|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2007 11:45:03 GMT -4
I agree thoroughly that Rocky is in his own little world. And as there are more challenges to that little world, it will keep shrinking to include less and less of the real world, and its boundaries will become more rigid and impermeable. There's a word in psychology for the extremity of that condition: psychosis. Let's hope Rocky gets help before that happens.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 8, 2007 11:51:06 GMT -4
On the other hand it seems to be very rude to say people have psychological problems judged by their behavior on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 8, 2007 12:20:49 GMT -4
You're assuming that this (South Atlantic Anomaly) is true. How can we verify that this isn't bogus data?False. I am not "assuming" the SAA is real. I studied it graduate school, I witnessed some of its effects while working as a satellite flight controller during three separate Shuttle missions. Every space physicist in the world knows it exists. It has been extensively studied by investigators from the United States, Russia, Italy, Ukraine, Brazil, Peru, Japan, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, India, China, Canada, South Africa, France, Argentina, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Chile, the Czech Republic... Shall I go on? The SAA has been studied by hundreds of satellites, sounding rockets, aircraft, and ground-based and balloon-borne instruments by these international investigators for more than four decades. Its effects on operational satellites (civil, military, and commercial), as well as the Shuttle, Salyut, Mir, ISS, and Skylab are extensively documented. Here, just for fun, is a ground station operated by the Brazilians used to collect telemetry from a sounding rocket: You could have learned this yourself, along with extensive program descriptions and plenty of published data to look at, with a few minutes of Googling. But the concept of real research, of actually doing even the slightest bit of work to do anything other than search for scraps to reinforce your ignorance and paranoia, is foreign to you. There have been so many cases of lies by the government that it would be downright naive to just assume this data is real.You have now officially failed the first and fourth outcome clauses of post #46 (appealing to general notions of conspiracy and "they could be lying"). More about that later. What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this.That's the problem. You don't think. You just regurgitate whatever you read from conspiracist web sites, in this case a bit of quote-mining without making any effort whatsoever to understand the context (briefly put, an instrument calibrated for a certain range was saturated, and the NASA-sponsored scientists publicly described - and collaborated with scientists worldwide on the investigation of - the geomagnetically trapped particle radiation belts). You could have read about the context, or asked knowledgeable people here or elsewhere about it. You did neither, but instead simply repeated this snippet with the whiny insinuation that it must somehow support your disbelief. That speaks to your intellectual laziness and unwillingness to do anything that might expose you to learning in conflict with your belief structure. You also studiously avoid addressing the conundrum of allegedly space-travel-preventing radiation being discovered and made public and intensively and publicly studied by the very agency charged with sending men into outer space. If you do not provide quantitative estimates for the radiation environments that you claim differ from NASA's (and that of the Russian Space Agency, and the Chinese, and the Japanese, and the Indians, etc.), I will consider it proof you literally do not know what you're talking about.All I can say is that you should go back and take a course in logic. There are all kinds of plausible scenarios. Countries can have pacts with each other. Countries can bribe and blackmail each other. The press in one country can lie about what the press in another country says and the people never know the difference.You have now officially failed the second outcome clause of post #46 (failing to provide quantitative estimates), as well as failing - again - the first and fourth clauses. You are incapable of providing quantitative estimates. You have failed to discuss the environment even at the most elementary level, but simply continue to handwave about grand international conspiracies - without addressing the fact that hundreds of spacecraft supporting billions of dollars of commerce a day absolutely rely on the validity of the published space radiation environment data. Anything that has multiple plausible explanations is not proof. They'd laugh you out of the debating hall.No. "Every space scientist and spacecraft engineer and satellite operator in the world is lying" is not a plausible explanation, especially in light of your absolute failure to provide any evidence to back up your claims. But I invite you to try it in a real debate somewhere. I might even be motivated to watch that on YouTube myself. I am almost ready to issue my final assessment, based on the challenges to you in posts 46 and 56. But you have evaded some of them, which I shall restate in the next post. I give you one day to do so; if you do not make specific replies I will consider you to have answered in the negative. It's not as if you haven't had plenty of time to do so, but I want the "lurkers and viewers" to see that you are given every chance.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2007 12:24:24 GMT -4
I dunno... some secret world government that determines the very scienctific laws around which the world is built...gravity, radiation, thermodynamics, physics...and it is an evil world government, quite willing to kill thousands or millions at the drop of a hat with no qualms whatsoever, to further it's aims.
