ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: profmunkin on April 11, 2012, 04:24:21 PM
-
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
-
Whenever that quote is made it is always ripped from its context. By the time of Goldin's interview, missions beyond Earth orbit were planned that included long term lunar missions, trips to Mars and so on. All missions that would last far longer than Apollo. In terms of radiation exposure, duration is a key factor. Rather like walking to the corner shop in a light shower and getting a little damp, or doing a 10 mile hike in the same light rain and getting soaked through to the skin, a short trip of a few days in the radiation beyond the van Allen belt is harmless, but several months out there may be lethal.
-
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Goldin is completely correct: If you want to go into space, you have to find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. Apollo found a way: keep the missions short.
If you don't want to keep the missions short, you have to find another way. Goldin is completely correct.
-
Profmunkin, why do you always hijack existing threads rather than start a new one? It's not that hard to do, you know. Do I have to place you under moderation again?
-
Out of curiosity, prof, when and where did you see this interview? Or have you actually seen it at all?
-
Profmunkin, why do you always hijack existing threads rather than start a new one? It's not that hard to do, you know. Do I have to place you under moderation again?
Oddly enough the last time this came up, it was also placed in another thread about Cosmic Dave: http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1145&page=2#34766
-
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
It is interesting that this "quote" is not a quote of Dan Goldin, but a quote of Cosmic Dave asserting that Goldin said this. So the first task for you is to show us a quote of Goldin actually saying this because when you say, "what did Goldin mean by the following statement," there is no actual statement by Goldin to discuss. Until then, anyone is free to dismiss this for a complete lack of a reliable source.
-
It is interesting that this "quote" is not a quote of Dan Goldin, but a quote of Cosmic Dave asserting that Goldin said this. So the first task for you is to show us a quote of Goldin actually saying this because when you say, "what did Goldin mean by the following statement," there is no actual statement by Goldin to discuss. Until then, anyone is free to dismiss this for a complete lack of a reliable source.
Where Cosmic Dave has used this, he was himself quoting Sam Colby's website:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=822017#p822017
And they banned him of course. Amusingly given the Soviet theme his profile now says he is an 'Unperson'.
-
It is interesting that this "quote" is not a quote of Dan Goldin, but a quote of Cosmic Dave asserting that Goldin said this. So the first task for you is to show us a quote of Goldin actually saying this because when you say, "what did Goldin mean by the following statement," there is no actual statement by Goldin to discuss. Until then, anyone is free to dismiss this for a complete lack of a reliable source.
Where Cosmic Dave has used this, he was himself quoting Sam Colby's website:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=822017#p822017
And they banned him of course. Amusingly given the Soviet theme his profile now says he is an 'Unperson'.
Tracing the history of a "quote" in conspiracy land is like following the genealogy of the characters in a Tolstoy novel. Profmunkin, can you provide a original source for Goldin's statement?
-
It is interesting that this "quote" is not a quote of Dan Goldin, but a quote of Cosmic Dave asserting that Goldin said this. So the first task for you is to show us a quote of Goldin actually saying this because when you say, "what did Goldin mean by the following statement," there is no actual statement by Goldin to discuss. Until then, anyone is free to dismiss this for a complete lack of a reliable source.
Where Cosmic Dave has used this, he was himself quoting Sam Colby's website:
http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?p=822017#p822017
And they banned him of course. Amusingly given the Soviet theme his profile now says he is an 'Unperson'.
I believe it is customary for that name to be followed by a scream.
-
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Even if he said that I would wager the source did not expound on the definition of "danger". No doubt in the source's mind it means if someone goes above 250 miles they are instantly fried to a crisp.
For a mission to Mars "danger" means the astronauts would have a slightly elevated risk of getting cancer.
-
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part
??? Why did you say that? Why didn't you just DO the required investigation?
what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Ah, I think I just answered the questions above...
It's pretty obvious that this is probably NOT an actual Dan Goldin quote, but is in fact someone's interpretation of one.
So may I add to the call of others, with a formal request that you answer at least the first of these questions:
1. Where can a transcript or recording (video or audio is fine) of the full quote and surrounding context be found?
If your answer to that is "I don't know", then:
2. Why did you not try to find it before accepting it as a 'factual quote'?
3. Who is the person who initially made the interpretation?
-
I did not start this thread, Lunarorbit moved my post and started this thread after I posted a question concerning anoter post that had Dan Goldin's comment about not being able to go farther than 250 miles into space.
