Comments on: Sitemap

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:38:26 +0000

In reply to Ramon Santiago. There was a server issue last night that my webguy needed to fix. Though it does not surprise me that Google lists me lower than DuckDuckGo. Any search on Google on any political issue will routinely exclude news sites that lean conservative, favoring the leftwing mainstream sites almost exclusively. It's why I stopped using it. It is also why I am steadily using StartPage less and less. They protect my privacy, but they also use the Google search engine, which means their search results are as badly biased.

By: Ramon Santiago

Ramon Santiago — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:19:22 +0000

Robert,

Sorry there is a typo in my last comment. There is a line that should read,” I cannot provide any supporting evidence………” OOPS!

By: Ramon Santiago

Ramon Santiago — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:16:56 +0000

Robert
I’ve been a fan for a very long time. Something odd occurred today when I attempted to pull up your behind the Black web site today. I was greeted with a screen that your website could not be loaded. At first I thought I merely misspelled the URL. However when I clicked on the bookmark I have the same result appeared. Google searches did not result in any explanations nor any links to your site. I was leaning to the possibility it was a server glitch. Then I decided to change search engines. Using Duck Duck Go your site immediately popped up. Now I am not saying Google has decided to target your site just like they did to the Federalist and others and I can provide any supporting evidence as to such. But I find this at least at one level suspicious. All this could be easily explained by other means but I wanted you to know

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:15:05 +0000

In reply to Chris Lassiter. Chris Lassiter: Thank you for the kind words. And thank you for the link. I posted a link to this story on June 6, though it has since been updated from 58 recent science papers to 80 that invalidate all the global warming models.

By: Chris Lassiter

Chris Lassiter — Wed, 19 Jul 2017 23:33:53 +0000

Fan of you site and appearances on the John Batchelor show.

Just in case no-one has sent this to you

http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.FRCeo69o.80BreJ33.dpbs

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:15:55 +0000

Tony:
I’ll offer up some advice to you or anyone interested in buying a “good starter scope with the latest tech options.”
1) As Mr. Z noted; start reading Sky & Telescope, & Astronomy. >Get the hard-copy versions; notice the regular advertiser’s & request their catalogs. Both magazines also have regular columns & articles aimed at the “amateur” market. (S&T is perhaps a bit more techy-oriented but I personally have read both concurrently. They compliment each other in large part.)
2) Depending on your knowledge start-point, “buy the reference before you buy the hardware,” that is– invest a few bucks in a Reference-Book before you actually buy any hardware. (You would eventually be spending about $500 on equipment, “in-general,” better to spend $25-50 on a good reference, first. Save you money, time, & minimize the frustration-factor.)
3) Check to see if you have a local Astronomy-Club; these folks are a wealth of practical hands-on knowledge & you can look through & touch their equipment & learn from their mistakes. Nothing beats seeing/feeling a piece of equipment in actual use.
4) Taking this all in– figure out what you “want” in a small scope & then shop accordingly. What is it you want to be able to see?There are only a few brand-name manufacturer’s but plenty of distributers. Telescopes are generally a “specialized” consumer good; depending on your location you might be lucky enough to have a local shop that *just* sells telescopes & related tech. Hobby shops don’t generally tend to stock a full-array of telescopes– all the more better to interact with people who have the actual hardware you are considering.)
5) Know how the telescope in which you are interested, actually works. There are two basic types: reflector & refractor, & just variation’s on the two designs.
(Personally– I’d go with a 4-8 inch reflector with a few selected eyepieces, 12-inch gets to be a bit large for easy transport.)
6) I think it was Steve, (? sorry!) who recently acquire a 4 inch telescope– hopefully he will see this post & offer up some advice on his new toy!.
7) You can get as hi-tech as you want, or as “analog” & basic as they come. Just spend some time & learn what’s available. Last thing you want to do is spend a lot of $ & then have the thing sit in the closet. (been there…. did that!)
Good luck! (report back on your progress!)

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:09:43 +0000

In reply to Tony. I am really not the person to ask. My best suggestion would to do some research at either Sky & Telescope or Astronomy, both of whom aim their advice to the amateur astronomer market.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:04:00 +0000

Hi Mr. Zimmerman,
I enjoyed listening to you for the first time on Coast to Coast this morning and was hoping you could recommend a “good” starter telescope with the latest tech options?

Regards,
Tony
Pennsylvania

By: John Jossy

John Jossy — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 04:29:43 +0000

Hi Bob

Enjoyed your appearance on the Space Show and appreciate my subscription to BTB. Don’t know if you happened to hear about Dr. Damer’s Tedx Talk on SHEPHERD Asteroid retrieval (link below) but I think the concept is revolutionary. Thought the talk would be a good Evening Pause. See what you think.

Best

John

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLMHcUg36yc

By: Berthold Klein

Berthold Klein — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:48:31 +0000

The following was sent to A Science representative for a Congressman:
Ladies and gentlemen : the following E-mail was sent to Representative Grijalva science adviser with appropriate attachments. I do not expect to get a response but I may be added to their hit list along with the 33,000 signers of the Oregon Petition Project.
“Dear Mr.Edgerton: As the science representative for Rep. Raul Grijalva I assume you have a degree in some branch of science, like quantum physics, meteorology, chemistry mechanical engineering with studies is thermodynamics or other hard sciences that allow you to understand “atmospheric physics”. If you do not you can not properly advise the representative in the very complex study sometimes called “man-made global warming.
As a civil environmental engineer for the last 50 + years I have studied and applied all of the above “hard sciences” and more. I have done an experiment without any funding from any group, This experiment has been peer reviewed by many different Ph.D scientists and engineers to validate what it proves. The experiment proves that the Hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” does not exist, therefore Man-made global warming is a political hoax/fairy tale, a lie what ever you want to call a scientific error that has been used to steal money from the people of the world.
The representative’s letter to the President of MIT has to be retracted and an apology made to the millions of scientists and engineers that have been telling the truth! Man-made global warming is a lie.
Thank God the weather has proved the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist.
The attached material is a small fraction of the truth scientific material that proof that there is a giant conspiracy to promote the Hoax.
Look up Apollo astronaut Walter Cunningham and about several dozen other former NASA employees that are sharing their knowledge on the subject”
The attachments are several thousand words long so are not included.