|
Post by gwiz on Nov 17, 2005 14:10:29 GMT -4
Um, the name of this site is Apollohoax. This section of the board asks members to advance their claim to support the hoax theory. As soon as someone does just that they are classified as a troll. That's kind of odd, really. I advised you I was bringing new arguments to the hoax theory. I have done this. Just because my claims make mondo sense doesn't deem me to be a troll. Posting messages before the thread is even ready is what I consider to be a troll. Spamming every section asking people to be banned without addressing the issues raised in the thread is trolling. If you would prefer I leave the board just say so..? Suggest you check the forum rules for the definition of trolling.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2005 14:21:32 GMT -4
As soon as someone does just that they are classified as a troll.
No. You're very determined to make it seem like you are being taken to task for your beliefs, but just as at BAUT you are being taken to task for your inability to participate in a discussion about your beliefs. You are a troll because of how you discuss, not what you discuss.
There are other posters here who manage to maintain disagreement with me and others here without being banned and without delving into all this metadiscussion. They have been here for months. So you cannot use the argument that we routinely ban people simply for their opinions. There are too many counter examples. You are going to have to face the fact that you get banned at these places because of your demeanor.
Just because my claims make mondo sense doesn't deem me to be a troll.
Two separate issues.
Your claims make no sense because they are based on extreme ignorance. Lengthy discussion has shown that you are either unwilling or unable to be educated on the sciences that apply to your arguments. They are also based on your inability or unwillingness to discover the objective facts yourself.
Your posts cross the line into trolling because you abandon various discussions to start new ones. You cannot follow a line of reasoning and you respond chiefly either to reiterate your original claims (ignoring what other people have said), or to respond to rebuttals simply with disbelief.
Posting messages before the thread is even ready is what I consider to be a troll.
If you don't want people to respond to partial arguments, don't post partial arguments. You told us you had proof that the moon landings were faked. But now you're asking us for patience while you go out and look for it. How daft is that?
Spamming every section asking people to be banned without addressing the issues raised in the thread is trolling.
But we have dealt with your issues -- at length, on two separate message boards. You simply either refuse to consider those rebuttals, or are not equipped to do so. Either way, why is your continued knee-jerk denial of basic scientific knowledge somehow contributing to any kind of discussion?
If you would prefer I leave the board just say so..?
Nobody's forcing you to stay, and no one is (as yet) forcing you to leave. But while you're here you have a responsibility to defend the points you bring up, and to do that with something more substantial than denial and disbelief. If you don't want to defend a dozen points simultaneously, don't bring up a dozen points simultaneously.
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Nov 17, 2005 14:23:22 GMT -4
If you would prefer I leave the board just say so..? Another typical suggestion from a HB whose getting frustrated with being shown he is wrong over and over again... I believe I heard the same from another departed HB, Margamatrix.
|
|
|
Post by ShowCon on Nov 17, 2005 14:25:53 GMT -4
Ok, I'm tired of waiting until homeboy gets his act together.
Re: the SCUBA tank analogy:
Comparing the PLSS to a SCUBA tank is apples/oranges. A SCUBA tank provides the entire volume of breathing air for a diver. The ~1/2 ft^3 of air per minute that a person uses is exhausted to the water, even though the the oxygen in that air isn't depleted. A person only uses about 10% of the oxygen in an average breath. That leaves a lot of breathable air being lost.
The PLSS doesn't work that way. It doesn't exhaust the air used by the astronaut. The PLSS chemically scrubs out the CO2 in the breathed air and replaces it with more oxygen. The amount of oxygen added is very small, so a large store of oxygen is not necessary.
A more appropriate analogy would be a closed-circuit rebreather. There are closed-circuit systems available for divers that work much like a PLSS and can support a diver for up to 12 hours underwater.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 17, 2005 14:35:42 GMT -4
Jay, could you kindly reframe from posting your replies until the thread is complete..?
We set up rules for the debate prior to beginning. I would expect the rules to apply to everyone, including you. I have informed the admin prior to beginning the debate that my computer is messed up and that I would have to post edit and add links as I draft my submission, with the view that people would not reply until I was finished. I do not expect an ABer (Apollo Believer) to accept my theories, however, feeding me info in responses prior to my claim even being completed is only helping me draft my claim and not harming me.
If an old issue is raised an ABer will say it's been dealt with a thousand times. If a new issue is raised the member is a troll. I'm trying to understand you Abers but struggle with it.
