Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

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.

[SydneyPSIder]

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.

[Arouet]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

[really?]

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.

[Arouet]

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.

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

[Arouet]

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.

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

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