|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 13, 2005 22:19:14 GMT -4
I have also read statements suggesting that the Apollo landings were real, but were manipulated in order to conceal the presence of aliens from another planet, found on the moon. That one is the 'urban legend' of the century! It all stemmed from a UK 'mockumentry' / book called Alternative 3. Despite the fact that they said it was fictious, the 'sightings' on the moon 'report' (or rather intercept) has taken on a life of its own and become CT 'fact'. Amazing. Just f**king amazing.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2005 0:17:30 GMT -4
I hope we can all dismiss the fantasists who cling to our shirt-tails and that we can carry on debating Apollo in an adult manner.
I'm pleased that we can dispense with the rubbish that you don't believe in. Now would you care to explain the rubbish you do believe in?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 14, 2005 2:32:34 GMT -4
Now would you care to explain the rubbish you do believe in?
Like that's ever gunna happen. I swear NASA will admit it's all a hoax long before margamatix actually gives a straight answer to any of our questions or conceeds that our understanding and explanation for one of his "anomolies" something is correct and he's changed his view on that point.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 14, 2005 4:45:28 GMT -4
I'm pleased that we can dispense with the rubbish that you don't believe in. Now would you care to explain the rubbish you do believe in? While i understand that insults and ridicule are standard methods employed by Moon Delusionists, I'm afraid they simply flag up your lack of any evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 14, 2005 9:23:47 GMT -4
[I'm afraid they simply flag up your lack of any evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings actually happened. And your totally ignoring the 380 kg of selectedly collect moonrock, lunar soil samples, core samples and trench samples, hundreds of thousand of pages of documentation, thousands of photos, hundreds of hours of film and TV video, eyewitness testimony of 12 people who stood on the moon, and countless others who worked on the program, plus the radio tracking from many countries other then the US, the similarities of the USSR program with the US one, the lack of denoucement by the USSR but instead the canning of their program in 1973 and so so, don't mean that it isn't evidence. It just means you aren't willing to look at the evidence. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Nah nah nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you," only makes you look stupid.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 14, 2005 10:09:14 GMT -4
I'm pleased that we can dispense with the rubbish that you don't believe in. Now would you care to explain the rubbish you do believe in? While i understand that insults and ridicule are standard methods employed by Moon Delusionists And exactly where do you see an insult or ridicule in Jay's comment? You do believe in rubbish. It is not an insult to point out the truth and it is not ridicule to ask someone to defend his or her opinions.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 14, 2005 10:38:52 GMT -4
PhantomWolf, Your last post was one on the most succinct and brief encapsulations of the whole "debate" I've seen to date. ...not that it will help any... Anyway, nicely put. Dave
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2005 17:17:29 GMT -4
While i understand that insults and ridicule are standard methods employed by Moon Delusionists...
That was neither insulting nor ridiculous. It's simply the truth.
You're trying to win rhetorical "brownie points" by stomping on a few sacrificial lamb arguments in the vain attempt to demonstrate that you have approached this entire question reasonably. Again, this is quite a common tactic among conspiracists. They all begin by saying that their predecessors have been naive in some way or another and they're here to tell the "real" story. But then they go on to make horrendous mistakes and outlandish claims of their own. Just as you have done.
To those versed in the appropriate fields of study and practice (and really, to most of the world who wasn't sleeping in science class), your other arguments simply are rubbish. By your own admission you don't have the training to know whether or not what you're saying about astronautics makes any sense or not. If it weren't rubbish, how would you know?
And if I'm right about your claims being rubbish, then saying so can hardly be insulting.
I'm afraid they simply flag up your lack of any evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings actually happened.
If there's no evidence, then what are you so deseperately trying to explain away? That faint noise you're hearing through the fingers firmly jammed in your ears is the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 15, 2005 13:42:06 GMT -4
If there's no evidence, then what are you so deseperately trying to explain away?
I disagree with Jay's assessment. The problem is that margmatix is not trying to explain anything away. That's the problem. He just says something is so, or isn't so, but never comes up with an explanation why. He just repats himself with slightly different wording, or throws out another unsupported assertion. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
And if I'm right about your claims being rubbish, then saying so can hardly be insulting.
