|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 20:08:38 GMT -4
The OP seems to be very familiar with NASA's own material. More so than those posting in opposition. I find the arguments compelling. Rah! Rah! Rah! Go Sox! No. They regard conspiracy theorists as "kooks" (Jim Lovell to Bill Kaysing), "mental cases" (Apollo crew member in private conversation), and criminal assailants (Buzz Aldrin to Bart Sibrel, prosecutor concurring). |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 24, 2012 20:21:46 GMT -4
The OP references NASA's own data. But he doesn't understand it. He plays with sock puppets... that seems very childlike to me. Don't you agree that it is pretty pathetic of him to create false identities in order give the appearance of support? He can't find any real people who support him, so he invents them. I bet he only had imaginary friends as a child too. It's sad. Of course he does to you, but not to anyone with even a small amount of knowledge of the subject. He's not even competent at convincing people that his imaginary supporters are real people. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 24, 2012 21:42:19 GMT -4
Actually, there's a difference between childish and childlike. Being childlike, to me, includes a spirit of open inquiry, of learning for the sheer joy of exploring the world that's out there. In that sense, no, he isn't very childlike. However, he insults people and creates false personae to agree with him when he can't get real people to, and that's certainly childish.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 24, 2012 22:13:48 GMT -4
Actually, there's a difference between child ish and child like. I actually wrote childish originally because I do differentiate it from childlike, but I decided to change it to match what Forthethrillofitall wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 25, 2012 5:00:57 GMT -4
Heck, I'd have enough of a bone to pick even if he were posting movie reviews. He's such a poor writer and is so proudly unaware of just how ill-organized his long rambling posts are. It is like weeds on a page; it makes me want to pull out a red pen and try to cut through to whatever (however trite) intent might be hidden within.
He's also dangerously incompetent at basic science and engineering; the kind of guy who barely bothers to skim the first few lines of a Wikipedia article before deciding he knows enough to safely run a cutting torch or install household wiring. Every post is full of lofty assurances of his own competence; a teeth-grinding experience when contrasted with the actual skills he reveals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 25, 2012 8:20:13 GMT -4
Do the astronauts themselves ever read this type of thing? I wonder how they might respond. Here you go -- look them up yourself on the DVD of "In the Shadow of the Moon": 1:33:37 Al Bean: You know, some of the tabloids are saying that we did this in a hangar in Arizona. Maybe that would have been a good idea. 1:33:46 Mike Collins: I don't know how I would… grab someone by the collar who didn't believe and shake them and somehow change their mind. 1:33:52 Dave Scott: Any significant event in history, somebody's had a conspiracy theory one way or the other. 1:33:57 Mike Collins: I don't know two Americans who have a fantastic secret without one of them blurting it out to the press. Can you imagine thousands of people able to keep this secret? 1:34:07 Charlie Duke: We've been to the moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times, if we faked it? 1:34:16 Gene Cernan: Truth needs no defence. Nobody, nobody can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 25, 2012 14:07:05 GMT -4
The fundamental problem with Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/BFischer/BSpassky/mvinson/piersquared/<and many more sock-puppets> is that he's a troll. He craves attention, so he posts reams of nonsense and hurls puerile invective to get people to pay attention to him. That's why I stopped paying attention to him.
But that's not the only problem. He's a liar. He's lied about his history of sock-puppetry, lied about his qualifications, and routinely lies about his own claims. He's childish, and not in a charming way, but in a self-important-twelve-year-old kind of way. His immature ranting, repetitious and laden with encomiums to himself and cliches of kid-speak, is very tiresome. He's incompetent across a wide range of topics; he quote-mines snippets he can Google up for free, but doesn't understand any of the material, and routinely makes (but almost never acknowledges) amusingly fundamental mistakes. He's completely inept as a researcher; he can't grasp the difference between primary and popular sources, nor between materials proximal in time to the events and personal reminisices produced decades later. And he's just an execrable excuse for a writer; his bloated rants are disorganized and routinely self-contradictory, but because he likes to hear himself talk and get attention from the grown-ups, he can't stop from posting both new and recycled dreck.