I have not seen the Dan Goldin interview.
My question was answered thankyou.
-
The knocked out comment was a take off on someone elses post.
With out being attached to the original thread / post it does not make sense.
But what it means is I didn't really care, I was just mildly curious and was not going to put any effort to determine what Mr. Goldin said or didn't say.
Seriously I have no questions concerning space travel or if we can or can't go beyond 250 miles.
There does not seem to be any nation that is going to attempt it any time soon.
Again this is not my thread, it just happens to have my name attached
-
Your post about Dan Goldin's (alleged) comment had absolutely nothing to do with the thread you posted it in originally (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=65.0) (show me where someone mentioned Dan Goldin anywhere in this forum before you did). Your post was off topic so I moved it.
-
The source for Dan Golden comment is from the thread 'Disproving a hoax believer meta-claim'. sts60 post #26 had a link to http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
"There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier."
the above statement was on that page.
that's it, hope it helps.
-
This is not a Dan Goldin comment. It was originated by a noted conspiracy monger in which he claims to paraphrase a Goldin statement on a source that can not be checked. Profmunkin, why did you post this as if was accurate and you accepted it as true?
-
Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made
Please back up your assertion that NASA has done any of the above regarding Apollo. Provide verifiable examples.
(EDIT) Nevermind, profmunkin. I see now that your were quoting somebody else.
-
NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies...
Such as?
...uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings.
"Investigating" is such a strong word. A more accurate description would be, "speculating ignorantly about the Moon landings."
Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made...
Examples, with evidence?
the above statement was on that page.
that's it, hope it helps.
Not really. Quoting other people's work instead of making your own arguments amounts to equivocation. If what they say makes a strong case, you can co-opt it and make it seem like you too are offering a strong case. But if the argument goes sour, you can back away from it and say that you're only reporting what someone else has said.
-
Well truth is truth, and lies are lies, no matter who says them, but I agree that does leave a lot of quibble room, Jay.
-
The source for Dan Golden comment is from the thread 'Disproving a hoax believer meta-claim'. sts60 post #26 had a link to http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
NO. It is NOT. That is NOT the 'source' for Dan Goldin's comments IN CONTEXT. Seriously, do you not understand what 'source' (or CITE or REFERENCE) means? It's no wonder that your research is so horribly flawed if your sources are just idiots with agendas spewing opinions on the 'net.
that's it, hope it helps.
Yes, it has helped me to realise that:
- your argument is based on nothing
- you do not understand the basics of proper research
- anything you say needs to be backed up by a cite/reference, without which it should be ignored
- that you should not be allowed to continue your Gish Gallop onto other topics before you have properly conceded your errors and misinformation.
Ask me what I really think..
-
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
I have no argument if we can or can't go 250 miles into space.
When I asked the question it was answered satisfactorily. Done, End of story, Finished.
I am not researching it because I do not care if we really can or can't go beyond 250 miles into space. Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!
-
Lunarorbit - mr wizard...help
-
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
From your previous post what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
If you post an out of context quote from a hoax proponent in the hoax section of a hoax forum, expect people to treat it as your putting it forward for review. If you want to drop it, that is fine with me.
-
Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles?
Without a proper citation, how do you know that he did. All that you know is that some guy with a web page claims he did. You're still attributing the quote to Goldin without having verified that he even said it. See the problem?
-
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
The point is that you are bringing that comment to the table in a discussion, so you should care whether or not he actually said it, which you still have not verified. If he didn't say it then there is nothing to discuss, is there?
Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles?
Assuming he did, in 1994 Mir had a maximum altitiude of about 250 miles, and the then planned ISS would have a similar maximum altitude. Hubble was higher, but no mission to Hubble lasted longer than a few days. As already said, if he did in fact say anything about it at all, he was talking about missions with intended durations of months or years. The space station missions were the only comparable space flights in terms of duration to be referred to.
-
The limit is also a matter of fuel. Gemini went higher on a couple of missions, but they docked with an Agena Target Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agena_target_vehicle), which boosted them to a higher orbit. Contemporary spacecraft like the Soyuz, Shenzhou, and the former Space Shuttle have, and had, quite limited fuel on-board for changing orbit.
-
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
I have no argument if we can or can't go 250 miles into space.
When I asked the question it was answered satisfactorily. Done, End of story, Finished.
I am not researching it because I do not care if we really can or can't go beyond 250 miles into space. Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!
Sigh. You have no proof whatsoever that he put a limit of 250 or 250,000 miles. You're not really grasping that concept, are you?
