|
Post by AtomicDog on Apr 1, 2008 8:26:24 GMT -4
Turbonium, my posts #77 and #79 still await a reply from you.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 1, 2008 9:43:55 GMT -4
After all these months away, I can see that nothing has changed here.
Hogwash. Both I and Sts60 addressed the content of your posts that you reproduced here, and you have ignored that entirely to focus instead on personal recriminations. You have clearly chosen by your attention which subjects you prefer to debate. Kindly do not attempt to make it seem like that's someone else's fault. Legitimate debate was offered to you, and you ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 1, 2008 9:46:22 GMT -4
welcome bach, turbo. where were you? Evidently off composing a lengthy post. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, when turbonium has a chance, as I mentioned here I'd also like to see his citation for this statement: 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.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 1, 2008 9:55:43 GMT -4
Enough with the personal conflicts that have spread here from another forum. They are nothing but a diversion... let's discuss the hoax theory.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Apr 1, 2008 10:08:00 GMT -4
Amen to that.
On rereading my last post, I can see that perhaps my impression of turbonium's statement was in error - I thought he was claiming that he had not made the Apollo-related points that were being rebutted in this forum, and using that as explanation of his lack of response. I can now see he was probably still focused on the other issue.
Which is a pity, turbonium, as points you have raised here, such as the "inconsistent movement" of the astronauts have been specifically addressed, with no response from you. Do you have anything to say on that issue, or the other rebuttal to relevant points you have made?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 1, 2008 11:51:27 GMT -4
After all these months away, I can see that nothing has changed here.Hogwash. Both I and Sts60 addressed the content of your posts that you reproduced here ... But Jay and Sts60 have always addressed the contents of the posts with professionalism and meticulous detail. So in that regard Turbonium is correct; nothing has changed. Nor has Turbonium’s persistent stalling and evasion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 1, 2008 12:57:18 GMT -4
I wrote and abandoned a post very similar to Sts60's #92 in this thread. I too am interested in the allegations he addresses there, but I abandoned my response because it was not clear that Turbonium was interested in them, or even that he had made them.
He seemed to use them as a frame for his claim that he had been misrepresented elsewhere; and the argument along those lines seemed to go, "Look at these absurd statements that were made in that thread; that should have tipped you off to the possibility I was joking in it." Hence addressing claims whose admitted absurdity was the premise of some other argument seemed irrelevant at best and mean-spirited at worst.
I have no interest in claims or counterclaims of Turbonium having been misrepresented at some other forum in which I don't participate. I am interested, however, in misrepresentations made here. As a matter of fact Turbonium has been given plenty of opportunity here to discuss things unrelated to his alleged misbehavior at Unexplained Mysteries, including prompt responses to points he raised here and asked for comments upon here. It is evidently his choice to perpetuate those other irrelevant discussions instead, and therefore disingenuous of him to allege ad hominism and lay blame for it strictly at the feet of our regular posters.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 1, 2008 13:56:03 GMT -4
If turbonium does not really hold to the claims quoted in post 92, he is welcome to state so clearly. If he does, then I am interested in discussing them (including his citation for the Van Allen belt claim).
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 1, 2008 14:48:13 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. Perhaps you could in future give us some indication as to which of your posts are supposed to be part of a comedy routine and which are not, as I for one find it very difficult to judge from the content. In any case, you made a statement that was untrue, without it being obviously a joke at the time, and you did not admit it was a joke until it was questioned. As has Czero 101 is his subsequent one. I still see no sign of anyone getting "caught" falsely accusing you, as you claimed on this forum, so whatever your credibility record on UM, you are getting a poor one here. As LO has requested that we cease this discussion, this will be my last post on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 1, 2008 15:17:37 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. Gillianren, do you get the feeling that turbonium is ignoring you? I don't think he has responded to any of your posts on this thread yet.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 1, 2008 15:31:26 GMT -4
He has, but not in any substantive way. Then again, he's never answered either of the questions I'm asking in any substantive way. However, there's no point in discussing anything with him until he does. Until we can establish the baseline of what will convince him and receive an explanation from him of how something, anything was faked, we can't discuss anything except where he thinks things have gone wrong, which will be the same points ad nauseum.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 1, 2008 20:29:01 GMT -4
It's extremely ironic that turbonium - who has spent a substantial amount of time over the years impunging the integrity of thousands of engineers, scientists, astronauts, aerospace workers and other public servants - gets irate when someone has the gall to question his integrity and motivations.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 1, 2008 20:31:02 GMT -4
Nothing will convince Turbo because he is not interested in truth, just sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 1, 2008 20:48:20 GMT -4
If he does [hold to the quotes in post #92], then I am interested in discussing them (including his citation for the Van Allen belt claim).
Same here. As I said, I was briefly interested in discussing them even if Turbonium didn't hold to them, simply because I hate to see ignorance like that go unchallenged even if it's not intended sincerely. I would much rather discuss those technical points than endure his incessant complaints about how badly he believes he's being treated.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 3, 2008 3:14:41 GMT -4
Waspie's point is STILL valid because it clearly reflects what happened: "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?"And you did effectively admit to lying. Maybe you chose more neutral sounding words, but the net result of this: "Sure, I have a source for it - ME!
I made it up in jest."... IS THAT YOU LIED and you ADMITTED TO IT. Stop the BS already. I explained that.. "I made it up IN JEST." Did you even read my analogy - the guest on Letterman telling a joke, which was misconstrued by the audience member? Or did you just ignore it? Was the guest "lying"? Did he "admit to lying"? I'm waiting for your answer.... And the rest of Waspie's quote: "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."... 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. I said it was meant as a joke, which is the absolute truth. The responses I got to that truth had a few moments of childishness, however. 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. You've really got some gall trying to tell me what my "intentions" are, bud!! You falsely accuse me of lying, completely ignoring the explanation I gave you with the analogy. I could go on, but I'll wait for your reply about the analogy first. Then we'll see who really has another agenda here.
|
|