| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| We Never Went to the Moon; It looks like we got fooled | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 12:52 PM (28,056 Views) | |
| ULTIMA1 | Jun 19 2009, 02:47 AM Post #826 |
|
Since no one can post any sources to debate the reflectors on the moon then we have to go with the fact that we did land on the moon. |
 |
 
|
| David C | Jun 20 2009, 09:48 AM Post #827 |
|
The info on space radiation isn't proof in and of itself. The only people who surely know the real data on space radiation are the people who actually participated in the missions that measured the space radiation levels. All we have is second hand information which may or may not be true. I don't see how the info in this article could be proven or disproven as it's second hand info. http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm If you think it can be disproven, please disprove it. I don't claim it can be proven. NASA's info is second hand too and if we consider all the lies the government has told, there's no reason to take the official info seriously. All I'm saying is that there is an alternative version which may turn out to be true. Second hand information is not conclusive proof of anything especially if it's the official government version no matter what country it is as countries can bribe and blackmail each other and make secret agreements. We have two versions of space radiation. Tell us why you have so much faith in the official version.
If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology at that time to soft-land a romote-controlled craft with adjustable mirrors on it's sides and a rotating upper section. That is a plausible scenario that would explain the reflectors. If you think the reflectors are proof that they went to the moon, you simply aren't mentally equipped to deal with this topic. Edited by David C, Jun 20 2009, 09:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 20 2009, 11:11 AM Post #828 |
|
On June 18th you said "The video shows that Apollo was a hoax." Now you're saying "All I'm saying is that there is an alternative version which may turn out to be true." Sounds like you're not wholly convinced by some of the evidence you're presenting yourself. Where is the evidence for this 2nd set of radiation data that only the favoured few are allowed to see? There's only pure speculation by some HBs. That doesn't mean there is a 2nd set. The big problem with this position is, anyone can send a probe into space and measure the amount of radiation at various points in the belts. This is information that it is impossible to hide. It would be like saying the ocean is only 1 mile deep at its deepest point. It might not be easy for the average Joe to test this, but clearly there are many scientists working for many different countries and institutions who could. Similarly with radiation levels in the Van Allen belts. In order to explain this away, you have the weak argument that some people can be bribed, ergo anyone who agrees with the 'official' version must have been bribed, and will continue to be bribed. Impossible for anyone [edit added] to refute, but hardly an argument that's going carry weight with 'thinking people'.
Tell us why you have so much faith in the 'un'official version. Please state exactly what the 'un'official version is, and where you get your evidence from. If you don't have faith in it and only put it forward as a possibility, why do you say it shows that Apollo was a hoax? Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jun 20 2009, 12:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 20 2009, 12:17 PM Post #829 |
|
I was referring to the info on space radiation. I wasn't referring the the video evidence. This is very clear. You are deliberately misrepresenting my position which is a pretty low and desperate tactic.
If there is a second set of radiation data, it's classified and only people with high security clearances can see it. This is pretty basic. You are behaving like a desperate person.
It's not impossible to keep it out of the American mainstream. Governments can be bought and blackmailed so any info that's second hand may or may not be true. If a country publishes some info on space radiation that's consistent with NASA's version, we have to consider the possibility that this country may be being bribed or blackmailed by the US.
The video evidence proves that Apollo was a hoax. This video alone closes the whole case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 We know Apollo was a hoax so now we have to figure out why they hoaxed it. The info I posted in post #823 fits the picture. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=259411&t=51606 My believe that Apollo was a hoax is based on the video evidence--not the stuff on radiation I posted.
See above. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 20 2009, 01:28 PM Post #830 |
|
The said the video shows that Apollo was a hoax, then linked to a video. I made the assumption you were speaking about the video you specifically linked to, not the video taken on the moon. Hardly a low and desperate tactic.
You invent a scenario for which you have no evidence, I ask you for evidence that it exists, and you accuse me of being desperate?
Ah, the American mainstream. Well, I don't really read any American mainstream press so I wouldn't really know about that. (Don't they have access to the internet in America? Wouldn't information published in other countries be accessible to the American public?) I don't live in America, but I've heard nothing about this second set of radiation data apart from one source: Ralph Rene. His own suspicions led him to speculate there was a second set of data his wasn't allowed to see. You're just repeating his unsubstantiated claims here. Pure hearsay. And in order to prop up Ralph Rene's claim that there is a second set of data, you have to make the assumption that every single government, and related scientific institution, and aerospace company, that might know about this second set of data, has been bribed or blackmailed into keeping schtum. Is this global conspiracy, which only exists in your head, more or less likely than Rene having a slightly over-active imagination? The same Rene who as flogging proof on his website that pi is not actually the accepted value that maths students have known about for centuries? Maybe he's also right about the value of pi, and mathematicians across the centuries have been blackmailed about not revealing its true value at the behest of some evil, secretive order? Just because you have 2 alternative theories does not mean you should assign them the same weight from a probability point of view. Occam's razor slices and dices your theory into miniscule parts.