Bring us an original source, and we might be able to verify why he said whatever it was he did say. You're basically saying something like, "Frank Smith told me that Joe Jones said that Mike Brown said that apples fall upwards when dropped at midnight. Tell me why Mike Brown said that! Huh, bet you can't explain THAT!"
-
Quoting other people's work instead of making your own arguments amounts to equivocation. If what they say makes a strong case, you can co-opt it and make it seem like you too are offering a strong case. But if the argument goes sour, you can back away from it and say that you're only reporting what someone else has said.
It seems to be "lession 1" in the hoax believers "book".
As I like to say...if you promote it, then you own it.
-
How many lesions are there? Shouldn't we establish quarantine?
-
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
Well, that's odd. You're posting on an Apollo-focused discussion board. Presumably you care about the Apollo Project.
Am I unreasonable to expect that what Goldin said--in or out of context--would be pretty interesting to someone who cared about the Apollo Project?
Is he right about the radiation problem? How did Apollo solve it? How well did the solution work? What new technologies were developed to solve it? Etc.
As it turns out, there's actually quite a lot of fascinating technical detail about the radiation problem, and about the Apollo solution. I should think that if you care about the Apollo Project, you'd be quite interested to learn more about what Goldin meant, and how it applied to Apollo.
On the other hand, if you don't care about the Apollo Project, that would explain why you suddenly don't care what Goldin had to say (even though you cared enough to ask about it in the first place). But if you don't care about Apollo, why are you even posting here?
-
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
Well, that's odd. You're posting on an Apollo-focused discussion board. Presumably you care about the Apollo Project.
I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.
Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.
What catches my attention is random bits of knowledge or information, such as: Dan Goldin said" ...250 mile limit...", I wonder what he meant by that? Then think, just go to the experts, I have to bounce this off apollonet for a good scientific answer, these guys know space... then I throw it out for a quick answer, which I receive and a good answer I will add....Followed by a stink-storm criticizing my inquiry.
Some of you guys might consider increasing your fiber uptake.
-
Well, if we're just asking random questions, what happened on the Mary Celeste? And where is my other black glove?
-
Well, if we're just asking random questions, what happened on the Mary Celeste? And where is my other black glove?
OK obviously the glove has to be on the Mary Celeste, so you did something that required you to take the glove off. Unless Mary Celeste is a woman?
You may have to give me some more clues.
-
Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.
NASA has already provided more than enough evidence to convince reasonable people.
What catches my attention is random bits of knowledge or information, such as: Dan Goldin said" ...250 mile limit...", I wonder what he meant by that? Then think, just go to the experts, I have to bounce this off apollonet for a good scientific answer, these guys know space... then I throw it out for a quick answer, which I receive and a good answer I will add....Followed by a stink-storm criticizing my inquiry.
We're not just trying to be difficult. Before we can answer why someone said what they said, we have to know that they actually said it. That quote has been floating around the internet for years and no one can actually prove that Dan Goldin said it. Why would we waste time trying to explain something he may have never said in the first place?
-
We're not just trying to be difficult. Before we can answer why someone said what they said, we have to know that they actually said it. That quote has been floating around the internet for years and no one can actually prove that Dan Goldin said it. Why would we waste time trying to explain something he may have never said in the first place?
Hey tell me about it, I spent much of the day looking for it just to stop all the fuss.
-
Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?
-
Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?
Problem was I assumed you guys knew more then you did.
-
Perhaps, then, you should have done that work before assuming he *did* say it?
Problem was I assumed you guys knew more then you did.
Why is it our job to verify your quotes?
-
I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.
So one side has all the evidence covered and the other has no hard evidence. Yet you say we can't know. This really sounds like the conclusion of someone who desparately wants to believe in the hoax theory and is just waiting for something useable to come along.
As for your circumstantial evidence, you tried some of that and you acknowledge it got ripped to shreds. This circumstantial evidence does not have a good track record of standing up to scrutiny.
-
I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon. Can't know one way or the other. So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered. To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.
So one side has all the evidence covered and the other has no hard evidence. Yet you say we can't know. This really sounds like the conclusion of someone who desperately wants to believe in the hoax theory and is just waiting for something useable to come along.
As for your circumstantial evidence, you tried some of that and you acknowledge it got ripped to shreds. This circumstantial evidence does not have a good track record of standing up to scrutiny.
No. What this means is I feel both sides have compelling arguments.
I didn't try "some of that."
