|
Post by chrlz on Jul 19, 2011 7:20:20 GMT -4
Could someone please tell me why these two theories are wrong: Why do you think we should? Are these *your* claims? If so, why have you not fleshed them out properly? The way they are worded suggests barely a passing knowledge of the topics. If they are the claims of others, why do you not cite where you encountered them? In science and engineering (which is sorta what this forum is about), a 'theory' is a possible, plausible explanation of some observation/phenomena, that has been developed using a proper methodology, eg the proverbial scientific method.There's also this thing called burden of proof, and the burden, I'm afraid, is yours. What you have posted there, doesn't exactly cut it...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 19, 2011 7:08:44 GMT -4
Yes, I realise that over-speculation on motives/medical conditions is not appropriate, but... I think they are gutter slime. Deceptive, callous, preying on the gullible. It is also a strong indication of some form of diagnosable personality disorder or even psychosis, in that they genuinely believe they are justified in using deception to try to convince others that their opinions are more worthy and highly regarded than they actually are. You must think an awful lot more people are psychotic than really are. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion...? I did say that sockpuppetry (of the sort being displayed by 'fattydash') was a strong indication of a diagnosable personality disorder. I stand by that observation. I then stated that it could 'even' be an indication of psychosis - and then explained what I meant. I did not use the term psychotic - that may seem a nitpick, but hereabouts people often use the term 'psychoses' as a lighthearted reference to personality quirks, fears or obsessions. It is a word that doesn't hold the same connotations as calling someone a psychotic. Nevertheless I accept that may just be local usage and is no excuse! Anyway, I have a few psychoses myself, but ... I am ChrLz or ChrLzs wherever I go and I do not wear sockpuppets. I certainly haven't seen many folks sockpuppeting like fattydash has here, so whatever the reason, I don't think it's common....
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 8:49:29 GMT -4
Well, the only thing that made sense to me regarding "earthshine" was that fatty meant there should be evidence of two light sources (double shadows, etc.). Of course, if there were, fatty would be arguing that there were two studio lights. Problem is, compared to the blazing sunlight, the contribution of earthlight is far, far too small to cast an additional shadow or be visible in any obvious way except directly (there are plenty of examples of that), or as a reflection (and some of those too). It would take a bit of doing (ie working out Earth's precise location and phase) but was certainly *possible* back then (it's MUCH easier today). This is a good example of fatty presenting a very weak pro-Apollo argument, with the likely intention that he would refute it himself later. Where it would become absolutely impossible to fake, would be shots of earth taken that show its weather patterns. Those patterns could then be checked against the actual weather patterns that existed at the time... Oh wait...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 8:32:30 GMT -4
Well, even tho' apollo nav isn't my strongest suit, I'd be happy to... But I'm afraid I simply don't get the point that FD was trying to make in amongst the endless obfuscation and flowery waffling language. I've tried to make some sense out of that hideous wall of text, but have failed. Can someone distill it into english?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 6:43:19 GMT -4
To Twik, my apologies for repeating this from another thread, but the reasons for sockpuppetry include: - the wish to portray, completely falsely, that they have popular support when little or none exists - the wish to misrepresent their qualifications, current employment and other personal circumstances - the need to invent imaginary friends as they have few in reality - the need to imbibe those 'friends' with equally 'impressive' but completely false credentials - the need for praise from the invented 'friends' (even when self-given, to them it counts..) - the desire to mislead or misrepresent (be that for the '15-minutes syndrome', or simply to troll) - to create 'strawmen' puppets that advance weak support for the other side, so they can then refute the issues and appear to be 'winning'- the desire for revenge against those who are better informed or have successfully refuted their claims - the simple desire to 'hear themselves speak' (ie to read back their words over and over and congratulate themselves on how clever they are) ..and so on. All in all... I think that sock puppetry gives an extremely accurate indication of the type of person you are dealing with.. To nomuse and Gillian- I agree with you, but I also think us skepticy types need to be aware of the (quite effective) scattergunning technique of continually changing the subject... While it is ok to answer new questions, there is a risk that the poster may get away with earlier assertions not being properly debated. I think the old ones need to be repeated each time until they are properly debated by the purveyor, and if the 'new topic load' becomes ridiculously large (or if the new topics are made so subjective that they are difficult to debate, like fatty's 'essays'), then I think the best approach may be to ask them for their very best 'proof' and to make sure that one is fully covered before moving onto to the next.. I have noticed that apollo deniers do NOT like to be asked what they regard as the best 'evidence'. Because obviously if that gets refuted, they get off to a very bad start. Eg, I notice that radiation used to often be the favorite, but now... no-one seems to want to discuss it in detail. Which is sort of annoying (in a strange way!) for me - as I've got a *huge* collection of pretty much irrefutable evidence on that topic.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 6:17:00 GMT -4
