|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 4, 2007 15:04:34 GMT -4
That's it. I've had enough of that accusation. Either prove that statement or withdraw it, or I will ban you. You are nothing but empty accusations. If you aren't willing or able to back up your claims then do not make them.
Show me evidence that any one of us is being paid to defend Apollo. Either prove it or shut up.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jul 4, 2007 15:13:49 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 4, 2007 15:31:35 GMT -4
Citing someone else's ignorant supposition is not a defense, Rocky. Provide your evidence that I am a paid NASA disinformant. Do so immediately.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 4, 2007 15:33:58 GMT -4
Spasmo was just as ignorant as you are. I will give you until the end of the day tomorrow to either prove or withdraw your accusation. If you have not done so you will be banned.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 4, 2007 15:40:41 GMT -4
You haven't been able to come up with one single piece of proof that they went to the moon. Everything that you say is proof has one or more other plausible explanations.
Unknown magic is not a plausible explanation.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jul 4, 2007 15:47:24 GMT -4
Rocky,
I (and others) have invited you to provide anything resembling a estimated or calculated structure for the particles, you have not responded
I will Happily model your particle flow as required. with all calcs open for interrogation,
you have been advised of peoples political loyalties and associations in the all Apollo data is hoax and other threads. yet you continue to accuse people of being paid informants. this is un-acceptable because if true, I want years of cheques now, I need the cash
you have yet to do any of the experiments suggested by many on the board, (I live in a very small flat (mirkin apartment) I can do physics chemistry and biochemistry experiments on a table or in the shower, walking around or in the park, yet you seem to be unable to.
You resort to accusing us of staying in packs and being close minded in a mass act of denial and trying to cloud the issue with technobabble, Duh it's a technical argument and we use methods that are open to examination. (A pretty MAJOR principal of the Science community)
if you are going to take a break, (it must be hard to have bubbles burst so frequently) chill rethink recoup and regroup, come back a fresh with the ideas integrated and interlinked provide your statements as succinct questions and leave the airy-fairy stuff and use these scientific facts against us. most here seem to have various fields of technical expertise ranging in ability, I know I am crap at spatial reasoning from a photograph, so I will not provide argument of a serious nature against photographic techniques, I am not a highly qualified anything, but I have a naturally enquiring mind, and through enquiry and deduction and reasoning I came to my conclusions, and a lot of time they have been wrong (Heck I even thought I had thought up a free energy device once, even though I knew it couldn't be done) you have a campaign to wage not just a singular battle, repair, rearm, re-equip, I gain sweetness from the sense of knowledge learned and concepts understood than the thrust and parry of the argument, only you know how sweet the taste of victory is going to be when you succeed, but no-one said it was going to be easy.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 4, 2007 17:26:28 GMT -4
All I ever hoped to do was post something that was so obvious that when you denied it, you'd look silly. Hasn’t happened yet, keep trying. There are several things you've said that make you look silly. Only to your legion of fans that reside inside your head. Once a few irrefutable things are found and you people make yourselves look silly trying to refute them anyway We’ll refute the refutable and concede the irrefutable. Do you have anything irrefutable? there's really nothing more to do--the case is closed. Yes it is, you’ve lost. You haven't been able to come up with one single piece of proof that they went to the moon. Give me one single piece of evidence that by itself proves beyond all doubt that World War II happened. Everything that you say is proof has one or more other plausible explanations. So what? Prove that those other plausible explanations are what actually happened. Your insistance that the sum total of evidence that they went is proof is ridiculous. No it isn’t. When the sum total of all the evidence points to one explanation above all others, the reasonable conclusion is that that is the correct explanation. All of your plausible explanations fall by the wayside if there is some good solid proof that the footage was filmed on earth. Find some good solid proof and maybe we can talk about it. In the meantime you have nothing. All your evidence in its entirety means nothing if it's all mere plausibilities and none of it is conclusive proof. In the absence of any other theory that can explain the preponderance of evidence in favor of Apollo’s authenticity, the Apollo missions as they are known to history continue to stand as the only plausible theory. There are several things that are irrefutable proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth. No there isn’t. If some of it was taken on earth, it's quite probable that all of it was taken on earth. You’re putting the cart before the horse, aren’t you? You need to find that one piece of evidence first. This makes all of your evidence with other plausible explanations moot. Now it’s your turn to be laughed out of the debating hall. One piece of faked evidence means only that that one piece was faked, nothing more. I'm getting a bit tired of this Ditto. I think most people reading these threads know what's going on here. They sure do. They know you’re a nutcase believing in a fantasy. You people know the moon missions were faked and you don't even believe your own arguments. I know the moon landings were real and I believe every word I’ve written. You're just doing your jobs. Nope, my time here is leisure time. One more thing, Rocky... Why couldn't Apollo land astronauts on the Moon?edit formatting
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 4, 2007 17:37:10 GMT -4
I'd like to point out that Rocky, here, would get laughed out of court. We'll leave the debating hall for a moment, since I have no formal debate experience. (Okay, no--I'm not a lawyer, either. But I've read a lot more about the law.)
We'll stick to civil court, with its lesser burden of proof, for now. "Preponderance of evidence." (This is based on American law. I took one class on it in seventh grade. Your mileage may vary.) This is not intended to say that any one piece of evidence must build up, on its own, a preponderence of evidence by itself. Each individual piece of evidence must be considered and rejected or accepted in turn. If one piece is clearly faked yet all the others are clearly genuine, that one piece may be ignored in favor of the genuine ones. David, my dear, you have it exactly backward. As usual.
