Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 5, 2007 8:14:43 GMT -4
Rocky, your obstinate attitude is beyond healthy.
You're desperate to prove Apollo a hoax. You've admitted having an anti-American stance. As I said before, it burns your posterior that it was Americans that made it to the moon.
I know you people are going to deny everything hell-or-high-water.
Is it possible to deny mere speculations and false information? That's all you've presented.
All I ever hoped to do was post something that was so obvious that when you denied it, you'd look silly.
There are several things you've said that make you look silly.
No, you only posted speculation and false information. Keeping hoping, though, and you might come close.
Once a few irrefutable things are found and you people make yourselves look silly trying to refute them anyway, there's really nothing more to do--the case is closed.
You have yet to show something irrefutable.
You're grasping at straws, clawing for whatever scrap makes your idea work, or just making any speculation that suits you.
We use science and reasoning. Who's silly now?
You haven't been able to come up with one single piece of proof that they went to the moon.
You haven't been able to show proof that they didn't land.
The evidence that shows Apollo went to the moon not only outweighs the evidence against it, it also is supported by science. And it's also the more likely situation.
Everything that you say is proof has one or more other plausible explanations. Your insistence that the sum total of evidence that they went is proof is ridiculous.
Your definition of "plausible" must be different than ours.
Before calling an idea plausible, you must first know background information. You must know the science behind the subject. After establishing that, then you're better equipped to call something plausible.
You wouldn't work on your car without reading the manual for it, would you? You wouldn't just put in spark plugs without referring to the manual's entry about what the gap should be?
So is the case with Apollo. Read the background about it.
And just so you know, YouTube isn't a source of such information. Nor is GoogleVideo.
Unfortunately for you, there is no proof that the footage was filmed on Earth.
There's something else to consider, something that's been asked of you many times.
There are several things that are irrefutable proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.
Then show them.
All you have is speculation, no science and no proof.
I think most people reading these threads know what's going on here.
Their consensus was already shown to link, via a link.
What they see is someone that cannot back up his claims, and is unwilling to experiment with his claims.
And lastly, they see someone that relies on videos to do his thinking for him.
You people know the moon missions were faked and you don't even believe your own arguments.
You're just doing your jobs.
You have no proof of either statement. This is evidence of wishful thinking on your part.
You website with those list items is simply a fall back for someone that cannot, or has no desire, to back up their claims.
You have yet to answer to answer one issue that is at the heart of your beliefs:
Why would Apollo have to be faked?
What was wrong with the rocket technology?
Was there something wrong with the Apollo spacecraft that it couldn't function?
Was there something wrong with the LM that prevented it from functioning?
Was there something wrong with spacesuits that kept them from functioning?
Was there something about the radiation environment that kept the craft from departing Earth orbit?
Just what was the problem with the technology, or environment, of Apollo that deemed it to have to be hoaxed?
One user gives another good question: When did the faking begin? What Apollo missions are fake? Is it just the ones that went to the moon, such as Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 through 17?
Or was it just the landings, 11 through 17?
HBers have a claim that has yet to be retracted: the claim that because there are no stars in the photos means that Apollo was fake.
Aside from being technically wrong (the sun is a star, and THAT is visible many times), it begs a question.
I've seen no stars in images from the Voyagers, Galileo, Cassini, or in photos from the shuttle and ISS, not to mention Mir.
If so, why don't HBers cry "Hoax!" or "It's fake!" for such images.
This selective thinking reveals the folly of HBers. The claims they make for Apollo should also be applicable to other space missions, and not just those from NASA, but also the ESA, Russia, etc. Yet, there is nothing.
You say we'd be laughed out of the debating hall. Well Rocky, with the paragraph I wrote above, it's more likely that you are the one with the weak case. You and others like you.
You're desperate to prove Apollo a hoax. You've admitted having an anti-American stance. As I said before, it burns your posterior that it was Americans that made it to the moon.
I know you people are going to deny everything hell-or-high-water.
Is it possible to deny mere speculations and false information? That's all you've presented.
All I ever hoped to do was post something that was so obvious that when you denied it, you'd look silly.
There are several things you've said that make you look silly.
No, you only posted speculation and false information. Keeping hoping, though, and you might come close.
Once a few irrefutable things are found and you people make yourselves look silly trying to refute them anyway, there's really nothing more to do--the case is closed.
You have yet to show something irrefutable.
You're grasping at straws, clawing for whatever scrap makes your idea work, or just making any speculation that suits you.
We use science and reasoning. Who's silly now?
You haven't been able to come up with one single piece of proof that they went to the moon.
You haven't been able to show proof that they didn't land.
The evidence that shows Apollo went to the moon not only outweighs the evidence against it, it also is supported by science. And it's also the more likely situation.
Everything that you say is proof has one or more other plausible explanations. Your insistence that the sum total of evidence that they went is proof is ridiculous.
Your definition of "plausible" must be different than ours.
Before calling an idea plausible, you must first know background information. You must know the science behind the subject. After establishing that, then you're better equipped to call something plausible.
You wouldn't work on your car without reading the manual for it, would you? You wouldn't just put in spark plugs without referring to the manual's entry about what the gap should be?
So is the case with Apollo. Read the background about it.
And just so you know, YouTube isn't a source of such information. Nor is GoogleVideo.
All of your plausible explanations fall by the wayside if there is some good solid proof that the footage was filmed on earth. All your evidence in its entirety means nothing if it's all mere plausibilities and none of it is conclusive proof.
Unfortunately for you, there is no proof that the footage was filmed on Earth.
There's something else to consider, something that's been asked of you many times.
There are several things that are irrefutable proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.
Then show them.
All you have is speculation, no science and no proof.
I think most people reading these threads know what's going on here.
Their consensus was already shown to link, via a link.
What they see is someone that cannot back up his claims, and is unwilling to experiment with his claims.
And lastly, they see someone that relies on videos to do his thinking for him.
You people know the moon missions were faked and you don't even believe your own arguments.
You're just doing your jobs.
You have no proof of either statement. This is evidence of wishful thinking on your part.
You website with those list items is simply a fall back for someone that cannot, or has no desire, to back up their claims.
You have yet to answer to answer one issue that is at the heart of your beliefs:
Why would Apollo have to be faked?
What was wrong with the rocket technology?
Was there something wrong with the Apollo spacecraft that it couldn't function?
Was there something wrong with the LM that prevented it from functioning?
Was there something wrong with spacesuits that kept them from functioning?
Was there something about the radiation environment that kept the craft from departing Earth orbit?
Just what was the problem with the technology, or environment, of Apollo that deemed it to have to be hoaxed?
One user gives another good question: When did the faking begin? What Apollo missions are fake? Is it just the ones that went to the moon, such as Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 through 17?
Or was it just the landings, 11 through 17?
HBers have a claim that has yet to be retracted: the claim that because there are no stars in the photos means that Apollo was fake.
Aside from being technically wrong (the sun is a star, and THAT is visible many times), it begs a question.
I've seen no stars in images from the Voyagers, Galileo, Cassini, or in photos from the shuttle and ISS, not to mention Mir.
If so, why don't HBers cry "Hoax!" or "It's fake!" for such images.
This selective thinking reveals the folly of HBers. The claims they make for Apollo should also be applicable to other space missions, and not just those from NASA, but also the ESA, Russia, etc. Yet, there is nothing.
You say we'd be laughed out of the debating hall. Well Rocky, with the paragraph I wrote above, it's more likely that you are the one with the weak case. You and others like you.