I never noticed it until I first came across the hoax theory, perhaps 15 years ago. The "most famous picture" featured prominently in the claims, and that led me to digging out an old copy of Life magazine with a big enlargement of the area in question on the cover. Once I started looking at it, the fact that the Earth was there rather leaped out at me, and some examination of the geometry of the landing site and the photo convinced me that it was right where it should have been. Same here, same timeline.. I think it goes without saying that there are many new examples of stuff that even the smartest NASA folk of the late 60's simply could not have envisaged as being 'checkable' in the future. The simple fact is that everything passes all these new tests perfectly - the Apollo record is faultless.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 5:56:40 GMT -4
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of people who try to use deception in a debate? Oooh, ooh, me, me!!! Er.. may I? I think they are gutter slime. Deceptive, callous, preying on the gullible. It is also a strong indication of some form of diagnosable personality disorder or even psychosis, in that they genuinely believe they are justified in using deception to try to convince others that their opinions are more worthy and highly regarded than they actually are. There are numerous factors involved: - the wish to portray, completely falsely, that they have popular support when little or none exists - the wish to misrepresent their qualifications, current employment and other personal circumstances - the need to invent imaginary friends as they have few in reality - the need to imbibe those 'friends' with equally 'impressive' but completely false credentials - the need for praise from the invented 'friends' (even when self-given, to them it counts..) - the desire to mislead or misrepresent (be that for the '15-minutes syndrome', or simply to troll) - to create 'strawmen' puppets that advance weak support for the other side, so they can then refute the issues and appear to be 'winning' - the desire for revenge against those who are better informed or have successfully refuted their claims - the simple desire to 'hear themselves speak' (ie to read back their words over and over and congratulate themselves on how clever they are) ..and so on. The sad part is that some people who do this may believe that their socks are in fact real... Anyway, all in all... I think that sock puppetry gives an extremely accurate indication of the type of person you are dealing with.. BTW, sockpuppetry can end badly... If I wuz you, fatty, I wouldn't name the doctor you are pretending to be...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 5:19:43 GMT -4
...But earthshine is not seen in the moonscape photos from Apollo 11, no earthshine anywhere. If landing was real, earthshine should be obvious in many pictures.This is a silly argument - saying that one should notice Earthshine in broad lunar daylight. A moment's thought would tell you why, but that would require you to actually think about the issue. Actually, depending on your definition of 'earthshine'... light from the earth is in fact a rather notable feature of the most famous Apollo picture ever... I shall leave it to the avid reader to work out what I am referring to (a little mental exercise so that these threads are not a *total* waste)... (If you know what I mean, may I suggest you don't post it immediately and be a 'spoiler'..) Au contraire, fatty, and it's not just the one I mention above, as anyone actually familiar with the Apollo missions would know. I'm surprised you know this little about the lunar photography! As sts60 stated, there are multiple pictures of the Earth taken from the lunar surface by the Apollo crews. Fatty, that lack of knowledge is inexcusable. And there is more to it, regarding the fact that Earth (and Venus for that matter) were captured on film exactly where they should have been. I won't post the comprehensive refutation of that ignorance just yet, as it is part of the trivia exercise I asked above...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 5:15:29 GMT -4
Sorry, but Clavius is busted. Clavius? Is he calling this forum Clavius? There is only one other I know of that insisted this was the Clavius forum. Are we sure this isn't Rocky/DavidC/Cosmored? As already mentioned, Jarrah made the same unwarranted 'link' also. I don't think this is Cosmored, who can be found over here as 'Scott' and being well and truly debated into the ground by the extremely competent BetaMax101.. is Beta a poster here, btw? As for Jarrah, it is notable that he started out with numerous telltales in his typing style (and a very aggressive and angry tone) but if you look at his posts/video comments over time, he seems to have become very 'correct' in his spelling and grammar, although the verbosity has remained... I think he has also realised that the angry approach just makes you look a fool, so he has moved away from that style. If Jarrah isn't DoctorTea/MaryB/BFischer/BSpassky/Sicilian/fattydash/briskwalk/MVinson (did I miss anyone?), I'll be.. rather surprised. But I also think the truth will come out eventually - I believe that Jarrah may be gradually setting up an 'escape route'...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 23:34:41 GMT -4
Interesting to note that Vincent actually got quite a polite response here, compared to his words of "Bunch of dicks.. trolls and mental incompetents".
