|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 11:34:39 GMT -4
Jay, can I have you word that you will not delete me from this board just because I don't believe the landings were real..?
I have been banned from the BA board for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 13, 2005 11:53:24 GMT -4
Hello MoonMan.
Just a few pointers before you get started here. If indeed you have done your homework properly and have come to the conclusion that there are real facts that show that we did not go to the Moon, present them clearly up front. There are real scientisits here and they don't take lightly to arbitrary questions, topic changes and poorly formed arguments...just as in any other controversial scientific theory. They want facts and data here. Your theories will be attacked agressively, as in any other scientific discussion. Have your evidence and math backup ready, or you will be chewed up. Finally, speaking as a landing "believer", be ready to learn. There are huge amounts of evidence that point to the fact that going to the moon as we did was very possible. So many hoax sites simply tale a minute sliver of the evidence and twist it or make bizzare interpertations of the data to "proove" a point. They feed on the ignorant, don't join them. Learn the information for yourself, it's readily accessable out there. Finally, go to the clavius site linked here, Jay has really gone to lengths disputing the common arguments. Good luck, Scooter Incidently, if indeed you do have one piece of scientifically provable data that show that it was physically impossible to have accomplished the Moon landings, there will be quite a commotion. It has yet to happen, the guys here know rocket science and astrodynamics.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:03:39 GMT -4
I look forward to my arguments being attacked, I just don't want to be banned after spending time proving it was all a hoax..
BA's board is pathetic.
They have a conspiracy section and say state you case and then once you do they ban you. Ha!
Beyond pathetic, really.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 12:05:43 GMT -4
Jay, can I have you word that you will not delete me from this board just because I don't believe the landings were real..? Jay isn't the administrator of this forum, I am. Whether or not you get banned depends on whether you are able to follow the rules. Everyone here (and at the BAUT forum) like it when people respond to questions. If you ignore our responses to the claims you make it will not make you very popular. Keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:14:04 GMT -4
Jay, can I have you word that you will not delete me from this board just because I don't believe the landings were real..? Jay isn't the administrator of this forum, I am. Whether or not you get banned depends on whether you are able to follow the rules. Everyone here (and at the BAUT forum) like it when people respond to questions. If you ignore our responses to the claims you make it will not make you very popular. Keep that in mind. I'm not sure if you witnessed whay took place on BA's board, however, if you plan on swamping me with questions in order to say I didn't answer them fast enough so you can ban me then please say so right now. .? If you plan on telling me to prove my claims and then tell me what I can include in my argument please say so right now..? If you plan on telling me to educate myself but to not ask questions then please say so now..? Also, can we upload an animated gif..? Looks like a great site here but I must say the orange font colour is hard to read and annoying at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 13, 2005 12:17:14 GMT -4
I've seen it before, Moon, there, here, elsewhere.
It is important to know that the vast majority of moon hoaxers are the type that read/see something that gets to their "conspiracy" side, and clamp their mind shut when evidence is presented that clearly refutes their claim. This sort of close mindedness drives scientists up the wall. You need to stay open minded and be ready to follow links that lead you to the evidence that refutes your claim. It has happened literally hundreds of times here. I openly admit up fron that I seriously doubt that you have any data to present that will prove the landings did not happen. My fear is that, like so many before you, you will present a piece of evidence, the refutations will begin in ernest, then out of nowhere you will change subejects with a "oh yeah, well what about XXX" post, which will be equally attacked like pirahanas after minnows. We have seen this virtually every time. Present your facts, your evidence, your math. Innuendos and vague claims go nowhere when making the extraordinary claim of a trillion dollar hoax on the world. The ball is in your court, I hope for something new and different this time. You are going to make a claim, be ready to back it in the scientific arena.
Scooter
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:25:03 GMT -4
I would like to go through it item by item. I was swamped with questions from the get go on BA's site and told if I didn't answer them immediately I would be banned. In fact I was banned then unbanned and now banned again without warning and for no reason other then proving some of the experts wrong. BA and it's owner can kiss my @$$.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 12:30:37 GMT -4
I'm not sure if you witnessed whay took place on BA's board, however, if you plan on swamping me with questions in order to say I didn't answer them fast enough so you can ban me then please say so right now. .? That is what happens when you go into a forum that has over 11,000 members and then make controversial claims like you did. Here's the best way to go about it: make ONE claim at a time, discuss it until an agreement has been reached, and THEN move on to the next claim. I'm sure that's how a lawyer would do it. You do have to prove your claims, and the only thing I ask you to include in your arguments are facts. You can ask questions... just don't ignore the answers. You can link to images on your own server or on NASA owned sites. There is no way to upload them directly to the forum's server. Can't please everyone, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:37:55 GMT -4
I'm not sure if you witnessed whay took place on BA's board, however, if you plan on swamping me with questions in order to say I didn't answer them fast enough so you can ban me then please say so right now. .? That is what happens when you go into a forum that has over 11,000 members and then make controversial claims like you did. Here's the best way to go about it: make ONE claim at a time, discuss it until an agreement has been reached, and THEN move on to the next claim. I'm sure that's how a lawyer would do it. You do have to prove your claims, and the only thing I ask you to include in your arguments are facts. You can ask questions... just don't ignore the answers. Again, I was told to answer all the question or be banned. When I couldn't possibly do it I was banned. It wasn't I who took the thread in twenty directions from the start, I was ordered to answer questions. If you are saying I have to accept the answers someone gives me on here then this isn't the site for me. If you are saying I can only present facts to support my argument then this isn't the site for me. Is that what you are saying..? Who will judge whether something is a fact or just a hoaxed alleged fact..?
