OOGAH-RANGER

Some of my closer online friends (I.E Cyclone999) or even some of my closest internet fiends(I.E Walrus spies trying to find out more about me by sppending hours sifting through my Q/A’s on Yahoo answers) may know about my in development action/adventure/fantasy movie screenplay called Oogah-Ranger

Oogah-Ranger focuses on the adventures of an AUstralian park ranger who finds a subterranean world full of once thought to be mythological animals. The story offers fictional explanations of Yetis, UFO’s, re-occuring earthquakes, and other cool stuff! Everybody be on the watch. I’ll be consistently updating this blog with the screenplays progress.

-Noogah

About iatw

To my dear Walrus friends:

This is the last post I shall be making concerning you, and your group on this blog.  I have had much fun, and lulz at your expense. I do apologize, I simply could not help myself.

Before I go, I should like to publish what I have learned about the walruses, and would like to make a quote from the Grimm Brothers famous collection of literature. This is specifically taken from “The Gallant Tailor” also known as “Seven at One Blow“

…Then he set out gallantly on his way, and as he was light and active he felt no fatigue.

The way led over a mountain, and when he reached the topmost peak he saw a terrible giant sitting there, and looking about him at his ease. The tailor went bravely up to him, called out to him, and said, “Comrade, good day! there you sit looking over the wide world! I am on the way thither to seek my fortune: have you a fancy to go with me?”

The giant looked at the tailor contemptuously, and said, “You little rascal! you miserable fellow!” “That may be!” answered the little tailor…

I can think of no better analogy to describe the differences between me and iatw. A small person, insignificant and tiny(me) goes up to a huge giant of great strength(the walruses) and proposes friendship. He is met with disgust, and ridicule.  The giant while fearful and strong is sadly lacking in intelligence and wit. Mindlessly rushing into battle attempting to destroy the victim in one blow.

The walruses ARE NOT menacing in the least. There greatest weapon is manipulation through fear tactics. Emotional trama, and terror. Then come some very small physical attacks. (Silly little things such as a bunch of empty boxes, or some gross magazines) If it weren’t for the prior emotional attacks, the victim would be unthreatened, and could logically attempt to solve the problem.

Unfortunately for them, the walruses chose the WRONG GUY TO MESS WITH! I am a logical person, and emotional attacks simply do not work on me outside the boundaries of obvious logic. After watching a Judge Judy courtroom case just the other day (in which one is prosecuted for watching someone else nearly stab someone to death) I realize even more that the walruses attempts to ruin ones life are totally rediculous, and the trauma caused by them are nothing but the after effects of a pre-concieved illusion.

In summary, my life simply cannot be ruined by something so trivial as boxes, and pizzas. Once one percieves things in a different light, it is easy simply to laugh the silly walruses away. When this is done, the walruses are provided with no “lulz”, thus there mission is a failure. Thus, one can indeed defeat them. And so long as you can learn to view things in a positive light, they can be harnessed, and their attacks used against them for your own “lulz”

That is the last that is to ever be said about you and your pathetic pack of cyber-wolves on this blog. All comments related to the walruses outside of this post will be removed. Good day to you!

-Noogah

P.S-I never drank one drop of soap…it was a trick for the camera

MESSAGE TO THE WALRUSES

I have a message to all of my dear walrus spies:

Due to the fact that you have put rediculous protective measures on my wiki page, here are some facts that you can post about me!!

• You think guzzling down dish soap is bad? I also munch on Tylenol tablets like popcorn! (If you want proof, just watch my Zacho remix 3 video.)
• I bite my nails like crazy! I bite them so bad, I cant believe that I haven’t bitten my fingers right off of my hand!
• I still pick nose. It’s almost as bad as my last habit.
• I don’t to school!
• I chew on the sides of my mouth.
  

• My only pet died after three years of having him!!!!!!!

Now to the walruses who are perplexed by the fact that I enjoy my dox:

You define doxing as a horrendous thing that only happens to terrible people However, this is the way I perceive things:

• You get to become 1 out of 27 different people individually chosen out of 9,000,000,000 people on earth!!
• You get free hosting and protection ofn your very own walrus page! Along with free unlimited image hosting so you can upload all the funny faces you want!
• You get lots of free stuff!(Boxes, magazines, feeebies, etc.)
• You get free comedy routines via phone!

• LOTS MORE!

I honestly don’t get the big deal here. Nothing has been done to hurt me. I’m fine, and I have more than I had before. Including a lot of attention from iatw, and others.

Until later,

-Noogah(I’M THE DOPE WHO ATE THE SOAP!)

Apollo 11

Some people with nothinge betterto do with their time claim that teh Appollo 11 mission never happened. Any conspiracy theorist should visit Wikipedias article on the matter. Almost all claims against the missions are stated, and debunked. Some of the most notible will be quoted here.

Moon hoax proponents devote a substantial portion of their efforts to examining NASA photos. They point to various oddities of photographs and films purportedly taken on the Moon. Experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counter-intuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that whistleblowers may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.

1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects.

• Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film.

2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.

• Popular versions of photos are sometimes cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

• There are many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.^[53][54]
• The Apollo astronauts used high resolution 70mm professional cameras and film.^[55]

4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars.

• The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.^{[56], pp. 158–160}Even the brightest stars are dim and difficult to see in the daytime on the Moon. The Moon’s albedo is very high and with no atmosphere to traverse, daylight at the surface is very much brighter than on Earth. Harrison Schmitt saw no stars from the Moon.^[57] The astronauts’ eyes were adapted to the brightly sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background into ink-black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed in order not to have the foreground light completely wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars outside when in a brightly-lit room – the stars only become visible when the light is turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.^[58]

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

• Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.^{[56], pp. 167–172} Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.
• This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing”.

6. Identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart.

• Shots were not identical, just similar. Background objects were mountains many miles away. Without an atmosphere to obscure distant objects, it can be difficult to tell the relative distance and scale of lunar features.^[59] One specific case is debunked in Who Mourns For Apollo? by Mike Bara.^[60]

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.^[61]

• Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. Calculations are based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching ‘C’s on a rock and on the ground.

• The “C”-shaped image was from printing imperfections, not in the original film from the camera.^{[62][dead link][63]}

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym “Una Ronald”, said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

• No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. “Una Ronald”’s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to “stay up late” is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.^[64]

10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photograph of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

• It was used in lieu of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too grainy to present in a book’s picture section. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be “hot spots” in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

• Pits in Moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to minuscule glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer’s own shadow when it appears in a photograph. (see Heiligenschein)
• If the photographer is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit produces a similar effect to a spotlight.^[65]

12. Footprints in the extraordinarily fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, in the minds of some observers – as if made in wet sand.

• The dust is silicate, and this has a special property in a vacuum of sticking together like that. The astronauts described it as being like “talcum powder or wet sand”.^[60]
• This theory was demonstrated to be unsubstantiated on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing”.

Additionally, a mythbusters episode was made(Episode 104 – “NASA Moon Landing”) in which several claims against Apollo 11 were put to the test. All of which were BUSTED The episode can be watched here.(http://www.megavideo.com/?v=SEI2VWWI)

Apollo 11 did happen, cannot, will not, and never was debunked.

-Noogah

Poor peasents

Oh my poor peasents! I appreciate your loyalty to me, but you’ve gone a tad bit too far! You see, the reason my sister asked for her info removed in exchange more mine kept, is because if you took away my info, I’D SIMPLY DIE! Of course, I told her. She simply wishes for her info to be removed. She didnt ask for mine, because want my info to stay.

LONG LIVE NOOGAH!