| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 11:03 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Good morning! I didn't know I was under investigation or that my valuable reputation was on the line.
I only want to know where your moral standing would be on the issue. You obviously don't have to tell me if you don't want to.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| FreeFlow
User ID: 51202
10/3/2007 11:04 AM | | FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 11:10 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I love that page. I think that was a geocities website before.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/3/2007 11:24 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Good morning! I didn't know I was under investigation or that my valuable reputation was on the line.
I only want to know where your moral standing would be on the issue. You obviously don't have to tell me if you don't want to. Quoting: FreshLaundry
I'm sorry, it's just that the usual way these things play out is that someone makes a grandiose claim, which I then go to the effort of replying to, only to see the OP either dismiss my efforts with profanity and ad hominems, or else to suddenly switch to another topic without a backwards glance or acknowledgement. There are exceptions, of course, but it's happened often enough that I feel I need to establish that I would like people who direct posts at me to have the courtesy of responding. To do otherwise is to be a troll.
Sample 'dialog', if I can call it that:
Hoax Believer: What about topic A? Clear proof the landings were faked!
Me: Well, here is a link to a page that shows the errors in your assumptions. Here are some calculations that show what you propose is physically impossible.
HB: What about Topic B? Clear proof the landings were faked!
Me: Can you answer my response to topic A? Do you disagree with what I wrote?
HB: HA! Got no answer to topic B, eh?
Me: Well, no. Topic B is impossible for the following reasons, etc. Would you care to refute my arguments on topics A and B?
HB: What about topic C? Clear proof the landings were faked!
And so on.
Again, please note that I am not accusing you personally of doing this. I just think that I have the right to participate in these conversations on my own terms. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 11:51 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I understand and that must be doubly frustrating because you put so much time and effort into dissection.
I don't think many people can debate you on the science. You make them fight on territory you know well using weapons of your choosing and they obviously can't. But this isn't a war and there is more to it than any individual issue or any particular area of expertise. I guess that's why I'm trying to drag you kicking and screaming into a more human battleground; the morality question. If you really were a paid shill I would find your answer fascinating.
Peppered argument victories on their own do not make you right overall because for us there is still something fishy about the whole Apollo program and contrary to what you'd think, your dogmatic efforts actually contribute to our skepticism, not alleviate it. (I hear you in my head when I'm typing as if I know exactly where you are going to cut and paste me and how you are going to turn my statement into a question. But to fastidiously preempt you would be maddening so I don't.)
A child rejecting candy from a stranger doesn't need to be an expert in criminal behavior, psychology, chemical composition, botany, or the FDA -- they just know something ain't right.
I'm not defending an ego here so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I believe NASA has lied to us and continues to lie to us. The UFO issue is one of the largest issues facing mankind in its history and they should feel shame for retarding human progress by censoring and airbrushing our given right to the truth. There is no excuse for that. I still believe NASA should have remained a civilian agency as intended and that it's discoveries, raw data, and intellectual property should always be made public; no matter what. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 12:03 PM | | Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/3/2007 12:49 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I don't think many people can debate you on the science. You make them fight on territory you know well using weapons of your choosing and they obviously can't. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307097
And therein lies the problem. Here's one of my inevitable analogies:
If someone says that they think that their reading of the constitution shows that people are allowed to print their own money, and that this means that everybody will be rich, then lawyers and economists will both have a few words to say on the matter. The moneymaker can't then say "oh, you're just choosing to argue on territory you feel comfortable in", particularly given that he originally based his argument on the constitution, meaning he has to play that game by its rules.
You change people's minds by showing proof. You yourself, despite your insistence on the virtues of your intuition, recognise this. You called for study of the Arizona globe. Later in the post I'm replying to, you talk about your dislike of 'the truth' being 'airbrushed and censored'. In other words, you want concrete evidence. Why, then, do you think it unfair to ask for the same with the Moon hoax allegations?
The majority of the hoax claims depend on either showing inconsistencies in the record, which is usually resolved by analysis of the source, or proposing reasons why the missions would be impossible, which is usually resolved by examining the science. You can't claim that it's a weapon of my choosing any more than the moneymaker can. I haven't chosen the weapon, that was integral to the issue; I've merely, and quixotically, chosen my battle.
