|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 10, 2008 19:42:50 GMT -4
Well it's been pointed out previously that tape is the best way to do it. Rivets would require holes that could create weak points and tear the structure. Adhesive would add weight. Tape is light, doesn't require holes, and without any air to rip it off, is highly effective, besides the fact that the tape in question is extremely strong, and bonds like a weld. When it works perfectly for job, why not use it? Honestly why not? Aesthetic beauty is not a requirement for functionally.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 10, 2008 20:25:18 GMT -4
It is not even evidence.
It's not even a point. "Taped flag = hoax" is a non sequitur. It's just something to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 10, 2008 20:53:52 GMT -4
Well it's been pointed out previously that tape is the best way to do it. Rivets would require holes that could create weak points and tear the structure. Adhesive would add weight. Tape is light, doesn't require holes, and without any air to rip it off, is highly effective, besides the fact that the tape in question is extremely strong, and bonds like a weld. When it works perfectly for job, why not use it? Honestly why not? Aesthetic beauty is not a requirement for functionally. The fact is that if the flag had been riveted on, or glued on, or painted on, someone, somewhere would have complained and said, "why didn't they just tape it on?"..... I must admit after a couple of years here, I'm getting tired of HB's pointing out silly anomalies (to them, anyway) and ignoring completely the rest of the tons of evidence that confirms that the Apollo Moon missions happened. It just gets tiring, and I've lost a few valuable brain cells that were zapped here. And I need every one I've got!
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Dec 11, 2008 0:05:46 GMT -4
As I'm sure people have said many times: if the moon landings were faked I would expect the LM to look totally different. It would be much more "style" and much less "function". It would be unnecessarily aerodynamic, have thicker walls, fancy airlocks, etc. that maybe suit a sci-fi spacecraft but not the real thing. That fact that it looks the way it does proves to me that it was engineered for travel in space and that certain compromises had to be made.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 11, 2008 0:32:49 GMT -4
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. Speaking of respect for flags, during the Apollo 16 debriefing, John Young said, "I can honestly say I had as much trouble putting the flag together in one-sixth gravity as I did in one gravity. My main concern was with the TV sitting there watching us: that we'd end up with the flag in the dirt and us standing on it." If this had actually happened, it probably would have been another video clip for HBs to put on YouTube as evidence of a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 11, 2008 12:03:23 GMT -4
Too late. Either here or on BA, we already had an HB complaining that the flag being possibly knocked over by the ascent stage exhaust was evidence of a hoax, because it was deliberately disrespectful or something like that.
No, you cannot come up with a conspiracy claim so stupid that no one will believe it.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 12:46:09 GMT -4
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.
again, I am not a space expert. Why would I be too sure that elementary physics applies or doesn't apply to what is addressed?
Now I can't recall the mathematical operations we had, but once, we were searching with the teacher on how to use the calculator, and how to do minus on the calculator. The gatekeeper was there and said: here is the minus, and he was referring to the simple minus on the calculator. The operation spoke about a completely different thing, I think it was shift+minus and exponentials and stufff liek that, which drove the math teacher to say: no, it is completely a different thing..
So why don't you listen to real experts? .
their [i.e your] behaviour suggests previous bias. It s not unnatural, ppl get attached to things and ideas, but I am sorry, I don't judge you as objective.
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.
I went through long debate through private messages with Postbaguk, where he and I made several experiments, with each sticking to his conclusion.
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.
bias versus expertise.. see above..
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.[/quote][/b]
what I am saying is that if your responses can be true, even if I was against them or felt them unlikely at some point, many others felt likely and not weird. that supports your case better to me rather than just not asking or not knowing that you have a suitable answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 11, 2008 13:28:46 GMT -4
their [i.e your] behaviour suggests previous bias.
Again the standard conspiracy theorist's dodge from expertise to alleged bias. How convenient that everyone with the knowledge to challenge your beliefs is automatically somehow ideologically connected to a different belief. You don't for one moment consider that people believe a thing because an educated survey of the relevant facts supports that belief.
You say that you are intellectually unsure: you justify your desperate clinging to a conspiracy theory on the grounds that it's prudent to do so in an atmosphere of uncertainty. But along come people who are not intellectually unsure, and you dismiss them as ideologically motivated. I agree with the others that you're just looking to evade any meaningful challenge to your preferred ideas.
