Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 3, 2005 20:25:52 GMT -4
Look, I just don't believe it happened. I genuinely believe the whole thing was faked. This is, largely, my "gut-reaction". But it is genuinely held. No-one has offered me proof that it happened. The most I have been offered is the suggestion that it theoretically could have happened. And I can guarantee you haven’t been given any proof that it was faked, especially if your information is coming from the likes of Bart Sibrel, Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Jack White, David Percy, Mary Bennett, et al. Why then do you choose to believe it was faked? But you are NOT discussing it. You just state your believe, ignore what every one says, and then restate your belief as if nothing happened. Discussing the issues is what we’ve been trying to get you to do since you got here. If this were my forum I would have banned you by now. Not because of what you believe, but because you’re just taking up space and not contributing anything. I consider your behavior a form of trolling.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 3, 2005 20:28:35 GMT -4
Look, I just don't believe it happened.
Fine. But you're also trying to establish that your belief has an objective justification. When you take us to task, for example, for not accepting your wire-hoist hypothesis, that's more than just a "gut feeling." If you think we're somehow deficient or deceptive for not buying into your theory, then clearly you believe that it's more than just your personal interpretation -- you think it's how everyone who is rational ought to believe.
It is not the content of your belief that is offensive. It is your inability to provide the evidence to support the alleged objective justification. If you want people to accept that your beliefs are the best interpretation of the facts, you have to make a case.
No-one has offered me proof that it happened.
Hogwash. You've been offered plenty here, but you just ignore it. But see below.
And you've spent a whole lot of time trying to explain away the evidence. Clearly you acknowledge that there is evidence, because you are supporting your belief by trying to so that such evidence shouldn't be believed, or has something wrong with it.
There is a big difference between there not being any evidence, and your disbelief and challenge to evidence that you admit exists.
The worst accusation that could be levelled at me is that I have an incomplete knowledge of a very complicated branch of physics- rocket science.
No, that's the most charitable accusation that could be leveled against you. The worst would be that you're mentally ill or cognitively dysfunctional.
The physics of rocket flight are quite simple. The engineering of rockets is highly complicated. Not many people choose to attempt to master it. That doesn't make them better than anyone else, just qualified in a particular specialized field.
Unfortunately you've chosen to make accusations that depend for their truth on a reasonably competent understanding of rocket engineering. You don't have that knowledge, so you can't make the accusation fairly. I know almost nothing about driving large trucks. Therefore any accusation I might make, that would require such knowledge, would be naive and likely untrue.
If you haven't mastered rocketry, and you haven't studied the lunar or service modules, then it simply doesn't matter whether you believe those spacecraft couldn't have worked.
I happen to know rocketry. I happen to have studied the lunar module and service module. I know that your claim that these spacecraft couldn't have worked is hogwash.
You complain that people aren't doing anything more than showing you that the missions were possible, not that they actually happened. That's because they are refuting your claims that the missions were impossible.
I daresay the difference between an proposition and a refutation is beyond you. That's too bad, because you're at the mercy of people who are employing flawless logic against you. The conspiracists try to make it seem like we have to prove that Apollo was invariably real in order to refute claims that it was fake.
No.
If we're responding to challenges, we only have to show that the challenges are unfounded. We have done that.
Why is that all that's necessary in that context?
Because it is impossible to prove beyond any argument that something did happen. You can often find conclusive evidence of fakery or fraud. But you can never find conclusive evidence of authenticity, especially if people can challenge authenticity purely by conjecture. That's why authenticity is always assumed until it's proven otherwise.
I hope I am not banned from this forum.
Then change your behavior. You are getting the clearest possible signals of what you have to do in order not to be banned.
I am invariably polite and courteous to other members...
Ignoring what people say is not polite or courteous. Repeating what you've already said, after people have responded to it, is neither polite nor courteous. Peeing on the carpet with your pinky in the air is not polite -- but that's the equivalent of what you're doing here. You confuse a politeness of diction and manner with the wholesale impoliteness of ignoring what's being said to you. You refrain from harsh language and name-calling as well as anyone here. But there is a higher form of politeness that you're missing altogether.
I can't see any reason why I should be banned, other than that I believe Apollo was a hoax.
Obviously you're determined to be banned "for your beliefs." You just don't get it. You are largely ignoring the other side of the question, either repeating your claims over and over again after they've been answered, or avoiding one discussion by starting another. None of that is polite, and there is no reason why civilized discussion should tolerate it.
If you're banned, I'm sure you'll go away thinking that it's because of what you believe. Part of the conspiracist "religion" is the persecution complex. You remind me of a gay friend of mine, at whom a woman became justly cross. He told her, "You're just being this way because I'm gay," to which the woman responded, "No, I'm being this way because you're an a--hole."
If you've got your heart set on being persecuted for your beliefs, nothing anyone here does or says will save you from that.
And as I have said before, Apollo.hoax is the place to discuss this belief.
It is. However what you're doing cannot be described as discussion. You're simply spewing. I have better discussions with my cat -- he responds only by nudging and meowing, but it's a more attentive response than you've given to any argument that's been put to you.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 3, 2005 21:06:45 GMT -4
I think Turbonium is a good example of a person who has contrary beliefs that is in little danger of being banned, because he seems to be able to debate properly.