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Nov 13, 2005 12:38:02 GMT -4
Your answers leave much to be desired. You stoop to insults and claim I believe everything I am told merely because I think men have landed on the moon. In case anyone needs a refresher about how moonman acts, here are his latest views on Apollo. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34711I asked you for heat up rates and cool down rates of the batteries. You respond with “batteries were subject to the +250 degree F temperture. On some missions they lasted up to 75 hours without being recharged or ever failing. They were also subject to -250 F temps if they mission saw darkness.” Stating the maximum and minimum temperatures shows nothing about heat up rates and cool down rates. You don’t know for a fact that the batteries ever reached these extreme temperatures at all. Or can you show that they did? When I asked at what angle would the command module enter the atmosphere, you respond with issues about re-entry speeds and the inability to skip flat stones. You need more time on the pond. I can skip a “weird shaped stone” as you put it. The stone just needs one flat side to skip across the water. Give it a try sometime. I asked you for the re-entry angle, and your answer was, “The angle of re-entry is also important…..The capsule had a heat shield on the bottom only yet it came in on an angle and the lower side was subject to the heat and yet it never exploded.” You are still hooked on the exploding scenario, why does aluminum explode when heated, instead of failing by deformation when heated excessively? Ranb
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Nov 13, 2005 12:39:42 GMT -4
"discuss until agreement is reached"...that's the kicker.
"Hoaxers" tend to be like a religion, they hold fast to their beliefs despite the scientific and physical evidence to the contrary. They don't "get" the science, the physics, so it is not understood nor accepted. Usually, the evidence presented from the hoax side is inaccurate, misinterperted, or just plain wrong from a scientific or factual standpoint. Agreement is seldom reached, unfortunately.
Scooter
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Nov 13, 2005 12:40:51 GMT -4
Oh, I forgot, you claim the Apollo heat shield is only on the bottom, but it actually covered nearly the entire capsule with varying a thicknesse of heat shielding. Take a look here for a few details. www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/p245-251.htmRanb
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Nov 13, 2005 12:42:28 GMT -4
(I was) banned (from BAUT) without warning and for no reason other then proving some of the experts wrong. This is a lie. You were banned for trolling. Specifically (taking the definition of trolling from this site, from which you will soon be banned for trolling) what you did was to repeat a claim over and over again. When toseek banned you, he told you why he did it. He said: "It's been repeatedly explained to you just how this happens, including diagrams" If you honestly interested in discussion, you would make a claim and then discuss it. But you did not. You made a claim (that the capsule falls straight down) and many people politely pointed out your error. And you just repeated the claim over and over again. Obviously, you are not interestd in discussion. Obviously you are just a troll. BA and it's owner can kiss my @$$ That is an ad hominem attack against a respected member of the scientific community. I vote that you be banned for this statement as well as the lie outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:50:53 GMT -4
Your answers leave much to be desired. You stoop to insults and claim I believe everything I am told merely because I think men have landed on the moon. In case anyone needs a refresher about how moonman acts, here are his latest views on Apollo. www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34711I asked you for heat up rates and cool down rates of the batteries. You respond with “batteries were subject to the +250 degree F temperture. On some missions they lasted up to 75 hours without being recharged or ever failing. They were also subject to -250 F temps if they mission saw darkness.” Stating the maximum and minimum temperatures shows nothing about heat up rates and cool down rates. You don’t know for a fact that the batteries ever reached these extreme temperatures at all. Or can you show that they did? When I asked at what angle would the command module enter the atmosphere, you respond with issues about re-entry speeds and the inability to skip flat stones. You need more time on the pond. I can skip a “weird shaped stone” as you put it. The stone just needs one flat side to skip across the water. Give it a try sometime. I asked you for the re-entry angle, and your answer was, “The angle of re-entry is also important…..The capsule had a heat shield on the bottom only yet it came in on an angle and the lower side was subject to the heat and yet it never exploded.” You are still hooked on the exploding scenario, why does aluminum explode when heated, instead of failing by deformation when heated excessively? Ranb You're already taking a hello thread way off track. But to answer your question, and if you read the thread, you saw the experts claim that only an object was subject to the temps NASA claim are on the moon. Therefore, since the batteries were in the rover which was subject to the sun, it is said that the temps were 250 degrees above F. Also, regardless of whether sun only heats an object the cold doesn't work this way. If it is -250 on the moon at night and the mission saw darkness then the batteries were subject to those temps. You may believe these amazing batteries worked flawlessly but I don't. I also don't believe the rising and falling capsule story. Just because you believe it doesn't make you right and every non believer wrong. It's also funny how I got banned now after showing the chart proving the descent was straight down from 200,000 feet and the capsule was alleged to only being falling at 340 mph at 25,000 feet without anything slowing its descent for the previous 175,000 feet. Yeah right. When you coast down a hill, for example, are you going faster at the beginning of the descent or at the bottom of the hill..?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 12:53:43 GMT -4
(I was) banned (from BAUT) without warning and for no reason other then proving some of the experts wrong. This is a lie. You were banned for trolling. Specifically (taking the definition of trolling from this site, from which you will soon be banned for trolling) what you did was to repeat a claim over and over again. When toseek banned you, he told you why he did it. He said: "It's been repeatedly explained to you just how this happens, including diagrams" If you honestly interested in discussion, you would make a claim and then discuss it. But you did not. You made a claim (that the capsule falls straight down) and many people politely pointed out your error. And you just repeated the claim over and over again. Obviously, you are not interestd in discussion. Obviously you are just a troll. BA and it's owner can kiss my @$$ That is an ad hominem attack against a respected member of the scientific community. I vote that you be banned for this statement as well as the lie outlined above. Sure, and you spoke to an moon man who claims he's ready to take a lie detector test. Who's the liar here, dude..? BA is a joke board. They ban anyone who proves them wrong.
|
|