I'm jotting thoughts and then going to confirm and edit my message.Your computer may be broken, but I'm sure you can find pencil and paper that are not. You're the only one who proposes to use a discussion forum as a personal notepad. No one else is compelled to work on draft materials in full view of the public.
You apparently assume to know what I'm going to argue so you answer now claiming nothing I say will change.No, I'm saying that you'll have to change
everything in your argument above in order to make it make sense. Your line of reasoning is broken from the start. That's not something that can be fixed with decorations or minor revisions. If you want to withdraw your comments above altogether and come back with a new argument, I will certainly examine it.
Also, just because NASA posts a links claiming this is how it happened doesn't make it true.That's not the rebuttal. Many hoax theorists don't know what NASA's claims are. The theories either make up stuff that NASA never claimed, or get NASA's claims wrong. In debate this is known as a "straw man". The rebuttal in that case is to identify what, in contrast, NASA's claims really are. It is not necessarily to assert that they are correct. If you want to dispute someone's claim, you first have to agree on what the claim
is. Then you can begin to discuss whether the claim is true.
You tell me that NASA's space suits have zippers that won't hold pressure. Well, that's not NASA's claim. NASA's space suits have a robust assembly that
includes a zipper, but does not rely on the zipper for its gas-tight connection. Before we discuss whether NASA's space suit design is effective, we have to agree on what the design
is. NASA (and ILC and Hamilton Standard, the contractors who actually built them) is the only authority on what the design really is. Hence you have to consult them to make sure you understood their claim.
If a HBer claims they hoaxed the landing then clearly they would've hoaxed the info to make it all fit the alleged plot.But that's the problem. You can't hoax something forever in great detail without qualified people catching you. If what you're doing is fundamentally false, you can't make it seem true forever. But NASA published (at the time) and has subsequently published gargantuan amounts of highly-detailed information about how the moon landings were accomplished. Qualified scientists and engineers can -- and voraciously
do -- examine that material and trace NASA's steps.
If NASA can produce a cover story that convinces the world's most eminent experts on space flight, then there isn't much left to support the argument that NASA wasn't able to do it. If they figured it all out in order to make an airtight cover story, why couldn't they have just gone ahead and done it?
Our we to believe that even NASA cannot get their story straight..?Any sufficiently large body of records or reports will contain errors and contradictions. I go through the NASA press kits all the time and find stuff that was wrong. In fact, when you find a 100% consistent story in a historical record, that's the best evidence that it has been collusively falsified. Only people who are worried about being discovered in crime are that concerned with accuracy.
You believe it's not cold in space. I don't buy this theory.It's not a "theory". It's thermodynamics. It may be a mystery to you, but it's not a mystery to people who paid attention in science class. You seem to think these are just "ideas" and that one can have a legitimately different opinion on them. Not so. These are principles
discovered by which the universe operates. Your inability or unwillingness to believe in thermodynamics does not negate its existence.
A number of people -- myself included -- have tried to explain thermal things to you: principles that have been used literally for hundreds of years to make qualitative predictions and prescriptions for how machines and phenomena behave. You aren't interested. You can't see that thermodynamics is anything except some "notion" than can be set aside at will when it becomes inconvenient to your predetermined conclusions.
It's okay not to realize the full complexity of the universe. It's not okay to pretend the universe isn't any more complex than you can fathom.
Neither do a few others who work in the enginerring industry or whatever.Who? Give their names.
So in other words, you're right because you say so and everyone else is clueless.Well, you
are clueless. What other way is there to say it? Cluelessness can be cured, but not until there is some desire not to be clueless.
I'm right because I am explaining the behavior of the universe as it has been observed to behave by countless others over centuries, and I have verified these principles myself through my own work. I'm not simply paying homage to some Establishment who's trying to rule the world. If what I believe in doesn't work, I starve -- and possibly go to jail.
You're right because 10-20 other members agree with you...No, they agree because they have undertaken similar study and experimentation.