You made a statement that you think I am a troll. I do not wish to waste anymore time here if you intend on banning in the future for my beliefs. Lets deal with this issue right now please. Are you going to ban me because I am raise new issues, or because I don't accept an ABers theory on any given matter..?
I am not a scientist, not many people are. If you and others can disprove my claims then feel free to do so when my submission is complete. By you posting now will only encourage others to do likewise. As for your claim that I must understand every single detail of every single issue before posting, I will say that this isn't possible. I'm not a scientist after all. I doubt many could explain how a TV or a phone really works and they use it everyday. Should this fact bar them from posting on a board which asks for theories on the topic..?
I don't think so...
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 17, 2005 15:11:45 GMT -4
Um, the name of this site is Apollohoax. This section of the board asks members to advance their claim to support the hoax theory. As soon as someone does just that they are classified as a troll. That's kind of odd, really. I advised you I was bringing new arguments to the hoax theory. I have done this. Just because my claims make mondo sense doesn't deem me to be a troll. Posting messages before the thread is even ready is what I consider to be a troll. Spamming every section asking people to be banned without addressing the issues raised in the thread is trolling. If you would prefer I leave the board just say so..? MM, you may have brought new ideas about a hoax (or at least one I had not seen before), but they've been shown to incorrect repeatedly...but that's not why you're a troll... The fact that you either choose to ignore these explanations (which frequently have included links to more authoritative sources, often original Apollo documents), can't fathom them, or just don't want to believe them, is not our fault...and that's not why you're a troll, either...You've been labeled a troll because you keep posting the same debunked opinions as if they were fact, no matter how many times your "evidence" has been sliced, diced, and jullianed. It's as simple as that MM.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 17, 2005 15:16:59 GMT -4
I do not wish to waste anymore time here if you intend on banning in the future for my beliefs.
First of all, as has already been explained to you, LunarOrbit is the board administrator. Jay can't ban you even if he wanted to.
Second of all, as has already been explained to you, no one is contemplating banning you for your beliefs. The problem is that you just aren't learning anything, no matter how many times we explain it to you, give examples, etc. You ignore corrections of the most elementary facts. But I still don't think you should be banned, myself. At least you're responding, even if not acknowledging your errors.
I advised you I was bringing new arguments to the hoax theory. I have done this.
I agree; you have made some new HB claims. Wrong ones, but new, at least as far as I am aware.
Just because my claims make mondo sense doesn't deem me to be a troll.
Your posts are riddled with errors, and some of them don't make any sense at all to anyone with at least a grade-school physics education. But that doesn't make you a troll either.
Posting messages before the thread is even ready is what I consider to be a troll.
I don't recall general consensus that you we should wait while you tortuously edit your post, instead of getting ready in a simple text editor first, but what the heck; I for one will wait until you say your done with your OP (original post) in this thread.
By the way - Jay, gwiz, what I meant was that the visible zipper didn't itself contain the pressure. I'll let my poorly-worded post stand as is.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 17, 2005 15:19:32 GMT -4
Jay, could you kindly reframe from posting your replies until the thread is complete..?
Please kindly refrain from posting your arguments before they are complete.
You left blank certain things that I expected you would fill in later. But on other points like zippers and walkback limits, I see nothing there that would benefit from further refinement. Your arguments on those points are wrong now, and aren't likely to be any less wrong in the future. You simply don't know what you're talking about. How is that likely to improve?
I do not expect an ABer (Apollo Believer) to accept my theories...
You said you had proof. Now you're claiming you only have "theories". Which is it?
What good is a theory that's based on wholesale ignorance of the problem and of the underlying physical principles?
You're right: based on what you've posted so far, I don't think you have any right to expect any belief for your theories. So then we have to ask the question: how do you expect us to respond?
You're talking to people who, in some case, do this kind of engineering for a living. You're like someone who has never been to a dentist or never studied dentistry, and you're now standing behind a dentist trying to tell him everything he's doing wrong while he's working on a patient.
Let's be clear: you're issuing allegations of fact that are based solely on your disbelief of a topic you admit you don't know much about. Can you explain why your feet should not be held to the fire by those who disagree with your findings and having the knowledge to do so?
I'm trying to understand you Abers but struggle with it.
I'll make it very simple. We know what we're talking about because we've spent years studying it and even more years practicing it professionally (some of us). You're struggling with the basics, yet telling us that you're right and we're wrong. And when we tell you at great length how and why you're wrong, you ignore it.
Are you going to ban me because I am raise new issues, or because I don't accept an ABers theory on any given matter..?