Hardly. Several plausible explanations have been offered for the movement of the flag. You yourself state that anything that has a plausible alternative explanation can't be used as proof. There is also ample evidence of low gravity and a vacuum. For example, look at the low spray of dust in the bottom left before either astronaut moves into shot. Also, when the astronauts are in frame, look at how very small foot movements causes relatively large sprays of dust, indicative of low gravity and a vacuum. There's also the regular, pendulum-like motion of the flag after it starts moving, which is contrary to an atmosphere. All this has been discussed in great detail before, yet you throw all that out and say this one video proves a hoax. Who is the desparate one again?
Correction. You believe Apollo was a hoax, based on your selective interpretation of one video. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jun 20 2009, 01:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jun 20 2009, 01:41 PM Post #831 |
|
So in other words, you have no evidence for this second set of data. I thought so. Somebody is desperate here and it is obvious to everybody who it is. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 20 2009, 03:35 PM Post #832 |
|
Nothing credible has been offered. In all the Apollo footage there is no other case of the flag's moving without being touched at the exact moment when it's consistent with the atmosphere explanation. That rules out static electricity.
If the grains are big enough, it's consistent with atmosphere. We have to consider the fact that this is about 67 percent slow-motion.
If slow-motion is considered, there's nothing inconsistent with atmosphere. This video shows that flag moves slightly away from the astronaut just before it moves toward him which is consistenty with the wave that would be caused by his forward motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0 Its movement back toward him is consistent with the air moving to fill the gap caused by the astronaut's passing. It also rules out static electricity as it would either be attracted, or repelled. You've said lots of things on this thread that would get you laughed out of the debating hall and you're still talking as if you had credibility. You just said a few posts ago that the issue of whether the Clavius site is a government damage-control site was a non-issue. If there is a site on which people lie habitually and the moderator ties the hands of truthers when the pro-Apollo people can't handle the arguments being put forth and people refuse to answer direct questions, that's circumstantial evidence of a hoax as those tactics are only necessary when a lie is being defended. It's not surprising that you'd take that stand seeing that you're one of the regular pro-Apollo posters at Clavius. You pretty much destroyed your credibility when you took that stand. It's clear to thinking people that you're not debating in good faith. You're going to keep on just like the Black Knight here though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 On this site where pro-Apollo people just talk to each other withought posting the evidence they're discussing, a few people who haven't seen the evidence might be taken in. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories Once people have seen the hoax evidence, there's really nothing you people from Clavius can do to make people think the moon missions were real. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 20 2009, 04:46 PM Post #833 |
|
If it rules out static electricity, it also rules out atmosphere. If you say otherwise, please present the video evidence where the flag should have been moved by static but wasn't, and also explain why it didn't move due to atmosphere. Incidentally, static is only one of the presented alternatives. I don't think there's enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion. There is enough evidence to rule out an atmosphere though.
You neglected to address this issue. Also, when the astronauts are in frame, look at how very small foot movements causes relatively large sprays of dust, indicative of low gravity and a vacuum. Your alternative proposal fails. Some tiny foot movements from the 13 second mark in the video look totally inconsistent with being filmed on Earth, even allowing for your proposed change in video speed. Low gravity and a vacuum explains it perfectly.
The pendulum-like motion of the flag has been pointed out to you before. Don't you remember your apples to oranges comparison where you used a much smaller and heavier cotton pillowcase? Try it using a larger nylon flag. The motion is nothing like the Apollo 15 footage, and I'm not talking about things that might be affected by playback speed of the film. The Apollo flag moves with a pendulum-like nature, showing no signs of atmospheric drag. No billowing or settling. Get yourself a 5'x3' flag and try it yourself.
It's also consistent with static electricity, if the spacesuit and flag have the same charge.
It moves back toward him because of gravity. It doesn't rule out static because the astronaut is moving away from the flag. No-one is seriously suggesting that the flag would move away and not move back and start oscillating. The oscillation of the flag has a regular period, just like a pendulum. Measure it for yourself.
I'm more than happy with what I've said in this 'discussion'. People an judge for themselves who has more credibility. At the end of the day, that's not the issue. The issue is whether the evidence presented by CTs for the moon-landings being faked actually holds water.
