|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 9:36:28 GMT -4
If any of the twelve was capable of looking me in the eye and telling me that they had walked on the surface of the Moon, then I would believe it.
To be fair, you were asked what would convince you. So the fact that your proposal is purely subjective can't really be held against you. I'd like to think that I can look into people's eyes and tell when they're lying to me. But I can't. So I rely on more objective, testable criteria.
I understand that they all have far better things to do with their time than to chew the fat with some Margate truck driver...
Well, that's for them to decide. But I daresay you're right; you can't expect them to sit down with each individual and convince him they're not lying. So given that your preferred method of proof is impractical, do you have an attainable standard of proof that you would accept?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 2, 2005 9:39:09 GMT -4
...as here "knock up" means "make pregnant". ;D
Have you ever known anyone to sleep through that?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 9:50:32 GMT -4
True, I suppose that would work too. One wonders how that would be broken out on the itemized hotel bill.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 2, 2005 13:16:03 GMT -4
Yeah, I knew that. It was wrong of me to pick you up on it and I apologise."Pick you up." Not a familiar expression to me, but the meaning is clear from the context. Heh, my wife knew of a lady from England visiting the U.S. She wanted a wake-up call at 6 AM, so she asked the desk clerk if they would "please send someone around to knock me up". The poor desk clerk was somewhat flustered, as here "knock up" means "make pregnant". ;D In another life, I worked as a night porter for a hotel in Austria that catered to British tour groups. Knocking up the customers was part of the job.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 14:36:52 GMT -4
margamatix, if you would accept the whole thing as real based on thirty seconds of handshake, eye contact, and exchange of two sentences with just one of those astronauts - what do you think of the credibility of someone who was fired from his job for lying, and who has regularly lied to those same astronauts in order to set them up for fake "interviews"?
That question is not a "personal" diversion. It goes directly to the credibility of your primary source, whom you have quoted directly and approvingly. Someone who charges money to show you publicly available footage he claims is "exclusive" - and he only shows you short, selective snippets of it. Do you find this source credible?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 15:17:21 GMT -4
That question is not a "personal" diversion. It goes directly to the credibility of your primary source, whom you have quoted directly and approvingly. Someone who charges money to show you publicly available footage he claims is "exclusive" - and he only shows you short, selective snippets of it. Do you find this source credible? But as I have told you, I had stopped believing in the Great Moon Lie before I had ever heard of Bart Sibrel, and I have never even seen the footage to which you refer. And if he is such a liar, fraud and charlatan, why does the administration of this website accept his dollars to advertise www.moonmovie.com in the banner advertising of every single page here? If we put a man on the moon..........
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 2, 2005 15:40:15 GMT -4
And if he is such a liar, fraud and charlatan... There is no "if" about it...it is a proven FACT!!A wicked sense of humor?? Seriously, is that really your argument...that because google advertizes Bart's "movie" on this site that there must be "something" to it?? That could possibily be the weakest "pro-Bart" argument that I've ever heard...and I've heard a lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 2, 2005 15:45:04 GMT -4
I think you have the wrong impression about this forum, and me. I am the admin of the forum but it is hosted by a free service called " Proboards". I have no control over the advertisements, they are chosen automatically based on the content of the forum. Since we discuss the Apollo hoax we get ads for products like Bart Sibrel's movie. None of the money from these ads goes into my pocket, it goes to Proboards. I am not making a single penny from this forum, the ApolloHoax.net site, or my other website (TheSpaceRace.com). In fact all of this is costing me money. I do it because I am interested in the space program and history, and I think both are worth defending from con artists like Bart Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 16:00:41 GMT -4
Ahhh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up (and for providing the site)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 16:18:57 GMT -4
But as I have told you, I had stopped believing in the Great Moon Lie before I had ever heard of Bart Sibrel, and I have never even seen the footage to which you refer.Irrelevant, since (a) you have quoted him directly and approvingly, and (b) since the fact he charges money for "exclusive" footage which is not stands apart from whether you've personally seen it or not. It still goes to his credibility, and your use of him as a source. And if he is such a liar, fraud and charlatan, why does the administration of this website accept his dollars to advertise www.moonmovie.com in the banner advertising of every single page here?Because web site owners who accept* these ads have no control of what shows up. The ads are just picked out of a database (made up of whoever pays Google ads or other ad service) and inserted based on keywords in the text. It has nothing to do with the web site owners' interest in any particular site. Let me make this clear: random advertising appearing on a web page does not imply endorsement by the owner of a web page! Your post slid by addressing the issues I raised. Once again: if you are willing to accept a sincere personal assurance by an astronaut, what do you think of the credibility of a confirmed liar like Sibrel? * added: after reading LO's explanation: "including those who do so to get free web hosting"
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 16:32:02 GMT -4
[Because web site owners who accept* these ads have no control of what shows up. The ads are just picked out of a database (made up of whoever pays Google ads or other ad service) and inserted based on keywords in the text. It has nothing to do with the web site owners' interest in any particular site. Let me make this clear: random advertising appearing on a web page does not imply endorsement by the owner of a web page! You are absolutely right. I held an opinion which was wrong, it was explained to me why I was wrong, I accept the truth of it and so I came around to a different viewpoint. Not for the first time.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 2, 2005 16:52:02 GMT -4
Good on you. Now, let me explain a little bit more about why I am blasting away at Sibrel and asking you about how his confirmed lies affect his credibility. You say you came to believe the hoax thing before you started looking at BS' stuff. Okay. But you have quoted him directly in your claims, and other claims of yours are so close to his they might as well have been quotes. So you are using him as a source, even if not your only source. Now, just because he has repeatedly lied to astronauts, got fired from a job for lying, and is evidently lying about footage and other things, does not necessarily invalidate his claims. His claims have been dealt with (as in shredded) at length in several places: here, Bad Astronomy, Jay's site, Bob's site, and others. But in your posts, you're pretty much only invoking those claims, not developing them in response to our rebuttals. Without further development, that comes down to an argument from personal authority. You have indicated you would entertain a pro-Apollo statement based on the personal integrity (as you judge it) of an individual. Therefore, it's appropriate to ask you about the personal integrity, or lack of it, in your major anti-Apollo source. We've talked to you about his technical incompetence, but you haven't engaged on that. So that's why I'm on this particular kick. (edited just after posting to make more sense)
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 17:11:40 GMT -4
Therefore, it's appropriate to ask you about the personal integrity, or lack of it, in your major anti-Apollo source. He isn't my major anti-Apollo source.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 2, 2005 17:14:21 GMT -4
He shouldn't even be a minor source.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 17:23:21 GMT -4
So do you think that Sibrel believes that the Apollo missions did go to the moon but is pretending to think that they did not?
Or do you think he believes in what he says but is mistaken?
Or what?
And apart from the fact that he holds an opposing view to most of you, is there any reason for the general level of personal opprobrium?
|
|