|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 2, 2008 6:38:04 GMT -4
Jack White is back, and loudly displaying his ignorance. First, he makes claims that Mt Hadley was different in three images - two from Apollo 15, and one from Apollo 17! He then wipes out all evidence of his error, and makes a new claim that Mt Hadley was different in two images... by comparing Mt Hadley with Swann Range! educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13755He then bales out of the thread, and starts a new one regarding.. you guessed it, Mt Hadley. The new claims are that images show mounts rounded and smooth, whereas orbital images show "jagged mountains". educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13763His lack of ability with respect to image analysis and basic selenology is astounding. Check out his "shadows and jagged edges" rationalisation.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Dec 2, 2008 6:47:50 GMT -4
Can't see the pics that Jack posted if you're not a member of the board, but with Evan's reposting of one and referencing others, I get a pretty good idea of what's going on.
Jack is an idiot, which wouldn't be so bad if he knew he was one, but he doesn't. Unfortunately every time he tries to prove he's not, he simply reinforces how much of an idiot he is...
Cz
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 2, 2008 9:13:48 GMT -4
I thought he wasn't going to post on the Education forum again after he left due to what he thought was unfair treatment. Has he forgotten about that?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 2, 2008 12:10:53 GMT -4
Why did he edit away most of the original thread's posts? Talk about dishonesty...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 3, 2008 0:56:20 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 3, 2008 0:59:18 GMT -4
His new claim: I asked him to show "jagged mountains", and this is what he came up with:
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 3, 2008 15:32:38 GMT -4
Yeah the Swann Range claim is an old one. I'm surprised (or not) to see him still pushing that one. It was debunked a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 3, 2008 20:58:37 GMT -4
You know, you would think the average HB would just get embarrassed after a while. I mean, so many pieces of their "evidence" get shown to be wrong, or even a hoax itself. After a while, shouldn't the average HB just stop listening? I'm not talking the hardcores or the money-makers; I'm just talking about, well, how about Lionking? You keep finding out that things are wrong, but you still suggest that it's possible that things are hoaxed. I can't see that. I really can't.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 3, 2008 21:11:03 GMT -4
They seem beyond embarrassment. I've been in threads where nine of them are "No stars!" folks, and one actually has a small clue. And he's working his way through technical arguments, making reference to actual science and sometimes even some math, and I just want to say to him "Look, look at the other people in this argument! Can you really sit here and be all serious when there's a clown sitting at your left and a stooge on your right? If you actually were as serious as a scholar as you pretend, why don't you slap them?"
I think, seriously, it makes them look bad. I'd have a lot more respect for a hoax believer if he'd own up just how stupid most of the common arguments are. And better yet, if he'd tell THEM. Not tell us "I'm smarter than the others you've debated." No, how about you go over to YouTube and tell THEM to stop yammering about backwards orbits and invisible boots? Then maybe I'd believe you really were serious. Instead of being yet another hoax believer who will allow anything as long as it advances their agenda.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 4, 2008 14:05:22 GMT -4
You know, you would think the average HB would just get embarrassed after a while. I mean, so many pieces of their "evidence" get shown to be wrong, or even a hoax itself. After a while, shouldn't the average HB just stop listening? I'm not talking the hardcores or the money-makers; I'm just talking about, well, how about Lionking? You keep finding out that things are wrong, but you still suggest that it's possible that things are hoaxed. I can't see that. I really can't. so you suggest that I never ask any question if I have it? If it happened that a thread was posted or some photo raised some questions you think for your case as an AB, you think it is better for you to explain it or just let me and the others who read and see lots of such things probably[bcz you can't forbid ppl from seeing and hearing] go away thinking it was hoaxed?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 4, 2008 15:16:16 GMT -4
I want to know why you still think a hoax was possible when every piece of "evidence" presented in favour of it has been shown to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 4, 2008 16:13:33 GMT -4
I want to know why you still think a hoax was possible when every piece of "evidence" presented in favour of it has been shown to be wrong. bcz in many instances that are doubtful, there is an answer for it and I can't judge if it is right or wrong, so I keep it suspended...by wires ;D ppl are free in what they believe in any ways. There are 6 billion ppl on this planet, they can't all think the same as you do, so don't get so excited.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 4, 2008 16:24:17 GMT -4
I understand what you mean Lionking. There are probably numerous things that you think to be true that I would be not warm up to, just because I knew too little. But there is a difference between not being sure if something is true and being divided between two alternatives, such as the reality of the lunar program and a hoax. It is not reasonable to thing a hoax is a better or even likely alternative on the basis of too little knowledge about the subject.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 4, 2008 17:00:24 GMT -4
so you suggest that I never ask any question if I have it?
Not to put words in gillianren's keyboard, but it seems to me she was not proposing that HBs stop talking, but rather stop listening to responses from those supporting the reality of Apollo - for the simple reason that they so often refuse to really process those responses, because they are simply unwilling to accept them.
Now, don't get me wrong, because I like you and am glad you're a member of this board, but I think you display that behavior when it comes to Apollo:
We've gone pages and pages with you on subjects like the distance to certain features, on the appearance of the LM, on the technical credibility of slack-jawed yokels like Sam Colby. We've explained to you in considerable detail the geometry of various features, how spacecraft are built, how utterly, laughably at odds with reality are Colby's claims. Yet you dismissed all our careful explanations out of hand, insisting that your subjective evaluation of distances trumped all, that standard spacecraft engineering is "devaluing people's minds", and absolutely refused to put Colby's claims to the test although we handed you the simple tools to do so - claiming you couldn't figure it all out even though you clearly have the intelligence to do so.
Given such a record, I for one don't want you to stop asking questions, but I do wonder why you bother listening to our responses and replying in turn. It appears you simply won't entertain the unambiguous notion that Apollo really did happen. You say you have doubts, but it appears to me that you are committed either to denying that Apollo happened, or to retaining a "state of doubt" permanently, without ever really wanting to resolve it - at least not in favor of the reality of Apollo.
If it happened that a thread was posted or some photo raised some questions you think for your case as an AB, you think it is better for you to explain it or just let me and the others who read and see lots of such things probably[bcz you can't forbid ppl from seeing and hearing] go away thinking it was hoaxed?
If you won't seriously entertain the possibility that our explanations are right, and thus that the claims of Sibrel, Colby, et al, are wrong, what's the difference?
Example: You: This LM looks bad. What is that loose, torn stuff and tape? Us: Standard spacecraft engineering for thermal management in a vacuum-only spacecraft - Beta cloth, H-film, Kapton; precut to allow prelaunch access; light adhesives used; radiation doesn't "leak" through seems... A and B have personal experience with this sort of stuff, and most spacecraft look something like this. You: I think it looks like it won't work, and still think it needs to be tight to keep out heat. It devalues people's minds.
Example: You: I can't judge if Colby is accurate or not. Us: Here is where he continues to lie about pneumatic tires. You yourself can go look at a truck tire and see its pressure differential far exceeds that value, anyway. Here is his silly claim about orbital periods, and here is the simple formula you can look up online or in a grade school textbook to confirm. Here are the values you can use to plug into the simple formula and see for yourself in thirty seconds. You: I can't judge between all these claims!
Again, to me it looks like you're simply never going to seriously entertain our answers when it comes to Apollo. Hence, my take on gillian's question: why do you even bother listening to them?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 4, 2008 21:02:27 GMT -4
Further, given how ignorant the HB crowd is repeatedly shown to be, why would anyone listen to them?
|
|