The last is what makes him such a bad liar, especially for someone who lies as much as he does. A good liar always knows when to stop. But trolls like Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. have to keep churning out the effluvium to keep getting attention. I concluded, however, I didn't have to reward his tantrums with my attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 25, 2012 14:12:56 GMT -4
I forgot one other thing. He's not only a liar, but a coward - an "Internet tough guy". Safe from behind his keyboard and forum handle, he crows about "perps" and how he would take down this or that test pilot or combat veteran. And, when offered to be put directly in contact with these people, he runs like mad in the opposite direction.
I think the technical term for this particular character trait is "chickensh*t".
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 25, 2012 15:45:51 GMT -4
1:34:07 Charlie Duke: We've been to the moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times, if we faked it? This should be an effective response to those hoaxers who ask why we've never been back. We did go back; we landed another 5 times after the first, and as Duke said we actually had a total of 9 flights to the vicinity of the moon. We may have not done it since 1972, but if the implication is that we did it only once out of concern that a faked achievement would be too risky to repeat, well that's just wrong -- we did repeat it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jan 26, 2012 5:30:07 GMT -4
The fundamental problem with Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/BFischer/BSpassky/mvinson/piersquared/<and many more sock-puppets> is that he's a troll... ...trolls like Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. have to keep churning out the effluvium to keep getting attention. I concluded, however, I didn't have to reward his tantrums with my attention. Very well put, STS60. You express my own sentiments far better than I could. I gave up on the clown and his immature rants at JREF back in October. It was impossible to get some sense out of him. He seems to have what I consider an extremely unfortunate combination: More ego than brains. |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jan 26, 2012 9:52:58 GMT -4
For him, the fishing is good, people are taking the bait.
|
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 26, 2012 23:50:53 GMT -4
Some people like to organize their socks, pair them up, fold them and neatly put them away.
I just dump all the socks into a drawer in a big wad.
|
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 28, 2012 17:49:27 GMT -4
Do the astronauts themselves ever read this type of thing? I wonder how they might respond. Here you go -- look them up yourself on the DVD of "In the Shadow of the Moon": 1:33:37 Al Bean: You know, some of the tabloids are saying that we did this in a hangar in Arizona. Maybe that would have been a good idea. 1:33:46 Mike Collins: I don't know how I would… grab someone by the collar who didn't believe and shake them and somehow change their mind. 1:33:52 Dave Scott: Any significant event in history, somebody's had a conspiracy theory one way or the other. 1:33:57 Mike Collins: I don't know two Americans who have a fantastic secret without one of them blurting it out to the press. Can you imagine thousands of people able to keep this secret? 1:34:07 Charlie Duke: We've been to the moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times, if we faked it? 1:34:16 Gene Cernan: Truth needs no defence. Nobody, nobody can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me. These are not the the responses to which I was making reference. In your examples the astronauts are giving generic responces to generic hoax charges. This thread leader is making very specific accusations about the nature of the hoax. I wonder how Neil Armstrong would respond if confronted with the accusation that he did not know where the Eagle actually landed. The astronauts always seem to say "we landed period" and they put their feet down. I do not know about anybody else but in my mind this guy is really on to something very significant. |
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 28, 2012 17:52:45 GMT -4
You seem fairly articulate. Perhaps they should make you the group spokesperson. It's a little early for you to be fixated on me. It's almost like you know me. It's hard to concoct a theory that NASA's data was falsified without referencing that data. Even a murder defense has to mention the corpse. "Referencing" the data is not the same as understanding it. Fattydash shows complete ineptitude with the information he's dealing with, and disdain for the expertise of those who correct him. Then you're not reading the same Fattydash posts as we are. I wonder why you would say that. I said you were fairly articulate. I did not say you were worthy of fixation. You are not the best writer of your lot anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 28, 2012 17:55:53 GMT -4
The OP seems to be very familiar with NASA's own material. Anyone can quote NASA material. The OP’s problem is in his inability to understand it. That sounds like a problem you need to work on. Would you read the ramblings of a know-nothing conspiracy theorist if you were one of the astronauts? I checked every one of the OP's references cited in his long posts on page nine of this thread. Every one of them checked out. Each author did make reference to the astronauts not knowing where they were. Not much else to understand. The OP is correct here. Those are the authors' statements. Clear statements. |
|