I guess that's why I'm trying to drag you kicking and screaming into a more human battleground; the morality question. If you really were a paid shill I would find your answer fascinating. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307097
I'm not kicking and screaming. I just refuse to be sidetracked. Your question is loaded, anyway - no rational answer but one can be given to it, so why ask it?
There is no morality in proof. Facts merely are, it is what we do with them that colours them through the window of our conscience. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of the Apollo program. The moral response to that is up to you.
Peppered argument victories on their own do not make you right overall because for us there is still something fishy about the whole Apollo program and contrary to what you'd think, your dogmatic efforts actually contribute to our skepticism, not alleviate it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307097
That is you problem, not mine. The whole point of posting on message boards such as this is to share what you have with others. Conversations are never limited to the active participants. If my interactions with those who publicly put themselves up for debate helps even one onlooker resolve their doubts, or give someone else a good counterexample to use in their own arguments, then I've done well.
(I hear you in my head when I'm typing as if I know exactly where you are going to cut and paste me and how you are going to turn my statement into a question. But to fastidiously preempt you would be maddening so I don't.) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307097
Oh, grow up. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 1:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Oh, grow up. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Was that really necessary? Perhaps you misread my parenthetical.
You seem rational enough and then you lash out like that unprovoked, by me anyway. I guess a dog that has been abused will snap at anyone that walks by, but given your temperament perhaps you've earned that abuse.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 1:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You used the british spelling of colour. Are you a brit?
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 28648
10/3/2007 1:10 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm sorry, but it's a childish rhetorical trick - "I'd say so-and-so, but I won't". It's an attempt to forestall what is seen as an inevitable response by indicating foreknowledge of it, as if by showing that you know the flaws in your argument means that you don't have to answer to them. It's an avoidance technique.
I'm off to bed. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 1:13 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm sorry sir. I've been the only one here that treated you with any respect and kindness at all and you have been nothing but shitty. Enjoy your dogfight.
Regarding my "rhetorical trick" -- I was actually being honest. I really did think at that moment, as I was typing, "oh shit, he's gonna turn that back on me!" so I was including you on the humor of the situation. At least I thought it was funny.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| FreeFlow
User ID: 51202
10/3/2007 1:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Unjustified attacks are part of every psy-ops, better to ignore the govt deception wankers ...
I am here to challenge your indoctrinated false belief that flaming queens don't use shovels ... |
| McKracken
User ID: 41594
10/3/2007 2:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
This image shows divergating shadows on the lunar surface during the mission. The shadow of the MI6 operative visible in the picture is different to those of astronauts or the American flag:
[link to img261.imageshack.us]
(Diamonds are Forever, 1971) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129807
10/3/2007 2:55 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
A child rejecting candy from a stranger doesn't need to be an expert in criminal behavior, psychology, chemical composition, botany, or the FDA -- they just know something ain't right. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 307097
Barls will never understand this. He thinks if he just keeps making up technical-sounding answers to highly implausible anomalies and situations, he'll somehow "win" the war.
Unfortunately, it just makes people all the more suspicious that anyone would spend all their free time doing this.
I'm sorry sir. I've been the only one here that treated you with any respect and kindness at all and you have been nothing but shitty. Quoting: FreshLaundry
That was your first mistake. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 272315
10/3/2007 3:02 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
OOO, it's real nasa is just a tool for corporate, mining ops. with taxpayer's footing the big bill, GREED IS A CRIME, against humanity |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 3:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In one year of debunking how many people has he 'converted'?
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129807
10/3/2007 3:19 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I don't think many people can debate you on the science. You make them fight on territory you know well using weapons of your choosing and they obviously can't.
And therein lies the problem. Here's one of my inevitable analogies:
If someone says that they think that their reading of the constitution shows that people are allowed to print their own money, and that this means that everybody will be rich, then lawyers and economists will both have a few words to say on the matter. The moneymaker can't then say "oh, you're just choosing to argue on territory you feel comfortable in", particularly given that he originally based his argument on the constitution, meaning he has to play that game by its rules. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 28648
Typical Barls straw man. He's full of them.