The intention was information clarification and what I am receiving is paranoid fanatical fever.
-
Why is it our job to verify your quotes?
You are right
I withdraw the inquiry!
-
...I feel both sides have compelling arguments.
Which Moon hoax arguments are "compelling"?....and be very specific.
-
No. What this means is I feel both sides have compelling arguments.
What 'compelling arguments' are there that stand up to the vast piles of actual evidence for the Apollo landings?
-
I really no longer care to argue about Apollo and if we did or did not go to the moon.
Of course you do, or you wouldn't continue posting.
Can't know one way or the other.
Sure we know....Apollo is historical FACT....no need to speculate when the facts are on your "side".
So to you that say we did, I say you got all the evidence covered.
Historically verified factual events are "covered".
To those that say no, I say there appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that theory, but no hard evidence.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Moon landings were haoxed, period.
Someday someone will provide sufficient proof to know one way or the other.
Someday??? There is sufficient proof NOW confirming that Apollo happened...you have chosen to ignore it.
-
I am not sure why people choose to believe in conspiracy theories despite lacking "hard evidence". I supose that to a certain mindset, "circumstantial" evidence is more enthralling. I notice that profmunkin stresses motive in a number of posts as if it were very strong evidence. But there are many people walking around happily today, for whom you could find a lot of people with motive to bump them off, and yet nothing happens. And there are plenty of actual murder victims with multiple people with motive to kill them, but only one actual killer.
Motive can be dreamed up for anyone to do anything. It's not evidence.
-
Furthermore, to put motive in such a prominent position in discussion of conspiracy theories is akin to putting someone on trial for murdering his wife because he had a motive to do so before actually checking to see if she was in fact dead. All the circumstantial evidence and possible motives in the world won't secure a conviction if his wife is still walking around in good health.
In the case of Apollo, most of the motives offered up for faking it are served equally well by actually performing the missions as advertised, which further renders discussion of motives pointless.
Apollo is a meticulously and extensively documented historical event. However, it is also a highly technical achievement, and as such many elements of it are not intuitive to the layman. All the facts are there to be examined. Many of those who examine them lack the prerequisite knowledge to properly interpret them. More distressing, many of them seem determined to maintain that and call reality into question rather than their own limited understanding.
-
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.
Nonsense. You asked us to interpret the meaning of an explanation attributed to him. You took something that someone claimed elsewhere and brought it here for comment. You assumed the quote was genuine and accurate, but you were able only to trace it back to where someone else had summarized his statement with only vague attribution. The question therefore should have been, "Did Goldin really say this?" And it should have been asked back at the other forum where you got the claim.
Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!
Did he? That's the question you have to answer first.
-
If the evidence we have now isn't convincing, what would be?
-
If the evidence we have now isn't convincing, what would be?
I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable. I posted that I would no longer offer the opinion that we did not go to the moon nor will I offer the opinion that we did. You have some new evidence I will be the first to look at it.
Right now I don't know for sure either way.
There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon. Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian that christ may be a composite figure and may not have been a real person. Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
Seriously, I am devoting my spare time to re-aquaint myself with the details of JFK assassination.
-
Give use something halfway credible and we'll give it due consideration and discuss it. But we're not going to pretend that something has merit just so you can feel good about it and have a conversation. The fact you can't get far here when trying to promote the hoax is testament to just how weak the conspiracy arguments are. We'll happily discuss the moon landings and the hoax theory, but if you present crappy evidence to promote a silly theory, we're going to tell you why its crap. If you want facts about the moon landings then this is the place to be. If you want somebody to pat you on the back for displaying ignorance about the moon landings, then there are other places on the net better suited to you.
edit spelling
-
I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable.
...
Right now I don't know for sure either way.
How can you seriously post such contradictory stetements? If the evidence in favour of the landings is solid and unshakable how can you possibly be unsure either way?
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
We can conceive of the possibility. We just don't have any evidence of it. And nor do you, so what exactly is your point?
-
I came to the conclusion a while back that the evidence for the moon landing is solid and unshakable.
...
Right now I don't know for sure either way.
How can you seriously post such contradictory stetements? If the evidence in favour of the landings is solid and unshakable how can you possibly be unsure either way?
This is what's confusing me as well. Is this another stupid motive question? Because the US might have had a motive to fake it, obviously it's possible that they did?
-
There is no such motive.
Either the feat was achievable in which case they would just do it (as they did) or it was not doable in which case the race is off because the Russians couldn't do it either.
