|
Post by sts60 on Dec 11, 2011 4:02:11 GMT -4
The flip side can also be true. I played a little club rugby, but didn't know much what I was doing . Just run and hit that guy, link up in the scrum and push... But playdor is like a guy who sees a minute of rugby on YouTube and starts saying how the All Blacks or Springboks don't know what they're doing because they don't hit enough home runs.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 10, 2011 13:31:08 GMT -4
i was told that my opinion of the Apollo 1122D rendezvous-docking film as being unrealistic was just coming from an uninformed position.
It is, unquestionably. You have no idea of what should be happening.
I could not argue that point because i did not know what the state of the art of rendezvous-docking actually was in 1966.
I saw what you did there.
You don't get to pretend that you're simply missing some specific bit of data that people are holding back from you, one which would put the whole puzzle together for you. You have no idea of anything to do with orbital mechanics, or rendezvous, at all. So to insinuate your ignorance is confined to just the "state of the art... in 1966" is disingenuous.
So am i getting this correct that an authoritative position may be acquired by reading about these events in books supplemented by a few snip its from film footage?
First of all: pot, kettle, black. You are attempting to back up sweeping judgments based solely on videos you can find for free on the Internet - worse, you're not really working to find them, you're whining that people should find them for you.
Second of all - like so many other conspiracy "theorists", you insist that videos or lack thereof are the essence of understanding Apollo. That's laughable. Those "books" you deride range from texts on orbital mechanics, including intercept and rendezvous, to mission plans, performance reports, technical specifications, and all the extremely detailed work that went into planning and executing the Gemini rendezvous that laid the ground for Apollo.
Yes, they are what you need to comprehend in order to gain some authoritative knowledge. Only someone completely ignorant of how spaceflight works - like you - would say otherwise.
by this logic someone also could become an authority on say football without experiencing entire games, just a few snip its from parts of a play and then reading about football in books.
False analogy. The content of those reports, as used for Apollo and subsequent manned missions, is the experience of those missions. This experience was maintained and passed on directly through ongoing mission and spacecraft design and crew training, and has done so continuously ever since Gemini.
my point is that in my opinion the 1122D film was fabricated
You have no basis whatsoever for this claim except your belief Apollo was faked. Your uninformed opinion is meaningless.
but the evidence to prove that it is realistic is based on information from books? That the 1122D film is exactly as described in books?
Asked and answered. You have no idea what you're talking about.
If you have never seen the rendezvous-docking from beginning to end, how could you possibly make that determination other then having a belief that it was real?
By knowing something about how space flight actually works. Which you don't, and are apparently determined never to learn.
i have the spacecraft films 3 disk series on Gemini program. there is little evidence of rendezvous-docking in these films.
You're simply insisting that there should be certain amounts of certain kinds of video, but you are not qualified to make such a judgment. Why should anyone care about youre evaluation of the "evidence", especially when you aren't even aware of what the bulk of the evidence is? And you whine when people point you to it, instead of trying to learn something?
I ask again, given your vast ignorance of the subject, why do you keep insisting that your views are right and that of all the experts are wrong?
And, when are you going to back up your claims of "multiple degrees in science"?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 10, 2011 12:18:18 GMT -4
... Armstrong does not include stars in this list of the only objects visible. Actually he does. Because of course the optical telescope would nicely block all incident light. This has been pointed out to you a few times, why do you keep ignoring it? The AOT was really just a periscope with features for capturing alignment data to the computer. It allowed the astronauts to see stars by blocking out extraneous light. Of course, playdor has already said that you can't see stars in space because there's no atmosophere to make them twinkle. So he's contradicting himself anyway by insisting that Armstrong should have been exclaiming over stars. As well as being wildly wrong by claming Armstrong speaks for all the astronauts, or that his one observation on a popular television show somehow represents the complete official record of his observations anyway. Playdor is wrong on so many levels and in so many ways, one could devote an entire thread to his failures alone. And yet, he fails to seriously question his own premise, and keeps insisting he is right and all the experts - and educated laymen, for that matter - are wrong. Edited for grammar.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 10, 2011 9:05:15 GMT -4
sts60 of course i may be wrong about Apollo, that is the only reason to remain here, once i cease to care, i will leave.
