|
Post by blackstar on Jul 14, 2011 15:34:12 GMT -4
Never mind reading up on source material do HB's ever actually read through the board before they post? The exact same argument was gone over ad nauseam last year and I'm not seeing anything new being brought to the party by vincentmcconnell.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 19:39:44 GMT -4
Fattydash, since you've been making so-called concessions today, was Apollo 8 authentic? I would second that question. Fattydash has suggested the illness was meant to be some sort authentic flourish added to avoid making the story of a faked mission look too perfect but if Apollo 11 landed on the moon there is no reason to suppose Apollo 8 did anything other than orbit it.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 19:34:18 GMT -4
So this official story cannot be true as the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript itself contains the incriminating evidence that Houston and Collins knew with high precision the coordinates of Tranquility Base. Details provided below. Incriminating suggest wrongdoing and conspiracy, how do you square that with this statement: If you are genuinely conceding that they landed there is no wrongdoing, no conspiracy, simply the inevitable small confusions that arise with events in the real world. On the other hand if as I suspect your concession of the landing is simply a debating tactic to be withdrawn dramatically at a moment of your choosing this is just further proof of the dishonesty that has been inherent in your approach both here and at BAUT, or are you still denying creating all those sock puppets?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 16:58:29 GMT -4
Of all the retractions that have occurred where I can see them, they all happened within a few tens of posts, or nearest equivalent in the appropriate medium; that is, generally when rational but ignorant people see a "documentary" like that execrable Fox production, they want the other half of the story, or at least to find out if there is another half, so they come to sites like this and are genuinely surprised by the breadth and depth of the expertise here having previously assumed that the witnesses and evidence presented was basically it. And so they rapidly realise they were being fed a line covered in juicy bait and were nearly reeled in. And this seems nothing like that, it is simply a tactic to try and get some of his other spurious points considered in isolation in the hopes that one of them will stand up long enough that fattydash can declare he has stumped the other posters, reverse the retraction, and declare victory.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 12, 2011 15:19:14 GMT -4
Can I join you in that walk. I really don't see where this is going now. I hasn't been going anywhere for about 19 pages, fattydash can't even seem to offer a coherent account of his own views. He seems to think that if he concedes one mistake the rest of his equally faulty views should be given some greater consideration.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 11, 2011 17:31:08 GMT -4
This reminds me not a little of that part of the "no stars" argument where the hoax believer claims that any astronomer could have looked at the painted backdrop and realized the stars were in the wrong places. To paraphrase Jay Utah's famous reply, why didn't the hoax hire a doctor to make up a properly believable medical scenario for Apollo 8? What would possibly be the reason to let the astronomer and the physicist and the computer expert and the aerospace propulsion expert and so forth into the story conference, but bar the door to the doctor? Well if you are going to insist on dragging logic into it you are being unfair on fattydash whose arguments have none.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 10, 2011 13:22:47 GMT -4
In both the LM and the CM the navigational system assessed and made a determination of the ships' position in space. See the MIT navigational manual and recall they used the Apollo 13 LM navigator to navigate through cislunar space. The LM navigational equipment was utilized before the Eagle's top left Tranquility base for Columbia. In so doing, the LM identified its position so that a hook up with Collins would be possible. See the Apollo 11 transcript as pertains the astronauts' preparations to leave the lunar surface. Again you reference MIT sources and again I ask have any of the people involved ever questioned the reality of Apollo? If the experts find nothing untoward in these accounts why should the ill-informed musings of an amateur like yourself, with a history of deception and evasion, be taken seriously?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 9, 2011 12:43:10 GMT -4
Welcome to the board Ong. But haven't you been here before? Thanks, but I don't really know. My Bookmarks are a bit jumbled. I have popped into the BAUTF Bad Astronomers, or whatever they call themselves now, forum every now and then, on rare occasions, and I've got you listed under them. Are you connected? I'm an Apollo Mission agnostic, inclined to believe that they really went but they're keeping an awful lot of it secret. My specialty, however, is exposing the 911 false flag operation hoax. Of course I am also interested in the crazy scam they are running with that Kenyan or whatever the hell it is that they've installed in the White House following their mock election, Barry Soetoro aka Barry Dunham aka Barak Hussein Obama, etc. "Truthers" and "Birthers" to you. They put glib little Newspeak labels on things. Helps keep the proles from tiring out their poor little dumbed down brains trying to think, when they could be spending quality time watching tv and eating more junk food. I beleive 'truthers' is a self applied label, as for the rest of it, well let's say I don't think its the rest of us having trouble with critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 9, 2011 12:38:43 GMT -4
Um, an agreement among two or more people to commit an illegal act, followed by at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement even if it's legal...
