|
Post by BertL on Jun 3, 2007 17:12:27 GMT -4
How about Flaming then? Baiting might also be appropriate.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 3, 2007 17:26:53 GMT -4
That is a very general statement. I wouldn't say the evidence I've seen and then posted here is circular argument. Look at the flash on the antenna in this clip. http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm It looks like it's caused by the same thing as the first example of a flash above the antenna in this clip. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUEMy guess is that the footage was full of flashes and they airbrushed them all out but missed the one in the YouTube footage because it was so close to the antenna flash. This is the kind of stuff that convinces me that Apollo was a hoax. Is this circular argument? You talk about astronomy, physics, rocketry, geology, etc. but I think you people are professional spin doctors. Let's hear you analyze what I posted above and we can discuss whether you are spin doctors and whether what I posted is circular argument. That's not the feeling I get at all. I think Jay knows all about the lies the US press tells but he works for the government so he has to stay within the bounds of the official version of everything. I think he should give a direct clear answer the the questions I ask him. If he avoids them, his credibility suffers.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 3, 2007 17:31:19 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29(excerpts) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A flame is typically not intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame -- it may be hostile, for example -- but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 3, 2007 17:32:19 GMT -4
]I've never seen anything put forward by any of you that Rene's "Two sets of data" theory couldn't have been true. It's quite plausible that NASA has a set of bogus data about space radiation that it releases to the public that are consistent with the Apollo missions and a set of real data that only people with high security clearances can see. So how does someone from say India or China go about getting a high US security clearance to be able to look at the data they need to build their communication satellites? And for that matter how many people in the US have those "high security clearances", people building stuff to go into space tend to be rather smart and knowledgeable and therefor will notice if they are being told to build electronics that can survive much more radiation than there is supposed to be? Or are you just going to ignore this like the times other people have asked it?
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jun 3, 2007 18:30:17 GMT -4
My guess is that the footage was full of flashes and they airbrushed them all out but missed the one in the YouTube footage because it was so close to the antenna flash. This is the kind of stuff that convinces me that Apollo was a hoax. Is this circular argument? I've just used this argument to calculate Pi to 10,000,000 decimal places. You start of admitting you are guessing. You end up by saying that this convinces you that you are correct. How can you not see that this is circular? You claim that the lack of evidence for your claim is evidence that there is a cover up. How can you not see that this is circular?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 3, 2007 19:57:13 GMT -4
Of course there is radiation that machines can tolorate that humans can't. Humans (and other organisms) can heal from damage caused by short-term radiation exposure. Machines can't. Prove the data you (plural) claim is bogus actually is.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 3, 2007 19:58:19 GMT -4
If I don't have enough science background to address the evidence you people put forth and I suspect your sincerity, there's nothing wrong with waiting for an objective third party.
Hogwash. The only grounds on which you disputed the evidence were that you didn't like the answer. You then ran away and came back much later to start a whole new topic, hoping we'd forget about your having been backed into a corner.
If we are going to discuss whether the Apollo data are real or bogus, we have to look at the big picture.
Utter hogwash. You start each argument out according to some random pseudoscientific argument you pull off of YouTube. You dance around a bit pretending you know the science, and then when you demonstrate an utter inability to comprehend to the relevant scientific facts, then you back away and flail your arms wildly over some overarching Master Conspiracy Plan.
Sorry, when you promise a cake recipe, I don't want a mud pie recipe. And I certainly don't want the history of baking. You can't stick to the subject because you obviously don't know the subject.
I want to see how objective you are Jay.
Why do you think I'm going to play that stupid game? It didn't work the first time.
Jay, how informed and objective you are about those non-Apollo topics is relevant to hoax-believers...
Hogwash. You're looking for any possible excuse to sidestep everything I say on the subject of Apollo -- a hallmark of true desperation and ideological entrenchment.
Your sincerity has been questioned.
Irrelevant. You're simply trying to disguise your own ignorance. You're being prevented from employing the all-inclusive paranoid rant, so now you have to try to undermine your critics on irrelevant grounds.
If you refuse to answer, that will say a lot about you too.
Yep. It says that once again I'm not falling for sophomore debate tricks. They were sophomoric and one-sided before, and they're sophomoric and one-sided now.
