|
Post by gillianren on Mar 30, 2008 21:10:56 GMT -4
NASA is spending big bucks on VA Belt radiation studies, to be concluded by 2010 or 2011. The VA Belts are more hazardous than they were known to be during Apollo. How does the first sentence indicate that the second one is correct? What indicates that the second sentence is correct, if the first one does not?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 30, 2008 22:26:57 GMT -4
I was falsely accused of lying. Read my last post, and I think (hope) you'll understand... I understand quite well. You made up a quote, and when asked for a source you admitted you made it up, and claimed it was done as a joke; then someone else claimed your "joke" story was a lie. I have no way of telling which is the case, and what's more, I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 30, 2008 22:53:55 GMT -4
I am interested in the actual claims.
My basic points so far...
- it wasn't difficult to send men to the Moon back in the 1960's.
Wildly incorrect. It took on the order of a million man-years of work.
- it seems to be much more difficult to do now, by comparison.
- this seems very odd to the casual observer.
Certainly, if "casual" means "not bothering to learn anything about the topic". Apollo was an intensive, heavily-funded program which had enormous public support in the most important phases. Constellation is designed to be a long-term, open-ended effort with a considerably lower funding rate, and includes interoperability with the existing ISS.
NASA is spending big bucks on VA Belt radiation studies, to be concluded by 2010 or 2011. The VA Belts are more hazardous than they were known to be during Apollo.
I'd appreciate a specific citation. This is not a challenge; I'm simply curious what you read.
But, to a certain extent, it's beside the point. The Van Allen belts are no more an impediment to a lunar mission now than they were during Apollo. That is, they are a hazard, but one that is mitigated by the trajectory design and shielding during the brief transit of the belts.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Mar 30, 2008 23:55:34 GMT -4
Bad weather can be hazardous - it can kill. We are still studying the weather. Does this mean that our previous knowledge of the weather was not adequate for a safe trip outside?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2008 2:45:31 GMT -4
Now here's where your believability starts to plummet: Mar 29, 2008, 6:43am, turbonium wrote: The others realized the remarkable insight shown by their fellow "smiley", and joined in the accusation that I was "lying" after "being caught".The exact quote was this from Waspie Dwarf: "You will have to be very careful in future Turbonium. You have effectively admitted to lying. How do you expect anyone to take anything you say on any subject seriously from now on?
If you are going to make up material to be tongue in cheek then I would suggest that you point it out at the time or at least use smilies. Waiting until after your argument has been taken apart point by point and then saying "I was only joking" comes across as a school playground tactic."How is this supposed to make my point invalid? The claims about how I was "lying" after "being caught" were posted in the months that followed the above quote. And here is where your believability crashes and burns: Mar 29, 2008, 6:43am, turbonium wrote: The others realized the remarkable insight shown by their fellow "smiley", and joined in the accusation that I was "lying" after "being caught".There were only two more direct responses about your "tongue-in-cheek" remark, and both were from MID. Neither of them are accusatory in any way. Again, this has no relevance to what I said. The comments about "being caught", etc. were posted after the post above, where I was first accused that I "..have effectively admitted to lying." The rest of this DID NOT HAPPEN: Wrong. The rest of this DID happen. No one "kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over" Wrong. I've cited one example I found in a quick search (below), and I remember it came up on other occasions, as well. No one posted that you "lied "because it was a false statement"". You did not post anything saying "that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive." No one else posted ""No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." " [/b] [/quote] Wrong on all counts. QUOTE (flyingswan @ Oct 24 2007, 03:07 AM) * "Ah, you're joining the "CD because it looks like a CD and CD because it doesn't look like a CD" camp now.
The whole "inside job" argument is that you cannot achieve the observed collapse without carefully placed charges. Now you say that randomly placed explosives to roughly simulate an aircraft impact will do the job. If this is so, why do you need explosives at all, or are you now taking the "no planes" stance?
Or is this another of your notorious "jokes" that you only admit were jokes when queried about them?"The same person previously accused me of lying... QUOTE(flyingswan @ Sep 30 2007, 08:19 AM) * "Just a little bit of logic: just because someone has lied does not mean that everything they say is a lie. Turbonium himself lied some time ago on this forum, ascribing a quote to NASA that he made up himself, but we do not automatically deny all his claims because of that. Instead, we examine them on the evidence."This was my reply... Come on, flyingswan. I thought I had long since clarified my intentions regarding this issue. Obviously, I was mistaken.
I assume you're referring to this comment, which I posted back in May....
NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.
It was intended as nothing more than a facetious, tongue-in-cheek remark. I really didn't think it could be taken in any other way. But as MID pointed out... "Maybe a linked-image or a linked-image might have made your intent clear...?"