As a practicing engineer with over a decade and a half of working in the space business, I must concur with this assessment. That's not a personal attack; it's a straightforward and pithy assessment of the technical merits of your arguments so far. You are, of course, welcome to argue with this assessment based on the facts and principles involved; in fact, it's what we've been trying to get you to do all along.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 15, 2005 14:27:16 GMT -4
And if I'm right about your claims being rubbish, then saying so can hardly be insulting.As a practicing engineer with over a decade and a half of working in the space business, I must concur with this assessment. That's not a personal attack; it's a straightforward and pithy assessment of the technical merits of your arguments so far. You are, of course, welcome to argue with this assessment based on the facts and principles involved; in fact, it's what we've been trying to get you to do all along. I believe margamatix has it backwards, margamatix has been insulting us. I don't know what else to call it when someone with no engineering knowledge tells engineers they don't know their business. This is exactly what margamatix has done when he posts a picture of the LM and says it couldn't land on the Moon, which is essentially saying, "You guys are too incompetent to realize this thing couldn't possibly fly". HBs are very quick to point out the instance they've been insulted in an attempt gain the moral high ground, but they are too blind to see that the moment they begin to spew their HB rubbish they are insulting us.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 15, 2005 14:52:12 GMT -4
I'm coming to something of a "finding" here after wading through so many HB sites and postings...
They cannot grasp the notion of space and the lunar environment, and a vaccuum. They only know Earth, an atmosphere, 1g. To them dust must billow, LEM footpads must create turbulence that creates the backflow putting dust on the pads. If the lunar surface is 200 degrees (sic), everything around it must be 200 degrees...by "association". "Hitting the Moon" from quarter million miles out is beyond marksmanship... Space and the Moon are alien environments which they cannot stretch to imagine. They feel if it is very difficult to get to orbit 200 miles above earth, then it must be 1000 times harder to get the the Moon 200,000+ miles distant. They don't understand the contradictions of orbital mechanics, "speeding up" to slow down, "slowing down" to speed up...everything is wrong...and why are high orbits "slower" than low ones...huh??? That, and the fact that the whole orbital mechanics thing was was " developed" hundreds of years ago..., it makes their brains hurt. (mine too, but I got over it, thank you). They see the "impossible" and in their narrow and ill informed mind, try to explain things from an Earthly point of view. That's their life experience, they cannot imagine different...it just doesn't fit in the box they have created... They say they have visited the sites explaining the science, but I don't believe they understand or try to absorb what they read. It is outside their paradigm of existance and experience, thus the often "childish" explanations of things which, for us, make perfect sense. I do feel for kindergarten teachers at times...they experience the same sort of thing daily (no insult intended...just very basic education, over and over, and over again...) You'd thing something would click somewhere along the line, unless there is a willful desire to "maintain the course" and ignore anything that might shake their theories. Science is real, testable, provable...conspiracy is...an opinion.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 15, 2005 14:54:21 GMT -4
I believe margamatix has it backwards, margamatix has been insulting us. I don't know what else to call it when someone with no engineering knowledge tells engineers they don't know their business.
If someone who's not an engineer tells me I'm all wrong and then shows me where I'm wrong, then I will be happy to accept the correction. It's much more important to me to get it right than to maintain an air of infallibility.
If someone - engineer or not - tells me I'm all wrong but refuses to show me an error - or just throws some out-of-context quote instead - that's another story. It's the story of these threads over the past few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 15, 2005 14:55:26 GMT -4
Let’s all remember Margamatix is speaking his personal opinion. In this day and age all personal opinions are equally valid and we should affirm and respect him as a person by acknowledging that he has the courage to speak his mind in the face of differing opinions by others that are better educated on the topic.
Now let me go wash my hands off with soap for writing that.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 15, 2005 15:27:24 GMT -4
If someone who's not an engineer tells me I'm all wrong and then shows me where I'm wrong, then I will be happy to accept the correction. It's much more important to me to get it right than to maintain an air of infallibility. If someone - engineer or not - tells me I'm all wrong but refuses to show me an error - or just throws some out-of-context quote instead - that's another story. It's the story of these threads over the past few weeks. I agree with you. I too can accept criticism provided valid reasons are given along with it. My previous comments implied that no such reasons are given, as is the case with margamatix and most other HBs.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 15, 2005 16:22:10 GMT -4
I don't know what else to call it when someone with no engineering knowledge tells engineers they don't know their business.
Management? :-)
Seriously, most conspiracists aren't used to having an audience of people who actually know the principles of rocketry and other important technical facts. They're used to talking only to other laymen who will defer to them. So when a conspiracist claims the LM won't fly, the audience either just accepts it, or doesn't have the background necessary to contest it intelligenty.
|
|