I guess all the scientists of the past were part of it as well..or the more modern iteration has altered their texts to fit the "new world order".
Boy, this does give NWO a whole new meaning!!
I would call it paranoia...wonder what the science textbooks where rocky lives teach about science and physics? Have they been tainted too?
They're everywhere, rocky. Noone is safe...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 8, 2007 12:28:06 GMT -4
Continuing, with direct challenges rocky has evaded, lifted from posts 46/56.
1a. Evidence for separate set of data. Already failed by rocky. 1b. Quantitative estimates for radiation environment. Already failed by rocky. 1c. Explain explicitly how a communication spacecraft (AsiaSat 3) designed solely for operation in geosynchnous orbit, inside the Van Allen belts, was succesfully sent around the Moon - twice - and entered commercial service, if NASA is hiding an extraordinary radiation hazard in and beyond the belts. I require quantitative estimates of the radiation environments. No handwaving, and no appealing to the incorrect idea that machines are somehow unaffected by radiation.
2. That "six feet of lead" were reported to be necessary for a lunar trip has been shown to be factually incorrect - a misreading of a book about multigenerational interstellar travel. Do you or do you not acknowledge the faulty origin of this claim? If not, you are required to provide the calculations supporting "six feet of lead required for manned travel to the Moon".
3. You have been given a summary of a four-decade-and-ongoing, worldwide investigation into the South Atlantic Anomaly. There is no objective doubt as to its existence, and you could confirm this easily enough by calling up anyone who studies near-Earth space for a living, or designs, builds, launches, or operates satellites for a living.
With that established, I will now give you one more chance based on the knowledge I have imparted to you. The ISS and its crew transit the SAA routinely. Do you acknowledge this fact? I will not accept the "conspiracy" response without direct proof, and any further appeals to conspiracy - any further evasion - will be considered as a final reply in the negative.
3b. Quantitative estimates of radiation fluxes and energies plus exposure times. Already failed by rocky.
4. You have been provided an unambiguous example, in his own hand, of James Van Allen's dismissal of the notion that the belts he himself discovered were somehow impassible to Apollo crews. Do you or do you not acknowledge that Van Allen has personally dismissed this notion?
Any evasion on any topic, including unsubstantiated appeals to conspiracy or simple denial of documented scientific research, will be considered as an answer in the negative.
As indicated earlier, you have one final day to respond. It's 1230 EDT now, lunchtime on the East Coast of the U.S. And speaking of lunch...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 8, 2007 13:30:43 GMT -4
Look at the title of this thread..."All the Apollo data...". That is an incredibly sweeping statement. It encompasses every physical discipline that went into the planning of several manned spaceflight to the moon. It used data dating back to Goddard and before, and has been used to fly Shuttle and Voyager. Ergo, they are faked as well. Rocky, you are completely cornered by reality...and every science known to man. But I predict you will take this very detailed and explicit challenge head on, and promptly bounce off it like a ping pong ball off the hull of a "60s technology" 747...and start again about lying governments, blackmail, plausability, 9/11, and endless YouTube links. You won't even consider maybe reading a science book, even one in your current country of residence. You flail against a program deeply centered in physical science, and respond with politics and psychobabble. All "established" physical law is suspect, probably a lie. To make Apollo a hoax, you are willing to twist reality in your mind to a point of incredulity. I think you believe all of this you post.
We will not change your mind, we cannot make you smarter on science and the physical world around you. In your world, anything you disagree with is part of an incredible conspiracy, which to you is completely plausible. So you ignore it.
I'm looking forward to reading your response to the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 8, 2007 13:33:57 GMT -4
He didn't even say "all of the data is suspicious", which maybe would have been more acceptable. It declared it was all bogus. I expect statements like that to be supported, not by listing examples of other alleged lies, but by actually showing how or why the data is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 8, 2007 14:40:02 GMT -4
On the other hand it seems to be very rude to say people have psychological problems judged by their behavior on a forum.
Normally yes. But paranoid is as paranoid does.
For all we know, Rocky is yanking our chains and merely playing at the paranoid delusion. But if he's doing that then I'll play my end and call 'em as I see 'em.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 8, 2007 19:44:17 GMT -4
You know, information theory has something to say about that original claim.
How can ALL of the data be bogus? I think that sets up strange loops within the data set. If, for instance, the data includes the statements "There was a tank status indicator light to the left of the panel" and "The tank status indicator light was red," the second statement requires the light to be a different color but the first requires there be no light at all. You can not make them both false.
