Radiation

[benparry]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1075708332491654/
No members of the relevant names.

I guess by posting this, I'm getting involved in the debate. It's not really a debate that I want to be involved in.

I'm really beside myself that we are asking people to prove who they are and offer links to their personal information on FB. Most of us here go by internet names, and I'm guessing that the reason is to afford oneself and families some degree of anonymity.

I went through a time on YT where my personal details were actively sought by Jarrah, Dwayne Damon and others, and it was very uncomfortable. I know of an individual that helps with ALSJ who was dealt with a far harsher hand by Dwayne Damon once that individual's information had become public. I'm not suggesting that anyone here would use personal information for nefarious means, as the individuals here are of good character. However, I do question the precedent we are setting.

I'm going to put forward a scenario here. I played a sophomoric joke on Dwayne and Jarrah once. By chance there was someone of the name M Hunt at a British University that fitted my profile. That lecturer was named and shamed by Jarrah, as he and Dwayne did no understand the joke. Now, say you are correct and that Ben and Tim are the same person, but Tim has played a *clever card* and used to identity of someone on FB for his pilot-fish. How would the real Ben Parry feel if he was caught up in this?

Let's play the cards presented at this forum. If others want to play by dishonest tactics, then let them. We've tried debating the points with whomever timfinch happens to be, and there is a record of his obfuscation here for all to see.

luke i couldnt agree more. anybody here chooses to answer or comment on any post. they are not forced to. i can assure you we are not the same person or working together. i whole heartidly believe the moon landings were real. Tim is of the opinion they were not manned. now throughout this thread (and before to a certain and less scientific extent) this has been shown to be incorrect. if tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.

[Luke Pemberton]

If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.

That's fine, did he download the fundamentals of scaling graphs while he was at it? I look forward to his return, but I will be appealing to LO if he continues to ignore my posts, particularly as I have new questions to put on the table. You can tell him that.

[benparry]

If tim chooses to continue here then thats fine. he has shown me today in messenger (i will happily share if needed) that he has indeed downloaded some crater data so he may choose to share this when his ban has ended.

That's fine, did he download the fundamentals of scaling graphs while he was at it? I look forward to his return, but I will be appealing to LO if he continues to ignore my posts, particularly as I have new questions to put on the table. You can tell him that.

no worries luke. i have messaged him to ask him the name of the group when we met. i will send him a new message telling him you have something new for him.

[bknight]

Luke:
I was just asking for a link to the FB page since I could not find either name when I searched.  I'm attempting to read the discourse that is all, but I understand your reservations.  If the blunder or Duane was looking for personal information, that was inappropriate but not a surprise.

[Luke Pemberton]

I was just asking for a link to the FB page since I could not find either name when I searched.  I'm attempting to read the discourse that is all, but I understand your reservations.

As I said, no one here would use that information for nefarious means. I know your interest would be solely for the discourse. Thanks for clarifying. I just don't think links to FB posted in a public forum are the way forward. It can set a precedent.

[AtomicDog]

Ben,
I've been wrong before (as my wife and son will assure you) and I'm sure that I will be wrong in the future. But I'm adult enough to admit it. I apologize for accusing you of skullduggery.


I won't apologize to Tim, though. He's a jerk.

[benparry]

Ben,
I've been wrong before (as my wife and son will assure you) and I'm sure that I will be wrong in the future. But I'm adult enough to admit it. I apologize for accusing you of skullduggery.


I won't apologize to Tim, though. He's a jerk.

Atomic as i have said no apologies needed my friend. i'm just waiting Tim to come back hopefully with the name of the group where i met him. it was a while ago. with regards to your thoughts on Tim i cannot comment. i also believe he is wrong but ...

[Luke Pemberton]

I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.

[bknight]

I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.

The main reason for my joining the group was to investigate the claims made by HB's.  But now and then I find new facts that I was unaware, a new word ellipsis for example.

[nomuse]

I am willing to discuss with anyone who is interesting enough to discuss with. If all they do is repeat, I'll turn them off. If they start shouting profanity, I'll turn them off. If they are clearly wrong, I'll keep listening, because that is still interesting. And if they want to play games with their identity I will clap like an adult at a magic show.

That all said...I haven't heard anything of substance from Ben. I don't care if he made nice arguments somewhere else. What can you say to us here? Can you tell us anything you understood and were able to correct from your sparring partner Tim? Perhaps you understand where he went wrong with reading (and naming!) graphs?

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

[benparry]

I also believe he is wrong but ...

Would you suggest that both sides needs to provide evidence for their argument? Those that believe Apollo need to present evidence it occurred, and that evidence is consistent with engineering, scientific and anecdotal record. Those that are sceptical also need to present evidence that shows the record is not consistent with events. Anomalies if you must.

What is you take on this point? My curiosity is whetted by the ellipsis.

The main reason for my joining the group was to investigate the claims made by HB's.  But now and then I find new facts that I was unaware, a new word ellipsis for example.

Hi Luke

of course i agree. i cannot just say its true without research. i myself used to believe they were fake. i watched the FOX TV show. i decided to google 'did we land on the moon' one day and found Bobs site. after reading through this site and looking at a few others i was happy with what i saw and what was explained in a very simple manner. also on the other hand i have yet to come across an argument which i couldnt find an answer for. until i met tim and his radiation issue. this is when i joined cosmoquest and eventually this one. through my interactions on FB groups i occasionally come across items i cannot fully explain and i have asked some of those questions in other threads on here.

[benparry]

I am willing to discuss with anyone who is interesting enough to discuss with. If all they do is repeat, I'll turn them off. If they start shouting profanity, I'll turn them off. If they are clearly wrong, I'll keep listening, because that is still interesting. And if they want to play games with their identity I will clap like an adult at a magic show.

That all said...I haven't heard anything of substance from Ben. I don't care if he made nice arguments somewhere else. What can you say to us here? Can you tell us anything you understood and were able to correct from your sparring partner Tim? Perhaps you understand where he went wrong with reading (and naming!) graphs?

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

with regard to this comment muse you are clearly incorrect. i havent made any arguments anywhere. i am the student here. i have asked a question. certain people on here have kindly answered that both to me and by engaging Tim. some of those points i understand and some i dont. however i have come to the conclusion that Tims points have been answered. it isnt my fault if he refuses to believe them

[benparry]

sorry my last comment i didnt quote properly my answer is at the bottom of muses quote

[nomuse]

Understood. But as you've noticed, much of the activity here is sidetalk. None of us have to play the Devil's Advocate in order to dissect and then go beyond Tim's claims. Much of the time, what the HB brings to the table is only a jumping-off point for us to learn from each other (and to have the excuse to hit the books ourselves.)

We are here. Tim's claims are still sitting on the table. What do YOU have to say in response to them?

[Luke Pemberton]

I'd actually be really happy if an outsider to the last couple days could go back over the graph discussion and be able to say, "oh, yes, I see now. That's what the difference is." Perhaps even contribute a new way, an analogy that Tim might be able to grasp?

I agree that maybe someone else could provide a new analogy, but what is an analogy when we are dealing with matter of fact maths skills? You're a good reasoned sort nomuse, did we not do well at explaining the graph to Tim? What could we do to improve?

Most involved in that protracted discussion tried various ways. I would suggest that the overwhelming evidence that everyone in the forum said it was a log graph.

In some ways it's all academic anyway, as the data tells the story. In some ways it isn't as if we present another graph using the same scale, it seems a pointlessness exercise when the target audience cannot read the graph. We're damned either way.