...and anyone who opposes you is a troll.No. You have been told in great detail what makes you a troll, and it has nothing to do with whether you oppose me. Despite all of that, you are
still intent on believing that we routinely ban people who disagree with us. That is what you want to believe, so that's all you will believe.
That's how debates goes, Jay, you have differing opinions on different matters.But the behavior of the universe does not change because you have a different opinion of it. There are certain topics like whether capital punishment is appropriate on which people have various legitimately differing opinions. And there are certain other topics like the laws of gravitation that are observed simply to be a certain way, and having an opinion otherwise doesn't change the outcome. And then there are a few matters such as medical diagnosis that are partly scientific and partly judgmental.
How can two expert witness in a court case have different scientific views on a single matter..?Because they're paid to. Don't drag jury credibility for an expert into this; it's completely irrelevant.
I can post an American scientist's statement that claims man cannot get through the Van Allen Belt.I can post statements from Prof. Van Allen himself, who disagrees with that assessment.
In any event, this thread is d**n near ruined and it hasn't even begun yet.It should never have begun. You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't interested in learning. If you want to post rough drafts, that's your business. But I can tell from what you've posted so far that you aren't equipped to discuss this topic either. You don't have the appropriate facts regarding the space suits, and you don't have the correct knowledge of the physics that apply.
...there is is really not much point in continuing.There is no point in continuing the way you're arguing. That's been my point since you first arrived here. I told you that you wouldn't be successful if you just used the same approach you did at BAUT. The problem is not with your beliefs, but in how you propose to justify them.
You would have more success, perhaps, using a different approach. And several people have warned you to change that approach. But, as usual, you aren't interested.
Some of you ABers aren't looking for the truth; you're just looking for more support of your theory.We are looking
only for the truth. As I said, my work is valuable only if it predicts what actually happens. The universe doesn't change to meet my expectations. I discover its behavior, not dictate it. That's why we obtain the appropriate qualifications and then look at both sides of the issue.
Unlike hoax believers, I'm comfortable changing my viewpoint if the facts show otherwise. People here have seen me do it. But I'm not obliged to change my viewpoint on technical matters in which I am extremely competent simply because you personally disagree. If you want me to change my beliefs, you have to provide a real case.
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.LOL! This is exactly what's wrong with your approach. When you say that things don't "make sense" or "add up," it's because you have compared NASA's claims to your expectations. And if they don't match, you blame NASA. You don't even stop to consider that
your expectations are what's wrong.
You told me you don't need to be a scientist in order to detect NASA's hoaxery. In other words you've conveniently tried to argue that there's no possible way you can be wrong in your expectations. And so you've avoided any meaningful test of your expectations. And when we try to apply that test anyway, you tell us we're being unfair.
You don't even consider the possibility that we believe NASA's story because we actually know what we're talking about, and not just because we're dumb sheep.
America went from nothing to landing on the moon in 7 years with low level technology available at the time.Hogwash. The 1960s are considered the golden age of aerospace.
You went from nothing to creating the shuttle in 8 years or less with mid level technology at the time.Actually with pretty much the same technology, but one-third the budget.
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.This time it's not a race, and this time we're going back to stay. I spent most of yesterday with NASA representatives. They aren't looking just at the moon. They are looking at the manned space exploration framework for the next generation.
Having done it 6 times 30 years ago doesn't mean you can just pick up where you left off after decades of doing something else. Aerospace just doesn't work like that. High technology that's fallow for more than about 5 years is considered effectively lost.
And I don't think you really have a handle on what today's technology really is and how that affects space travel. The launch vehicles we commonly use today are little different than the 1958 designs on which they are based. Sure, we have lots more computing power than in 1969, but you can't compute your way to the moon.
I can't emphasize this enough. You're trying to sound like an expert in a field in which I have worked for more than a decade.
It's not believable, folks.No,
you don't believe it. That's different than it not being "believable". You aren't willing to consider that the only problem here is that you personally don't know how it was done. It's consummately arrogant of you to parade around in your extreme ignorance and claim that your views are the right ones -- or even that they deserve great attention.