I understood MID's contention with my remark - not everyone will "get it" when I make an off-hand, facetious remark (no matter how obvious it may appear to me), without adding a winking/laughing emoticon. So be it - I'm fine with that. And knowing that, it should help me to avoid a similar problem from arising in the future.
But your contention is totally off-base - I was not lying. These are basic definitions of "lie"...
lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Notice the key phrases above - "deliberately presented as being true"... "meant to deceive"
I was not trying to deceive the reader(s) into thinking that my comment was a factual statement.
(Out of curiousity, did you even consider what potential motive there would be for me to lie? How could it possibly benefit my argument, if people were fooled into thinking that NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you"?!? It's ludicrous.)
I didn't want to go off-topic here, but after being accused of lying, I felt it was necessary for me to set the record straight.
'Nuff said...www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=1916432The reply... QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 3 2007, 04:15 AM) * lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. As with your dictionary, as I've bolded in the quote, mine also gives definitions of "lie" which do not include an intent to deceive: "anything misleading" and "to give a false impression". Your invented quote certainly misled me at the time, which is why I asked you for the source. I might also point out, without being personal, that it is a common conspiracy theorist tactic to call any apparent contradiction in an official document a lie, regardless of intent.www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113834&view=findpost&p=1916838Not a word about it for months, until this. As I said to the poster, I thought I had long since clarified my intentions regarding this issue. Indeed, I had also PM'ed (or possibly posted) Waspie the same basic explanation and definition of "lie", in light of the post where I had first been accused of lying. czero - don't go off crowing that you know what "DID NOT HAPPEN" when you do NOT. I was involved with this issue, from start to finish. You were not.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2008 3:22:00 GMT -4
Let's try this one. Turbonium, what would convince you that you're wrong?
I'll go first. An explanation. About all of it. That would convince experts in all relevant fields.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 1, 2008 3:23:20 GMT -4
Are you finished with the pointless he-said-she-said yet? It hardly says anything about the veracity or otherwise of Apollo, and as has been pointed out to you several times many of us don't care about what happened on another forum. I am not my fellow debunkers' keeper, nor is anybody else. Are you here to debate Apollo or not?
For example, are you prepared to respond to some of the rebuttal from the last few pages addressing actual hoax accusations you have made, like radiation research or fuel requirements on return to Earth?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2008 3:44:16 GMT -4
No retraction necessary. You were "caught" in the sense that once someone asked for the source of that quote, you had to admit to fabricating it. Why is this so hard for you to understand? A guest on Letterman makes up a joke about what Cheney said to Bush. Someone in the audience doesn't understand that it was meant as a joke, and thinks it's an actual quote. So he yells out to the guest "Hey! Cheney never said that!", or "Are you sure he said that? Where'd you hear him say that?" The guest replies that it was just a joke. The guest wasn't "caught" by the guy in the audience. There was nothing to be "caught" at! The guest didn't "have to admit" he made up the quote. He had assumed the audience would recognize that he was joking, and had made up the quote for that very reason. The guest had to explain to the guy that he made up the quote to fashion a joke. As Czero 101 has posted, your account of the subsequent happenings on UM was way off the mark, and there is still no sign of the person you claim was making false accusations against you. Your credibility is not helped by the way you are trying to wriggle out of this. I've gone over this in my last post.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 1, 2008 3:51:10 GMT -4
How is this supposed to make my point invalid? What it goes to show, Turbs, is that you can't even keep your own story straight: The claims about how I was "lying" after "being caught" were posted in the months that followed the above quote. But that's not what you originally claimed, Turbs: It all began with my post ... So, the "smiley" group challenged me on my comment about NASA coining the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you!" "I've never heard that. Who said it?", I was asked. I replied that I had said it. That it was intended as a joke. "No, you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!", declared one of the brighter members of the group. The others realized the remarkable insight shown by their fellow "smiley", and joined in the accusation that I was "lying" after "being caught". Since it was impossible to explain concepts such as humor to them, I tried a different approach. I asked them "Why would I lie? For what purpose? What possible reason? They were stumped, as one would expect. So they just kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over. Finally, one of them said I lied "because it was a false statement". I explained that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive. The "smiley" replied - "No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." (Which means that actors, authors, etc. are habitual liars, I suppose...) Anyway, that was how it all ended, sort of...Then you said this: Months later, a couple of "smileys" briefly noted how I had "lied". I wasn't surprised by that, and knew it was futile to try and explain something beyond their ability to grasp. So at first, you