Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[advancedboy]

 Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

[Jason Thompson]

This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides.

Do you think this is new to us? The answer to your question as to what we represent will be answered by discussing Apollo. That is, after all, what this board is for.

9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?

Irrelevant.

The truth or otherwise of Apollo rests on the evidence. 9/11 has NOTHING to do with it. Discuss Apollo if you will. Discuss 9/11 on a separate thread. There is NO connection between the two, and I for one will not play this game with you. I will discuss Apollo happily and at length. I will not waste time on irrelevancies designed to 'flush out' the people you think you want to dismiss from your discussion.

[Andromeda]

Advancedboy, please either make your arguments or leave.  This is not the place to "test" us before deciding whether or not you will come to the point - doing so will only make people frustrated and make you look like someone who wishes to stir up drama for the sake of it.

Your point, please.

[Echnaton]

By revealing th arguments that are weak, we can move on to more questionable issues.

Why would a strong argument be more questionable than a weak one?

falcon feather case is irrelevant as well , because of course NASA wouldn`t have had a technology to slow down the video, nudge, nudge and then speed it back up.

If it is irrelevant, then why did you bring it up?  Also your special pleading of some secret technology is a non argument.  Arbitrarily invoking secret technology can lead to all possible conclusions.  Therefore it is invalid for any conclusion. Do you understand this point?

People have commented on your posts and asked you questions.  Please do us the courtesy of responding to your interlocutors before going on. 

[ka9q]

What would that prove?  Emulsions are not infinite.  Like homeopathy, eventually you reach a point where not a single (exposed) molecule remains.

Probably more important for our purposes are the effects of image compression. Every 'lossy' compression scheme, such as JPEG, discards information that can't be readily perceived anyway. That's precisely how they achieve their file size reductions, often by a factor of 10 or more. This includes "hidden details" that are "revealed" by extreme RGB (contrast) settings.

This is why purist digital photographers use raw mode in their cameras. JPEG produces perfectly acceptable images if you get the exposure, framing and white balance all correct, but it introduces artifacts that often become visible if you have to correct these things later. Once information is lost for any reason (including lossy compression) it can never be recovered. Only raw (lossless) mode captures all of the information the sensor produces, and even that is still only an approximation of reality.

There's a whole class of conspiracy theorists who base their arguments on such meaningless image manipulations. Mainly they're the "NASA's hiding the alien glass cities on the moon" crowd, not the "Apollo never happened" crowd. Basically, they're doing the equivalent of gazing at the lint in their navels and thinking it means something. All they see are image artifacts, and if they're working with digital images they're most likely compression artifacts.

[Echnaton]

Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

Yes we know your game too.  It was apparent from the start.

[Tanalia]

Yes we know your game too.  It was apparent form the start.

Yeah, straight from the classic "only asking questions / simple discussion" to the patented "if you don't agree with me on Conspiracy X you're a paid government shill and are irrelevant."

Nothing to see here...

[nomuse]

Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question...

Yes, it most certainly is.

... but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides.

Or a better way of putting it; "...So I don't need to pretend to do science but can just claim my opponents are motivated solely by partisanship."

Really?  You are going to test to see if the members of a science-based board are going to apply science to a question -- by asking them to jump straight to a yes or no answer without invoking the scientific method?

Ludicrous.  Your very test method refutes what you claim it is testing.

One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant.

An empty claim.  First you have to show that, yes, their paychecks ARE dependent on their answer.  THEN you have to show the answer is wrong.

I was once employed by the US Army.  I was in S3 (training) and on occasion was tasked -- was demanded, under threat not just to my paycheck but for actual punishment -- to instruct other soldiers on the proper use of a GM angle, how to take a back-azimuth, and other basics of map usage.  Does that mean that what I told those soldiers was wrong?  Does that mean that, when I say the phrase "The GM angle is the difference between magnetic North and Grid North" that you are constrained to ONLY look at my military history, rank, and the conditions of purported duress under which I made that statement in order to determine if this is correct?  That you can not check against known principles of navigation?  That you are free to reject the idea that magnetic north is true north based entirely on what you feel about the person making the statement?

Asinine.

It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings.

This reminds me of a recent poster who declined to include any evidence that was not a direct part of Apollo 11.

And for a very similar reason.  Your litmus tests are foolish and wrong.  That's not the way we do it here, or any other science-based board.  We DON'T ask NASA employees if they "believe" they helped men land on the Moon.  We ask them HOW they did it.  And then we compare that HOW against the known science and practices of physics, astronomy, thermodynamics, aerospace engineering, etc.

Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

No.  I'm not playing your mind games.

[frenat]

Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

A credibility test question?  Gee, who does that remind me of?

[Glom]

Advancedboy, please either make your arguments or leave.  This is not the place to "test" us before deciding whether or not you will come to the point - doing so will only make people frustrated and make you look like someone who wishes to stir up drama for the sake of it.

Your point, please.

That I believe it what trolling is.

[raven]

Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

I notice that constant of use the word boxcutters to describe the weapons carried by the terrorists.
It sounds almost harmless, cardboard boxes aren't exactly tough to open, so it sounds like something akin to an industrial strength letter opener.
Yeah, except box cutters, well, they are those push out utility knives knives with the knock off blades. They are very sharp and could easily be used to slit someone's throat. I've cut my finger on those things enough to know you need barely any pressure at all.
Stab and drag.
But, as other's have pointed out, the question is irrelevant.
Even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way?
As you yourself said, it has nothing to do with this discussion and therefore does not deserve an answer.

[Luke Pemberton]

Before going into moonhoax I would like to ask all of you the following question. This is an off-topic question, but by answering it, it will  help me to understand if you truly represent science and reasoning, or you represent sides. One must understand, the testimony of people whose paychecks are dependent on their picked sides, is irrelevant. It would be irrelevant to ask a NASA employee if he believes in moonlandings. Anyway, the question is the following- ` 9/11- an inside job or terrorists with box cutters?`

Please, your answer is very crucial for me ! It is not for discussion, just shoot a straight answer. Thank you!

Let's assume that 9-11 was an inside job, which I do not believe. What bearing does this have on the moon landings? If you want to deal with strong and weak arguments, and I have explained my position on this point very clearly, then please present evidence that radiation prohibited a manned lunar landing. The radiation card is the hoax theorists strongest card (again their position - not mine). I am now awaiting you evidence on this point. It's a question of science, not government agendas, that decide the laws of physics. I am interested to hear your evidence on this point, and how it matches with those laws.

[Luke Pemberton]

Even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way?

Interesting. Today I have made two posts on this thread, and each time I submitted I was asked whether I still wanted to submit because a new post has been added while I was typing.

Both times, someone made the same point as me. Exactly, even if 9/11 was an inside job, just how does it prove Apollo a hoax in any way? I'd like an answer to that question too.

[Glom]

Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?

[Luke Pemberton]

Also, if 9/11 was an inside job, why couldn't that involve arming patsies with box cutters?

I read that as 'arming pasties with box cutters?'