|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 10, 2007 10:53:05 GMT -4
You and sts60 are right. I hate jumping through someone's hoops. I've made my last posts to the troll.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 10, 2007 12:59:35 GMT -4
I agree that responding further to rocky is largely pointless, however I stop short of calling him a classic troll. The reason I say so is because he has made some rather lengthy replies that took some time on his part. The replies said virtually nothing of substance, but it did take time to read through our posts and to write a response. An out-and-out troll probably wouldn’t spend that much of his own time; he’d just write a few provocative sentences and then sit back and enjoyed the reaction. I think heavenlybody was much more of a classic troll than rocky. I doubt heavenlybody believed half of what she wrote and was clearly just trying to anger people. I think rocky might actually believe his own nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 10, 2007 13:24:09 GMT -4
If I get warned or banned for that it will be an injustice.
No, it will be a reprieve. You've demonstrated you cannot talk about any one topic without first having to put it in the context of your paranoid worldview. The rule exists to focus the discussion on actual evidence, not on whatever irrelevant scenery you choose to erect behind it.
You've demonstrated that your belief derives from your worldview, not from any examination of the pertinent evidence. Therefore any way in which you pretend to deal with evidence is really just your frantic search for ammunition that you think might make your pre-established belief seem somehow intellectually justified. All l'm saying is that all of that data is not proof that Apollo was real as data can be manufactured.
Irrelevant. You have not shown that any of the Apollo data has in fact been manufactured. Glittering generalities and Magic Sand don't constitute a refutation of the Apollo evidence or a plausible alternative explanation for it.
If you don't understand the difference between "can be" and "was" then you're in the wrong forum. And in the wrong universe.
False data has been manufactured before...
You have not shown that any Apollo data have been manufactured. Referring to some other case doesn't prove yours.
We're not solving the general case or some other case. We're looking at the specific claim that you made. You said all Apollo evidence was faked. You have provided absolutely no evidence at all that any Apollo evidence was faked: just a bunch of handwaving references to other theories and a bunch of ignorant, farfetched hypothetical suggestions for how you think someone might have been able to do it. For some reason you think you don't have to go ahead and show that it was actually done that way in Apollo's case.
Answer this question. Do you argue that all of the Apollo data are proof that we went to the moon?
Not in so many words. I argue that the best-supported conclusion pursuant to the total body of evidence is that the missions occurred as claimed. I have entertained a number of competing interpretations saying that evidence was faked, but none that approaches at all the substance of the authenticity claim when scrutinized.
You want us to think we have to prove Apollo was real beyond all shadow of a doubt, including against possibilities raised purely as farfetched conjecture. That's not the way it works. You have to show a better, more substantial explanation for the evidence, not simply that our conclusion can't be as strong as you think we are compelled to believe it is.
You've performed only the standard bar-raising and goalpost-shifting. All you've done for the past two or three days is to argue elaborately how you really don't have to prove anything in order to have prevailed for you conclusion.
Hogwash.
|
|
|
Post by brotherofthemoon on Jun 10, 2007 15:41:28 GMT -4
The grammatical error in this thread's title is driving me insane. All of the Apollo data are belong to us... (Sorry!)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 10, 2007 15:56:56 GMT -4
Actually the title is correct. Technically, data is the plural of datum and most appropriately takes the plural verb forms. We commonly use the singular because it sounds better; we aren't accustomed to the sound of Latin plurals.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 10, 2007 16:24:52 GMT -4
OT.
Euurgh non standard plurals, anyone want to guess at the numbers involved in
Your Moose set my sheep running to his mongoose
zero, 1, many, and all we don't need any other steenking numbers
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 10, 2007 20:09:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jun 11, 2007 18:53:36 GMT -4
OT. Euurgh non standard plurals... Ha. Dataux. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jun 11, 2007 21:42:55 GMT -4
My Last Ever Response to David:
Okay, here's the thing. You are making less and less sense and showing more and more signs of being a paranoid schizophrenic. My therapist agrees. You should get help.
However. If you're just a stubborn twit . . . .
You have been given a lot of suggested experiments, very few of which require large amounts of space or equipment. You have failed to do any of them. You have been given lengthy, detailed answers, including in many cases references to widely-available books and movies that just don't happen to be online. You have clearly availed yourself of none of them. You have had basic concepts, concepts so basic I understand them, explained to you over and over and over again. You still don't get them. You have been told how many people rely on the data from Apollo. You invent out of whole cloth a larger conspiracy than is remotely probable.
David, why in Gods' names should anyone think you're more believable? Your answers are more complicated than ours, and Gods know I'm not a scientist myself and therefore don't get the more detailed explanations half the time, either. Common sense is not on your side. Forget science. You don't even have that quality you most value. By any reasonable standards, your explanations make absolutely no sense.
