|
Post by smlbstcbr on Dec 4, 2008 22:36:31 GMT -4
Further, given how ignorant the HB crowd is repeatedly shown to be, why would anyone listen to them?Because, unfortunately, most people like to hear about affairs and intrigues, the way seen in Mexican and Venezuelan soap operas. (We, colloquially, name them culebrones. Loosely translated it means big snake in a pejorative manner ;D. The RAE dictionary defines culebrón as a extremely long and melodramatic soap opera).
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Dec 5, 2008 8:48:54 GMT -4
Jack is incompetent. That is about it.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 5, 2008 11:17:44 GMT -4
Jack is incompetent. That is about it. Man, I'll say. What I'd give to have my world rocked by some real hard evidence like say a studio call sheet listing crew names and designated duties. Or perhaps tracking station data which blatantly shows the dish was pointed in the completely wrong direction. Or even surveillance camera footage of the astronauts being extracted from the CSM and driven away 5 minutes before launch.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 5, 2008 11:19:09 GMT -4
Of course the man is incompetent. But he has an oddly devoted following. I'm amazed how many people are willing to go to the mat to proclaim him a persecuted expert.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 5, 2008 11:58:21 GMT -4
I notice that in White's latest hairball, he's claiming that the PLSS backpack is not visible in Jack Schmitt's reflection. Just a glance will show you that the shadow of Jack's PLSS is readily visible.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Dec 5, 2008 15:12:04 GMT -4
I'm still trying to determine how he get's off calling his posts "studys"... ...if he would just spend a little time thinking about things, instead of instinctively flinging manure that he sees as "analysis". He's creating his own reality.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 10, 2008 12:56:52 GMT -4
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.
No. they probably lack the complete skills and knowledge to do so. Sometimes because you know little about some science, you think you can answer everything. In fact, you can't do so unless you are an expert in it.
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.
No. I am not an expert in photos and distances. In the thread of the two craters and how changing in size they should appear, I did certain photo tests myself, and another member here did his own, and I found that between me and his contradictive results, I couldn't judge what is right. May be I did something wrong in the calculations. Maybe he did something wrong. I am not an expert at this = I am not decided. Point.
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.
To see what are the replies, and if there is a possibility they might be true or they are out of the world .
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?
explained above.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 10, 2008 12:59:43 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. the issue is, if something is wrong with the tape/photos, it casts doubt over all the NASA credibility. I am still waiting the answer for the pinky color of the glitter in the youtube chronicles thread. I will get back to it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 10, 2008 13:33:44 GMT -4
the issue is, if something is wrong with the tape/photos, it casts doubt over all the NASA credibility
That is the crux of the problem. Stating that something in wrong is a statement of knowledge. You don't know that there is something wrong, only that there is something that you don't understand.
IIRC, one of the first arguments you made was about the way the flag was taped onto the LM. That had nothing to do with photos being incorrect, only your projection of what should be appropriate in that situation.
You have this position that the default explanation for everything you don't understand must be that the Apollo program is a hoax. When the real position is simply a lack of understanding. I am asking you to step out of this mode and simply acknowledge a lack of understanding without the need to invoke an unnecessary invention, like a hoax, to make sense of what you see. Step on up a level.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 10, 2008 13:42:51 GMT -4
o.k, the flag poting was not an proof of a hoax, rather undecent way of treating the audience. Imagine taping a flag today in this manner on a model LM.. it wouldn't be decent.. that's all.. but it indicates some uncaring for the mission... but it is not proof.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 10, 2008 14:07:54 GMT -4
Why is it "indecent" to attach to a spacecraft the flag of its country of origin? That's required by international law, so that it is a "flagged" vessel and entitled to be treated as its owning country's sovereign property even upon the "high seas."
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 10, 2008 14:16:03 GMT -4
Why is it "indecent" to attach to a spacecraft the flag of its country of origin? That's required by international law, so that it is a "flagged" vessel and entitled to be treated as its owning country's sovereign property even upon the "high seas." I think she means it was indecent to attach the flag using tape because it looks (to her anyway) sloppy and not up to the high standards that the American flag deserves. How that proves the moon landings were faked, I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 10, 2008 14:26:31 GMT -4
Why is it "indecent" to attach to a spacecraft the flag of its country of origin? That's required by international law, so that it is a "flagged" vessel and entitled to be treated as its owning country's sovereign property even upon the "high seas."
... and the seas don't come any higher than the Sea of Tranquility.
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. No. they probably lack the complete skills and knowledge to do so.
But you've refused to process responses which gave you the tools you needed to do so: for example, using a simple, standard formula and values - which can be found in any elementary physics textbook, but were explicitly provided to you - to check Sam Colby's ludicrous ideas of orbital periods.
Sometimes because you know little about some science, you think you can answer everything. In fact, you can't do so unless you are an expert in it.
So why don't you listen to real experts? You've spent many, many pages disputing said experts, while refusing to put to the same test pretenders who support your disbelief.
No. I am not an expert in photos and distances. In the thread of the two craters and how changing in size they should appear, I did certain photo tests myself, and another member here did his own,
Several of us did our own calculations, and provided them to you. I don't recall seeing any from you, but if you care to provide me a reference I'll be happy to retract that.
and I found that between me and his contradictive results, I couldn't judge what is right. May be I did something wrong in the calculations. Maybe he did something wrong. I am not an expert at this = I am not decided. Point.
You simply cling to the "I can't judge what is right", even when definitive, expert explanations are given to you. That's an intellectual cop-out at best and an excuse for your predetermined conclusions at worst.
To see what are the replies, and if there is a possibility they might be true or they are out of the world.
Given the careful, detailed responses from actual experts, including multiple engineers, photographers, theatricists*, and self-taught "laymen"*, all of which you routinely dismiss, and your near-automatic granting of credit to the most laughable of charlatans,... No, I don't believe it. Perhaps you tell yourself that, but your history here demonstrates that you are committed to denying (or at least doubting Apollo), and thus unwilling to seriously consider our arguments in support of it.
*People who are not in a related field, but have carefully studied various aspects of Apollo, and are careful to confine their assertions to things they actually know.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Dec 10, 2008 14:31:48 GMT -4
As an occasional buyer of signs and graphics, I can think of many ways that the flag could have been attached or applied.
But for every one, I can also think of several questions with expensive answers. The main question is "will this damage the kapton or reduce it's effectiveness in that spot?"
I vaguely remember that the specific tape in question was used to secure the kapton to the spacecraft, thus was an already approved product. Sorry, no refs, and work calls soon, so I can't hunt it down.
Screen printing on the kapton would look really sharp, and only cost about $100 per flag, vs. the cost of 6 feet of adhesive tape already on-hand.
Maybe it's sloppy, but hardly disrespectful of either the flag or the craft. It was also removable, should need arise.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 10, 2008 14:38:59 GMT -4
but it is not proof.
It is not even evidence.
What we are asking of you is to take a step in your understanding by changing the way you look at the world. To learn how to understand when someone is telling the truth or a lie and to abandon the need to invent unnecessarily complicated explanations when it can be demonstrated that fewer assumptions are more than adequate.
Are you up to that? I think you are or you wouldn't have hung around us for so long.
|
|