|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 8, 2011 5:05:17 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. A liar is one who lies. Ergo, if one lies, one is a liar. So do we.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 5:32:06 GMT -4
I am not a fool, that link is completely fabricated. You'd better back that up. In addition to Jay himself being here, you may notice a couple of replies on that link written by someone called Jason Thompson. Does that name look familiar? Hint: look at the name on this post. I participated in that conversation.* You did not. It was in no way fabricated. *In the sense that I posted once or twice in response. However, he completely ignored me and everyone else besides Jay.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 8, 2011 5:48:20 GMT -4
Astronauts are like spies, both operate secretly. Absolutely ... except for the parts where they lift off from earth in front of thousands of people and cameras providing live television coverage across the globe. Oh ... and the live television broadcasts from inside the spacecraft en route to the moon. Oh ... and the publicity photos at NASA and the training facilities. Oh ... and the live press conferences during training, before and after the missions themselves. And so on ...
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 6:40:27 GMT -4
For Luke,
Apollo is cold war theater. This is why the astronauts are not bad/evil/immoral people.
Are spies immoral because they hide things for a cause they believe in? Ditto for astronauts. They are overt operatives as opposed to their "spy" counterparts, the covert operatives. Sometimes I like to think of astronauts as "astro-operatives". My general sense is they have suffered greatly because of this secret. Armstrong in particular.
Since you asked, I gave you an honest answer Luke. Please just let it be. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 6:45:27 GMT -4
Where do you get this impression the astronauts have suffered? Have you actually met any of them?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 6:52:55 GMT -4
For Luke, Apollo is cold war theater. This is why the astronauts are not bad/evil/immoral people. Are spies immoral because they hide things for a cause they believe in? Ditto for astronauts. They are overt operatives as opposed to their "spy" counterparts, the covert operatives. Sometimes I like to think of astronauts as "astro-operatives". My general sense is they have suffered greatly because of this secret. Armstrong in particular. Since you asked, I gave you an honest answer Luke. Please just let it be. Thanks Please let it be? I'm not talking about Cold war and socio-politico backdrops. I'm talking about the fact that you accuse them of lying but at the same time not being liars. You're having your cake and eating it. What don't you understand about the repugnancy of your stance. You are accusing men of lying, but at the same time you want to offer them your hand of friendship. Let's examine the facts here. Those men that you accuse of lying put themselves in arms way many times during their careers. You on the other hand accuse them of lying, but are not able to back up your claims. Instead you resort to continued gish gallop and sidestepping. Now return to the other thread, and answer the hard questions, or are you showing your true colours and avoiding things when the going gets tough. You're the one that has made the claims. Back them up with some quantifcation.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 8, 2011 6:59:20 GMT -4
fattydash: If you are going to make statements that denigrate the greatest achievements of thousands of people and call them liars (or worse) then you should expect people to be offended and angry. I honestly don't understand your stance that "they're liars but I don't consider them bad people". It's totally contradictory. You have also been disrespectful of the people here by repeatedly side stepping questions. And on top of that you've been dishonest by creating sock puppet accounts. What's your reason for that, doctor? So don't expect a whole lot of sympathy for the few minor insults that people here direct your way. Indeed, I'd like to formally ask that question directly to fattydash: WHY DID YOU CREATE SOCKPUPPET ACCOUNTS, here and at BAUT?There is now absolutely no question that you are the same person who posted as DoctorTea, then MaryB, then BFischer, then BSpassky, then Sicilian at BAUT before finally being banned. So explain precisely why you used those false accounts - was it just to support the very obvious falsehood of