|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th January 2013, 11:52 AM | #41 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
|
25th January 2013, 11:55 AM | #42 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
|
25th January 2013, 12:11 PM | #43 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159 (excerpts) --------------------------------------------- Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked? A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require. --------------------------------------------- Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out. A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Also, the media and science journals won't report what they say if they say Apollo never happened.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA (00:16 time mark) Do a YouTube search on "Chomsky media" to see some analyses of the media. |
25th January 2013, 12:21 PM | #44 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
What a load of handwaving. ALL scientists would fall into line and ALL scientists are 100% patriotic to the US?
George Koval There are plenty more, including those in the "Rosenberg ring" The science community is not the Borg - all one hive mind. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
25th January 2013, 12:28 PM | #45 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis |
|
25th January 2013, 12:33 PM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
No, this is your speculative excuse for why all the relevant experts uanimously disagree with you. The whole world isn't paid by NASA or beholden to it.
I find this highly disingenuous. Not just a few hours ago, you urged people to go talk to their scientists and professors and determine whether they backed you or backed Apollo. You suggested that they would support you. But now you're telling us they can't support you, otherwise their funding would get cut off. So when all these people report back unanimously that science uniformly rejects you, you have a predetermined excuse not to believe it. How is this any sort of meaningful check or test of your claims, as you propose? Are you intentionally sending people off to obtain answers you know you have pre-rejected? How does that qualify as honest? |
25th January 2013, 12:35 PM | #47 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
|
25th January 2013, 12:40 PM | #48 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
25th January 2013, 12:41 PM | #49 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax Some scientists have to be careful of what they say and some don't. We rarely hear the words of the ones that have to because of the control of information. |
25th January 2013, 12:52 PM | #50 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
Some physics professor talking to a student in his office probably wouldn't have anything to worry about. A scientist who wants access to the Hubble Telescope would have to be careful about what he said to a stranger. If one were to go to a physics professor with only the dust-free sand issue and not mention the connection with Apollo, he would laugh at the idea that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand was driven over. This is such a basic thing that your attempts at damage-control are going to be fruitless. All of you have lost your credibility on this one. |
25th January 2013, 12:58 PM | #51 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
You've devoted five years of your life to an almost single-minded endeavor to destroy my reputation by just about any means possible, to anyone who will listen. Now is a pretty convenient time to decide I'm not worth your attention.
Answer my questions to my satsifaction, if you please.
Quote:
Quote:
Evidence was provided that contradicted your claim here, and you accused its reporter of lying.
Quote:
Tests of your credibility have been taken, and you do not pass. |
25th January 2013, 01:05 PM | #52 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
25th January 2013, 01:16 PM | #53 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
|
|
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail |
|
25th January 2013, 01:49 PM | #54 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
That's exactly how I gathered it. And of course, none of the ones that agree with him are in a position where they have proof of a hoax, I would surmise. ALL scientists in government employ will ALWAYS not reveal what they really know because they are ALWAYS worried about losing their funding. ANY scientist who disagrees with his opinion will ALWAYS be in the group that is afraid of funding and is therefore and unbelievable source. No proof necessary for this assertion, it comes from the ultimate arbiter, who is FF88 and therefore cannot be wrong.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
25th January 2013, 02:13 PM | #55 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 6,140
|
As I said earlier even if you could prove such a thing were possible on the scale needed to create an Apollo set that in no way demonstrates such a thing was done and adding in the totality of the Apollo evidence the reasonable conclusion is that the Apollo footage was shot on the moon.
Oh and of course there's the slight problem with your theory that we do see dust kicked up during various lunar activities which demonstrates properties that point to it being in a vacuum and under 1/6th gravity, all the sifting in the world won't help you there. |
25th January 2013, 02:44 PM | #56 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
25th January 2013, 03:02 PM | #57 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?.
This is hardly surprising, though, since according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite. rocky/DavidC/FF88 has to lie, because admitting that experts - or even laymen - might honestly disagree with him threatens his fragile, cramped worldview. That's why he monomanically repeats the same oft-debunked claptrap year after year. That's why he refuses to learn anything about Apollo, or space flight in general, or engineering or physics. He simply can't deal with the possibility that his fixation is just that - his fixed delusion and not that of anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. Well, anything to allow him to pretend he's relevant. Let me repeat for emphasis: FF88, you misrepresented support for you Magic Sand claims, and you lied about your guarantee. Do you think you fooling anyone? At all?. This is hardly surprising, though, since according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite. |
25th January 2013, 03:17 PM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Out of curiosity I started going through the list.