...but I am sorry, I don't judge you as objective.
But apparently you think Sam Colby must be objective: the person who call everyone who disagrees with him "nutters" and says that they "must be brain-damaged."
What exercise did you undertake to determine that Sam Colby was unbiased? What exercise did you undertake to determine that we are biased? I'll submit that Colby is both biased and ignorant. You seem to think he should be taken seriously anyway. Explain why.
There are two problems with trying to shift the argument from expertise to bias. The first is that bias doesn't cover technical explanations. The orbital mechanics equations are either worked correctly or they are not; one's preconceptions or ideological leanings are irrelevant. Not all conclusions can be undetectably tainted by bias.
The second problem is that while it's reasonably possible to determine certainly whether someone does or doesn't have the requisite expertise or knowledge, it's nearly impossible to determine whether someone is bias. You've converted the argument into something that can't be studied much beyond the initial accusation. In other words, you're just trying to poison the well.
Bias, if present, is evidenced in conclusions reached by one person (the alleged subject of bias) that would be reasonably reached differently by a supposedly unbiased person. Therefore it falls to the accuser to show specifically which conclusions are biased, and specifically how the line of resaoning that leads to them was affected by bias.
Lionking, please satisfy the burden of proof that attends your accusation of bias.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 13:38:58 GMT -4
both you and Sam Colby are biased to me.
as for your bias, just read what you put on the front page that this site is here to prove that moon landings took place. It would have been better if you said that you are here to discuss teh amtter raher than to prove this is right.
There are two problems with trying to shift the argument from expertise to bias. The first is that bias doesn't cover technical explanations. The orbital mechanics equations are either worked correctly or they are not; one's preconceptions or ideological leanings are irrelevant. Not all conclusions can be undetectably tainted by bias.
back to the water torture. There are others who provide different explanations, and I CAN'T JUDGE WHETHER YOU OR THEM ARE RIGHT...
don't make me explain it over an over.. I ahve red many of scientific explanations, tht you call pseudoscience..fine... it may be so.. I have suggested in the YouTube Chronicles thread a way out of this doubt .. grab the chance for that..
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 11, 2008 13:59:00 GMT -4
So because you're ignorant of the relevant fields, you don't have to educate yourself? You can just claim bias?
Okay, fine. Are you ignorant of Cold War politics? That doesn't require any particular scientific education, and yet it provides you with an excellent example of why Apollo wasn't a hoax, could not have been a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 11, 2008 14:44:36 GMT -4
I CAN'T JUDGE WHETHER YOU OR THEM ARE RIGHT...
Tell us what criteria are you using to make the judgments. Perhaps we can offer some suggestions in a way that are not strictly related to Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 14:53:20 GMT -4
I CAN'T JUDGE WHETHER YOU OR THEM ARE RIGHT...Tell us what criteria are you using to make the judgments. Perhaps we can offer some suggestions in a way that are not strictly related to Apollo. what is the use if they are not related to Apollo? besides, I am Not making judgements..
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 14:57:33 GMT -4
So because you're ignorant of the relevant fields, you don't have to educate yourself? You can just claim bias?
I can't educate myself about things too far from my understanding and not easy on me. They need day to day teachers. heck why do people go to universities if they can learn by themselves everything
Okay, fine. Are you ignorant of Cold War politics? That doesn't require any particular scientific education, and yet it provides you with an excellent example of why Apollo wasn't a hoax, could not have been a hoax.
but there are secret deals that could have happened. you see that you can't judge because you don't know all the details..
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 11, 2008 15:08:37 GMT -4
So what would convince you? I'm confused. You see, if you're given an explanation that meets your criteria, how will you determine it's correct if you won't bother educating yourself? Hells, I could just make something up and tell you it's the answer to your question, and you wouldn't know, because you seem to take pride in your ignorance. And if you don't, why don't you educate yourself? A lot of this stuff doesn't require a university education. It requires five minutes of research.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Dec 11, 2008 15:10:35 GMT -4
lots of things can be researche dyou think, but it takes only one wrong thing in NASA to cast doubt on everything.. and many things are related to calculations and engineering.. that are too far from me..
|
|