you being a doctor? Or isn't your single opinion good enough? ( That was a rhetorical question..) I'm sure you can provide a good reason, and that you aren't like the usual folks who create sockpuppets.. In general terms, I think creating sockpuppets is simply reprehensible, and shows that, usually, the person who uses them is clearly NOT what they pretend, is a REAL liar and fraud, cannot be trusted, and is most likely pushing garbage. Yep, all boxes ticked. The modus operandi of such people is to post subjective (and generally ridiculous) "If I was running the zoo" statements, to avoid posting any numbers, to avoid any proper methodical analysis, to avoid staying on a topic, to post numerous derails, to avoid citing anything but loose opinions which are then twisted to fit... Notice all those 'avoids'? Such people do like avoiding stuff - because they are cowards as well as liars and frauds. Such people are always in one of two categories - deluded, ill-informed, untrustworthy and agenda pushing (Nancy Lieder springs to mind as a prime example), or simply trolling. Or sometimes a combination of both. Anyway, I'm happy to accept a slap on the wrist (or far worse), for this personal attack on such people, which is clearly against the forum rules. But frankly I am sick to death of such people's antics, and sometimes I think it is time to call a {insert favorite imprecation here} a {ditto}. But anyway, getting back to fattydash, I'm sure he can explain his behavior... So to answer the OP question, I get along fine with friends, family, workmates (which includes physicists, chemists, biologists and other scientists, engineers, astronomers, photographers and even some real doctors..). I don't 'get along' with you, fattydash, as I don't think you are any of those. However, there is some good from all this: 1. I have learnt just how low some Apollo deniers will descend. 2. I have learnt a few new things about Apollo, even some new proofs (not raised by fattydash, naturally) in the highly educated responses from some of the exceptionally learned folks here. BTW, if I'm still posting here after this , I shall return with some pointed comments about fattydash's latest 'proofs' (and I have never used that term so loosely before) and also to post the correct way to approach an analysis (specifically regarding radiation, but equally applicable to all the execrable garbage thus far posted by er.. some hoax believers). It will obviously be wasted on some one here.. but others may appreciate it...
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 7:02:51 GMT -4
For Luke,
Come on now Luke, think of the times you have lied. You have been motivated, perhaps sometimes by quite reasonable, more than reasonable. This is how I view astronaut Armstrong. He was a fighter pilot in Korea, flew the X-15, risked his life doing this stuff and in his mind, perhaps risked it feigning a moon landing as well.
Ever think about Armstrong , as regards that bogus NASA line, his number more or less just came up? Just sorta' lucky to have been in line as the commander of 11?
Let's all agree for the moment, all HB types too, myself included, let's agree, it is a flat out fact, we can go to the moon. It is absolutely real. Is one going to leave to "chance" who will be the first man on the moon? The first to attempt this, that, the other thing, anything necessary to pull it off? Of course not. Any way one slices it, Armstrong was chosen, and chosen very very very very very carefully. In some respects he may have volunteered as well. These statements I believe apply to Apollo in any context.
So does that make the NASA people evil/immoral/bad, the people that lied to us and told us that Neil Armstrong was just pretty much a "random selection', an average guy?.
No way he was under any circumstances.
The issues here are very complex, the issues as regards morality under these most remarkable circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 7:43:45 GMT -4
Who said Armstrong was a 'random selection'?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 8, 2011 7:46:22 GMT -4
Most of the time Armstrong is presented that way Jase. Best to you my friend
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 8, 2011 7:47:02 GMT -4
Fattydasher, from your description, you'd think that they held a lottery, and Armstrong just happened to come up with the winning ticket.
OF COURSE he wasn't just "an average guy". He was considered the best of the best, of all the volunteers of great credentials. (Ever read "The Right Stuff"? You'd get an idea of how competitive the search was for astronauts.)