If the race is off, then wasting resources on a hoax is stupid when there are real demonstrations of power to worry about. Like competing with Salyut.
-
And even if NASA did decide for some reason to hoax it, then the former Soviet Union would also have a motive for revealing said alleged hoax, which, if it was fake for the reasons stated, they absolutely could.
You can't have it both ways.
-
Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
You mean, "Look at how everyone pointed out that the quote I was using to insinuate the Moon Landings were hoaxed was a hoax itself. How rude!"
That's not craziness, that's debate. If you think it's crazy, refute it. If you can't, don't blame people who don't believe everything they read on conspiracy sites.
-
Yes, I know there's no realistic motive. You can't tell some people that, though.
-
The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think. The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space. You don't accomplish that by faking it.
-
There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon.
Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian that christ may be a composite figure and may not have been a real person. Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
Seriously, I am devoting my spare time to re-aquaint myself with the details of JFK assassination.
Consider that the problem may not be our myopia but your lack of understanding. Your born again christian argues from faith, we argue with tested evidence. Usually against those that can only muster something akin to faith to support a view. Don't mistake the seriousness of the tone with the substance of the argument.
People here can of course exchange ideas on subjectives, and do with some vigor from time to time. But we also do not consider subjectives to be evidence in the material world. Either you can discuss your personal, subjective ideas or you can discuss the material world. But you can't expect others to accept your subjectives as having material consequences.
-
The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think. The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space. You don't accomplish that by faking it.
Pretending to have capabilities you don't only makes things worse because it spurs your enemy to work hard to increase his.
-
The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think. The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space. You don't accomplish that by faking it.
Pretending to have capabilities you don't only makes things worse because it spurs your enemy to work hard to increase his.
Indeed.
And imagine what would have happened if, in the aftermath of a faked Apollo 11, the Soviets had got their N1 rocket to leave the ground in one piece rather than 20,000, decided their first mission would also land in the Sea of Tranquility and when they got there, they found no US hardware waiting for them and no evidence of them ever having been there ...
-
Am I the only one who wishes they had gotten that fragile beast working?
Two nations sending people to the moon, what would have been the results?
-
Am I the only one who wishes they had gotten that fragile beast working?
Two nations sending people to the moon, what would have been the results?
My guess? We would have a Moonbase and a Mars expedition either completed or at least in the late planning stage.
-
There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions...
Why do you think the question of whether some historical event happened or not is affected in the least by your subjective opinions?
because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon.
No, this is a common hoax-believer complaint. Hoax claimants whine because their evidence is not the least convincing, and seek to soothe their wounds in sour-grapes fashion by claiming that their critics must be intractable.
Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian...
Hogwash. Nothing about the conclusion held by the regulars here is simply taken on faith. You'll find that most members can clearly articulate the rationales for believing as they do. In contrast all the arguments you've brought to the table have boiled down to suspicion deriving from your lack of specific knowledge. How does you not knowing what you're talking about translate into blind faith on our part? Guess what: ignorant handwaving doesn't convince people who actually know what they're talking about, nor should it.
Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, because there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
Straw man. You simply haven't presented evidence that rises above your inability to understand what's going on. That's not convincing, nor should it be. Simply because you have no good evidence or a working knowledge of the domains from which that evidence would necessarily arise doesn't mean you get to accuse your critics of being closed-minded.
Further, you're welcome to present your subjective feelings for discussion, but I fail to see how that would constitute evidence for the authenticity of an event. Therefore I understand your reluctance to present them.
-
That faint sound we can all hear? that would be frantic backpedalling.
-
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
Provide compelling evidence, and I think you'll find people can conceive it.
But "I think the government is evil, and lies, and things don't look exactly like I think they should, although I suppose that there may be explanations for each of those individually," is not going to change anyone's mind about your ideas.
-
There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that everybody on the board could conceive of the possibility of faking Apollo. You can tell by the answers you get: Nobody says "you're suggesting that Apollo might have been faked, so you're wrong."
Instead, they say, "your specific concept of fakery is flawed for these specific reasons, and therefore it is a wrong concept." That's the answer of someone who conceived of the possibility, and then tested it.
Your problem is not that everybody else can't conceive of the possibility--obviously they can. It's that you won't test your concepts. What's worse, you won't accept anybody else testing your concepts.
This entire board is dedicated to conceiving of the possibility of Apollo fakery. However, it's not a very easy concept to take seriously, or pursue very far, because whenever it gets properly tested, it fails miserably right out of the gate.