1. Hugo Chavez. Nuff said 2. Dr Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski. Professor of economics geopolitics and international relations. Right. 1 link to a bulgarian tabloid. 3. Dr. Li Zifeng. 2 links provided, one to a paper on special relativity, the second to a blog rehashing Kaysing. 4. Prof. Dr Takahiko Soejima. Political scientist. Can't read his site or his book. 5. Prof. Federico Martín Maglio. Argentinian higher educator. Social sciences. 6. McCanney. Hahahaha. 7. Prof. Luke Sargent, American historian, professional violinist. Well he should know. Remind me how many violins were on the moon. 8. Dr David Groves. Nuff said 9. Dr Marco Stefanelli, Italian PhD in Indovedic psychology, analyst-programmer, Web engineer, painter, Reiki Usui alternative medicine practitioner, researcher, audio engineer, sound designer, composer, multi-instrumentalist. Yup, a crackpot. 10. Dr Neville Thomas Jones. Yeah see clavius.org for that one. That's it, I have snorted enough coffee for one sitting. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
25th January 2013, 04:35 PM | #59 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
25th January 2013, 05:09 PM | #60 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
26th January 2013, 12:24 AM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
Quote:
Then why did you ask, FF? |
26th January 2013, 12:30 AM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
I didn't ask anybody from NASA, or any other gov't agency. You do realize there are scientists that don't depend on public or gov't funding, don't you?
Why did you challenge us to ask scientists about Apollo when you knew you wouldn't accept contrary opinions under any circumstances? |
26th January 2013, 01:51 AM | #63 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 779
|
Yes...just to underline it, the Magic Sand has to simultaneously have so little fines it never aerosolizes sufficiently to be visible, but is fine enough on average that the mesh tires of the Rover can throw it several meters in the air.
And that's just for the Grand Prix video. Later, the Magic Sand has to be fine enough to let astronauts leave well-defined footprints, yet, again, never hang in the air. Rocky, if it were that simple to get the stuff, why didn't Tom Hanks have a handful of it for "Apollo 13?" Just one simple shot. No calisthenics, just tipping a glove to let a handful of lunar material fall off it. And the dust that hangs in the air is CLEARLY visible. |
26th January 2013, 09:27 AM | #64 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,120
|
|
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
26th January 2013, 08:51 PM | #65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
|
27th January 2013, 01:43 AM | #66 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
|
In his what now?
On another note, for the benefit of those who do not frequent Apollohoax.net and in the spirit of shameless self publicity I have been adding exciting new things to my Apollo page, including comparisons of lunar orbiter and LRO images of the landing sites and scans of Apollo related stuff from Life Magazines (my own copies). http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/apollo.html |
30th January 2013, 06:07 AM | #67 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
Maybe they should have a conference with the myth busters like they do with other things in science to work it out.
|
31st January 2013, 07:31 PM | #69 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
|
31st January 2013, 07:54 PM | #70 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
I meant the Russians referred to in FatFreddy's note and the Myth Busters should get together.
|
31st January 2013, 08:10 PM | #71 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
31st January 2013, 08:14 PM | #72 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
|
31st January 2013, 08:39 PM | #73 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
31st January 2013, 09:15 PM | #74 |
Slide Rulez 4 Life
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
It means you need to re-mortgage your house. click here for your next lawn ornament And landscaping to match. Your house would be the talk of the neighborhood. Bonus points if you have a Homeowners Association. |
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis |
|
31st January 2013, 11:31 PM | #75 |
Possible Suspect
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stowe VT USA
Posts: 3,018
|
|
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill |
|
1st February 2013, 10:46 AM | #76 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
The matter having to do with mainstream scientists not challenging the mainstream dogma is a good one freddy. I liked the Rover film freddy with the still astronaut. The Russian's pointing out the texture difference between the foreground and background sand is a good one as well.
|
1st February 2013, 10:54 AM | #77 |
I AM the Red Worm!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
|
|
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah |
|
1st February 2013, 11:04 AM | #78 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
The thing I don't understand is why all those astronomers, scientists etc who supposedly know it was fake don't tell the world about it after they retire. I mean they're not beholden to NASA any more, and it can't be the mainstream media keeping them off the air since a) Patrick Moore was given national airtime every month until his recent death and b) ignorant cranks have no trouble putting their message out on the internet so why not all these smart scientists and engineers? Perhaps they don't know how to use computers.
It's a mystery, it really is. |
1st February 2013, 11:16 AM | #79 |
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 39
|
They are psychologically constrained to a significant degree. There's the classic PAtrick Moore interview with Neil Armstrong from 1970 in which Armstrong famously said he and the others saw no stars. But then Alan Shepard in his Moon Shot book said stars were easily seen. So a good suspicious journalist and a good suspicious atronomer like Patrick Moore(not) would realize the contradiction there is not trivial. It is a contradiction without resolution or explanation by the pro Apollo camp group and is absolute proof of hoax.
Patrick Moore is marvelous. I love his SKY AT NIGHT mag. But that doesn't mean he wasn't conned . Obviously he was. Armstrong says one thing and Shepard another. They are lying. Apollo was a hoax. Plain as that. |
1st February 2013, 11:24 AM | #80 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|