I don't believe you. Nowhere have you shown any actual interest in actually getting closer to understanding Apollo. You simply hop from point to point, generally ignoring the explanations given to you by knowledgeable people, repeating your ignorant assertions that something didn't look right to you but never being bothered that you have no clue how things should look or work.
my point about only a few peple knowing for sure
was absolute hogwash. You are incredibly arrogant to assume that everyone is as ignorant as you.
points to only the people that actually went to the moon, or the ones that helped them fake it, know it, from the experience.
This doesn't get any less wrong with repetition. Just because you are too ill-informed to understand how we know, and too lazy to learn, doesn't mean that all the engineers who built and tested systems that worked, and tracking station personnel who tracked them to, on, and from the Moon, and scientists that analyzed the data are as well.
the rest of us can only decide on what the reality will be, will be based on the information that is created from the event.
No. That standard conspiracist's appeal to ignorance is a crutch for the lazy and ignorant.
Now, some questions.
When will you explain your claim of having "multiple degrees in science"?
Why do you continue to represent Armstrong as being the only person who speaks for all the Apollo astronauts when it was explained to you how ludicrously wrong that was?
Other Apollo astronauts have discussed seeing stars, including from the lunar surface when they were able to shield themselves adequately from viewing sunlit objects. Why do you continue to pretend that NASA's official and only position is that you can't see stars in space, period, when this is manifestly untrue?
You are widely ignorant of all topics related to Apollo, and continue to make silly mistakes like confusing electricity with radiation. Why, then, do you continue to assert all he experts are wrong and you must be right?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 9, 2011 12:22:48 GMT -4
And yes it is possible i am wrong about Apollo,
I'd like a little clarification, please.
Are you saying that your endless mistakes and obvious ignorance of the topic led you to question your own premises?
Or is this just a line you're tossing out in order to appear open-minded?
Because nowhere in your words do you betray even a hint of genuine reflection on what your lack of understanding of the subject means for your certainty on said subject. In other words, you are carefully avoiding learning from your mistakes. You are deliberately arguing from a position of ignorance...
like i said from the start only a few people know for sure,
... and worse, you keep insisting that almost everyone else is as ignorant as you.
Hogwash. I work in this field. I also have an appropriate academic background. I have (and still do) work with Apollo engineers. I have everything I need to evaluate a substantial amount of the Apollo record for myself.
everyone else is just making a best guess. And yes you may also be wrong.
No, I am not making any sort of guess. I have used Apollo data in my work; I can compare the Apollo record to current industry practice.
a person may buy into the Government facts as presented, they are cleverly crafted. if you believe it good for you.
No. I understand the Apollo record because I am qualified to do so.
You don't understand it - any of it - but you reflexively disbelieve it. That gives the lie to your claim above that you accept you may be wrong.
a person may look at all the circumstantial evidence and say that it is not remotely possible. i still believe there are too many problems with the story, the moon landing is a great modern fantasy.
You have looked at very little of the evidence, and you manifestly don't understand any of it, but you cling tightly to your reflexive disbelief in Apollo. Don't try to pretend you have arrived at your belief through any sort of attempt to learn or reason about it, or that you have honestly examined your own premises. You clearly haven't.
Speaking of honesty, when do you intend to back up your claims of "multiple degrees in science"?
Enjoy the ride, its just a ride.