[/i] Not necessarily illegal. There are all kinds of laws with all kinds of loopholes, and the second part is wrong. People can conspire, not necessarily followed by any overt act. President FDR: "EVERYTHING in politics is a conspiracy".You should learn something about what you're talking about before you do your kindergarten mocking act that they encourage people to do in lieu of thinking.[/quote] Well all you've done so far is argue the definition of the word conspiracy, do you have anything to offer by way of a reason to take the likes of the 'truthers' seriously?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:47:57 GMT -4
For Blackstar and Luke, This thread's theme is not about proof of lying, about the material evidence in the Apollo debate. I respond now to you both for the last time in this regard. I will ignore all of such comments from now on in this thread. If one wishes to engage me in debate as regards Apollo's material aspect, please do so in the other threads. I welcome the challenge. For me, this is by far the most interesting thread to participate in. I will do my best to stay on topic and ask you to do the same. This thread is entitled 'Can we get along?' My posts have explained the reasons why we can't, if you feel that is off topic complain to the moderator.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:42:31 GMT -4
I have read the debriefing reports several times for every single Apollo mission. In not one of the debriefing reports have I read dark/light adaptation concerns discussed intelligently. What concerns? No one has suggested that dark adaptation was the sole reason for Armstrong not seeing stars, being busy looking at the brightly lit moon is another, nor has anyone claimed that it was impossible to do so. It was a non problem so why would they discuss it at length or in depth
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:37:22 GMT -4
Blackstar, in your life, when you have lied, you have justified it internally for this or that reason. This is my point. Armstrong may have good reason, very good reason. You have failed to offer any evidence that he lied about Apollo for the very simplest of reasons; that he did indeed walk on the moon, gather rocks, take pictures and have his words received by tracking stations that confirmed he spoke from the surface of the moon. You on the other hand have a track record of deception and evasion documented here and at BAUT, perhaps when you look at Armstrong and all those others involved in Apollo you are imagining them as reflections of yourself.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:31:09 GMT -4
For ka9q, early in this thread I mentioned to Bob in a post that there was a film clip/film that features the MIT scientists who participated in the design of the Apollo navigational system. In that clip they mention "position" specifically as being determined by the system. I refer you to that post and that video. I thought it was worth watching, about 30 minutes. I believe I left the particulars regarding the name of the clip in the post to Bob. And did these scientists express any doubt about the authenticity of Apollo? If not then while it might be fascinating viewing it does nothing to support your case. Please present something that does.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:27:16 GMT -4
And referencing back to BAUT let's not forget the two faced approach of pretending to be the voice of reasonable doubt as DoctorTea followed by wild denunciations as MaryB. And has any else noted the lack of denials that these and the 'chess club' were simply his alter egos?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 8, 2011 18:23:48 GMT -4
I do not believe the astronauts are heros to all. I suggested it bothers some people who do view the astronauts so when HB type criticize Apollo. I also suggested that it seemed to me it bothered some that I might respect Neil Armstrong. What bothers people is the hypocrisy of claiming to respect him while saying he has lied about Apollo and participated in a fraud. If that's your definition of respect you need a new dictionary. And like your other suggestions this one is completely wrong.
|
|