One of my inevitable analogies is that Barls is like the military of an enormous imperialist country sent to occupy a small Middle Eastern one (no names please.) They can kick down every door, shoot, torture and detain half the civilians and bomb the rest, declaring themselves the victor of every battle.
But they still lose the war. |
| mj-13
User ID: 299299
10/3/2007 3:26 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
As I've said in similar threads, I feel that the Apollo program is not genuine. Among other inconsistancies, one of the most glaring is the video feed of the LEM's lunar descent towards the landing zone (Bay of Tranquility). The lack of scaler objectives in the view field as well as resolution of said objects, not to mention no visible dust debris field or crater of the landing retro rocket is quite apparent. When you witness A-11's LEM descend, the small craters and other topographical deviations never change in size or clarity. No legitimate dust cloud or crater formation ever occurs once the LEM is close to the landing zone. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned about Apollo, I don't buy it. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307097
10/3/2007 3:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
My suggestion, which was buried in a bunch of bullshit, was that someone take that descent footage you are talking about and compare the size and position of the craters in it to the large model in Flagstaff, AZ. To the best of my knowledge, it is the largest spherical model of the moon's surface and would therefore have functioned well as a substitute for a hoaxed descent - rotating it to give the appearance of lateral movement.
If it is a scale model of the moon then the craters should relate to a macro view of the moon's surface, not the close up view upon approach. Given full access to the sphere it shouldn't be too difficult to find the matching Apollo camera angle, if it exists of course.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| McKracken
User ID: 41594
10/3/2007 5:29 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The 1971 movie "Diamonds are forever" is quite a revelation if you "watch between the frames"! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129807
10/3/2007 6:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
FAKED |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 307321
10/3/2007 7:40 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm sorry sir. I've been the only one here that treated you with any respect and kindness at all Quoting: FreshLaundry
Really?
There are so many tricks in the Barls arguments above that I would lose the actual point of the conversation trying to untie them all. Quoting: FreshLaundry
I asked you to show where I used a 'trick', so far you have declined to do so. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty unless you are prepared to back it up. I get enough of that from the trolls.
I don't want to play logic games with a sniper to find a nugget of truth. Quoting: FreshLaundry
Calling me a sniper is a bit rude, too. I often see such characterisations here, ad hominems that seek to dismiss my arguments by accusations rather than analysis.
What galls me is that I know that you 'misunderstand' things on purpose just to parry a foil. Quoting: FreshLaundry
Again, you are here accusing me of deliberate deception. I asked you to back this up, so far you have ignored that request. I'm sure you can see that this might look like a familiar pattern to me.
So, no. I stand by my analysis of your avoidance technique, though I accept that you were not being as consciously devious in its use as any of the dedicated trolls. But it still presents itself as a rhetorical trick, one that it usually appealed to when even the utterer can see the logical counterargument to their claim. If you know exactly what I am going to say, and it is logically obvious that I will do so, do you think that frees you from the need to address the logical certainty? You must admit that there is an element of dismissal in making such a statement at all, or wlse why would you make it? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 295520
10/3/2007 9:12 PM | | mj-13
User ID: 307366
10/3/2007 10:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
My suggestion, which was buried in a bunch of bullshit, was that someone take that descent footage you are talking about and compare the size and position of the craters in it to the large model in Flagstaff, AZ. To the best of my knowledge, it is the largest spherical model of the moon's surface and would therefore have functioned well as a substitute for a hoaxed descent - rotating it to give the appearance of lateral movement.
If it is a scale model of the moon then the craters should relate to a macro view of the moon's surface, not the close up view upon approach. Given full access to the sphere it shouldn't be too difficult to find the matching Apollo camera angle, if it exists of course. Quoting: FreshLaundry
It really doesn't matter what the objective is with in a video cameras' field of view. If something is displaced, it changes in size (scale) and clarity (detail) relative to the observer or camera. As far as the LEM "feed", that did not occur. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/3/2007 10:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It really doesn't matter what the objective is with in a video cameras' field of view. If something is displaced, it changes in size (scale) and clarity (detail) relative to the observer or camera. As far as the LEM "feed", that did not occur. Quoting: mj-13
Really? I would dispute that. Would you care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? What changes did you expect to see and were absent? Saying "just look at it" isn't really good enough, you have to explain your methodology. Did you do crater counts at regular time intervals? Did you do size comparisons? If so, what did you measure, and what were your measurements? |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307395
10/3/2007 10:33 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 129807
10/3/2007 10:35 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Typical Barls Knarkley: all questions, no answers.
