aspect of Christianity contributed to the
evolution of modern science, other than financial backing ("the cathedral
schools").  "A metaphysics which accepted..." says to me that it did not
stand in the way of such evolution.

Please keep the shoe on the original foot, until we can determine if it
fits.  YOU made the connection between Christian society and the evolution
of modern science.  I'd like to hear what unique contribution Christian
society made toward this evolution; preferably, a contribution that stems
from some innate aspect of Christianity.  Does Christian doctrine
encourage the questioning of accepted knowledge (e.g., geocentricity)?
Something like that.
From: nichael@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Believability of "Q" (was: Crucifixion of Jesus?)
Date: 21 Dec 92 08:52:02
Organization: BBN, Cambridge MA
	<1992Dec19.192457.26807@hfsi.uucp> <1992Dec20.025542.21397@netcom.com>
Reply-To: ncramer@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: kariba.bbn.com
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of 20 Dec 92 02:55:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.025542.21397@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
   >1) I never said that they were independent sources.  I only
   >disputed if they were copying from each other, or a common source
   >(ever hear of Q?)

   As I note in "The Making of the Messiah," the "Q" theory was invented
   as a defense against the findings of critical analysis ("Oh, these
   guys didn't just copy each other, they each copied this old, reliable
   document called "Q"). Recent books seem to suggest that NT scholars
   are finding the "Q" hypothesis pretty much untenable, but they *don't*
   have anything better at this time. 

       C.H. Talbert speaks of "widespread loss of confidence " in the
       two-source theory that has occurred in the last fifteen years. He
       does not assume it or any other source theory in his recent work,
       _Reading Luke. A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third
       Gospel_ (NY: Crossroads, 1982). Cf. E.P. Sanders, "NT Studies Today,"
       _Colloquy on NT Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches_
       (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 11-28: source criticism is in
       disarray and the synoptic problem must be regarded as open.

	  - Jane Schaberg, _The Illegitimacy of Jesus_ (NY: Crossroad,
	    1990, p. 225).

Ah yes, Mercer University Press.  The home of dear old William Farmer
and his friends.

Robert, you need to guard a little more carefully against this (no
doubt, non-deliberate) tendancy to cite _any_ source that supports
your argument at the expense of more credible sources that disagree
with your (pre-formed?) conclusions.

The temptation is no doubt great but it does tend to overshadow the
rest of what you have to say, which is often quite valuable.

Certainly there is criticism of Q --just as there is criticism of the
standard model in any field--- but this implication that most NT
scholars find the Q hypothesis to be "pretty much untenable" is simple
nonsense as a casual browsing of the relevant work of any major expert
in the field will show.

N
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: BiosphereII
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:58:35 GMT

jacobson@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Eliot T. Jacobson ) writes:


>Last I heard the ocean was dying, the co-2 was getting
>out of hand, and their farming was a failure.

>Heard on the Leno (formerly Carson) show:  "put scientists
>is a glass bottle and close it... they forgot to poke holes
>in the top!"

>So what is the latest news?

Last July, Howard Odum, the evironmental systems modeler, talked about modeling
the O2 systems in Biosphere II.  He included all of the sources and sinks, in-
cluding the soil and rock minerals that would take up O2.  He found that
the O2 levels would drop to the present level.  I surmised from what he said,
that he didn't expect them to go lower, but models are fallable.  

-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.messianic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas betray?
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata - FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:14:32 GMT

In article <1humf2INNniq@iraul1.ira.uka.de> stoesser@i31s17.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
>In article <bruce.725729139@cortex>, bruce@cortex.dixie.com (R. Bruce Rakes) writes:
>|> eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>|> 
>|> >>Thousands (if not millions) of people have been tortured and killed in
>|> >>the service of christianity.  Even the thousand-year old conflict
>|> >>between the celts and the anglo-saxons is now reported as a conflict
>|> >>between protestants and catholics.
>|> 
>|> >On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
>|> >This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
>|> >statecraft - and the body count has been stupendous. In the enlightened regimes
>|> >of Hitler and Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot you have exemplars of what you seek;
>|>     ^^^^^^
>|> >and aren't you proud? Probably not, for it's unlikely that you hold the
>|> >non-religious to the same standards you reserve for the religious, or identify
>|> >yourself with the fruits of that point of view.
>|> 
>|> It is my understanding that Nazi Germany was Xtian.  Can anyone else
>|> confirm this?
>|> 
>
>- Hitler was Roman Catholic.

His regime and his government, however, were not founded on
Christian values.  That is the point that was being made (although
I agree that Hitler's "religion" can cloud the issue).  I don't
know of any Christian denomination at the time of Hitler that
espoused the killing of non-Christians as even remotely following
Christ.  I won't even mention the superiority of one race over
another, etc.  Therefore the beliefs and actions of his regime are
in direct contradiction to the faith he claimed to have as well
the teachings of Christ.  Quoting his belief in a God doesn't
change that fact nor does it make his regime necessarily religious
at all.

>
>     Of course, someone bad believing something does not make that belief
>     wrong.
><<<

Agreed.

>|> R. Bruce Rakes, Software Systems Manager

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: homeopaty... NBC's dateline
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:33:58 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1682@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:

>In article <103062@netnews.upenn.edu>, rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec22.223557.6777@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>|> >In <1649@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
>|> >>It is my understanding that one *can* develope a tolerance ('immunity') to
>|> >>arsenic over time by taking small, gradually increasing doses.
>|> >
>|> >  It's my understanding that increased cyanide tolerance, ...
>|> 
>|> Unlikely, since cyanide is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen; none of
>|> these are heavy metals.

