reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jul 10, 2008 19:47:45 GMT -4
The HBs are presenting arguments that challenge the historical record. Say the record proposes A, and has evidence to back A up. When hoaxer presents B in efforts to refute A, they have the burden to prove not only that A is wrong, but B is in fact right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 10, 2008 21:03:22 GMT -4
Just came across this little ditty.
Ralph Rene (Author/Scientist):"If those suits do what NASA says they can do then I wanna see them sued up a guy or two put them up into three mile Allen pit that still high and have them clean up the mess. But they can't they don't" The fact remains that no Apollo astronauts has ever suffered a serious illness from the trip to the moon. Could this be because they never left the safety of earth's atmosphere in the first place.[/i] Scientist? www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/spacesuit.htmlThat must have all you real scientists wincing I bet... And Bill Kaying sure knows a lot about telescopes: Bill Kaysing (Moon Hoax Investigator):
"I would like to invite NASA and all of their supporters to simply take the most powerful telescope on earth and see as if a lunar Lander is there. If that there is a lunar Lander there I will never say any word about Apollo Hoax. If there is no lunar Lander there Arrest my case." |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 10, 2008 21:20:42 GMT -4
These are just quotes lifted from the Fox special. And "lifted" with some pretty creative transcription. "Leaf of radiation?" Does he perhaps mean "lethal radiation?" Clearly no neurons were expended in the production of that page.
Yes, it's disappointing to hear Ralph Rene referred to as a scientist. He's a retired construction worker, for pete's sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 10, 2008 22:26:28 GMT -4
Boris Volynov is correctly identified as a Russian cosmonaut, but Phil Plait's page on the Fox special says he was quoted out of context about radiation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 11, 2008 0:45:28 GMT -4
"Leaf of radiation?" Does he perhaps mean "lethal radiation?" To say nothing of "three mile Allen."  (And what, exactly, at Three Mile Island still needs to be cleaned up?  ) |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 11, 2008 2:07:55 GMT -4
And will someone please arrest BS's case?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 11, 2008 9:08:07 GMT -4
Ralph Rene (Author/Scientist): [/b] "If those suits do what NASA says they can do then I wanna see them sued up a guy or two put them up into three mile Allen pit that still high and have them clean up the mess. But they can't they don't" The fact remains that no Apollo astronauts has ever suffered a serious illness from the trip to the moon. Could this be because they never left the safety of earth's atmosphere in the first place.[/i][/quote] There is definitely a logical fallacy in this argument -- would it be begging the question? Rene takes it as a given that the radiation environment in space is harsh enough that the suits required some special radiation protection beyond what they where actually required to provide. Rene has to prove the lethality of space radiation before we can find a flaw with the spacesuits. |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 11, 2008 14:06:41 GMT -4
Rene has to prove the lethality of space radiation You mean "leaf ofity." |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 11, 2008 14:22:15 GMT -4
The HBs are presenting arguments that challenge the historical record. Say the record proposes A, and has evidence to back A up. When hoaxer presents B in efforts to refute A, they have the burden to prove not only that A is wrong, but B is in fact right. That is just it. IIRC in some contryies, it is taught that Apollo was a hoax. That would be THEIR historical record. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 11, 2008 14:57:02 GMT -4
If someone argues positively that X happened, it is no one else’s responsibility to prove that Y happened in order to disprove X. Yet this is what the HB’s try to do. They argue that we must prove Y in order to disprove their X. If they claim X did happen, then they have the burden to provide the substantiating evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2008 16:21:44 GMT -4
...it is taught that Apollo was a hoax. That would be THEIR historical record.
No, that would be their interpretation of the historical record. The record is acknowledged to exist, but is argued to be a hoax. That is an affirmative argument that accepts a burden of proof. The formal teaching of some theory doesn't make it the prevailing theory, or the one best supported by evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2008 17:54:46 GMT -4
...it is taught that Apollo was a hoax. That would be THEIR historical record. No, that would be their interpretation of the historical record. The record is acknowledged to exist, but is argued to be a hoax. That is an affirmative argument that accepts a burden of proof. The formal teaching of some theory doesn't make it the prevailing theory, or the one best supported by evidence. The one thing that we all here have in common is desire to address the HB arguments that the manned moon landings did not happen. : That people ignore evidence, believe YouTube and hoax sites instead and spout their ignorance across the great wide web is an incredulous reality isn't it? And how wasteful is money that is spent on Hoax proponents books and videos. Unless of course, HB don't actually buy them, or read a whole book or look at a full length video. You Tube clips might be all they need anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 11, 2008 18:36:47 GMT -4
I'm gonna change my handle to "Lunar Roberts."
(Or maybe "The Coder of the Million Miles Away." There's so much gold on that page! Obviously a crack part or a not case.)
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 3, 2008 17:48:18 GMT -4
Hope this isn't thread necromancy...
Analogies. Is it that when an astronaut is compared to a kid in a romper chair it is somehow literal, but when a rocket engine is compared to a soda can it is an inappropriate analogy that has nothing to do with real rockets?
I find it very odd that what appears to me to be creative minds; finding explosives in puffs of smoke, wires in flashes of light, and bare forearms in the play of light and shadow, are at the same time completely turned off and seemingly incapable of dealing with anything that is a comparable example, an analogy, a similar method or device, or a demonstration of underlying principle.
It's always "It's exactly like Peter Pan!" on the one hand, and "What do these fairy stories about Trieste have to do with Apollo?" on the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Sept 15, 2008 0:17:33 GMT -4
Hello.. This my first post at ApolloHoax.net. It's good to be among friends (or at least people who are intelligent enough not to fall for Bart Sibrel's Dog and Pony show)
What I would like to know...
If the Hoax Pushers stories are true, where exactly were the Astronauts if the weren't on the moon???
1: A sound stage at area 51
2: The sound stage left over from "Space Odyssey 2001"
3: In low earth orbit taping transparencies of Earth to the Command Module window
4: A fake moon setup in the Nevada Dessert
5: On the Moon digging up Alien artifacts (Oh wait... they weren't on the moon)
6: A sound stage at Disney where young Hispanic cleaning boys accidentally walk in while filming the fake moon landing.
It would be nice if they would make up there Freak'n minds.
|
|
)