It's also interesting that us mental incompetents pointed out numerous holes in his 'analysis' (term used *very* loosely) and Vincent elected to completely ignore the problems and run for it. Surely he would have gained great respect if he had simply addressed the issues and thereby *proved* the mental incompetence of which he spake.
I've posted a couple of comments to his youtube video. I wonder if they shall remain (took a screen capture..).
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 8:08:31 GMT -4
Hehe, just being flippant. I was kind of implying that I think he is actually Jarrah. Jarrah who? ... the thought never even occurred to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 6:56:38 GMT -4
So you want us to believe that is the reason? Just on your word? I'm afraid if this is based on the sort of logic you appear to have applied to the John Young jump, then I suggest you might want to try all this on a different audience, perhaps GLP or ATS.. Yes, of course, that's it. Youtube are going after you. Yup. It's not anything else, and everyone here believes you. Or perhaps not. So you can't post it elsewhere? Or is there maybe ... another reason why you are having this difficulty? After all, there are all manner of sites out there claiming all sorts of garbage about Apollo, Obama, 911, and yet they all seem to be withstanding the pressure. Perhaps you need to post it elsewhere, or maybe even (gasp) set up your own site and host your own video. Or maybe you should just toughen up, princess. Seriously, you are unable to get the word out? Send it to Erin Brokovich - she'll know what ta do... Anyway, getting back on topic, I'm waiting, vincent. As tedward said, if you are prepared to put your work up for peer review (which means you will have to do it properly in the first place), and you are right, then you will win the argument. So when are you going to address the points I (and others) have raised above about how to do a REAL analysis? Would you like me to repost them? Maybe explain in more detail? Or would you rather just try to evade any real analysis and throw around more lame 'I'm-being-persecuted' garbage? Yes, we can see what you have learnt from Jarrah..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 4:57:41 GMT -4
07/14/2011 SHALL WE DEBATE THE FACTS OF APOLLO, OR WASTE TIME If ever the shorthand tl;dr was more appropriate, I have yet to see it. Is this an Aussie thing? Hey, I'm from Orstraylia too... Oh wait.. hmm.. some of my in-depth and well-researched tomes are, perhaps, slightly of the voluminous kind... Anyway, fatty, where's the debate? Lots of questions waiting for you. Why not start with STS60's and then start working your way back..? I'm patient. I'm sure one day you will bravely pick a topic on which you will engage in proper, reasoned, point by point debate. Maybe.. radiation? Anyway, when you are ready.. I just won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 15, 2011 4:51:01 GMT -4
Yes, it's funny how they seem to be somewhat disinterested in looking at an issue with proper rigour, much preferring to stick to wild handwaving where they can just give ill-informed opinions, and claims they would have done it different.
So, fattydash, vincent, are you ready to go through a proper, methodical analysis of the radiation issue?
If not, why not?
And before we start, is radiation the 'big one'? Or would you like to keep your options open..? ;D
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 14, 2011 6:14:41 GMT -4
Your link leads me to a 404. Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproves the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place. As you raised this issue ( the corrected link is about radiation), vincent, are you willing to back up your comment and debate it fully? Fattydash seems to be unwilling to take it on, but it's a subject I have spent quite a lot of time on, so, shall we discuss it in detail? I'm happy to start from first principles and go through it step by step. If you wish to dispute anything, you will need citations, logic and actual numbers. The exact same rules will apply to me. Ready when you are... Added: BTW, I forgot to re-iterate what you have already been asked - is radiation the 'show-stopper'? If not, what is? If your favorite evidence is shown to be false, will that affect your belief in any way? And I like your signature. How apt.
|
|