Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[Zakalwe]

If Cartman was here he'd probably ask if Advancedboy had sand in his hoo-ha

[raven]

So yet another sock puppet?

I am of the opinion this was an original, but only in the sense of not being a previously banned poster.

[nomuse]

Of course that pose falls apart under any serious inquiry, but there are so many forums where they manage to get away with it.

... and at those forums he will tell stories of how he showed us all. After the IMBd debacle, one young hoax proponent slunk away, declared his victory and how he stuck it to Jay with a big dose of poisoning the well; producing some lame argument that Jay gave alternative accounts of how Aldrin 'agreed' to his interview with Sibrel. It was all about hiding his credibility, or lack of it, by drawing into question that of another.

Of course, our HBer conveniently ignored and skipped over the real substance of his exchange on radiation. Probably because he did not understand it and realised he should not show further ignorance. For some reason, it really irks me when such people behave in such a manner. How they think they can keep getting away with their actions is beyond me.

What bugs me more (and confuses me more) is the intellectual dishonesty.  How can someone go onto a forum arguing that rockets "can't land on their tails," be shown examples of multiple rockets that can, learn more about the history of the LLTV, etc., then leave and go to some other forum and argue convincingly with every bit of this wealth of technical detail EXCEPT those examples of the thing actually being done?

I mean, how can they deal with the cognitive dissonance?  Do they realize they are lying, on that new forum?  Do they care, or are they able to somehow do some trick of rationalization in which their presentation of facts they KNOW aren't true, plus facts that are, combines into something that is true and right?  Do they compartmentalize?  Or are they posting in full knowledge, and laughing at the expense of the people they are convincing?

I just don't get it.  And maybe this is because I have to solve problems and argue technical issues at work, and unlike online forums where the discussion can go on forever, the Universe is running the house and the house always wins in the end.

[nomuse]

What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't

Pete

I read her posts too - scrutinizing them for spelling or grammatical errors along the way. Haven't found one yet!

That's gonna be a harder t-shirt than the "I corrected Jay" one.

[nomuse]

No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.

I've always thought that that would be the hardest part to fake. Indeed, I don't even know how it could be done.

AI.

I mean, what; you've already got robots down there digging core samples, setting up experiments and reflectors, etc.  (And for all that I know, trundling around with little rubber stamps making boot prints).  And it is hardly Turing material to respond to communications problems and make a comment or two on ball scores.

Why, I bet we could have developed such robotics by 2008 -- maybe earlier!

[JayUtah]

You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances.

There never was a chance.  You've been dodging and evading since Day One.  Why should today be any different?  You don't know what you're talking about, and this has been made painfully apparent even to you.

It is not an arrogancy

It is, consummately so.  You have no demonstrable qualifications, experience, or understanding of the topics you propose to criticize.  You demand to speak only to qualified people, then you disregard what they say.  Your parting shot is simply an accusation that everyone who disputes you is ignorant and brainwashed.  Sorry to tell you, you are not mankind's superhero.  You were given the chance to prove your statements, and all you've proven is how gullible you are.  You rattle off a list of long-debunked conspiracy theorists and can bring nothing else to the table.  You have let them do your thinking for you, and you're proud of it.

I am not made of the stuff you are.

No you aren't.  Not in the least.  Unlike you, the regulars here have made something of themselves.

You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your pre-imagined answers.

Projection noted.  This is the field I work in.  You merely admire (or more often, criticize) it from afar, from a position of demonstrable ignorance.  The "status quo" of science is there because it has proven to work in the real world where results count.

How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data.

You were asked repeatedly to supply your superior credentials and qualifications.  You refused, which is tantamount to an admission you have none.  You have steeped yourself in conspiracy nonsense under the mistaken belief it will make you sound wise, and you cling to it with religious fervor.

It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet.

I'm from Earth.  Where are you from?

You will have to live with it.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

You think you will use all your references from NASA...

No, I'm using my 25 years of professional experience in this field.  You offered nothing in return except regurgigoogled conspiracy nonsense that you admit you hadn't even verified yourself.

You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.

Whose government?  You mistakenly believe everyone here is an American or has sympathies with the U.S. government.  That's because you came here with beliefs generated solely by political and economic concerns, and you tried to make believe there was a technical and factual record to support it.  When you found out there wasn't, you tried to shoehorn everyone here into the caricature you had already drawn for anyone who objected to you.  Life is different than you imagine it.  Deal with it.

My suspicion was how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.

Asked and answered.  You never stopped to consider why people agree with a certain conclusion.  You've set it up in your mind that anyone who believes Apollo was real must necessarily be ignorant.  In fact you can't deal with the notion that many people believe Apollo was real because that's where the facts conclusively point.  Until you understand that there can be informed disagreement with your beliefs, you won't get very far.

I rather lose, than win dishonestly.

No, you both lost and were dishonest.

No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story everything.