Now, it appears from your post that you are at least positing that it is physically possible to go to the Moon. If so, why are you so convinced they didn't do something possible, but decided to take the much greater propaganda risk of faking the entire program?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 8, 2011 7:50:13 GMT -4
Most of the time Armstrong is presented that way Jase. Best to you my friend Firstly, please do not call me Jase. I hate it. Secondl;y, where is Armstrong presented as a 'random selection'? I would be willing to bet I've seen more material on the subject than you have, and I have definitely not come away with that impression at all.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 7:58:42 GMT -4
The issues here are very complex, the issues as regards morality under these most remarkable circumstances. Circumstances that you have subscribed to, not me. I do not share your worldview. Whether I told my father I broke his shed window by playing ball, rather than fooling around by seeing how far I could throw a milk crate has nothing to do with this. You are accusing people of more than lying, you are accusing them of taking part in fraud. Thus far you have no proof of that fraud. When asked to qualfiy your claims with numercial analysis, you admitted that you have not looked at the numbers. You have not shown a practical understanding of LRRR science. How the LM and CM performed rendevouz has been explained to you by qualified engineers. You have been asked why Apollo had to be faked. You have been asked how it was faked. You have ignored large proportions of posts by sidestepping questions when the going gets hard. All you have shown is your ability to gish gallop and tell a flowery story. So, why did Apollo have to be faked? Kennedy committed the US to landing men on the moon and returning them safely, what obstacle was in the way of that goal?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 8, 2011 9:11:31 GMT -4
Saying someone lied and calling someone a liar are 2 different things. That is arrant sophistry. You don't get to say that certain persons lied, and continued to lie, and supported a massive, ongoing fraud, and then say, "Whoa! I didn't call them liars!" That's exactly what you're doing, and you should at least have the honesty to own up to your claim. I have trouble understanding why I should view Neil Armstrong as this terrible, awful person. You are saying that Armstrong, and many thousands (as has already been pointed out to you) of other flight crew, engineers, and scientists, have lied about one of mankind's greatest achievements, and colluded to misappropriate tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money, in a conspiracy maintained over about half a century. If such a claim was true, they would indeed be awful people. Fortunately, your claim is not true. Astronauts are like spies, both operate secretly. No, they don't. That is a ridiculous claim, and frankly suggests that you will say anything, however baseless, to support your conviction that Apollo was somehow faked. I have actually worked with astronauts, including Apollo-era astronauts, and Apollo engineers. I have formed from direct personal observation some understanding of how they work, their competence, and integrity. Your characterizations of the people involved are no more accurate than your understanding of the scientific or engineering aspects. But don't worry; I've also known quite a few doctors, and I don't judge them as a group by your posts.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 8, 2011 9:16:20 GMT -4
This is why the astronauts are not bad/evil/immoral people.Hogwash. You're claiming that they have lied and continue to lie about the events that made them famous. They continue to enjoy the blessings of having accomplished something daring and important. Trying to play them off as hapless victims of some larger, shadowy enterprise lacks evidence. You want to write off Apollo as mere theater. Shakespeare points out that his actors are flat, unraised spirits and that he cannot cram the vasty fields of France within his theater. At some point the illusion has to be revealed. Your attempts to find it are riddled with ignorance, bluster, deceit, illogic, and evasion -- and they're just plain wrong. If you can't show exactly where it was a hoax, you have no business trying to say it was. To those who have studied this history far more conscientiously than you, it's no theater piece. It really happened. My general sense is they have suffered greatly because of this secret. Armstrong in particular.How many of the Apollo crews have you actually met and had substantial conversation with? I want an actual number. And I want to know how you know that these flat, unraised spirits are suffering. Since you asked, I gave you an honest answer Luke. Please just let it be. ThanksSorry, we don't let hogwash sit around very long here. Here's my honest answer. You're trying to avoid the social consequences of your professed beliefs. You want the thrill of promoting a conspiracy theory, but you don't want people to think you're some kid of nut case because of it. So you walk a very careful line that seems both conspiratorial yet reasonable, but in the final analysis is just a bunch of meaningless word games. You're a conspiracy theorist: either wear the suit or get off the stage. You're clearly no doctor. If you want to prove me wrong, post your real name, your NPI, and the institution at which you practice medicine. If you aren't willing to submit to the voir dire of your claimed expertise, then you clearly have no desire to engage in honest debate. And I think it's obvious for other reasons that honest debate is the farthest thing from your mind. You started here with the same m.o. as you did at BAUT -- claimed expertise that can't stand up to inquiry, an army of sock puppets, and now trying to curry sympathy over your "shabby" treatment. Get used to the fact that all the qualified professionals agree Apollo was real because that's where the facts really point, and because they have a much more correct and complete grasp of those facts than you do.
|
|