Neither.
First, I don't have the authority to ban anyone. LunarOrbit even has the authority ban me, and if he objects to what I'm doing or saying in this thread, then he will say so and I will have to obey his wishes or else be banned myself.
Second, you are very[/] determined to be banned for ideological reasons. You came here from BAUT telling us you had been banned "for no reason." Obviously you didn't realize that most people who read here also read BAUT and know exactly why you were banned there. So that establishes that you go from place to place complaining about being banned because of "what you believe," not for your inability to articulate your proofs. Why should we believe that you're not trying to be banned here "for your beliefs" so that you can go to the next place and claim that we "unfairly" banned you.
You're clearly bent on being banned here "for your beliefs" regardless of what the real reason might be.
You won't be banned here for raising new issues. Frankly, we're all a little tired of the same old arguments. But if you raise an issue -- new or old -- and then largely ignore the followup discussion, that's grounds for banning. If you raise and issue -- new or old -- and the rebuttal to it is that your claim is based on a wrong understanding of science or unawareness of some aspect of Apollo, then you'll have to realize that it's an effective rebuttal. You can't keep harping on your disbelief or your misunderstanding or your ignorance. You have to consider the possibility that your argument is wrong to the very core in a qualitative way and isn't going to be affected by tweaking some number here or there.
You aren't going to be banned for failing to accept some person's "theory" -- although much of what you're trying to deny as mere theory has been practiced for hundreds of years and is the basis of untold billions of dollars' worth of engineering. But simply disbelieving or denying what people propose isn't effective. If you, for example, propose some discrepancy in Apollo that is really just your error based on a wrong understanding of, say, thermodynamics, then you can't simply handwavingly dismiss a correction from thermodynamics and expect to be taken seriously.
I am not a scientist, not many people are.
Then don't you think it's quite presumptuous of you to say you have scientific proof that the moon landings are fake? There's nothing "magical" about being a scientist or an engineer. It's simply polite to actually have the appropriate knowledge before claiming to speak authoritatively.
If you and others can disprove my claims then feel free to do so when my submission is complete.
It doesn't have to be complete in this case to tell that you're entirely wrong. I don't have to wait for the turd to hit the ground before I know it's going to smell.
As for your claim that I must understand every single detail of every single issue before posting, I will say that this isn't possible.
But you don't even understand the basics. Someone who is trying to argue about the thermal properties of a space suit may not know the exact optical properties of the material or the precise formulas for computing heat loading, or how those methods are applied in the real world. But he does have to know the basic principles of thermodynamics. If he doesn't he won't understand why his argument makes no sense. And that's the worst possible position to be in: not knowing how wrong you can possibly be.
I doubt many could explain how a TV or a phone really works and they use it everyday. Should this fact bar them from posting on a board which asks for theories on the topic..?
But most people are smart enough not to try to argue that TVs or telephones are impossible. If you don't know how something works, don't go trying to draw assertive conclusions on whether it's possible. You're here telling us that Apollo was bogus or impossible or otherwise faked. And then in the same breath you tell us you really don't know how it works.
We do know how it works, and lots of people both here and elsewhere tried to tell you. But you're stubborn in your disbelief. If I walk up to an electrical engineer and insist that televisions don't work, and he patiently explains how it works and gives me references to all kinds of material that I can study by myself, but then I simply insist that it's still impossible after all that, how much patience do I have a right to expect?
Let's be blunt -- you came here with your mind made up, but you're talking to people who know pretty much for a fact that none of your cobbled-up arguments holds any air. You're trying to paste a pseudo-technical argument on something you believe for entirely non-intellectual reasons.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 17, 2005 15:22:33 GMT -4
How is it possible to have contained so much air in such a small backpack when a 3000 lb scuba diver tank only provides one hour of oxygen..? I think you’ve gotten your units mixed up. Scuba tanks are often pressurized to 3,000 PSI, they don’t weight 3,000 lb. And if air was escaping them radaition was entering the suit. First, what radiation? Second, the higher internal pressure of the suit prevents anything from entering. This is a technique often used to protect the atmosphere of one area from that of another. For instance, an occupied area may need to be protected from the possible infiltration of noxious gases from an adjoining area. Maintaining a positive pressure on the occupied area assures the air flow is always outward, thus nothing will enter.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 17, 2005 15:41:01 GMT -4
Moon Man, if people see the flaws in your argument early on then they may be saving you a lot of unnecessary effort by pointing them out right away. Why spend a lot of time "researching" and writing your arguments if it can be resolved quickly?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 17, 2005 15:46:09 GMT -4
How is it possible to have contained so much air in such a small backpack when a 3000 lb scuba diver tank only provides one hour of oxygen..? A scuba tank supplies AIR, which is only 21% oxygen, at greater than atmospheric pressure. The PLSS (portable life support system) supplied 100% oxygen at only one-quarter atmospheric pressure. Do the math, you have 5 times the concentration at less than 1/4 the pressure. So what’s the problem? In one spot NASA claims the backpack provides 540 minutes of air. In another spot they claim it's 7 to 8 hours of air. And yet in another spot they claim the backpack oxygen supply was limited. To my knowledge, the operational lifetime of the PLSS was 8 hours. It is also unexplained how the suits were pressurized in the lunar lander. According to this page, “Oxygen cylinders in the PLSSs were charged from the descent stage high pressure oxygen supply in a two step process. First, a charge that filled the PLSS O2 cylinders to about 90% capacity was performed. After a few minutes (to allow the cylinders to cool), the O2 supply was "topped off" to about 95% to 98%.”
