|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:58:19 GMT -4
He's obsessed with the Apollo 1 fire. I think it was at the IMDb when discussing radiation and he realised that he was having his ass handed to him that he swtiched to discussing the Apollo 1 fire. It is his fallback option. He's obsessed with anything to do with the Apollo conspiracy in general, not just the Apollo 1 fire. I strongly believe Jarrah has Aspergers Syndrome. Oh? Who's computers was he caught hacking?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:53:20 GMT -4
Any chance HB types and official story types might be able to do the debate thing, the back and forth thing, sans the personal stuff, the name calling? This is a serious question. Am I viewed as so out there that it is impossible to simply argue with me and let the personal stuff go? Do I appear so crazy that it is virtually impossible not to call me names? You have a history of generating sock puppets so you can pretend to have a whole group of supporters on your side while ignoring pertinent questions. You aren't viewed as being 'so out there', simply as rather underhanded and evasive.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:47:43 GMT -4
And you can back that statement up right?
How can you affect that which does not exist?
Getting along implies that both sides argument have merit, if you don't doubt the moon landings then you have to conclude that the HB's are either deluded or being willfully misleading, how exactly would you propose people get along?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 7, 2011 18:27:10 GMT -4
What fattydash/DoctorTea/MaryB/Sicilian, etc fails to appreciate is that while best medical practice may not have been followed there are reasonable explanations for that which have nothing to do with a hoax. Apollo 8 was not originally scheduled to go to the moon. The profile was changed for a number of reasons but one that loomed large was that the Soviets might be planning a circum-lunar mission to steal Apollo's thunder. Thus I suspect that unless the flight surgeon declared that there was an imminent danger of death from a medical emergency they were going to press ahead with the mission. Perhaps a cynical view but I think rather more credible than believing they hoaxed the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on May 4, 2011 20:44:39 GMT -4
It's not like releasing the photos would convince the CT's anyway, they'll just start muttering about 'Photoshop' or 'body doubles'.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on May 2, 2011 8:49:57 GMT -4
He died in 2001 according to Fox news. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html This is a wag the dog story to distract from the phoney birth certificate. You mean the non-issue that hardly anybody cares about and that is getting even less press now than it was before it was released? Sure, whatever. And I don't think Donald Trump will be celebrating this. I saw pictures of people cheering and waving Obama '08 posters and I've heard some were chanting 'four more years'...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on May 2, 2011 8:37:09 GMT -4
And the CT's are already getting into swing asking about why there are no photographs of the body. I don't think they quite understand the full potential consequences of a bullet to the head...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 28, 2011 15:56:25 GMT -4
It's too bad that we couldn't vastly cost-reduce and commercialize everything that Apollo developed. Rocket engines are about the same now as then. But what commercialized was more than enough to make the whole program worthwhile. Well if you ask Elon Musk nicely, and provide some development cash, he will be happy to oblige.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 25, 2011 6:30:43 GMT -4
The basic concept is pretty sound I think. People tend to project their own mindset on to others, so if you have a scheming mentality you are going to see other people as being just as bad if only to justify your own behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 23, 2011 12:54:32 GMT -4
Thread necromancy alert -- 16 months or so. Fred Worse than that, the posts he's responding too are nearly 3 years old, so when he says he may have some comments later you have to wonder which decade that will be...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 11, 2011 12:28:36 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. It's possible you won but not very probable.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 10, 2011 11:10:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 9, 2011 15:02:20 GMT -4
It is not possible that the Apollo samples were returned by robots. Who built these robots? Where were they launched from? How would that fit with the rest of the evidence for the Apollo missions? It is refuted by the utter lack of evidence to support it. Again you seem to simply accept the alternates suggested by HB's without expecting them to pass the standard of proof you insist on applying to the reality of Apollo. There's a lack of evidences for that certainly, but I doubt anyone has access to every internal NASA document. So it's possible, but likely? I would say no just like you, but still possible. And what evidence is there for it? Again you give a free pass to the ramblings of the HB's but insist on putting the evidence for the reality of Apollo under the microscope, unbalanced is the kindest way to describe it.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 9, 2011 14:34:59 GMT -4
Except you are. The evidence is that scientists around the world have examined the rock and soil samples brought back from the Apollo missions and found that they originated on the Moon. The evidence is that the technology was insufficient to bring back that kind of sample with that kind of documentation using anything but humans. You are explicitly denying this. You are explicitly denying that the photographs showing various of the samples being collected are evidence that the samples were collected that way, even though the photographs are often used in conjunction with the samples by geologists. Because you know? Based on what evidence can you claim that? LOL I am assuming that it's possible, how isn't that possible, did you refute it? I am saying that it is possible men landed on the moon, but it's also possible that they could have brought samples with robots. I take it for granted that something is possible unless you refute it. Refute it then. It is not possible that the Apollo samples were returned by robots. Who built these robots? Where were they launched from? How would that fit with the rest of the evidence for the Apollo missions? It is refuted by the utter lack of evidence to support it. Again you seem to simply accept the alternates suggested by HB's without expecting them to pass the standard of proof you insist on applying to the reality of Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Apr 9, 2011 14:06:01 GMT -4
And this is where that lack of rigor comes in. Such a position is only justified if you can show that there is a viable alternative explanation as to how the samples were obtained, and by viable alternative I mean one with a shred of evidence to support it. As far as I can see you simply wish to set the bar of proof at an impossible height while giving a free pass to the HB's theories. Who told you that? God? I am not even a HB. I judge it based on your posts, their refusal to deal with facts and your utter lack of balance. All you have done is make ridiculous claims that set an impossible standard for the accepted explanation of how the Apollo moon rocks were obtained while ignoring the fact that the alternatives put forward by HB's have neither credibility nor evidence.
|
|