It isn't an issue to me. If you believe it to be an issue, find someone who agrees to discuss it with.
You do enjoy appointing yourself as spokesperson for all these thinking people don't you David? Were you debating in good faith when you accused me of lying over the rooster tails issue and not believing my own arguments, only to change your mind later and agree I was right all along? Were you debating in good faith when you accused me of lying over Jack White's mystery toe-print claim and not believing my own arguments, only to change your mind later and agree I was right all along? Were you debating in good faith when you said you hadn't noticed glare before on page 33 of this thread, yet nearly 3 years ago you posted a picture of glare and said "The bigness is not the size of the reflection but the glare"?
Ah, the good old Black Knight. You do realise you're just giving the people who suspect you of being a bot more ammunition?
There's plenty of discussion of hoax evidence, whenever anyone actually wants to present it and debate it. Most debates require people from opposite sides of the argument. If no-one is presenting evidence, how can there be a proper debate about it?
A video of a flag waving, that has plausible explanations for the initial movement, and other evidence in the same video that counters the claim it must be filmed in an atmosphere? Do you really think that anyone other than hardcore HBs, or people incapable or unwilling of analysing both sides of that argument objectively, is really going to think this proves the entire Apollo programme was faked? You may not hold yourself to a high standard of proof, but I've got more faith in other people. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jun 20 2009, 06:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 21 2009, 12:31 PM Post #834 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4 I just took another look at it and that simply isn't true. It's entirely consistent with earth gravity and atmosphere if the grains are large and slow-motion is considered.
The movement is entirely consistent with atmosphere and earth gravity if we consider slow-motion. Atmospheric drag is negligible at that small angle of movement. We have no idea what material that flag is made of. It may be something heavier than what they say it is. You've got nothing except an authoritative patronizing attitude here. There's no substance. That's what you people from Clavius do when you're cornered. You just take a lame position and stick to it until the whole thing blows over then you go on as if nothing had happened.
If this is not an issue to you, you are not fit to discuss the moon hoax issue at all. http://www.clavius.org/ http://www.badastronomy.com/index.html On lots of moon threads on lots of different forums pro-Apollo people constantly address issues simply by saying, "Go read about this at Clavius", or "Go read about this at Bad Astronomy. That will set you straight". The issue of whether these sites were started by the governement as a damage-control measure or are sincere truth-seeking sites is a bona-fide Apollo-related issue. The evidence shows that they are government damage-control sites as the people who post on their forums get caught telling lies and refuse to answer questions. The moderators tie the hands of posters or close the thread when their people can't try to obfuscate the evidence of something without looking like horses' a---s. This poster couldn't address the evidence that Bad Astronomy is a government damage-control site. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28804&page=5 All he could do was give up and disappear. I've seen that same name at the Clavius forum; he's probably the same guy. The moderator at this forum saved the pro-Apollo people from looking like horses' a---s by having to address this issue by simply refusing to let the issue be discussed with lame excuses. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?s=d4fce1fe2baa3d2ffb8d11f37de59db7&showtopic=113834&st=3270&p=2074478&#entry2074478 The same thing happened here. http://www.volconvo.com/forums/science-technology/13612-moon-landing-14.html The moderators at both of the above forums were using their power to control the direction the debate was taking to prevent the hoax-believers from winning. The evidence that Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites is so damning that the moderators at pro-Apollo sites refuse to even let it be discussed. You can pretend all you want but I assure you that you look very silly when you play down the importance of the evidence that Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites whose regular pro-Apollo forum posters know perfectly well that Apollo was faked. Clavius is discussed in this article. http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html I've posted this evidence that Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites before but I guess I'll have to post it again so you can't bury it. Look at the last post of this page on which the moderator closed the thread. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since David C did not answer the questions that were asked of him (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=891474), it is clear that this thread is not in which people are responding to each other. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the post with the questions asked of me. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-37.html#post891474 Here's where I answered them. