|
Post by capricorn1 on Feb 20, 2011 7:20:32 GMT -4
This is even when other members are posting a dozen or more replies to each of my posts! I can see I'm on borrowed time here because there's no way I can express myself any differently to how I do now. And people reckon you could never cover up the faking of the Moon Landings? It would be easy! A staggeringly ignorant statement......because Hagbardceline cannot "express himself" makes it "easy" to fake the Moon landings? An icke-like leap of faith. It was pointed out to you through videos diagrams and general posts, that the Apollo missions used an up and around trajectory. The VAB was not that big an issue, since they went through the outer edges pretty quickly. Run away, without posting one single piece of evidence, except .....hand waving....children's books and supposed conflicting data found in google.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Feb 20, 2011 7:47:01 GMT -4
Hag. How deep is the sea and how big are waves? I'll take measurements accuate to the nearest .5 meter . thanks. I don't know. I've looked at figures for the sea's depth and wave hieght, but they keep coming up with different answers. An incredibly simple analogy to try to help him understand why his sources gave different answers and it went right over his head. I love arguing with people who have a 3rd grade science education.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:20:24 GMT -4
PeterB, I've got to the title page and it says 1976; that's 4 years after Apollo ended.... The main point is the amount of the detail. Good. Keep reading.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:43:25 GMT -4
I Know They Are Variable ...What do I find? Condradictory and diverging figures!? I wish you'd explain how these two statements are supposed to contradict each other. "Of course I know the Belts vary. My problem is that they vary."
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:50:34 GMT -4
Well I could if I'm in the area. I live in Oxford, so I've got the best and brightest on my doorstep. I did try this once and the individual just gave me a scornful look and shook his head. Who did you ask? What was his area of expertise? What did you ask him? That's true. How about you look them up, instead of paraphrasing science books intended for kids?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 9:21:53 GMT -4
Okay, I think it's time for what I consider the most absolutely fundamental question in this kind of case. What would it take to convince you that you were wrong, Hagbard? That's a good question. I used to think that if I saw the remains of the lunar bases myself if I went to the moon I'd know that it had been done. But even then I'd wonder if I was still being conned. The recent Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter mission showed what appeared to be the remains of a LM decent stage, but was it? I don't necessarily go along with Jarrah White's view that these photoes were Photoshopped, although I don't rule it out. Those artifacts could be models, balsawood frames. If I was ever in a spacesuit walking through the remains of Tranqulity Base and the Eagle I'd be very impressed indeed, but then I'd have to add the proviso: If I'm not being hypnotized by government mind control. I know this makes my opinion virtually unfalsifiable, but I've answered your question honestly. We are living in George Orwell's "age of universal deceit" whether we like it or not. If you want me to lie and be a hypocrite just say the word and I'll repeat after you: We really did go to the moon. Oh please, get over yourself. If you think we live in a world akin to Orwell's "1984" I'll assume you haven't actually read the book. If life's so hard in Oxford in the UK, perhaps you could move somewhere like Afghanistan, or Lesotho, or North Korea. You're simply trying to find every excuse to not accept what the evidence suggests. You set the evidence bar far higher for NASA and Apollo than you require for evidence which supports your views. You say you could be hypnotised by NASA to trick you. Yet you unquestioningly accept what the radiographer said at the hospital? How do you know she's not an Illuminati disinformation agent trying to confuse you? Out of interest, do you question every part of reality to the extent that you question the reality of Apollo? The patients and staff you deal with every day - what do you do to confirm they're real humans and not Reptilians? Are you sure the cars passing you on the street are real and not holograms? We don't want you to be a hypocrite. We want you to open your eyes and your mind, and consider you might be mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 20, 2011 11:47:07 GMT -4
I've noticed in my lurking over the years that there is a sort of conceptual Rubicon where people either have to step back, and say, "Oh, yeah, maybe I'm wrong about my theory," or plunge forward and abandon all pretense that one is looking at the world in a rational way. Saying that all contradictory information to your belief is due to "mind control" is one. Another is the rejection of the reality of the history of the last century, claiming that the Cold War, the world wars, etc., were some sort of farce perpetrated by the Powers That Be to distract us from their evil plans. It's sort of "I can't be wrong, so everything everyone knows about everything must be wrong."
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Feb 20, 2011 13:57:00 GMT -4
Someone should point Ultima1 over there. I'd make popcorn.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 20, 2011 14:14:59 GMT -4
Someone should point Ultima1 over there. I'd make popcorn. LOL. Yeah, that would be fun. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 20, 2011 14:31:14 GMT -4
Well, Mr H is complaining he was asked the same question time and time again and had no time to answer them all. All you had to do Mr H, is answer once for all if they were the same question. One answer was all it would have needed. Of course, the answer would have to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Feb 20, 2011 14:57:27 GMT -4
Well, Mr H is complaining he was asked the same question time and time again and had no time to answer them all. All you had to do Mr H, is answer once for all if they were the same question. One answer was all it would have needed. Of course, the answer would have to be correct. Of course, or does it....? I suspect he knows this and that in presentation of something that is not correct it will be pointed out and can be shown to be incorrect (hard to avoid on any open forum). His stance (moreover refusal), is I think, the reason of this dance. Until he lays some info down he can be seen by his peers to be winning. In reality he is avoiding the question like the plague. But it does need one answer for all these same questions he complains about, one answer only. Complaints of many people asking the same question and not the time to answer is laughable. One answer Mr H, will it be right or wrong or do you not know either way despite being spoon fed the answers? All verifiable.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 20, 2011 21:52:06 GMT -4
I'm just saying that, if he gives the correct answer, we'd stop asking the question.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 21, 2011 5:16:28 GMT -4
I'm just saying that, if he gives the correct answer, we'd stop asking the question. Hmm, not sure about that one. Surely that feeds the HB mindset that we are closed off, only prepared to accept one "correct" answer as being valid, and therefore unwilling to entertain a genuine debate? This particular "debate" has got stuck because, even to a layman like me, it is absolutely clear that Hagbard has no real evidence, just a gut feeling that "the government" can never be trusted and there are conspiracies everywhere if you just have the right mindset and know where to look. If, on the other hand , he were to come back with a reasoned and logical answer based on evidence (and he provided the specifics of that evidence) then the debate moves onto the meat of his argument ... is the evidence valid or flawed (or both), has he drawn an appropriate conclusion based on it, is he missing part of the bigger picture and using the evidence out of essential context? And so on. All of that turns this debate into something meaningful regardless of how correct, or otherwise, his answer actually is. At the moment, there is no meat to his argument. He just so strongly believes that he is right that nothing is going to shake that belief. And so, we just go round and round in circles.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 21, 2011 6:20:49 GMT -4
At the moment, there is no meat to his argument. He just so strongly believes that he is right that nothing is going to shake that belief. And so, we just go round and round in circles. Maybe conspiratorial and scientific awareness are inversely proportional? :-)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 21, 2011 14:43:18 GMT -4
Hmm, not sure about that one. Surely that feeds the HB mindset that we are closed off, only prepared to accept one "correct" answer as being valid, and therefore unwilling to entertain a genuine debate? Sometimes, there aren't a lot of choices if you want to give a correct answer. It may be closed-minded, but there's still a difference between a right answer and a wrong answer.
|
|