Either you should consider the possibility that you're wrong or, if you cannot, check yourself into a hospital for psychological evaluation.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 13, 2007 9:03:07 GMT -4
Just as a side point, I was just researching Lunar regolith composition and it seems that my least favorite camp of people the Creationists (Dramatic Organ Music) accept the moon landings and are even using apollo data in their arguments. www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.aspAt no point do they call into question Astro Physics Geologists or Doubt the moon landings in this article, it also happens to be a finely written and informative piece, and its sources seem correctly cited for the Soil analysis and Lunar/Cis Lunar Inter Planentary space, and basic theories of Dust accreation in the Lunar Enviroment and across the solar system as a whole, I have not fully digested the article yet. (saving that for later) They of course seem to be using this analysis to prove that the earth is on 6000 years old or whatever it is they claim. since Similar Regolith deposition of Rare materials Such as Iridium and other Exo Terran materials cannot be found at depth, It seems to be an interesting piece, Also Has references for a Lot of other Sources, that will help hopefully in answering other questions I have (mostly Electrostatic and Van der walls forces within particles) But if these Bible Thumping (Self Censorship)s can and do accept the landings and are also capable of fashioning what appears to be an thoroughly researched and accurate piece, why can't the Hoax Believers do the same. Note, In Cretionist arguments apart from the basic You'll all burn in hell firebrand zealot, I find a lot of articles very well researched and presented in an unbiased method, then just requires a literal Leap of faith to reach the Hypothesis. Editted due to apostrophes
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 13, 2007 10:37:55 GMT -4
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 13, 2007 11:10:19 GMT -4
I must admit I do like a good creationist argument, there was a while (bout 2 years back) that it seems that a lot of good Creationist Debaters and IDers seemed to get infiltrated by a few HB's and seemed to put forward a recruitment drive that a true Believer in the Bible would believe in the hoax etc. and all science is Evil and unfortunately a lot of forums just became Flame posts stating Science evil Burn Hell, at that point it destroyed a lot of effort put in by people in presenting flawed but well argued posts or just questioning basic theories of science, whilst a lot of regular posters had already realised that if you wish to argue about science you have to use science. I have rethought some of my creation theories in relation to arguments presented (although still do not believe in Gods or Fate), I have reduced my 99% Abiogenesis viewpoint to include other possibilities.
The above piece listed seems to have correctly taken all the data and all the maths, and then mis-applied them in their conclusion. It is also nice that it cites sources so I can happily check any details.
If the Argument against us, is that we are all irrational pro government science disinfo agents due to the manner in which we answer or use science as a weapon, the fact that I have had a lot of very stimulating debates and convos down the pub and via Email with creationists, AntiScience, Religious persons that have had a well thought out idea, well presented and researched, and have come back later after correcting figures or further understanding new received data. It is a pity that General HBs here and other sites seem to be Sugar Laden ADD sufferers, and sometimes make the God Fearing Creationist Zealot I have dealt with look moderate.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jun 18, 2007 8:55:23 GMT -4
Rocky, I pity you. I pity you because you've wrapped yourself up in this conspiracy world of yours, and have thus blinded yourself to wonderful achievement of Apollo.
If it was the Russians that made the journy to the moon, chances are that you wouldn't be going on with these beliefs of yours, as you admitted that these beliefs come from your anti-US attitude. It seems that when you developed this attitude, you shed all critical thinking skills, and let CT websites and videos do your thinking for you. You just say "I think this reflects reality" rather than actually examining the person's claim. You just agree with anything that makes Apollo look like a hoax, because it suits you.
It also seems that if it hasn't been put online, you don't ramble about it. If you wish to hold an anti-US attitude, you ought to also claim the MERs, Spirit and Opputunity (both which have the US flag painted on them) are hoaxs too. Ditto for Viking 1 and 2, Voyager 1 and 2, ect. Claim the same for Skylab and the shuttle. Claim those are hoaxs too. Also claim that GLAST is going to fake. Claim the new Orion spacecraft and the Constellation program are false too.
Chances are, you won't, because you likely won't be able to find CT and hoax sites that explain that the things I mention are hoaxs.
Also be aware that you claim that you can't take anyone's word on anything. Problem is, you reserve that attitude for those that don't agree with you. You don't hold people that support your feelings to that standard. You claim you're objective. Yet, by your own behavior, you show that you're far from objective.
|
|
|
Post by triplebird on Jun 18, 2007 11:49:44 GMT -4
"...It's possible to manufacture bogus data and publish it on a large scale....There are lots of cases of the official version of things being contested by reputable people in the alternative press...There are all kinds of examples of mass dishonesty by the media and the school system in the US. Why should Apollo be any different?"
If that is the case, then how would you know any different (i.e. to question the "official story"), if the Evil Government is so good with manufacturing data, mind control, bribery, whatever? What makes you the "Chosen One" who is immune to the Evil Government's plots? (this applies, in fact, to all Hoax Believers) Consider this:
If there's a big enough hole in the conspiracy that lay-people can publish YouToob videos "exposing" it, then it only stands to reason that a learned scientist, engineer, etc, certainly wouldn't be fooled. Therefore, this "mass conspiracy" theory fails.
If, on the other hand, the conspiracy is so airtight that even the best in their class in the world can't see through it, then nobody would be able to see through it, and nobody would know any better to post CT websites or similar. Therefore, since threads like this and CT websites exist, this theory of conspiracy fails too.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 18, 2007 17:03:14 GMT -4
If there's a big enough hole in the conspiracy that lay-people can publish YouToob videos "exposing" it, then it only stands to reason that a learned scientist, engineer, etc, certainly wouldn't be fooled.
You're missing a significant premise in conspiracism. Conspiracism is closely related to and borrows from pseudoscience, hence brings with it the characterization of mainstream science as an extension of the Establishment working hand-in-hand with government to oppress the masses. In that mindset, mainstream science is so embroiled in the politics of supporting the status quo and so entrenched in its beliefs that it simply cannot see the simple alternate solutions.
Thus the conspiracy cover story was formulated to appeal to that supposedly entrenched and ideologically-blinded mainstream while the "truth" of the underlying hoax is abundantly clear in the form of a simple, obvious proposition to anyone whose heart is pure. If you can't accept the evident purity of the hoax belief then it just proves you're one of the entrenched mainstreamers whose preconceptions don't allow you to see it no matter how smart you appear.
You evaluate the problem according to the layman/expert continuum. Conspiracy theorists look at it on the shill/free-thinker continuum.
|
|