FU, shill. You're not the Grand Inquisitor around here.
All you do is convince people that no one would spend all their free time defending an obvious fraud. |
| FreshLaundry
User ID: 307395
10/3/2007 10:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Ouch *shudder*
This stuff is brutal.
--
Subject: Faked Lunar Landings
Dear Sir: Like you, I am a total disbeliever in the moon landings. My father had been in the OSS during WWII and one day, shortly before he died, told me in confidence that we had never succeeded in landing on the moon. While the original OSS forerunner of the CIA was disbanded, many of the original OSS people were rehired by the CIA. My father had maintained contact with these people for decades. My Dad had the coveted 'Q' clearance and worked directly under General Donovan. Because of his high security clearance, he was later hired by North American Aviation/Rockwell to sit in on and take the minutes of the executive, engineering, government meetings. My old man had been a Chief Yeoman in the Navy and could type extremely fast and accurate as well as take Gregg shorthand.
My father was never prone to exaggeration. I was told by him about the lunar landing scam in the early 1980's. We had never discussed anything pertaining to national security whatsoever. During our conversation, I mentioned NASA and it brought up a very ugly moment. My father referred to them as "....a bunch of goddamn nazi's." He was referring to SS Maj. Werner Von Braun.
In the 1940's, German rockets were nothing to brag about. Even in the 1950's when the Nazi's took over the American rocket program, successful flights were virtually nonexistent. Yet, in 1961, Kennedy proclaimed that we would put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth. In essence, we went from the first liquid rockets (V2's) to the giant Saturn rockets within the span of 25 years. That would be the same equivalent of going from the 1918 Sopwith Camel biplane fighters to the Concord in 25 years. It simply didn't happen. Now that the old exNAZI regime have passed on, NASA is saying that we "might" be able to get a man on the moon in another 10 to 12 years. I can vividly remember all of the positive NASA talk from the 1960's. Now, decades later, NASA doesn't seem to be so sure about their capabilities.
This post pending review.
[link to kindagamey.com] |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/3/2007 10:43 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
One of my inevitable analogies is that Barls is like the military of an enormous imperialist country sent to occupy a small Middle Eastern one (no names please.) They can kick down every door, shoot, torture and detain half the civilians and bomb the rest, declaring themselves the victor of every battle. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 129807
And that would be a false analogy.
For a start, it is clearly an ad hominem painting me as an agressor. I'm not kicking down anybody's door - I am responding to individuals who have chosen to express their opinions in an open forum. Nobody is compelled to answer. In fact, few people do in any straightforward, honest way.
As for shooting - well, it's not an unconstitutional raid, it's a gunfight in the middle of the street. All my arguments are based on publicly accessible data, and any calculations I do I will show the working so anyone else can confirm it for themselves. If you can't differentiate between analysis of a stated viewpoint and a campaign of individual persecution, then that is your problem. |
| mj-13
User ID: 307366
10/3/2007 10:45 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
It really doesn't matter what the objective is with in a video cameras' field of view. If something is displaced, it changes in size (scale) and clarity (detail) relative to the observer or camera. As far as the LEM "feed", that did not occur.
Really? I would dispute that. Would you care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion? What changes did you expect to see and were absent? Saying "just look at it" isn't really good enough, you have to explain your methodology. Did you do crater counts at regular time intervals? Did you do size comparisons? If so, what did you measure, and what were your measurements? Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Fine, dispute it. You show me where in the A-11 video there are any changes to any topographical objects in the field of view during the descent. Can you find one thing (except the obvious shadow that casts on the surface on the point of contact) that changes in size or becomes clearer in detail during the LEMs descent onto the surface? |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