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-38.html#post892498 The moderator closed the thread giving the reason that I hadn't answered the questions when I had in fact answered them so I started another thread on the subject. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52326-9-11-inside-job.html They closed that thread before a healthy discussion could even get started. I started another thread to complain about it. http://www.bautforum.com/forum-introductions-feedback/52393-some-pretty-low-tactics.html That's what got me banned there. Shortly after that they decided to limit discussion in the conspiracy theory section to space and astronomy. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/52887-new-change-conspiracy-theory-section-only-space-astronomy.html Evidently they couldn't try to discrediting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without looking silly so they decided to just discontinue talking about it. Here's another case where the moderator closed a thread because his people couldn't discredit the theory without looking silly. http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html I think it's safe to say that "Bad Astronomy" is a government damage-control site that is not dedicated to truth, but to obfuscate truth. I got banned for 30 days at Clavius for using non-Apollo info to further my argument that the government is capable of telling gigantic lies. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1 (see reply 33) They talked about it in reply #138 here. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&thread=1401&page=10 I continued the topic in the "Conspiracy theory" section instead of the "Hoax theory" section in the hope that they would let me speak freely. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575 As you can see by reading the thread, the moderator closed it because his people couldn't discredit the topic without looking silly. I think everybody knows who Jay Windley is. http://www.clavius.org/about.html Jay Windley got caught in a big lie which is explained in these two links. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094 http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand Look at the way Jay Windley ducked this question asked of him. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584 HeadLikeARock-- This is not the behavior of sincere truth-seekers. This is the behavior of people who know they are defending a lie. Whether those two sites are serious truth-seeking sites or government damage-control sites is a serious Apollo-related issue. It's not surprising that you insist that this is a non-issue as you are one of the regular pro-Apollo posters at Clavius. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've not been threatened but have had some pretty nasty stuff directed towards me, which is easy enough to brush off when I'm "postbaguk" or "HeadLikeARock", but now that CTs now my real identity I've had to waste a lot of time defending myself against false accusations of lying that wouldn't have bothered me as much previously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can pretend all you want but if this were a debating hall, the audience would be roaring with laughter at your insisting that this is a non-issue and giving lame evasive answers to these questions or simply refusing to answer. This is a direct question to you HeadLikeARock- Do you think the behavior of those pro-Apollo people cited above is the behavior of sincere truth-seekers? |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jun 21 2009, 03:45 PM Post #835 |
|
Actually, this sounds a lot like you DavidC |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 22 2009, 05:01 AM Post #836 |
|
You have a proven history of very poor analysis skills when it comes to Apollo videos. Take the Rooster Tails for example. I'm happy that my interpretation is the right one. Interested veiwers can look at the video and come to their own conclusions.
Experimental evidence disagrees with you. The flag is clearly made of a lightweight material that easily transmits light. Looking at the video of flags in other missions supports this. You're just desparate because you need this video to be your smoking gun, since you have nothing else apart from the Collins jogging video (which was yet another example of your poor analysis skills). Take them out of the equation and you have nothing left but 'debunker food' (your description).
David, that a perfect example of your own behaviour on every forum I've seen you post on.
It's not an issue to me, for this reason, which you have been told before and choose to ignore. Even if either of the sites you mention is indeed a government damage-control site, it is not circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked, because it's perfectly possible that the were set up to counter the false information about Apollo parroted by uninformed people such as yourself. In other words, they could have been set up even though Apollo was a genuine mission, and man did indeed land on the moon. Therefore, wasting your time trying to prove that either site is a 'damage control' site is nothing more than an exercise in futility. You may get your kicks by crying about how the mods at those sites treated you, but I just don't care! What do you expect when you accuse the admin and all the members of being paid government shills who don't believe their own arguments? A warm, friendly welcome? The benefit of the doubt? The same kind of leeway that polite posters are granted? If you behave like a w@nker, that's how you should be expected to be treat.