And yeah, why couldn't they land astronauts on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 4, 2007 17:37:24 GMT -4
Rocky, who are you to tell ANYONE what they believe? While others may tell you what to believe, I am not so weak. You don't know anything about us, yet call us liars and stooges. Who is the "unobjective" party here? You are delusional, hanging out at hoax and conspiracy sites, thinking you have some influence on the world because of you "impressions". And you stated an ignorance on the science behind that which you argue. You remind me much of some of the middle schoolers I drive in my bus...very impressionable, but not bothered to actually look at anything in any depth. Most grow beyond it, some don't. Try learning something before you spout off...it only makes you look foolish to cry "fire" in the middle of a lake.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 4, 2007 17:57:23 GMT -4
Rocky, Why couldn't Apollo land astronauts on the Moon?Exactly! This is the crux of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 4, 2007 19:55:41 GMT -4
Meh, I guess I won't get a response to my post in the other thread. He hasn't responded to it at all, even though I titled it "To rocky." and asked a few direct questions to him.
Rocky, in case you're banned by the time you read this: since you seem to rely on YouTube so much, my YouTube account is "bertlapollo". There you can send me a private message answering my question. Remember, not answering the question will tell people that you are not capable of answering how you objectively did it, and lead people to the conclusion that you did not objectively do it, which means directly contradicting yourself pleading for objectivity.
We'll see how long it takes for you to answer the question on objectively determining the 70% measurement, graph, thingie. Whatever it's called. How you objectively determined that. I should get some sleep. The question still stands.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 4, 2007 20:00:27 GMT -4
Also, why do you say there are "several things that are irrefutable proof", while the actual issue is that you do not accept the refutations we in this board have given without giving a reason why. I've actually seen this behavior before. Things among the lines of "I ain't buying it" seem to be some conspiracy theorists' mantra. You know who you are. You know very well who you are. I know you're watching me.
*puts on tin foil hat*
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Jul 4, 2007 22:49:50 GMT -4
Okay. My NASA apologist paycheck was late this week and I'm upset, so I'll break rank and make some admissions upon which you may quote me: - The astronauts used wires during the lunar excursion sequences.
There were many wires in the spacesuit. Heck, the LEM was lousy with wires, cables and conduits.
- The rover footage was filmed on Earth.
Yes; portions were relayed from the moon as live video and archived on film back on Earth. The shots of the ascent module lifting off (again, impossible without using wires) were all transferred to film after videotaping on Earth. You win on that one.
- It was all done from Earth orbit.
Yes, from an altitude of 385,000 km. They had to use that distance to hide the CM from nighttime skies and make the radio tracking work correctly.
There. I blew the whistle; you'll doubtlessly read about my 'accident' in the coming days.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jul 4, 2007 23:04:39 GMT -4
Did you ask anyone at the Cybercafe if they could explain clip #2? Is that how you define defending the truth? Keep trying. Perhaps one day you'll come close. And you've done nothing to disprove that statement. It's not that you've done the experiment and failed that's so telling. It's that you've failed to do the experiment. Since when to theatrical support wires reflect light? Irrefutable things? I'm sorry, I must've missed rehearsal. What things have you shown to be irrefutable? I'd say that's correct. We've come up with a mountain of proof that we went to the moon. And you favor those over the one explanation that is most likely, and is supported by the greatest quantity and quality of evidence. The M.O. of a classic ideologue who can't be bothered with facts. It that's true, why are you having such a hard time presenting this proof? If the forged visuals are so self-evident, you shouldn't have to work this hard. Question-begging wrapped up inside a strawman. You don't miss a trick. Good move. You need one. I've always maintained that it's a good idea when things are not going well, to take a step back, and get away from the source of your stress for awhile. When you're refreshed and ready to return, perhaps you'll be better able to acknowledge that the aerospace professionals here actually know what they're talking about, and that pretending to possess knowledge that you don't really have, is generally a bad idea. According to the poll, at least 11 of them have enough sense to realize that your arguments are silly, while precisely zero agree with you. It would indeed appear that most people know what's going on here. They know that you just don't get it. I don't know that, and I do believe my own arguments. Two incorrect statements in a single sentence. That's actually rather low for an HB. Yep. Defending the truth is hard work, but it's also uniquely satisfying. Try it sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 5, 2007 6:20:25 GMT -4
Rocky, my dial-up connection is much too slow for me to view online video clips, but if one of yours about a "wire" is the famous Apollo-17-by-the-flag one, read my analysis of it here, apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1122302912&page=3#1122468469then come back and tell me precisely where I am wrong. Of course, you will view it frame-by-frame, full-screen and large, from the Spacecraft Films' DVD set, won't you, instead of some silly little copy on the internet? And if you think I'm "just doing my job," think again. I'm a New Zealander who has followed the space programme since seeing Sputnik 1, but I have had no formal conact with Nasa except for suggesting minor corrections to some of its web pages. In fact I haven't even had a job since 1989 when I became a full-time invalid. As far as denying "everything hell-or-high-water", I'm perfectly happy to believe Apollo was hoaxed, but after years of looking at the claims, nobody has shown me any convincing evidence that it was, and that includes you with your foolish speculations. Most hoax-promoters and believers speak from incredible ignorance. That's if they're not outright lying.
|
|