Or is "bogosity" a measure that implies a percentage of falsehood?
Or, perhaps "all of the Apollo data are bogus" is meant to be read, instead, that the data may or may not have internal consistency, but the entirety describes a situation that did not exist. Unfortunately for the "all of the..." condition to be true, the data set must lie about whether the Cape is in Florida, whether astronauts (like other human beings) have two arms and two legs, whether the sky is blue and whether Walter Kronkite was ever really a news reporter and....
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 9, 2007 1:23:13 GMT -4
What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this. David, what you should think is, "What are the standards by which one can objectively judge the evidence? Do I understand the discipline well enough to know what any of this means? If not, how can I educate myself about it?" What you should not think is, "Ah ha! This, in the face of all the other evidence I don't bother to understand, proves that Apollo was a hoax!" Let's examine this statement a minute, because I don't think you understand the implications to your own beliefs. Yes. You're quite right. It may or may not be bogus. And certainly the government has given out bogus information in the past and will do so again in the future. No argument from me there. However, that does not mean there's any certainty that all evidence from the government is bogus. As you say, it may not be. Therefore, since it could go either way--as, of course, could any evidence from anyone, naturally--you must evaluate each piece of evidence on its own merits. In order to do that, you must understand them and the methods of evaluating them. You've not bothered with that last step. You have instead assumed that any evidence presented agrees with your pre-determined conclusion. Jay, I'm not a psychological professional, either, though I've a better knowledge than the average. (Many years of intimate acquaintance, you know.) I agree with your diagnosis.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 9, 2007 4:44:06 GMT -4
On the other hand it seems to be very rude to say people have psychological problems judged by their behavior on a forum. For what it's worth, Rocky's refusal to do any of the suggested experiments to test his beliefs, plus his "tests of objectivity", do not suggest to me that he is entirely rational. Rational people are always prepared to admit that they could be wrong.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 9, 2007 12:16:57 GMT -4
Why do you keep saying this. The issue is people in space--not machines. The data about radiation that are available to study are allegedly bogus data. Studying them doesn't get us anywhere as far as the question of whether they're bogus or not goes. The US government. As I've said before--this is a case in which there are several plausible scenarios. We can't just base our opinions on the official version of things. We don't know what kind of pacts governments have really made with each other. We don't know who has bribed or blackmailed whom. If the press doesn't report something, as far as the people know, it didn't happen. There may be countries where the newspapers openly say that it was a hoax--most American would never know about it. I've seen Spanish newspapers openly say things that the US press never reports. It has no effect on American public opinion as almost none of them had access to the newspapers of other countries until the internet arrived. My argument is that we have to take anything that the government says with a grain of salt as it lies habitually. My argument that the Apollo data are bogus is that Apollo has been shown to have been faked so the data supposedly learned through Apollo must be bogus--not just radiation--rocks, etc. There might be data that can only be obtain by sending satellites and probes into space. Only governments have access to that. The fact that it allegedly goes way off the scale is enough to make an objective person suspicious. Not knowing the exact figure wouldn't kill the suspicion of an objective person. What I'm alleging is that the people who build satellites have the real data and they all know that humans couldn't survive up there without heavy shielding. Of couse I don't. This is another situation with lots of plausible answers. I have to keep them all in mind. I can't just take anyone's word on anything. You people simply haven't been able to prove that the anomalies pointed out in those videos are really explainable; you give other explanations that seem plausible, or semi-plausible but that is not debunking it. I should make it more clear that I don't consider the plausible explanations that you people give to be conclusive proof. I do plead guilty to that. The experiment about the sand would be pretty difficult to perform for someone who lives in an apartment without a yard. I could spring for a camera I suppose. I've seen so much other evidence that supports the hoax theory that it seems like a waste of time anyway; the hoax has been proven in other areas such as this. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1181164839 It's hard to tell when it comes to data that can only be learned though satellites and space probes. Whatever the government says has to be taken with a grain of salt. I've answered this before. This is a scenario in which there are multiple explanations such as what I listed above. Just chosing the scenario that fits your opinion is logically unsound. There is all kinds of proof that Apollo was faked so we can safely assume the data about the rocks, etc, are bogus. You are a master of empty rhetoric. This statement says nothing. If there are multiple plausible explanations for something, just choosing the one that fits your position is very fallacious. This still isn't conclusive proof. Different people can still arrive at different conclusions if they have to choose between several scenarios about whether a country is making it's true data public. We can't arrive at logical conclusions in situations such as this the we we can with physical phenomena. My position is that there may or may not be and we can't use the data made public by the US government as evidence for anything as it lies habitually. There's no credible evidence of either claim. We have to simply say that we don't know. Those instances don't show that the data were collected by Apollo. All of it could have been collected by satellites and probes. We hoax believers don't take anything you say seriously and we have given our reasons why. