|
Post by lukepemberton on Apr 29, 2011 14:42:14 GMT -4
I found this video series on YouTube. I'm English, and as is the case with Percy, Allen makes me ashamed to be English. I cringe when ever I hear this sort of pseudo-intellectual waffle. It''s the usual rubbish if anyone want to sit through 2 hours of it. However, in Part 9, Allen is nicely challenged, and gives the usual 'radiation in space will fry everything' response. I actually found Allen quite defensive when he asked his challenger if he 'was sure?'
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 29, 2011 19:58:39 GMT -4
I found this video series on YouTube. I'm English, and as is the case with Percy, Allen makes me ashamed to be English. I cringe when ever I hear this sort of pseudo-intellectual waffle. It''s the usual rubbish if anyone want to sit through 2 hours of it. However, in Part 9, Allen is nicely challenged, and gives the usual 'radiation in space will fry everything' response. I actually found Allen quite defensive when he asked his challenger if he 'was sure?' I don't know if I want to watch any more - only three minutes in he says the December 1969 cover of National Geographic was from 1968... also at 7:00 min of part 2 he says " no independent verifications have ever taken place of anything that has occurred after liftoff and before splashdown"
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 29, 2011 21:26:44 GMT -4
This gentleman seems to be quite a fan of White, Percy et al. For someone publishing a science magazine, he seems terribly lacking in critical thinking.
It's like watching Percy's video all over again, while perusing White's photographic "studies". Painful, determined ignorance. One wouldn't know where to start in dissecting his "arguments".
I have a marvelous view of a big mountain here (about 12 miles away), I think I might go out and create some "impossible" shots some day.
(eta: is this guy's magazine supposed to be a serious piece of work? I was under the impression it was a science journal of sorts, but a search has it self labled as an "alternative news" publication...a little too alternative for me.)
Nice to see him being challenged by the audience.
|
|
|
Post by photobuster919 on May 1, 2011 6:08:59 GMT -4
I found this video series on YouTube. I'm English, and as is the case with Percy, Allen makes me ashamed to be English. I cringe when ever I hear this sort of pseudo-intellectual waffle. It''s the usual rubbish if anyone want to sit through 2 hours of it. However, in Part 9, Allen is nicely challenged, and gives the usual 'radiation in space will fry everything' response. I actually found Allen quite defensive when he asked his challenger if he 'was sure?' I just want to clear up on one thing here. Marcuss believes the moon landings were fake but David Percy doesn't, he believe the footage was faked. Everyone assumes David Percy is a HB but he is not. And yes Allen is misled in his views about Apollo, but I guess at the end of the day thats just his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on May 1, 2011 10:46:20 GMT -4
Percy believes that the footage was faked and he also believes that "surrogate astronauts" were sent to the Moon instead of the Apollo crews we know and admire. Maybe his hoax theory is different from that of other HBs, but he is promoting a hoax theory nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 1, 2011 11:21:07 GMT -4
I just want to clear up on one thing here. Marcuss believes the moon landings were fake but David Percy doesn't, he believe the footage was faked. Everyone assumes David Percy is a HB but he is not. Of course he is. He is still proposing a massive hoax, whether or not his version involves smoe actual landings. He also still makes the same basic errors of analysis as anyone else when analysing the footage and images. Percy is most definitely a hoax believer. The point is not whether someone believes that people actually landed on the moon, but whether they are proposing that the landings as described were real or not. How is he not supporting a hoax by claiming all the footage and pictures were fake?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 1, 2011 17:05:44 GMT -4
For someone publishing a science magazine, he seems terribly lacking in critical thinking. As far as I can tell his magazine, the British edition of Nexus, is practically the definition of conspiracy theory.
|
|
Ian Pearse
Mars
Apollo (and space) enthusiast
Posts: 308
|
Post by Ian Pearse on May 2, 2011 7:33:57 GMT -4
I watched some of those videos and added some comments to see if anyone bites Could prove to be fun. But, as mentioned previously, it's the same old tired arguments again... it would be so nice to have something original come up.
|
|