As pointed out to you even if they are 'damage-control' sites, that doesn't mean Apollo was faked. There is so much ill-informed guff on the internet about Apollo being faked (by your own definition, 'debunker food'), that it would make sense to have a site devoted to explaining away the many false anomalies that proponents of the Apollo hoax spread on the internet. For example, Colliers insistence that the rooster tails hit a wall of atmosphere. You would be convinced that Apollo was faked based on that one snippet of video unless a nice chap like me took the time out to patiently explain why his uninformed, incredulous opinion was totally wrong. Eventually you acceded. Jack White has been one of the main proponents of the Apollo Hoax evidence for some years. Remember the mystery object on the moon study of his? You were convinced that he was right and that he had proof the photograph was taken in a studio. Luckily for you, you had a patient chap like me willing to spend the time and invest the energy to rescue you from your ignorance. Took some doing, but eventually you saw the light. The point I'm getting at is, if these false claims by HBs weren't addressed by someone, they would spread on the internet. So maybe the US government did set up a site to allow discussion of anti-Apollo theories. Or, maybe it was set up by someone who was very interested in spaceflight and Apollo, and along with like-minded people wanted to defend that truth against an onslaught of false anti-Apollo evidence being promulgated by people such as Jack White (who still thinks that anyone who sees a toe-print in that study is a blind liar, presumably including you), Collier (who used a picture taken in a studio during training as evidence that Apollo was faked), Rene (who sold 'proof' on his website that the value of pi is incorrect), Bill Kaysing (who admitted in interview that he made up his initial accusation that Apollo was faked at the behest of a Vietnam vet with a genuine axe to grind at how he'd been treated after being paralysed when shot), Percy (who continues to host all of Jack White's refuted 'debunker food' studies on the Aulis website). So how do people like you fit into the picture? You come across as if you consider yourself to be the last bastion of truth in the Western World. In reality, you are wasting your life away, promoting the idea that the Apollo landings were faked, based on little more than your incredulous mis-interpretations of a couple of videos, and fueled by your hatred of your own government, and the murky machinations of the CIA. I no longer care about helping you understand the truth about Apollo (you're just too far gone down the rabbit-hole), but there may well be other people who've stumbled across some HB stuff, and are unsure what it all means. I post for them, so they can see both sides, do their own investigations, and come to their own conclusions. Hopefully they'll come to the same conclusion I did when I was first exposed to anti-Apollo debate (courtesy of Percy on a late-night TV show in the UK).
If the audience was filed with people brain-washed by the anti-Apollo crew, I agree. If it was filled with thinking people, who ratioanlly and objectively listen to the arguments, I disagree. You like mentioning the debating hall roaring with laughter quite a lot. Do you have much experience of being on the wrong end of that?
Ah, the good old DavidC objectivity test. Never gets boring that one, does it? Here's one for you David. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no will do thanks. If you choose not to answer then you are clearly a Chinese agent trying to bring down the entire US social infrastructure. It's my conspiracy theory, I make the rules, and unless you play to my rules, you will be laughed out of the debating hall and I will have successfully thwarted you. Edited by HeadLikeARock, Jun 22 2009, 06:38 AM.
|
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 22 2009, 11:57 AM Post #837 |
|
HeadLikeARock- You lamely tap danced around the question. Here it is again.
Stop tap dancing and answer the question. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 22 2009, 12:42 PM Post #838 |
|
Their behaviour is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Neil Armstrong, or anyone else, has ever walked on the moon. Of course, you know that. The only reason you pose the question is to try to manipulate me into saying something you can use against me. Either I say there's nothing wrong with their behaviour, in which case you accuse me of being a paid shill who knows fine well Apollo was faked, or I say their behaviour is out of line, in which case you say it is because they are paid shills who know fine well Apollo was faked. Either way, you can claim moral victory. Now you know why I asked you if you'd stopped beating your wife. If you say yes, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. If you say no, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. It's a logical fallacy, called a loaded question. Since this will all be completely over your head, I suggest you speak to the chair of the debating hall you clearly belong to, and ask him all about formal fallacies, especially in relation to loaded questions, and ask him to explain why you'd be laughed out of his debating hall for using such technique. It may work well for politicians in hit-and-run attacks, but a sincere truth-seeker who knows all about the rules of formal debate would not keep trying to pull the same, tired, manipulative stunt. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 23 2009, 07:20 AM Post #839 |
|
HeadLikeARock-- This is not a presumptuous question. It's a very straightforward question. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 The fact that Jay Windley and those other regular pro-Apollo posters lie about science and that the moderators at Clavius and Bad Astronomy tie the hands of hoax-believers and closes threads when they corner pro-Apollo people is serious circumstantial evidence that the government is engaging in damage-control as those tactics are only necessary when lies are being defended. There being circumstantial evidence of damage-control by the government is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked. The issue of whether Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites is a bona fide Apollo-related issue. It also serves as a litmus test to see who is objevtive and therefore fit to debate the Apollo hoax issue, or unobjective and therefore unfit to debate the Apollo hoax issue. The viewers are watching and judging HeadLikeARock. Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley and those moderators and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters at Clavius and Bad Astronomy that is cited in the above link is that of objective truth-seekers? |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jun 23 2009, 10:45 AM Post #840 |
|
Where are these viewers? Why do they never seem to show up when you need them? |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 24 2009, 04:31 AM Post #841 |
|
Let's hear you address the question that I asked HeadLikeARock weasel_turbine. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jun 24 2009, 06:38 AM Post #842 |