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1177113447It's not that hard for laymen to see who the con artist is and who the sincere scientist is in some situations. www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQwww.clavius.org/bootspot.html I'd have to see what actually happened before judging. I just think he has common sense. If someone whose sincerity is in serious question puts forth an argument that is palusible at most, that is far from conclusive proof. I've never seen one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that Apollo was real. I've seen lots of evidence that it wasn't. Show us something that conclusively proves that Apollo was real. Not "Is"--"May or may not be"--data that may or may not be bogus is not conclusive proof. All I'm saying is that this government data prove nothing because it's plausible that they're bogus. How do we know you're telling the truth? You can understand our position I hope. We don't know if the public data about it are bogus or not. If they're not, maybe the shuttle really doesn't travel through it and we are just told that it does. I've read that there are times when the shuttle astronauts have to enter a chamber in the space station that has extra shielding so maybe it does really travel through it and they are protected during those times. There are lots of plausible scenarios here. If it turns out that this is real, it still doesn't debunk all of the other proof that Apollo was a hoax such as the footage played at double speed that looks exactily like movement in earth gravity so there hase to be some explanation. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know which version is true and the best thing to do is wait until we get some data we know is from a reliable source when it comes to radiation. We have to use other evidence to decide whether Apollo was a hoax; there's lot of it too. Very simplistic--read my above posts. If we suspect data are bogus, what's the point of doing any measurements? We can't do anything anyway; only a government can launch satallites that measure radiation. They rely on data all right. The question is whether the data they use came from Apollo, or from satellites and probes. It's quite possible that the people who build the spacecraft are using the secret set of data when they design their spacecraft. How are we supposed to know whether they use the data that we can read in libraries, or some top secret data that is not consistent with Apollo? I never said every scientist in the world is lying. I only alleged that only people with high security clearances could see the real data. That doesn't mean that every scientist in the world is lying. Look at some of the forbidden examples at the beginning of this thread of government scientists who lie. This is as far as I can go for now. I'll continue later.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 9, 2007 12:53:10 GMT -4
As I've said before--this is a case in which there are several plausible scenarios.
Irrelevant. There is only one for which there is actual evidence. And your counterclaim of "everyone is lying -- even the ones who can prove the first people aren't lying," is hardly plausible.
My argument is that we have to take anything that the government says with a grain of salt as it lies habitually.
The problem is that those of us who have put the government's claims on this point to the test confirm that in this case they are not lying. You're not going after abstract suspicion in the least, because the very instant someone takes away your suspicion, you accuse him of lying too.
You quite clearly want NASA to be wrong on the radiation question, and you're willing to grasp at whatever straw lets you keep believing that.
The fact that it allegedly goes way off the scale is enough to make an objective person suspicious.
Hogwash. It depends on what the highest value is. A speedometer calibrated to a maximum of one mile per hour doesn't indicate a dangerous situation when a bicyclist pegs it high at four miles an hour.
Not knowing the exact figure wouldn't kill the suspicion of an objective person.
But you left out the part where they recalibrated the instrument and got the exact figure on the next mission, and it wasn't all that high -- just higher than the previous. Leaving that important part of the story out lets you keep waving your hands wildly about the saturated instrument and the big bad Radiation Boogey Man.
What I'm alleging is that the people who build satellites have the real data and they all know that humans couldn't survive up there without heavy shielding.
I build satellites and I have the real data. I'm telling you humans can survive up there without heavy shielding, because the "real" data are the published data. If you want to try to prove to me that I'm lying, go right ahead. Otherwise you're getting written off as just another paranoid crackpot.
You have produced categorically no evidence for any of your claims -- just wild accusations that everyone else is lying.
You people simply haven't been able to prove that the anomalies pointed out in those videos are really explainable...
Of course we have -- at least the ones where the "anomaly" isn't you foaming at the mouth trying to claim someone looks sad or that someone doesn't move right or some other such subjective hogwash.
But you admit you're too ignorant to understand the explanations. I agree. And so you're delyaing forever waiting for some "third party" to come save you.