If you want to be taken seriously I suggest you begin to demonstrate some understanding (or at least a willingness to understand) the facts pertaining to the hogwash you spew. Stop running away to where you can't be held accountable for your claims.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 3, 2007 20:02:28 GMT -4
My guess is that the footage was full of flashes and they airbrushed them all out Airbrushed them out... of a television transmission... We think you're an invisible pink unicorn. Prove you're not. eta: Then, so should you. Yes or no, rocky: Are you still raping children?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 3, 2007 20:07:02 GMT -4
You talk about astronomy, physics, rocketry, geology, etc. but I think you people are professional spin doctors.
Only because we "have" to be in order for your beliefs not to be challenged. Find some professional, credentialled physicists, rocket scientists, geologists and so forth who both agree with you and who can answer our claims, and then you can make that statement without people laughing.
I think Jay knows all about the lies the US press tells but he works for the government so he has to stay within the bounds of the official version of everything.
LOL! You're really getting wound around the axle on this one. What is your actual proof that I work for the government and that anything I say is merely an "official" version of anything?
You don't have any, do you? This is just another thing that "must" be true in order for your paranoid persecution complex not to come crashing down around you.
I think he should give a direct clear answer the the questions I ask him.
Oh, please. Most people grew out of those silly rhetorical traps in high school.
If he avoids them, his credibility suffers.
I'm game. You keep ranting about secret government conspiracies and posing silly irrelevant litmus tests, and I'll keep deconstructing your ignorant Apollo claims according to the specific and relevant points of science and history. I'm quite welcome to let the reader judge whose credibility is suffering in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jun 3, 2007 20:25:07 GMT -4
You could be a government employee on payroll specifically to promulgate official lies -- but that doesn't prevent a statement made by you from being truthful. Only in the world of simple logic puzzles do you have "Guard in red who always lies, guard in blue who always tells the truth."
Similarly, it is foolish to judge a statement according to some external judgement of bogosity; "He is a professional therefor he is telling the truth, lies have been told on YouTube therefor what is said in this video is a lie, this man told the truth about Canada therefor he is telling the truth about camera optics." Instead, analyze the statement itself.
And here is where you smack yourself in the eye with the petard you attempt to lift other board members with, Rocky. The majority of the answers given about your Apollo-related questions have been in the form of statements about the physical world; statements that can be independently verified. No all-purpose test of truth v. lie is needed or desired. Instead, test the claim! We claim that the sun's reflection on even a flat plate glass window can photograph as a huge white sphere. Don't believe or disbelieve, compare or contrast, look at histories or make judgements about personalities....GET A DAMNED CAMERA AND TRY IT!
(Sorry for shouting.)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 4, 2007 0:56:27 GMT -4
Seriously, David, what's wrong with you? Are you physically incapable of learning from sources that aren't YouTube videos? You have repeatedly been given explanations of physics; even I have given you experiments you can do in your own home to show aspects of what you're saying is incorrect. You never do them. You have never once acknowledged not merely that you are wrong but that you might be wrong.
You have been given the benefit of the doubt, here. We were perfectly willing to answer your questions, perfectly willing to teach you aspects of science, journalism, photography, etc., that you don't know. In return, you have insulted all of us and ignored direct questions. How does this make you not a troll?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 4, 2007 4:20:59 GMT -4
Just some of the reasons that a reflection off a convex surface would change in apparent size are reflectivity of the surface, degree of curvature, whether that surface is scratched, type of film used, distance the photo was taken from, focal length, source of light, exposure time. Why must you jump to the conclusion that the light source must be artificial when there are a multitude of other reasons for any difference? That is why your arguments are circular. You assume a hoax then find something you don't understand and say it is proof of a hoax instead of studying to understand it. And yes, you are a troll.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jun 4, 2007 5:51:31 GMT -4
What we're talking about here is whether humans can survive more than four hundred miles up without heavy shielding. I don't see what this has to do with that. Okay. I should have said "My hypothesis" instead of "My guess". I think the glint above the astronaut is a reflection on a support wire because it's too high to be off of the antenna and it has the same nature as the reflection on the antenna. If you don't think this is strong evidence that the footage was taken on earth with wire supports, say why. He's referring to this. « Reply #29 on Yesterday at 5:09pm » The data offered in response to the astronauts' seeing radiation with their eyes closed when they were three hundred and fifty miles high are part of the data that are allegedly bogus. It's plausible that what you said reflects reality and it's also plausible that they are bogus data. All I'm saying is that until we can prove that the data are real, it's not proof. Part of the plan for a hoax this size would require the fabrication of large amounts of data. The radiation data supposedly learned by launching satellites into high earth orbit and sending