|
So you can trap me in a loaded question too? Is that really the appropriate behaviour for someone so concerned with how things would look to a debating hall? Honestly I haven't bothered to look much at your rants about other forums. It seems childish and petty and a direct avoidance of discussing the EVIDENCE. Why are you avoiding the evidence DavidC? Do you like to appear childish and petty? But what it does look like is you went to other forums with a chip on your shoulder, ignored moderator's warnings, ignored evidence, ignored pretty much everything contrary to your premade conclusions (is that the actions of a truth-seeker, I think not) and then somehow got surprised when it didn't go well. Sounds a lot like the actions of my 3 year old to be honest. Edit to add: Were you treated badly and/or unfairly on some other forums? Yes. Was it justified/instigated by your actions? Possibly. Does it mean anything about those forums themselves? No. Does it have any relevance to this forum? No. The actions of a single person or even a group of people means NOTHING about the forum itself. People are individuals and you tend to piss off a lot of them. Until you can understand that their actions means NOTHING (which I doubt you ever will) then trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. Edited by weasel_turbine, Jun 24 2009, 07:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 24 2009, 07:42 AM Post #843 |
|
Please explain why this is a loaded question. I think the behavior of Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo people in those threads cited above is the behavior of people who are defending a lie. All I want is your opinions. Since Clavius and Bad Astronomy are the sites that everybody cites as the final authority on the Apollo hoax issue, the analysis of those sites is well withing the bounds of the Apollo debate. It looks to me like you and HeadLikeARock can't obfuscate their behavior as it's so clearly the behavior of people who are defending lies so you are playing games in the hope that I'll forget about the issue. I'm not going to forget about it. I'm going to keep bringing it up. You two seem to be checkmated. I'm still waiting for a serious answer. Stop stalling and answer the question. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 24 2009, 09:49 AM Post #844 |
|
Your reading and comprehension skills seem to be letting you down along with your analysis skills, so I'll re-post my answer. Heopfully you'll see it, read it, and understand it this time. I won't hold my breath. It's not an issue to me, for this reason, which you have been told before and choose to ignore. Even if either of the sites you mention is indeed a government damage-control site, it is not circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked, because it's perfectly possible that the were set up to counter the false information about Apollo parroted by uninformed people such as yourself. In other words, they could have been set up even though Apollo was a genuine mission, and man did indeed land on the moon. Therefore, wasting your time trying to prove that either site is a 'damage control' site is nothing more than an exercise in futility. You may get your kicks by crying about how the mods at those sites treated you, but I just don't care! What do you expect when you accuse the admin and all the members of being paid government shills who don't believe their own arguments? A warm, friendly welcome? The benefit of the doubt? The same kind of leeway that polite posters are granted? If you behave like a w@nker, that's how you should be expected to be treat. Also this one. Their behaviour is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Neil Armstrong, or anyone else, has ever walked on the moon. Of course, you know that. The only reason you pose the question is to try to manipulate me into saying something you can use against me. Either I say there's nothing wrong with their behaviour, in which case you accuse me of being a paid shill who knows fine well Apollo was faked, or I say their behaviour is out of line, in which case you say it is because they are paid shills who know fine well Apollo was faked. Either way, you can claim moral victory. Now you know why I asked you if you'd stopped beating your wife. If you say yes, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. If you say no, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. It's a logical fallacy, called a loaded question. Since this will all be completely over your head, I suggest you speak to the chair of the debating hall you clearly belong to, and ask him all about formal fallacies, especially in relation to loaded questions, and ask him to explain why you'd be laughed out of his debating hall for using such technique. It may work well for politicians in hit-and-run attacks, but a sincere truth-seeker who knows all about the rules of formal debate would not keep trying to pull the same, tired, manipulative stunt. |
|
|
|
| weasel_turbine | Jun 24 2009, 11:01 AM Post #845 |
|
I gave you a serious answer. Learn to read. |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 25 2009, 11:04 AM Post #846 |
|
You regular posters from Clavius will never admit it when you're checkmated--even when it's glaringly obvious. This is all I ever expect to do--raise issues that you can't obfuscate. Then you have to tap dance around the issue, ignore the issue, play down the importance of the issue, everything but address the issue. You can pretend all you want but after your lame responses to the issue of whether Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites, nobody with an IQ of 90 or above is going to take anything you say seriously. I would say your success rate is close to zero percent in your endeavor to make people think they really went to the moon. You people will always be here though with the same attitude the Black Knight has. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 All I can do is keep you from filling up the thread with your BS by continuing to ask you real questions so you'll have to say lame things such as you've been saying about the issue of Clavius and Bad Astronomy to maintain your positions. I think you're flogging a dead horse but I suppose leaving a debate afer saying lame things is unthinkable to you people because it attacts more attention than saying lame thing and staying. You also might be able to bury the part of the thread in which you've said lame things to reduce the number of people who see it I suppose. You might as well give up. Thanks to the internet people are finally seeing the evidence that Apollo was a hoax. There's really nothing you can do to stop this. The government must know this. They probably won't say so officially though until all the people involved aren't around any more--maybe some time after the year 2030. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 25 2009, 11:44 AM Post #847 |
|
It isn't an issue. I've explained my reasoning for that at least twice in the last page. You seem incapable of reading and comprehending any post that is more than a couple of sentences long.
