|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 19, 2008 20:34:46 GMT -4
If anyone has extra time on their hands and feels like debunking something, there's yet another thread about the "hoax" over on the Apollo 13 board at IMDB. The OP wants to have an "INTELLIGENT debate over the hoax moonlanding " (his capitalization), but he's relying on Bill Kaysing, David Percy, etc.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 19, 2008 21:37:35 GMT -4
Could you provide a link to the thread. I couldn't find it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 19, 2008 21:47:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 19, 2008 22:15:09 GMT -4
I'm on it...  Cz |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 20, 2008 0:36:08 GMT -4
Ha Ha
It's very enjoyable to see Jay in 'active duty' so to speak! ;D
It's clear that spectrx is not listening to any evidence Jay gives. Same old, same old.
But there are hints that he has rethought some of it ...like being able to push yourself up from the ground in 1/6th gravity and maybe the budget issue.
Its clear spectrx hasn't read anything about the Saturn V rockets, the size of its tanks, the fuel is uses or the rockets on the second and third stage or the LM itself. Or figured out escape velocity and the like. (Not that I'm an expert mind you, but I do have resources at home to consult with on these subjects and do refer to them).
I think spectrx is another young kid - probably under 25 - perusing the hoax sites and being taken in. I doubt if he reads much on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 21, 2008 15:43:02 GMT -4
The pattern is really very predictable. He came in with guns blazing, having read the standard fare, and thinking that would give him an advantage. After finally realizing he was not the smartest guy in the room, he switched gears and started currying sympathy, saying he was only trying to be educated and how despicable we were for running roughshod over him. Unfortunately that falls pretty flat after seeing how he spammed the Apollo 13 IMDB forum, telling everyone how strong his claims where and how it wasn't "possible" for the Moon landings to be credible.
That's why the innocent act has to be rooted out fairly early in the process. Conspiracism isn't about the debate: it's about structuring and manipulating the debate so that you don't appear to lose. So if it appears you're losing, then you try to shame your opponents out of the will to compete. "If you'd only given me lengthy counter-explanations and unsolicited refutations instead of asking me for proof, we could have avoided this whole thing..." etc.
I notice some kind soul gave him the URL to Clavius before I even got there. So when he said he'd hoped to be given sources of information instead of demands for proof, he really missed the boat.
Well, he's gone for now. We'll see if his tune is different when and if he returns.
|
|