What makes you think we're alone?   The people who believe Apollo was real constitute the overwhelming majority of surveyed people, and the entirety of the applicably qualified professionals in the world.  You can't accuse us of harboring the mainstream view and then simultaneously tell us how "alone" we are.  We are the majority.  You're a small, ignorant minority.  Deal with it.

I would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.

Well good luck in the Church of Kaysing then.

[Luke Pemberton]

...the Universe is running the house and the house always wins in the end.

Nicely articulated, and consistent with ka9q's reference to Galileo. Conspiracism cannot replace science. I have always maintained that the argument is not Apollo. The argument is that these people, who have no credentials or experience in the fields that they claim expertise, ridicule what is considered to be man's greatest technical achievement. It is they that choose to make it political by using terms like 'government data'. Yet that same government data allows them to communicate over the internet using the outputs of an industry that they lay waste to with such blinding arrogance.

[scooter]

Does he really believe that everything folks here (or anywhere, I guess) know about spaceflight comes from NASA? I don't think they have a monopoly on such knowledge...an interesting, and very skewed, viewpoint on the world.
Meanwhile, why do I have problems believing he's from Latvia? He seemed to have a specific interest in the problems in the US.

[frenat]

  The last question was  a goodbye . You could have asked anything, because after this there will be no more chances. And it is , most likely, so much better for you.  It is not an arrogancy, it is my last step next to you.
 I am not made of the stuff you are.  Be it for better or worse. I read your older forum  just a bit earlier. You do not represent the truth. You represent the sad science of status quo, cherry picking facts to suit your  pre-imagined answers. How lonely for me it was to read about your presidential choices, The pentagon attack, 9/11,  and the rest of the stuff where you mock people as `those conspiracists`. How little science one must understand, or its basic principles apply to go  and so blatantly support every claim that fits the government data. How sad  that you have no  unbiased capacity to research The Pentagon case, the  insurance  claims, stock put options, names of all companies in twin towers, etc. It is so sad to hear that, as if you are from a different planet. You can distort the reality  to me, but you can`t lie to yourself. You will have to live with it. You think  you will use all your references from NASA, and simply debunk by agressively pushing your ideas as absolute truth, or trying to create a complex answer to mud the waters. You don`t represent the truth, you represent everything that is truth to the government.
 My suspicion was  how agreeable you are to each other, except anyone that would go against  the`official story`.What is life worth if one can`t be free. I have no capacity to lie to myself, I rather lose, than win dishonestly.
 No wonder you are so alone here, cramped under pro-official story  everything. Sad . So sad. This is the line that I must draw a big stop. I  would go against everything that is of value in this life for me, if I had to agree with your ideas on all these forum threads.  This the last entry and this is goodbye forever. OUT.

We already knew you never answered questions.  Why should we think you'll change just because it is supposedly our "last chance"?  You're a troll.  You've been nothing but a troll since day one.  Goodbye and good riddance.

[Luke Pemberton]

Darn.  You never did get around to educating us about how they would have faked the telemetry, either.

Watch Jarrah White's Exhibit D videos, where he just makes up rubbish. It's easy... apparently you just need relay satellites. Jobs a gud 'un if you live in La-la land.

 

[Count Zero]

why do I have problems believing he's from Latvia? He seemed to have a specific interest in the problems in the US.

Maybe he meant Latveria

[gillianren]

What arrogance to assume that every poster on the internet is American, and hence is an American government shill. Now perhaps a Canadian government shill, like Lunar Orbit, is up to no good whist eating his Tally Ho double beef basket, but then those Canadians.......

BTW Gillian, I for one read your posts, even if others don't

Pete

I read her posts too - scrutinizing them for spelling or grammatical errors along the way. Haven't found one yet!

That's gonna be a harder t-shirt than the "I corrected Jay" one.

And I don't even get the shirt for correcting Jay's grammar!

In all seriousness, I do make mistakes.  Often, I merely catch them doing a read-through after hitting "post," which is why I'm glad editing isn't entirely taken away.  I've also had a few other people catch them.  We are none of us perfect.  Though I do get a little peeved when people crow about having caught an error in my posts when it is merely that they aren't familiar with the idiom I'm using!

[DataCable]

Just FYI, the Biogon lenses on the EVA cameras would only open to f/5.6.

Noted.  I'll freely admit to a University of Google education on this point, I just used the largest aperture I saw on pg. 2 of this document.

Especially since the image of Venus was only recently discovered in them.

If you can call 2007 "recently."

By one of my good friends.   

Awwww, shucks.

No entry  to be validated. Log end.

Insert "Cut and Run" reference here.

There is a basic axiom of engineering.
You can do things quickly, you can do things with quality, or you can do things cheaply.
At best you can get two of the three

Or, as I've heard it put much more succinctly: Cheap. Fast. Right.  Pick two.

What is airspeed-velocity of an unladen swallow?

Dang it, he beat me to it.

[twik]

Is this the point where we sob "NOOOOO! Don't go!"?

[SolusLupus]

Raise your hands, everyone that was completely shocked at the last post and said, "Why, I never thought about it like that, I guess everything I knew was wrong?"