I would suggest that anybody who isn't able to do so is much better off lurking than posting.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 4, 2005 0:14:52 GMT -4
I read every message posted on this forum. I swear before almighty God that I read every message posted on this forum. Please do not be hurt and upset if yours was one of the messages I did not have the time to reply to.This sounds to me like a cowardly way of saying you will not reply to those posts that require you to put up an actual argument.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 5, 2005 8:41:41 GMT -4
Look, I just don't believe it happened. I genuinely believe the whole thing was faked. This is, largely, my "gut-reaction". But it is genuinely held. I seem to remember that Carl Sagan was once asked for his gut reaction to something and replied "I try not to think with my gut".
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Sept 5, 2005 17:45:47 GMT -4
[Homer-voice] But my gut is so much bigger. Surely it must be more capable! [/Homer-voice]
(Edited to add: I'm referring to my own gut in self-effacing humor. No insult or reference to any other person or persons, whether a member of this board or not, is implied.)
Sad when the disclaimers become longer than the jokes...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 6, 2005 13:48:55 GMT -4
Ah yes, the famous "half-time football score" Did you know that, when street corner bookmakers took bets on the seemingly random last four numbers of the Dow Jones index, that the Mafia arranged, on the 4th of July, that this number would end in "1776"? So if a handful of dodgy Italians could do that, what limits could there be to the US Government's powers of flim-flammery? This can’t possible be true. U.S. stock markets is closed on the Fourth of July, thus the Dow Jones averages (there are several) are not calculated for that day. Another fine example of you unquestioning belief of anything anyone tells you that purports to show manipulation. Why don’t you seek out information instead of letting it slap you in the face. Much of the time when people are throwing information around, they are selling something. To really learn the truth, not marketing hype, you must seek it out.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 6, 2005 14:02:16 GMT -4
In fact I just did a search for the past 5 years of Dow Jones Industrial Average closing figures. Not once did it contain the number”1776” in any position. This is simple test that anyone can do, the data is easily available. I could go back further but my lunch break is over. Do you care to clarify your assertion so we can discuss this further?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 6, 2005 15:20:51 GMT -4
Ah yes, the famous "half-time football score" Did you know that, when street corner bookmakers took bets on the seemingly random last four numbers of the Dow Jones index, that the Mafia arranged, on the 4th of July, that this number would end in "1776"? So if a handful of dodgy Italians could do that, what limits could there be to the US Government's powers of flim-flammery? That's ridiculous. Do you actually believe that the Mafia rigged the Dow Jones Average? Do you actually believe halftime scores of football games were rigged to support a lunar landing hoax?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Sept 6, 2005 15:27:59 GMT -4
lib.stat.cmu.edu/datasets/djdc0093gives the closing value for the DJIA from 1900 to 1993. Four times during those 94 years did the average end in 17.76 - once in March, once in November, twice in August. Really, margamatix, you were pulling our leg with that one, right?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 6, 2005 20:03:36 GMT -4
Margamatix said: "Ah yes, the famous 'half-time football score'
"Did you know that, when street corner bookmakers took bets on the seemingly random last four numbers of the Dow Jones index, that the Mafia arranged, on the 4th of July, that this number would end in '1776'?
"So if a handful of dodgy Italians could do that, what limits could there be to the US Government's powers of flim-flammery?"
So your argument boils down to "the government is powerful enough to do anything, so I don't have to be able to explain it"?
I'm just trying to imagine football teams across the USA being instructed before their games by people in grey suits on what scores they were to have at full-time, with a few of them being told what scores to have at half time as well. At the end of the talk, the coach steps up and says, "You think you knuckleheads can remember that?"
I'll tell you what. As I get the time, I'm going to dig up what I can of the news reports provided by the Capcoms to the crews when they woke up. I'd like to think you could tell me with a straight face (well, as straight as you can manage when we're both typing) that the US Government used its powers of flim-flammery to arrange all those events to happen.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 6, 2005 20:04:35 GMT -4
Incidentally, don't forget that other thread I've reserved for you.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 7, 2005 13:14:43 GMT -4
Apollo 17 -- a half-time score during ALSEP deployment:
120:39:31 Cernan: Yeah, on Monday evening. That is what it is, isn't it? Hey, who's winning the football game?
120:39:39 Parker: Stand by; we'll find out. (Long pause, presumably while somebody makes a phone call. Most likely, nobody in the MOCR is watching the game.)
[In 1969, the American Broadcasting Company began broadcasting a weekly, Monday night National Football League game. Prior to this time, almost all NFL games had been played on Sundays and, for a few years, at least, Monday Night Football was immensely popular.]
120:40:08 Parker: Okay; and, Jack and Gene, the score is 10 to 10 at the half.
[It is about 9:33 p.m. Central Standard Time on Monday, December 10. The games started at 8 p.m. CST and, therefore, the first half has probably just ended.]
120:40:18 Cernan: Yeah, that's Oakland and who?
120:40:21 Parker: (New York) Jets. (Pause)
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 7, 2005 13:36:57 GMT -4
[In 1969, the American Broadcasting Company began broadcasting a weekly, Monday night National Football League game. Prior to this time, almost all NFL games had been played on Sundays and, for a few years, at least, Monday Night Football was immensely popular.] Monday Night Football actually premiered 21-Sep- 1970. The Cleveland Browns (my team) defeated the New York Jets 31-21. I remember the game. ;D
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Sept 7, 2005 14:47:54 GMT -4
I'm confused.
Is it seriously being suggested that somehow the evil government in its infinite omnipotence was able to arrange for a football game to have a certain score at the half in order to make a pre-recorded moon hoax broadcast appear to be real time?
Am I reading that right?
|
|