>I think Carl suffered a slip of the keyboard - the original reference was to
>*arsenic*, which *is* a heavy metal.

>And, so, yes, I think he is probably right about arsenic tolerance.
>[His statement is close to my original guess anyway].

>-- 
>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

  I thought I had already posted this, but apparently it didn't reach
some sites:  yes, I meant "arsenic" as opposed to "cyanide".  
-- 
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
  inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
  the state of facts and evidence"     --      John Adams
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: AIDS
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:01:09 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

Perhaps more to the point in this "who is affected by AIDS" debate: 
How much research has been done into the behavior and prevalence
of other diseases in those who claim to have contracted HIV through
heterosexual contact.

After all, heterosexual contact varies quite a bit, in terms of
the opportunity for fluid-to-bloodstream contact. Presumably,
flirting from across the room would carry a rather low risk of
spreading HIV. A "blood brother" ceremony, in which wounds are
rubbed together, might have a significant risk.

Could most, if not all, heterosexual transmission of AIDS be 
attributed to anal sex? Or pre-existing genital lesions?

Conversely, can we say that ordinary vaginal intercourse _does_
have a significant chance of transmitting AIDS? Both ways,
or only male to female?

For some reason, I have _never_ seen this addressed in any 
press reports of research on the disease.  

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: blue skies, again
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:15:50 GMT


In article <1992Dec27.190955.15090@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
|> In <1hk42sINN34t@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) 
writes:

|> When you see a blue sky to the east near sunset, you're talking about
|> >radiation (glowing, to use your term).

I'm not sure what the poster actually had in mind here.  From a clear-sky 
location you can often see the earth's shadow coming up in the east at
sunset.  It isn't completely black because of multiple scattering, ground
reflection, etc., but it can be quite noticeably darker than the rest of the
sky.

|>   Um, no.  Actually you're seeing neither radiated nor refracted light.
|> You're seeing *scattered* light.  The light travels in a straight-line path
|> to the air over your Eastern horizon, then encounters some dust particles
|> and is reflected back into your eye.

 > Two points: 1) Blue skylight is dominated by scattering from air molecules, 
 > not by scattering from dust;

Correct.

 > and 2) scattered light is radiated light (it's 
 > absorbed and re-radiated by the scatterer). 

I have to disagree here, unless you want to make it a matter of semantics.
When light is diffracted by an edge or reflected by a mirror, do you call that
absorption and re-radiation?  In the Huygens sense, OK, but it has nothing to
do with atomic energy levels or re-thermalization, etc., it's just physical 
optics.  When water waves are scattered around some obstacle, do you call 
that absorption and re-radiation?

Ben


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Why the sky is blue - again
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:13:00 GMT


>  All that stuff in Jackson essentially reduces to treating air molecules as 
>  classical harmonic oscillators, excited by the incident light, and radiating 
>  as dipole radiators.

>  The frequency of light is well below the natural frequency of the air 
>  molecules. When sufficiently outside the resonant region, a harmonic 
>  oscillator's amplitude is approximately constant .....
>
>  The Rayleigh scattering case is below resonant frequency ...

As is so often the case in these newsgroups, someone gives the correct analysis
early on, and after that things go off into never-never land.  Except for a few
narrow "telluric" bands in the visible, air molecules have their rotational
resonances in the microwave domain, their vibrational frequences in the 
infrared, and their electronic resonances in the UV.  So one way to answer the
question "Why is the sky blue?" is simply to say "because air molecules don't
absorb or radiate at visible wavelengths; they just scatter."  

>  I'm still confused.  Sorry.  I'm really trying to understand this.
>  Some of the posts seem to confirm my vague recollections that the sky is
>  glowing, although my reasons for it were incorrect. ... I can't figure out 
>  whether the atmosphere is a lens or a radiator; whether the photon 
>  originally came from the sun (no glowing) or whether it came from the air 
>  molecules (glowing); whether a different atmosphere would be a different 
>  color because of its spectral signature or because of its optical proper-
>  ties; whether the air molecules in the viewed part of the sky are even
>  receiving their fair share of red (!glowing) or whether the red is being 
>  absorbed and re-radiated (glowing).  

None of the above!  The daytime sky is not glowing at visible wavelengths!  
(Sure, there are some "dayglow" and "nightglow" emissions, but they are 
overwhelmed by simple blue-sky scattering in the daytime.)  Rayleigh scattering
is not remotely resonant scattering, and has nothing at all to do with spectral
line absorptions or emissions.  It is a purely classical effect, having nothing
to do with quantum mechanics, and would look much the same for any clear
molecular atmosphere.  Radio waves scattered by a cloud of baseballs would 
behave just the same.  Under high spectral resolution the blue-sky spectrum
would show all the solar Fraunhofer lines, modified only by very minor effects
such as Doppler broadening due to the earth's atmosphere. 

In fact I believe the result is very general, that waves of ANY kind, when 
scattered by obstacles much smaller than the wavelength, will scatter according
to the Rayleigh law.  Along those lines -- I have heard that Lord Rayleigh's
original analysis was extremely ingenious, being based more on raw mathematics
than any physics, but I have never seen it.  Can anyone enlighten us about how
it went? 

Ben