All the questions you ask re evidence get answered. I've even given you my opinion on Apollohoax.net and the BAUT forum, even though it's irrelevant to the truth or otherwise about Apollo, as I've explained to you.
Where people like you are prepared to spread ignorance-based lies about Apollo, there will hopefully always be people prepared to defend the truth. On this issue, I disagree with Gene Cernan ("The truth needs no defence"). Maybe from his point of view the truth needs no defence, since he knows he has walked on the moon, and anyone who tells him otherwise is plainly an uninformed ignoramus. From the point of view of someone who hasn't walked on the moon, but is 99.99% convinced that other people have (based on years of close examination of the evidence both for and against Apollo), I think the truth does need defending, if only to protect it from cultural vandals such as you. All you have to support your position is your personal hatred of your own government and it's shady agencies, personal incredulity over a couple of videos (despite your proven poor history of analysing videos), and a few cyber-champions whose every word you seem to hang on (such as Jarrah White and Duane Daman), without actually analysing their claims and understanding the fundamental flaws. A while ago you suspected Jack White of being a CIA plant because some of his claims were so obviously wrong, yet another of your heroes (Percy) continues to sport his claims on the Aulis website. You include Percy's claims in your "body of evidence", despite this connection that you've never really resolved. You seem to be wavering on Percy, accusing him of supplying 'debunker food', even though you continue to include that 'debunker food' in your body if evidence. I suppose you have to, otherwise you'd be left with... well, nothing that amounts to a small hill of beans. All you have left in your armoury against Apollo is this tiresome feud against other websites. You can't win this debate on the evidence itself, so you just keep claiming victory and demanding answers to questions about other websites that have already been answered. Let's not forget that 3 years ago you claimed you knew all about glare from the sun in photographs, and understood why the size of the glare doesn't correspond to the size of the sun's reflection, yet just a few weeks ago you were claiming that this very effect in an Apollo photograph was proof it was faked in a studio. Either you are very stupid, or a very poor liar. Which is it? (Yes, I know, the fallacy of false dichotomy, but if you are happy to use it, then I guess it's OK for me too). |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 27 2009, 01:05 PM Post #848 |
|
HeadLikeARock- Your comparing my question to a presumptuous question is pretty lame. You credibility has taken another hit because of this. The question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" presumes that you beat your wife. If you answer yes, you say that you beat your wife whether you really do or not. If you answer no, you say that you beat your wife whether you do or not. The question, "Do you think the behavior of Jay Windley, the moderators and the regular pro-Apollo posters in these threads is the behavior of objective truth-seekers?" does not presume anything. If you say they are being dishonest and generally trying to obfuscate the truth as they obviously are, you'll essentially be admitting defeat which is unthinkable for you. If you say their behavior in those threads is the behavior of objective truth-seekers, you'll look silly. You are sidestepping this question because you are between a rock and a hard place. I can assure you that nobody of average intelligence is fooled by your tactics. Again I ask you to answer the question. The threads that show the behavior of those people is here. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 Do you think their behavior is the behavior of objective truth-seekers? As I keep reiterating, the issue of whether Clavius and Bad Astronomy are government damage-control sites, or sites run by objective truth-seekers is well within the bounds of this debate as lots of people cite the pro-Apollo people who post at those sites as the final authority in the Apollo hoax debate with the attitude that those people are impossible to corner. Lets' not forget that you're one of them. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=postbaguk http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1107&page=1#33457 (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've not been threatened but have had some pretty nasty stuff directed towards me, which is easy enough to brush off when I'm "postbaguk" or "HeadLikeARock", but now that CTs now my real identity I've had to waste a lot of time defending myself against false accusations of lying that wouldn't have bothered me as much previously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part of the modus operandi of you people from Clavius is to have the attitude that you're winning when in fact the audience in the debating hall would be roaring with laughter at your silliness. I assurre you that you're not fooling anybody who has an IQ of 90 or over.
