|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 13:00:59 GMT -4
Alright, if you don't want to clutter up the hello thread, post here.
Please, tell us why you think the moon landings did not happen. There are some unresolved questions from the BAUT forum along with new questions.
1) Do you believe that the moon has an atmosphere? 2) Do you know how long a lunar day is? 3) Do you believe the re-entry profile was straight down? 4) Can we keep the thread limited to moon arguments and not arguments about Manson or Nixon or Reagan or Aliens or any other thing? Just moon arguments, please. We can talk about that other stuff, but can we resolve this stuff first?
I, and the others here, I am sure, would appreciate it if you could enumerate your arguments, pick one, discuss it, and then move on to another after the first has been discussed in depth. Please, no jumping around. If you can do that, we can limit our questions and you should have a chance to answer at lest some of them. Or at least attempt to. If we are going to put effort into this, it would be nice to see you putting effort into it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 13:05:59 GMT -4
Alright, if you don't want to clutter up the hello thread, post here. Please, tell us why you think the moon landings did not happen. There are some unresolved questions from the BAUT forum along with new questions. 1) Do you believe that the moon has an atmosphere? 2) Do you know how long a lunar day is? 3) Do you believe the re-entry profile was straight down? 4) Can we keep the thread limited to moon arguments and not arguments about Manson or Nixon or Reagan or Aliens or any other thing? Just moon arguments, please. We can talk about that other stuff, but can we resolve this stuff first? I, and the others here, I am sure, would appreciate it if you could enumerate your arguments, pick one, discuss it, and then move on to another after the first has been discussed in depth. Please, no jumping around. If you can do that, we can limit our questions and you should have a chance to answer at lest some of them. Or at least attempt to. If we are going to put effort into this, it would be nice to see you putting effort into it as well. When I get caught up on the other thread I will answer these questions. I request, if it's possible, that you create a debate thread where only I and one other person can debate the issues I will raise and no trolls can post in the thread. I would like to debate Jay, if he's up to it.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 13:07:16 GMT -4
Sounds like a good idea to me... Moon Man vs. JayUtah.
Good luck to you. That should be fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 13:20:11 GMT -4
Since I cannot speak for JayUtah or other members of the board, I would suggest this instead.
MoonMan presents his whole argument. Then he selects one aspect for discussion.
Everyone else convenes in a respectful manner and discusses and then selects one or two questions. Then everyone else retires from the thread.
MoonMan addresses those specific questions.
Everyone else comes back, discusses the answers, and decides if follow up questions are warranted or if the answers are satisfactory. Then we ask the followups or declare the questions asnwered and choose new ones.
Repeat until that aspect is satisfactorily discussed. Move on to next aspect.
Will that work? A different choice is for one person to use this thread to ask only the questions and MoonMan to use this thread only to answer the questions. We could start another thread to discuss amongst ourselves what questions to ask. That thread might get messy, but this thread would stay pretty clean.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 13:41:06 GMT -4
Yeah, I should point out that I wasn't actually volunteering Jay for a one on one debate...
I think your plan sounds good, mushiwulf. Moon Man could put all of his "evidence" in a numbered list and we could respond to the first item. Once he has responded and everyone is satisfied we could move on to the second item and so on.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 13, 2005 13:46:44 GMT -4
" Moon Man could put all of his "evidence" in a numbered list and we could respond to the first item. Once he has responded and everyone is satisfied we could move on to the second item and so on."
This sounds good inpractice, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a response, particularly a civil or at least a credible one.
Having said that, I'm all for it! Let the games commence!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 13:54:03 GMT -4
I'm open to a debate. I will debate anyone. I admit I do not have the space knowledge that Jay and many of you have. I have a theory which I cannot produce link after link to support. It's just a theory. I'm not claiming it to be fact.
I suggest that a debate thread be open for the debate and the viewers can debate the comments made in another thread. This will keep the debate thread free from needless comments. This is an emotional topic for many and when someone makes a comment it's nearly impossible not to post a reply, even I get caught up in it, so allowing them to post in the debate thread will not be a wise idea, in my view. I have no doubt that Jay should smoke me in the debate, but I'm still game.
For example, if I say the capsule came in on an angle thus exposing the lower side of the capsule to explosive heat temps upon re-entry I will not produce charts or links to claim the angle fo the capsule was this or that or the temps were this or that. I will give written examples from the shuttle experience, or whatever, to support my theory. If I claim the temps are 5000 degrees and it turns out to be only 4000 degrees, big deal. It doesn't prove I'm wrong. Jay will have to prove my claims wrong with actual evidence. Jay is an expert so that shouldn't be a problem for him.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:00:23 GMT -4
Well, it would help if you support your claims with actual evidence. In fact, I would deem it a necessary condition of making an argument. If you cannot support your claims, you have... nothing more than claims. In any case, when can we expect to see an enumerated list of your claims?
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 14:04:55 GMT -4
Alright, if you don't want to clutter up the hello thread, post here. Please, tell us why you think the moon landings did not happen. There are some unresolved questions from the BAUT forum along with new questions. 1) Do you believe that the moon has an atmosphere? 2) Do you know how long a lunar day is? 3) Do you believe the re-entry profile was straight down? 4) Can we keep the thread limited to moon arguments and not arguments about Manson or Nixon or Reagan or Aliens or any other thing? Just moon arguments, please. We can talk about that other stuff, but can we resolve this stuff first? I, and the others here, I am sure, would appreciate it if you could enumerate your arguments, pick one, discuss it, and then move on to another after the first has been discussed in depth. Please, no jumping around. If you can do that, we can limit our questions and you should have a chance to answer at lest some of them. Or at least attempt to. If we are going to put effort into this, it would be nice to see you putting effort into it as well. Quick answers for you as I promised to address these questions. 1- The moon has a lunar atmosphere different then that on earth. 2- No. I was told but forget the answer already. 3- No. But the capsule did typically descent straight down from about 195,000 feet. 4- The Manson, Nixon, murdered rockstar comments I made do not prove or disprove if the landings were faked, but they do apply to what Nixon did to devert Americas attention away from the Apollo program, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:07:37 GMT -4
Thank you. We may come back to those after we see the argument as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 14:20:10 GMT -4
4- The Manson, Nixon, murdered rockstar comments I made do not prove or disprove if the landings were faked, but they do apply to what Nixon did to devert Americas attention away from the Apollo program, in my opinion. So the Manson case was a diversion from Apollo, and Apollo was a diversion from Vietnam, and Vietnam was a diversion from...
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:22:56 GMT -4
Please, let's try to keep this thread free of clutter.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 13, 2005 14:24:04 GMT -4
I'm going to start a new thread... the first post is going to explain the guidelines for the debate. The second post will be made by Moon Man and will contain the list of his evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mushiwulf on Nov 13, 2005 14:24:35 GMT -4
Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Nov 13, 2005 14:27:27 GMT -4
4- The Manson, Nixon, murdered rockstar comments I made do not prove or disprove if the landings were faked, but they do apply to what Nixon did to devert Americas attention away from the Apollo program, in my opinion. So the Manson case was a diversion from Apollo, and Apollo was a diversion from Vietnam, and Vietnam was a diversion from... Reality.
|
|