Troll.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 3, 2011 18:21:55 GMT -4
I think you're probably right, Carpedeim. Although his IP address is similar to one that Fattydash used, it's not an exact match. But combined with the way he didn't properly quote Fattydash it was enough to cause me to mistake him for a sock puppet. It's my mistake, but since FD was known to repeatedly post the same wall of text it was an easy mistake to make. I have removed the ban, longfuzzy is welcome to return if he would like to. I'll pass on the reversal to him, but I'll let him read the details here.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 3, 2011 18:18:29 GMT -4
Bottom line is the Mod's decision is the Mod's decision. Bear in mind that the Mod sees a lot more data than you or I. Been there and done that. You have no idea how far people will go until you actually see it. I understand that, and I'm not arguing his decision as I am not privy to his data. I'm just passing on what I heard, as his PMs and posts on JREF sounded - non-fattydash. --> OK, and now LO has updated his decision.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 3, 2011 16:10:21 GMT -4
longfuzzy has been banned for sock-puppetry (fattydash) I included longfuzzy on my abbreviated list of fattydash/P1k's socks over on JREF. He PM'd me and said he was not one of fd/P1k's socks. He thought his sole post here had been misunderstood and wondered what might consitute evidence of his non-sock puppetry. A brief glance at his posting history on JREF doesn't really look like P1k/fattydash/etc.'s bloviatory style, so he may be on the level. I don't know what other evidence you had against him, but if you care to give him a shot at redemption and would like to pass anything on to him, I'm OK with playing middleman.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 3, 2011 2:16:21 GMT -4
...we can agree to disagree No, you don't get to pretend the discussion is between two parties who are on an equal evidentiary footing, and simply can't sway the other. You haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the Apollo record, but you keep clinging to individual quotes and random single images and asserting everything can be simplified to fit your cartoon view. That's not just wrong, it's arrogant and lazy. Armstrong is the spokesman for all Apollo landing on the moon, Wrong. Absolutely and utterly wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about. The other Apollo crews were all jointly and individually responsible for reporting their observations during the mission, during extensive debriefings, and yes, even in popular contexts. All of them. Later crews had much more to report because they spent more time on the Moon (or around it in the case of the CMP). At least one of them had enough time to find a way to shield himself from direct view of sunlit objects during an EVA and reported seeing stars. You don't get more wrong than what you just said, on every level. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. So, once again, I ask you: Why, given your wide-ranging ignorance and endless stream of errors in your claims, do you not once question your own conviction that Apollo was faked? You don't know anything about the program, you don't understand the science or technology, and you keep saying ridiculous things which are quickly debunked. So why don't you ever consider you might be wrong and all the knowledgeable people might be right? Why won't you answer this question? What are you afraid of?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 2, 2011 12:36:11 GMT -4
sorry giving cat insulin and saline playdor, while waiting for answers to my questions... I thought I should mention I'm sorry about your cat being ill. We've had to do the same thing with ours. I hope yours is OK.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 1, 2011 22:51:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 1, 2011 16:03:26 GMT -4
sts60 you can call me a troll and i can call you a pinhead, please stop with the names. It's not calling you a name, it's a functional description. A troll is as a troll does. Ignoring explanations and demonstrations, dodging questions, repeating claims which have been debunked many times as if they had never been answered, and making claims to expertise you don't have are trollish behavior. If you don't want to be accused of trolling, then demonstrate that you have some actual interest in learning anything and interacting honestly with the people who are sharing their knowledge with you. what remains is that NASA has major flaws in the Apollo fantasy, You have yet to identify any flaws in the Apollo record; every single point you have raised so far, such as your "top ten" addressed in reply 1201, are either flat-out wrong or simply your ignorant personal belief - sometimes both. they don't answer the questions, Various persons and elements within NASA have answered many questions, including here and there direct refutations some of the tired conspiracist claims you have so lazily regurgitated. So you are wrong on that point, too. But there's a deeper issue. Why, as an American taxpayer, would I want my prime aerospace agency devoting resources to spoon-feed the lazy, ignorant, and credulous conspiracy believers, most of whom will simply reject the explanations anyway? In fact - another fact of which you are unaware - a few years back NASA actually proposed to spend a small amount of money - $15,000, IIRC - to commission a book specifically refuting hoax claims. This plan was canceled after it was widely, and correctly, denounced as a waste of money. The job of