probes far into space that are allegedly bogus so that data can't be offered as proof of anything. Your explanations don't make sense. I've seen lot's of photos of reflections of the sun on convex surfaces and I've never seen anything such as you described. I would bet that you all are a bunch of spin doctors but all I can do is wait until I come across an objective person with a background who has the time to look at it. Of course, I can try taking a picture of one myself but it seems like such an obvious waste of time that I'm going to wait for someone to confirm it. There's lots of other proof such as the wire glints mentioned above and the slow-motion issue and the issue of the difference in body movements that I mentioned in reply #2. This is mere rhetoric. Look at the stuff I posted about the wire glints and the stuff I posted in reply #2. I wouldn't call it pseudoscientific just because it came from YouTube. The question I asked in reply #17 is a very legitimate question. You are avoiding answering it because you know it's true but you can't say so because your job is to support the official version of everything. Jay I want to ask your opinion of the alleged science fraud described here in this video. video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-362629898924803064330 minure 18 second mark Here's some more stuff about science fraud. www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Earth-Weapon-Moret24feb06.htm(excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not a single NMD test had really worked, and whistleblowers such as MIT Professor Theodor Postol, had documented extensive science fraud throughout the history of the project. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.raven1.net/moret.pdf. You're an expert with lots of experience in science so I'd like to hear your opinion of what is alleged here and please don't say it's not relevant to Apollo. If science fraud is habitual in the government, it's very relevant to Apollo as Apollo was a government project. Yes, I know it's possible for there to be fraud in one project and not another. That's not my point. I just want you to give your opinion of the fraud allegations as you are a scientist. Are you just trying to waste time, or what. You know the theory is that the whole thing was taped and then played and broadcast as live while the astronauts were someplace else. It's only circumstantial. There's reply #5 on this thread. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1172920885Anyone who doesn't see anything strange in the astronauts' behavior in those videos is less than objective. You put forth your opinions authoratively and then just consider the other person's argument to be desconstructed. What we need is an objective panel of judges to decide whose opinion reflects reality. I'm not satisfied with very much of what you say. Exposure time just increases the glare that surrounds the reflection. It does not increase the size of the reflection. Look at this. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1185610.rmI've seen enough reflections of the sun on convex surfaces to know that the curvature of the visor is not low enough to cause the reflection of the sun to be that big. The reflection of the sun on that visor is as big or bigger than it would be on a flat surface. I'm still waiting to talk to an objective third party on this one though. As the opinion of a qualified objective third party is still pending, I'd like to concentrate on the other evidence I mentioned in this thread. I'd like some opinions of what I posted about science fraud from the rest of you too.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jun 4, 2007 6:50:08 GMT -4
What we're talking about here is whether humans can survive more than four hundred miles up without heavy shielding. Why can't humans survive more than four-hundred miles up without heavy shielding? Calling a guess a hypothesis doesn't make it such. Because those with experience in using wires theatrically, where it doesn't actually matter if the wires are seen, are smart enough to not use wires which will reflect light in this manner. Wouldn't that plan also include not having the astronauts reporting "seeing radiation" if this somehow indicates a danger? So if all the information we've been given is bogus, where are you getting your information that space radiation is dangerous? "I'm not going to put any effort into supporting my own claims, I'm just going to continue blindly professing that I'm right, deferring to a nebulous authority that I'm not going to bother looking for, because there's a chance my worldview might be shattered by a healthy dose of reality." So is the one I asked in my last post which you're dilligently ducking. Answer it. Yes or no, are you still raping children? Then allow me to roll my eyes at that claim as well: Airbrushed them out... of a taped television transmission... "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is obviously in on the plot, and can be ignored so that my worldview isn't shattered."
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 4, 2007 9:29:46 GMT -4
What we're talking about here is whether humans can survive more than four hundred miles up without heavy shielding. I don't see what this has to do with that. So you don't think radiation levels have anything to do with the need for shielding then? Communications satellites are placed in geostationary orbit, which is 22,240 miles up right in the Van Allen Belts (and in the case of AsiaSat 3 even looped around the Moon twice due to problems with the booster), and they use various pieces of sensitive electronics. Electronics, particularly the sensitive ones used for telecommunications, are damaged by radiation, therefor satellites are built with shielding for their electronics, but shielding takes up mass which is very expensive so they are designed with no more than is needed for the known radiation levels, ie the "false public figures" that you claim the US government gives out to anyone without "high security clearance" which means that they should fail far faster than expected.
|
|