make it sound as if it all happened all at the same time, and then at some point later, someone else brought it up again, whereas in reality - you know... that place that you don't live in? - all of TWO or maybe THREE people questioned your statement in all of what? 3 or 4 posts? And then it ended, as I stated, without any of the fanfare you've mentioned, but with a typical topic change to yet another subject you know practically nothing about - the VLT and interferometry. Now you're once again shifting the goal posts, but in a weird plot twist, its YOUR OWN goal posts you are shifting on YOURSELF but re-writing again how it happened. Yes, MONTHS LATER it was brought up again... but the things you ascribe to having happened when your lie was initially pointed out DID NOT HAPPEN until that later time. Its quite unbelievable how you twist things around to suit your own ridiculous world-view or whatever warped version of reality you happen to exist in. The comments about "being caught", etc. were posted after the post above, where I was first accused that I "..have effectively admitted to lying." Yes, but in your original post here, you've twisted the timeline all around to make it suit your peculiar desire to be seen as the "poor, persecuted truth seeker" when in reality, you're nothing but a common hoax believer on some Quixotic quest to "bring down the Man"... Waspie's point is STILL valid because it clearly reflects what happened: And you did effectively admit to lying. Maybe you chose more neutral sounding words, but the net result of this: ... IS THAT YOU LIED and you ADMITTED TO IT. And the rest of Waspie's quote: ... stands as an exact description of what you did. You posted your "story". It was completely refuted, as with almost everything you come up with. Then you come up with "Oh well, never mind, I just made it up anyway" which, as Waspie pointed out, was a very childish response. Turbs - quit trying to make yourself out to be something you're obviously not. I and the others are not as gullible as you or as you would like us to be about you and your intentions. I read through the entire thread at UM before I started contributing last December. I've seen you twist and turn and change your stories, quibble incessantly for pages and pages over inconsequential minutia that only YOU see as some sort of proof of a cover up. I've watched you quickly drop a subject time and time again when yout "quest du jour" gets picked apart for the tripe that it is (how's that Trieste discussion going btw?? ). I've watched you bring up the same tired old arguments time and time again. I've participated in attempting to explain things to you, only to have to re-explain them again and again because you REFUSE to LEARN anything about the subject you fail miserably at discussing. All you're doing here is trying to re-write history, which if you think about it - and we know that that is not one of your strong points - its really quite a stupid thing to do when the truth of the matter is out there, plainly, for everyone to see. Perhaps you should take your own advice from now on with regards to your hack theories and misguided opinions about Apollo and the Moon landings: don't go off crowing that you know what "DID NOT HAPPEN" when you do NOT. Cz
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2008 3:58:59 GMT -4
Are you finished with the pointless he-said-she-said yet? It hardly says anything about the veracity or otherwise of Apollo, and as has been pointed out to you several times many of us don't care about what happened on another forum. I am not my fellow debunkers' keeper, nor is anybody else. Are you here to debate Apollo or not? For example, are you prepared to respond to some of the rebuttal from the last few pages addressing actual hoax accusations you have made, like radiation research or fuel requirements on return to Earth? I never brought it up to begin with! After all these months away, I can see that nothing has changed here.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 1, 2008 4:13:01 GMT -4
After all these months away, I can see that nothing has changed here. You're right: - You still can't or won't answer even half the questions that are asked of you
- You still can't or won't provide any proof of your wild theories and imaginings much beyond "I don't think that's right so it can't be" or "it looks odd to me so it must be a conspiracy"
- You still have not taken the time to gain any actual knowledge of the facts that you attempt to dispute with your "opinions"
- You still don't have even the most basic understanding of photography, lighting, astronomy, ... actually, the list of things you don't understand is seemingly endless
So, yeah... same ol' same ol' in the Turbs department... Cz
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 1, 2008 4:14:51 GMT -4
welcome bach, turbo. where were you?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 1, 2008 6:06:15 GMT -4
I never brought it up to begin with! They were responses to direct quotes from you. Are you denying that you said the things people have been rebutting here? Do you no longer believe they are valid objections? After all these months away, I can see that nothing has changed here. If by that you mean that people are going to make note of what you have said and ask you to justify it, then no, I guess not.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 1, 2008 7:28:44 GMT -4
Guy's, don't feed the trolls!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 1, 2008 8:10:09 GMT -4
Right, let's call a halt to this pointless diversion and see if turbonium would be good enough to deal with any substantial points about Apollo? No? Thought not.
Turbonium, have you grasped the difference between 'beyond LEO' and 'long duration' yet? Have you completed your research on radiation in space, as you claimed you were doing on a whole thread dedicated to the subject? Have you, in fact, got any alternative explanation for the Apollo evidence than the one from NASA? Anything at all that can substantiate your claim it was all faked? Anything?
|
|