Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
lol, now you pseudosceps are arguing about the meaning of scepticism, and making outright misrepresentations -- I mean, ProfWag has shown NO convincing evidence whatsoever and just made big handwaving assertions about 'thousands of experts' and 3 easily dismissed types of 'evidence', and you guys have the hide to discuss what a true sceptic is. Truly pathetic.
Why not discuss moon rocks and radiation evidence and physics reasoning and try to keep the thread on topic for a change, so you can get trounced the way you fear you will, with your zero evidential base.
Or, let's put your miserable failing arguments against researchers like Jarrah White (who has confounded pro-Apollo paid shills on a number of occasions, as well as Apollo fanbois generally) another way -- let's leave White out of it for a second -- all the photos and vids supposedly brought back by Apollo astronots have COMPLETELY blackened skies, and they pitifully tried to argue in a press conference they just couldn't see any stars due to albedo reflection of the sun's light on the surface of the moon -- why, even Mike Collins chipped in, and HE wasn't even supposed to be on the surface of the moon, that's really something, isn't it? All that evidence is viewable for yourselves on video and still shots, pretty well satisfies acceptable rules of evidence for anyone. The only mysterious thing about the blackened skies is that it's possible to bring up shimmering effects in them with computer enhancement similar to a ScotchLite front projection setup. Further, focussing and using a 70mm camera would have been next to impossible on the real moon, due to limited depth of field of the 70mm format -- foregrounds and backgrounds could not be in focus at the same time. And film might melt on the moon we believe also -- basic physics. We're still using our own brains here, right? Agreed? We're not using Jarrah White's brain in this endeavour? All the pseudosceps still with me? I know you're kind of (deliberately) slow. OK, then we get camera stills back from unmanned probes on the moon, and GUESS WHAT? THEY HAVE STARS IN THEM! Do you agree there is still no Jarrah White in this picture? Now, am I being a genuine sceptic or what here? And are you guys being genuine pseudosceptics here or what? Turkeys.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 13 Dec 2012, 12:18, edited 1 time in total.
Hey Ninja, do I officially count as psychic now?
Hilarious. It's just not possible for a time-waster pseudoscep to lose an argument, is it, because they can always divert when they're losing.
Sydney, are you new to internet forums? Over time you'll get more adept at following multiple tangents at once. It does take awhile to get used to.
Here's some more advice on how to have effective internet discussions: throwing out a dozen subtopics at once doesn't tend to be productive. I've suggested, for example, that we focus on one at a time: I think the Van Allen belt has been the topic chosen. You game to focus on that for awhile? I'll try and remember that you have a hard time keeping on track if someone posts something slightly off topic and keep the conversation clean.
I've already said once back there, it wasn't me who tried to restrict this thread half way through to just one topic, radiation, it was one of the pseudosceps. Talk to your pseudoscep buddy about it.
In one post, you've simultaneously told me to follow multiple tangents, then stick to one tangent. Is this a new form of pseudoscep logic? aka utter insanity.
Regardless of pseudoscep illogic and insanity, I'm the only one who has posted in significant information and pointers to the radiation argument. So what's your problem?
And no, I'm not new to internet forums, I administer one and am a member on several others.
Now, where's your evidence, logic and common sense on the moon landings as per the OP, I haven't seen a shred of any of those things from you or your pseudoscep buddies yet, you just keep talking round and round in circles and avoid addressing the actual hard evidence and physics.
Well, it was me who suggested dealing with one subtopic at a time.
Yes, I can see how that would have been confusing for you and I should have provided more context: Tangents will come up in threads from time to time. They are usually short lived little detours. Sometimes they become more involved at which point someone will usually suggest starting a new thread for it. Now: with the suggestion for tackling one subtopic at a time, we're talking about the main topic of the thread. You can have a couple main themes to discuss but at one point it does indeed become unmanageable if you have too many. But there's another reason: where a tangent will naturally flow off the current conversation, starting a thread with too many subtopics will often act as a thread killer. Simply: there's too much to respond to in the OP and so it leads people to often decide not to respond to any of it: hence the suggestion to deal with one subtopic at a time which is geared towards encouraging conversation rather than stiffling it.
I hope its clear: if you're still confused please ask for further clarification.
No problem. You dropped a dump of topics, I suggested pursuing one and asked if you agreed with going that route.
Then I'm sure you're used to seeing tangents. On your forum do you treat every tangent as a deliberate attempt to derail the thread?
Well, there's certainly more than a shred in this thread already, but I haven't done my research on this yet. It hasn't really been an interest of mine to date but thought why not give it a shot in this thread?
well, talk to yourself about it then
I don't remember agreeing to discuss just one topic, nor did the suggestion appear to be directed at me in attempting to cover the 'evidence, logic and common sense of the moon landing hoax' , nor did I suggest which one in particular or agree to that topic. Radiation is a relatively difficult one compared to the much easier ones of video and stills fakery, and a few others, but nonetheless we've had a crack at it and fired an opening salvo or two. The irony of course is that if any of the areas can be proven it pretty much disproves the whole thing, but proving video/still fakery + radiation + moon rocks + no convincing evidence of debris + whatever else tends to make a stronger all-round case -- and we've already concisely dealt with a whole bunch of them. Attempting to push all discussion into just one relatively difficult topic smacks to me of an attempt at derailment and bogging the thread down with claim and counter-claim.
Why not number the couple of dozens of evidential indicators of hoaxing as listed and deal with them one number at a time?