I've seen so much other evidence that supports the hoax theory that it seems like a waste of time anyway...
No. You have acknowledged that evidence exists that contradicts your conclusion, yet you refuse to explain it or change your argument. You are entrenched to the point of denying reality.
...the hoax has been proven in other areas such as this.
When trapped, change the subject.
Whatever the government says has to be taken with a grain of salt.
What about what all those private companies and their stockholders learn?
Just chosing the scenario that fits your opinion is logically unsound.
That's why I choose the only scenario for which there is evidence. You waving your hands about farfetched alternatives doesn't change that.
There is all kinds of proof that Apollo was faked so we can safely assume the data about the rocks, etc, are bogus.
Egregiously begging the question. You have absolutely not one clue about how to construct an inductive proof.
We hoax believers don't take anything you say seriously and we have given our reasons why.
Cry me a river. After I publish material I spend a great deal of time engaging my critics and answering their claims. David Wozney is a coward who hides behind his web site and will not answer any questions. If you want to hitch your wagon to his star, go right ahead. But I demand that you apply your litmus tests to him and report the results.
It's not that hard for laymen to see who the con artist is and who the sincere scientist is in some situations.
So far all the laymen have voted against you, Rocky. And I really don't care what some loudmouthed ignoramus on YouTube says. If all he's going to do is repeat the original claims with insults added, I have no interest in him.
I just think he [Hufschmid] has common sense.
Common sense is not a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. But thanks for confirming that you simply mindlessly quoted him because he says what you want to hear.
I've never seen one piece of evidence that conclusively proves that Apollo was real.
Straw man -- there isn't one, there are millions of pieces -- all those pieces you say are "bogus."
And no, someone who simply responds to all displays of evidence with, "But that may be bogus," does not get to demand additional evidence. You can't deal with what has been presented already, so you get no more. Eat your vegetables first.
This is as far as I can go for now. I'll continue later.
Don't. You're just repeating the same paranoid-delusional rant that has come to characterize nearly all your posts recently.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 9, 2007 13:25:14 GMT -4
As I've said before--this is a case in which there are several plausible scenarios. We can't just base our opinions on the official version of things. We don't know what kind of pacts governments have really made with each other. We don't know who has bribed or blackmailed whom. If the press doesn't report something, as far as the people know, it didn't happen. There may be countries where the newspapers openly say that it was a hoax--most American would never know about it. I've seen Spanish newspapers openly say things that the US press never reports. It has no effect on American public opinion as almost none of them had access to the newspapers of other countries until the internet arrived. well let us see where this point falls down. I am not an American, and I have not been brought up with American Media Sources, so my conclusions are not drawn from these sources, strangely enough if I wished to read-up on a principal of physics, my starting point would not be USA Today or even a Science supplement inside a UK Paper, I would probably go to the Library (Later on check the net out first) and have a look in published science papers or Books Literature on the subject. before Net access was widely available I could if required get Das Spiegl Pravda La Monde The Washington Post etc, I just put in an order from the newsagent, and although I might get them a week or so later I could still obtain them. and how would a Paper in London be able to quote articles in US papers the following day if no access was possible. *(added in edit) during second world war Germany and Tokyo both had broadcast segments in English, does this mean the facts provided by Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw where more accurate than those transmitted by the Allies/Neutrals? You replied that the Government in question for the suppression of this info was the US government, how therefore would this effect the rest of the planets scientists... please remember the political situation of the time, I would like to even here even one plausible method of bribary the US Govt. could offer the Soviets to "Could you keep a lid on things, look you know and we know it's fake, but if you could just keep it quiet, and fake all subsequent data from scientists inside your sphere of influence it would be most appreciated" right whose next on the phonelist "Hey Mao me old china, how are things hanging in the PRC...." you get the idea, now what level of bribery could there be to bribe the governments of the remaindng %95 of the planets population to perpetuate this hoax. please provide a hypothesis with even a molecule of supporting evidence, not just a statement that says there are many... specify one or two of these many plausible situations * some of these papers where produced in the UK as well after having the articals translated and typeset locally, but the originals where available most printhouses would be greatful of Anything to increase circulation and Governments would subsidse cirulation to increase political viewpoint awareness,
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jun 9, 2007 14:44:25 GMT -4
Your argument trips itself up right there. The data is fake because the missions were fake. The missions were fake because the fake data proves it. tsk tsk.
|
|