Anybody who reads what I posted will see that you are grossly misrepresenting the situation. I suppose you're trying to sway the people who haven't read what you're referring to. The glare in the picture here... http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=255276&t=51606 ....is very different from the glare on the visor in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE (6 second mark) You're comparing them as if they were the same is a pretty desperate tactic. People can look at the difference between the reflection of the sun in the spacewalk pictures and the reflection of the sun in the Apollo pictures in this video and judge for themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=1gD2P-Po_Gk Now stop ducking my question about the behavior of the pro-Apollo people in those threads from Clavius and Bad Astronomy. I say their behavior is circumstantial evidence that the government is hiring experts to lie which is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Tell us what you think of their behavior in those threads. |
|
|
|
| HeadLikeARock | Jun 28 2009, 04:59 AM Post #849 |
|
You're totally missing the point. You're only asking the question because you hope my answer will give you ammunition to use against me, regardless of what answer I give. You even ADMIT this in your own post, with this very line!
Hence the comparison to the wife-beater question. Despite this, I've already answered your question TWICE in the last few days. Here it is AGAIN. It's not an issue to me, for this reason, which you have been told before and choose to ignore. Even if either of the sites you mention is indeed a government damage-control site, it is not circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked, because it's perfectly possible that the were set up to counter the false information about Apollo parroted by uninformed people such as yourself. In other words, they could have been set up even though Apollo was a genuine mission, and man did indeed land on the moon. Therefore, wasting your time trying to prove that either site is a 'damage control' site is nothing more than an exercise in futility. You may get your kicks by crying about how the mods at those sites treated you, but I just don't care! What do you expect when you accuse the admin and all the members of being paid government shills who don't believe their own arguments? A warm, friendly welcome? The benefit of the doubt? The same kind of leeway that polite posters are granted? If you behave like a w@nker, that's how you should be expected to be treat. Also this one. Their behaviour is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether Neil Armstrong, or anyone else, has ever walked on the moon. Of course, you know that. The only reason you pose the question is to try to manipulate me into saying something you can use against me. Either I say there's nothing wrong with their behaviour, in which case you accuse me of being a paid shill who knows fine well Apollo was faked, or I say their behaviour is out of line, in which case you say it is because they are paid shills who know fine well Apollo was faked. Either way, you can claim moral victory. Now you know why I asked you if you'd stopped beating your wife. If you say yes, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. If you say no, I can accuse you of being a wife-beater. It's a logical fallacy, called a loaded question. Since this will all be completely over your head, I suggest you speak to the chair of the debating hall you clearly belong to, and ask him all about formal fallacies, especially in relation to loaded questions, and ask him to explain why you'd be laughed out of his debating hall for using such technique. It may work well for politicians in hit-and-run attacks, but a sincere truth-seeker who knows all about the rules of formal debate would not keep trying to pull the same, tired, manipulative stunt.
If you were of remotely average intelligence, you would have been capable of using your admitted knowledge that the reflection of the sun looks bigger than it is due to glare, and applied that to the Apollo image. Hence, you're either not of remotely average intelligence, or you got caught in a lie. You choose. Just a reminder, here's what you said about the glare in the visor 3 years ago:- As I've already said--this blows you guys out of the water whether you recognize it or not. I'm sure the viewers recognize it; that's all that really matters. Sound familiar? We'll put that one alongside your 'rooster-tail' and 'Jack White mystery object' goofs.
Answered your question 3 times now. Are we going for a record? |
|
|
|
| David C | Jun 28 2009, 08:10 AM Post #850 |
|
HeadLikeARock- Your behavior is the classic modus operandi of you regular pro-Apollo posters who regularly post at Clavius and Bad Astronomy. When you're cornered by an issue, you skirt around it instead of addressing it and hope it blows over and then continue as if nothing had happened. I assure you that you look very silly in the eyes of all people of normal intelligence. I also assure you that I'm not going to get tired. I can keep asking you this question for twenty more pages. So I'm asking you again to tell us if you think the behavior of these friends of yours is the behavior of truth-seekers. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=262548&t=51606 Here's another question. Is Jay Windley an objective truth-seeker? http://www.clavius.org/about.html Are are those regular pro-Apollo posters at Clavius objective truth seekers? http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories I can keep reiterating this as long as you keep trying to play down its importance- This issue is well within the bounds of the Apollo hoax debate as lots of people on moon hoax threads cite Clavius and Bad Astronomy as the final authority in the moon hoax debate. Whether the forums of those two sites are full of liars or objective truth-seekers is a bona fide Apollo-related issue and I assure you that you look very silly when you say it's a non-issue. Now please give real answers to my questions. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
10:53 AM Dec 1