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 17, 2005 16:14:45 GMT -4
I guess rules just don't apply to ABers. My submission is not complete, Bob. I'm jotting thoughts and then going to confirm and edit my message. Once it's complete it will not contain some of the things that appear in it now, so you're responses will apply to NOTHING in some cases at the end of the day.
Jay, I already mentioned, maybe three times now, that I have to do my drafting and editing on here. I cannot do it in word or elsewhere because my computer has a bug. You apparently assume to know what I'm going to argue so you answer now claiming nothing I say will change.
Also, just because NASA posts a links claiming this is how it happened doesn't make it true. If a HBer claims they hoaxed the landing then clearly they would've hoaxed the info to make it all fit the alleged plot. I have already posted some contradicting NASA facts. Our we to believe that even NASA cannot get their story straight..?
You believe it's not cold in space. I don't buy this theory. Neither do a few others who work in the enginerring industry or whatever. So in other words, you're right because you say so and everyone else is clueless. You're right because 10-20 other members agree with you and anyone who opposes you is a troll. That's how debates goes, Jay, you have differing opinions on different matters. How can two expert witness in a court case have different scientific views on a single matter..? Is the losing expert no longer considered an expert..?
No, he isn't.
I can post an American scientist's statement that claims man cannot get through the Van Allen Belt. If I post it and no one on here is a scientist then I can this person is correct and all of you are wrong and not qualified to refute it.
In any event, this thread is damn near ruined and it hasn't even begun yet. If the basic rules of this debate are not going to be inforced I really don't see the need to follow them myself and there is is really not much point in continuing. Some of you ABers aren't looking for the truth; you're just looking for more support of your theory. On the other hand, I'm not here trying to convince you I'm right, I'm trying to point out to you some things that just don't make sense or add up, thus, proving you've been own3d by NASA.
America went from nothing to landing on the moon in 7 years with low level technology available at the time. You went from nothing to creating the shuttle in 8 years or less with mid level technology at the time. Now, with highest level of technology ever available it's going to take NASA 12-15 years to land on the moon when you already allegedly did it 6 times.
It's not believable, folks.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 17, 2005 16:20:01 GMT -4
You are such a moron. You think that people don't cast shadows on sunny days. What kind of an idiot thinks that??
With that kind of stupidity showing, you really have no place questioning anyone with a high-shool education or better.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Nov 17, 2005 16:23:09 GMT -4
Moon Man, I suggest you to open a new topic once you actually finished your 'opening post'.
I can post here a claim by sir Van Allen himself the astronauts could get through the Van Allen belts.
Why do you still not believe it can't be cold in space?
Space is made out of vacuum. Vacuum does not have any molecules/atoms. In order to get a temperature in about anything, you'll need moving molecules/atoms.
NASA didn't go from nowhere to the moon in 8 years. You need to stop being so close-minded and learn about science. In general.
Though I have to agree I haven't laughed as hard for months when you posted you thought a bright day wouldn't have shadows.
You, mister Moon Man, will not be ready to debate about the Moon Hoax in a long time. I say let it rest, learn more (also by asking here), then come back with some actual "new proof".
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 17, 2005 16:28:21 GMT -4
You can say this, but you sould be wrong. It is in fact, a well know fallacy called argument from authority. The fact that he is a scientist may make his claim more credible, at first glance, but if he is wrong he is wrong, it doesn't matter how many degrees he has.
|
|