a national aerospace agency like NASA is to conduct scientific research, promote technology transfer to industry, educate the public, and explore. It is not to waste time defending reality from a handful of cranks. they leave it to the star trek crowd to fill in the blanks for them.First, call me what you want - an appeal to ridicule is another demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of your position - but I actually get paid to do space stuff. And I actually have "multiple degrees in science" (well, science and engineering), unlike you. What I don't get paid for is explaining things to you, but I tried. Many of the others have tried much harder (and still don't get paid for it), and are still trying, but I won't continue trying to educate someone who is evidently determined not to learn anything. Second, you still haven't grasped that many of the folks here are not the "star trek" [sic] crowd, but ordinary, non-technical laymen who took the trouble to actually learn and think about the subject, and understand it quite well as a result. That means you have no excuse for your continued ignorance. You just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you", then repeating the same claims that were wrong the first ten times you made them. NASA is forthcoming in detail to provide us with how to sh*t in a diaper while in space. But so far it appears that NASA hasn't answered questions put forward by people doubting the landing on the moon. It "appears" that way because you're wrong, and because you've done no research on the topic, and because reality does not conform to your ignorant expectations. Maybe NASA has time nowNo, NASA is busy doing real work. What's your excuse for not learning anything? And why did you dodge my question again? Namely, what is your real reason for failing to question your own premise, given your unrelieved record of ignorance and your endless series of embarrassingly basic mistakes? Also, why do you claim credentials you clearly don't possess? Name-calling and bluster will not suffice as answers, and will not obscure a failure to answer.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 1, 2011 15:08:32 GMT -4
playdor, why won't you answer my question? What is your real reason for refusing to question your own premise, given your demonstrated ignorance of all the topics discussed so far, and the many embarrassingly elementary mistakes you have made?
To this I also add the question: Why did you tell us you have "multiple degrees in science" when it is obvious you don't?
And finally, why should anyone not consider you a deliberate troll?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 1, 2011 11:57:46 GMT -4
thank you for all the responses You are pretending to courtesy, and I do not believe you. Your thanks are meaningless, as you continue to ignore responses and evade challenges and refutations. You keep bringing up the same points which have been debunked in exhaustive detail. You dodge direct questions. You "Gish-gallop" off to new topics without addressing current ones. In other words, you're not fooling anyone with cheap expressions of thanks for the responses, when you deliberately avoid dealing with the substance of said responses. but my point is this I believe these changes were made because if they had gone with the fantasy provided by Apollo,The only fantasy evident here is yours. You have strenuously avoided dealing with the reality being presented to you, to the point where you embrace a spoof "hoax" movie - an admitted and willful deception at your expense - as documentary evidence for your premise. peoples sensibilities would be challenged. Kindly do not presume to speak for the American psyche of the 1960s, especially when you have demonstrated such a remarkably poor grasp of American history and politics. I believe most people have no idea what NASA has tried to push as truth. You certainly don't. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you cling tightly to your ignorance despite the patient efforts of knowledgeable people to educate you. That's shameful. ...is there any information that the true space program was the X-15 thru the shuttle not mercury, Gemini and Apollo?No, of course not. Because it's not so. A interesting article i read last night said the first man to orbit may have been an x-15 pilot, went too high. died in space.Further evidence of your gullibility and ignorance. Others have already pointed out why. I think you are a troll. I think you are simply here to annoy people and get them to pay attention to you. If you wish to dispute this characterization, then I commend to your attention reply #1201 in which I summarized how ridiculous your "evidence" was and how you clearly cannot be convinced by it, since you haven't actually given it any significant thought. In light of this, I ask you again: If you are not simply trolling, what is your real motivation for failing to question your own certainty, in light of your unrelieved ignorance of the topic, and your endless series of embarrassing mistakes?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 30, 2011 10:45:12 GMT -4
Patrick, creating yet another sock-puppet to praise your self-congratulatory bloviations on another board doesn't really help you here or there.
As far as there being no support for you, that's because (a) you don't know what you're talking about, (b) you keep lying about yourself, (c) your can provide no evidence for any of your claims, (d) you keep changing your story and contradicting yourself, and (e) you keep pretending to be a grown-up, but appear to be an unusually self-important 12-year-old.
|
|