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Sick and twised
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Sick and twised
What does that mean?
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Sick and twised
What does that mean?
"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."
-
What is sick and twisted about what Jay said?
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Sick and twised
What does that mean?
"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."
I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Yes, and let me add to that by proving that you were indeed DISHONEST (not just 'in error'). In your first post about Dan Goldin, you said:
what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
And then you provided a statement that purportedly quoted Goldin. You DID NOT tell us where that statement came from. You DID NOT provide any proviso about him being misquoted/misrepresented/taken out of context, so you very clearly intended us to take your words for it being an accurate and complete 'quote'. What is more, you then linked to a forum post (which DID NOT include any actual quote from Goldin), stating that:
the above statement was on that page.
Goldins actual statement was NOWHERE on that page, just the rambling opinion of an Apollo denier.
I'd call that DISHONEST. What would you call, it prof? 'Slightly flawed research', perhaps?
Further, you then said:
My question was answered thankyou
...
Seriously I have no questions concerning space travel or if we can or can't go beyond 250 miles.
Quite quickly followed by:
why did he put the limit at 250 miles?
I'd call that dishonest too. Why on earth should anyone engage with a person who behaves in that way?
-
I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?
It means profmunkin is on the conspiratists merit badge spiral. Small insults -> melt down -> banned.
-
You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Sick and twised
What does that mean?
"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."
I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?
Maybe Jay told him about the party in Ogden that time.
-
[Sick and twised
What does that mean?
[/quote]
"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them. We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."[/quote]
I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?
[/quote]
It means that his interpretation of my intentions is sick and twisted.
I have said from the start that I followed a link posted by sts60, ran across the comment, wondered what it meant, asked the question, it was answered, end of story.
Sick and twisted minds turned it into a witch hunt.
"We helped you achieve honesty" <- roll on the floor laughing.
"You were dishonest" you don't know anything about my intentions.
-
It means that his interpretation of my intentions is sick and twisted.
Too vague. Exactly how is it "sick and twisted?" You're just name-calling.
I have said from the start that I followed a link posted by sts60, ran across the comment, wondered what it meant, asked the question, it was answered, end of story.
No. Here's your first post in its unedited entirety:
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Only after you were quizzed about the origin of the quote did you come clean about it. Hence my comments are correct: you posted them initially without any attribution. We helped you achieve honesty in the presentation of your claims (or others) then answered your question.
Sick and twisted minds turned it into a witch hunt.
See, first my comments are "sick and twisted" and now you accuse me (us) of having "sick and twisted" minds. The escalation continues. You've let slip a couple times how you really feel about your critics. Want to continue coming clean?
"You were dishonest" you don't know anything about my intentions.
On the contrary, I think you've made them abundantly clear over the past few weeks. Like most conspiracy theorists, you can't resist putting in the little jabs about your critics being closed-minded robots. You're playing silly rhetorical games that we've all seen a hundred times. Your goal is to show that people who belief differently from you are "sick and twisted" or otherwise closed-minded, even when they can demonstrate a more careful attitude than you.
-
Profmunkin, the words you are looking for are "rigorous and demanding!"
-
Profmunkin, the words you are looking for are "rigorous and demanding!"
I applaud the information available here.
Its the Inquisition that is draining and unnecessary, looking for motive where there is none.
-
Its the Inquisition that is draining and unnecessary, looking for motive where there is none.
Fair enough. You asked your question, and after a few rounds of clarification you got an answer that satisfied you. I'm okay with dropping the discussion of motive.
-
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Don't give up dude because they are explaining , you were getting the upper hand momentarily. MAn cannot venture beyond the earth, hang on to that hard fact bro.
-
The hard fact, Patrick, is that when you agreed to the terms of service for this forum, you agreed not to create sock-puppets. You intentionally violated this rule - again. In addition to being spectacularly incompetent at anything related to space flight, or engineering in general, you are most of all a serial liar.
What's amazing is that, with all the practice you get, you are such a bad liar.
-
I will support this forum, saying that you guys bend over backward to try to explain the science behind the space program and have demonstrated an extreme range of knowledge concerning Apollo space program!
In not wanting to be knocked out, with out further investigation on my part, what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
"Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation."
Don't give up dude because they are explaining , you were getting the upper hand momentarily. MAn cannot venture beyond the earth, hang on to that hard fact bro.
BREAKING NEWS: Since the inception of discussion boards there is a Private Message feature. Although only intelligent folk can use it.