No, I tend to see deliberate attempts to derail the thread as deliberate attempts to derail the thread. I would hate to see that happen on this forum which is specifically dedicated to shining the light of truth and true scepticism on everything.
No there's not, where is it? There have been a number of specious and unsubstantiated claims made on the pseudoscep side which have been easily dismissed, plenty of convincing evidence tabled by the genuine sceptics in the form of stills, videos and physics treatments.
That kind of sums it up too -- pseudosceps haven't evaluated Apollo evidence and don't take much of an interest, but they know the hoax theory is false; pseudosceps haven't evaluated 9/11 evidence and don't take much of an interest, but they know the inside job theory is false; pseudosceps haven't evaluated paranormal evidence and don't take much of an interest, but they know the phenomena are false -- it's a bit of a repeating pattern, isn't it?
Ummmm no: that's why I asked you...
Seriously? Bogging the thread down with claim and counter-claim is derailment? Focussing on one subtopic is derailment? Are you just trying to be contrarian no matter what I say? The whole claim and counter-claim bogging is otherwise known as a "discussion".
Also I'm not sure what's any more complicated about the radiation issue than any other issue in this debate.
Ummm, I did suggest that we deal with the claims one number at a time, isn't that what you're objecting to? Well, I didn't specifically suggest that we number the claims, but the effect is the same. I didn't suggest radiation as the topic, but it seems to have come forward and imo is as good a topic as any to go through.
How do you differentiate a normal tangent in a thread from a deliberate attempt to derail the thread?
This is just empty rhetoric. You have no idea what I believe I "know" vs "not know".
Syd recalls another former member known as indigochild. A person that wholly believed Geller used PK to move objects; a compass in this case. Professorwag,et al and I tried debating with him. To demonstrate Geller using a bit of trickery with a magnet one of us pulled up a video from Youtube demonstrating Geller using something that now moved a compass needle. We pointed out where in the video Geller attached the magnet to his hand. No matter what we said, Indogochild refused to consider for a moment they might be wrong. They preferred their facts instead.
Arouet, you have the patients of a saint. It's pointless trying to talk to and with syd.
P.S. I see some are have a grand time with Rationalwiki.
Ok, this link shouldn't be considered definitive because its not sourced and its a blog run by a group dedicated to debunking the moon landing conspiracy theory. That said, I find that it provides a good layperson's overview of the issues and even if you don't accept the answers I think we can probably agree that the questions it poses are relevant questions to be asking when evaluating this topic.
My suggestion is, before we get into a debate over the substance of the answers, let's go back over the Jarah material to see if he addressed the questions.
I do find it mildly amusing that I'm being accused of not following a link which just so happens to be the same link from which I posted my challenge to you to do some critical thinking -- which does not appear to have been answered by the way.
I apologize for not posting my source earlier from which I was challenged on my “unscientific” comment about “thousands and thousands of scientists have examined moon rocks…” My comment came from a recent memory of reading NASA’s website which stated:
"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... st23feb_2/
Now, you can claim that Mr. McKay is wrong, but my source of the post was spot on, regardless of how you undoubtedly will try to claim in some manner that NASA is an invalid source for information right before you refer us once again to Jarrah White’s site.
I will happily refer you to some of the peer reviewed journal articles on the Apollo program, which I will at your request, but I’m not sure it would benefit anyone if they wouldn’t read them after posting.
Ok, so I want to now go through the exerpt that Sydney is fond of, to see if White addressed the questions raised. Remember: I'm not looking at substnace except to the extent that the White entry addresses the issue or not.
So here what we don't see addressed are a few issues: is the radiation the same at every spot in the belt? How much radiation will cause damage to humans? How long do they have to be in that radiation to sustain damage? Is the source that White relies on (the early Van Allen paper) enough to do more than identify the concern? What efforts did NASA take to address the worries?
Ok, so he starts to recognize these issues, recognizing that there are different measurements at different spots and he refers to a conclusion that Van Allen makes that it would be unsafe for even short durations at the time. It's not clear if White is still referring to the 1960-1961 publication but there is almost a decade after that that NASA worked on this before the date of the flight.
White makes no effort in this article to describe how NASA addressed these issues. He seems to just accept his interpretation of Van Allen as saying its impossible to safely go through it, and leaves it at that, because in the next paragraph he moves on.
Now, White is clearly raising an important issue. But he ignores a few things. He doesn't look at the issue of whether it was possible to avoid certain flares and doesn't address whether NASA would have warning about the more dangerous ones. He does note the difference between major and minor ones. What he doesn't do is explain the significance of the numbers he describes. How many MeVs is considered dangeous?
For later in the discussion I'll be interested to try and find out who is more accurate between White and teh Clavius article because they give conflicting information about how many major flares went off during the mission and whether the ship went through them. But let's leave that aside for now, while we identify the questions that need to be asked.
I'm doing this quickly on my lunch break. I'm sure there are questions that I've missed, but I'd like to hear from others on this. Not the substance, but just identifying the right questions to ask and figure out if White has asked them. I have a strong preference for using text for these. An analysis like I just did is MUCH MUCH more cumbersome going off video. That said, if the only White source is a video, I guess we'll have no choice.
You make good points Arouet. I want to add a couple less technical things which are 1) Gemini missions, specifically 10, sent spacecraft through the belts from which measurements and the effects on the body were taken. 2) He referred to something that Van Allen said soon after his discovery, but unlike conspiracy theories, science constantly evolves. I'm curious why Jarrah didn't mention this statement: "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests