Well I can see I’ve rattled a few cages here, but all your arguments are coming from your god, NASA, who I’m sure you would give up your life for, in your desperate attempts to uphold this massive fraud.
Well, I guess it is fair for the hoaxies to get meta-textual. We debate all the time why they believe such stupid crap (actually, to be more accurate, why people with so little understanding of the world think they can lecture others about how it
really works.)
We are discussing a possible hoax here, in other words, we are debating as to whether or not we are being lied to, so unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing.
Those are not the same thing; in the gap between those two sentences you switched the burden of proof. "I think there might be..." and "Prove to me there aren't..." are two separate things.
Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.
If your
premise is that all world space agencies are lying, then isn't their evidence already inadmissible? Now by cutting out "third party evidence," you have removed any ability to rationally approach the problem. How do you intend to debate it from here? Based on dreams? On who can sing louder about it?
This is where common sense rather than blind faith comes into it,
Common sense is common, not sense. The universe isn't constrained by what seems reasonable to a two-meter meatbag trapped in a gravity well under a dense cloud of gas. I run into stuff in my daily work where common sense is test-ably wrong. Our perceptions lie to us, constantly.
because the difference between you and me is, I have the ability to think for myself, where as your minds are not your own, as you have been indoctrinated from an early age and sadly, you will all go to your graves, not knowing what it’s like to have a free mind. You need to get this absurd thought out of your heads that a government wouldn’t tell such a massive lie, because until you do, you will never see what the rest of us know.
No, the difference is between someone who is too lazy to do the work and thinks they can push through the barriers of perception and expectation just by sheer willpower.
Simply declaring you aren't going to get fooled is how a fool approaches it. The scientific method and the work of science is a set of tools and approaches to help you figure out the difference between what you think is happening and what is actually happening.
In the years since Apollo, NASA have slowly added things to the story to cover for the hoax claims, for instance, why there should be no stars and why objects are brightly lit in shadows and how radiation is now relatively harmless and how they went quickly through the edges of the belts. While on radiation, I probably misquoted that statement in the newspaper, as it was probably more along the lines of “well we knew there were risks, but we decided to go anyway”
And you claim to have grown up during the space age? What were you doing, ignoring all the popular press? Because this stuff is OLD and it damn well was gone into at length.
So back to Apollo 8, yes, Apollo 4 did allegedly test re-entry, so I’ll begrudgingly give you that one, as the info comes from NASA. The previous lunar unmanned flights were not done with Apollo hardware, therefor I stand by my assertion that the first Apollo manned lunar mission was untested. Different hardware, different scenario.
You are
good at these! If they used Apollo hardware, then "OMG, they didn't test it first!" if they didn't use Apollo hardware, "OMG, they didn't test the real hardware first!" You've had your cake, eaten it, cut it into slices and served it to four close friends.
They had rockets to spare at the end of the alleged Apollo missions, so for what possible reason did they not do an unmanned mission with a monkey (not a turtle) on board. That would have made the story slightly more believable and the probable reason they never included such an obvious mission is that the Kennedy deadline was looming and they just didn’t have the time. And what time of year did this suicide mission take place? Yep, they allegedly sent those poor astronauts up there when their families would have needed them most and they could always open their presents when they got back, NOT!
Why test
after the missions are completed? Is this your new requirement now, that you have to test if something works after it has already worked? (Of course that's not counting all the animal tests that did take place, in their proper order. Guess in all your growing up during the Space Age you never heard of Ham, or Laika, or the Zond missions...)
Let’s face it, it was all a big faked publicity stunt to instil as sense of pride into those incredibly gullible Americans, and once they realised they’d fooled the public so easily, the coast was clear for their next giant leap.
Peter B, you seriously think six years is a long time from scratch? How long is it taking them to work out how to do it again with today’s technology? I am certain that the reason they keep cancelling the project is not because of money, but because they know they still can’t do it, and in another fifty years’ time and twenty cancelled projects later, you will still believe they done it a century ago.
“surely you can't mean that nothing should be tried by humans until it's been previously tried by humans?”
Of course not, monkey then humans.
“Soviets congratulated the USA on their successes”
And why wouldn’t they? Don’t tell me, you’re one of those who thinks the Cold War was real, right?
Your excuses for why no other country has even considered flying round the moon and back are pretty lame to be honest. I’m pretty sure the Cold War was just a stunt and therefor there was no space race, and if the US could afford to fly to the moon and back nine times, it would be ridiculous to assume that no other country would do it once, just to say “yeh, we can do it”
Gish Gallop. Focus on one at a time. Or are you subconsciously aware that all your points are so weak sauce you need to throw them up a dozen at a time?
Seriously, pick one and discuss it like a gentleman. These walls of text are impossible.
You expect me to spend time trawling through old newspaper archives in an attempt to prove what I read was correct? Either you believe me or you don’t, so if it makes you happy I’ll retract that part of my statement, although it is true
Yes, we do.
Your claim, your proof.
I claim Element 164 is proven to be a actinide metal, forming a quasi-crystaline solid of lustrous grey appearance at room temperate, stable and ferromagnetic and unreactive to standard reagents. I demand 164 be named after me, nomusium, and added to the official periodic table.
No, I have no lab work, no paper, no proof. That's
your job to provide.
Do I have an explanation for all the evidence? You mean the photographic and video evidence? That evidence does not prove anything either way, and if you think it does, then you are totally deluded. There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. To say these plans are hidden away on microfilm is just insane, as releasing them for scrutiny by todays scientists and engineers in the field would surely nip this supposedly ridiculous hoax theory in the bud once and for all.
In short, you don't have an explanation.
You also know shit-all about aerospace. We have people ON THIS BOARD who have as part of their jobs in that industry examined actual Apollo hardware and learned from it.
I can see I’m dealing with some knowledgeable people here, but I’m afraid to say your knowledge is almost certainly false knowledge and you have all spent a large part of your lives learning science fiction, thinking it’s science fact.
No, you don't. You don't know enough to able to categorize and measure our knowledge.
Sorry, but that's how things work.
Although I’m of the opinion that you are all deluded, I’m really glad I came here, as the sheer volume of responses to my posts, shows that although you think I’m a complete dick, you still have the time to respond in detail, in an effort to try and enlighten me and I am extremely grateful for that. But all you have done so far is to try and debunk my arguments, which is fair, but how about throwing me some solid proof?
We're bored.
Believe it or not, I am willing to consider any solid proof you may think you have, and if I don’t think it’s proof, I will explain why.
I don't.
You've explicitly explained you will throw away any and all evidence, merely on the grounds that if it appears to support the reality of space flight then it must automatically be part of the hoax.
And your understanding of the physical world is so poor you can not see and are possibly unattainably far from understanding that your so-called "NASA Science" is the same science practiced by industry and gets results -- results that many of us use professionally daily. Results that can be seen on a lab table or even a kitchen table by any amateur that wants to put in the effort.
There is no bright line. There is no barrier separating how things work "in space" and how they work, period. You are spouting the same nonsense Creationists say when they look at ongoing geologic processes and flap their gums with "But you didn't live a million years ago so you can't prove rocks still fell down then."
The closest I have come, if I remember correctly is the data from Jodrell Bank concerning Apollo 11’s approach to the moon couldn’t be faked for whatever reason, but then I wondered why they never tracked it on the journey to and from the moon. Then I found out that the only tracking facilities claiming to have done this, were ran by NASA at the time. Even Russia only locked on to their radio frequencies after they allegedly reached the moon. Has anyone got anything else? Wouldn’t it be amazing if one of you could convert a hardened HB?
Pick one. Bloody pick one. You want to talk about Jodrell Bank? We've got a big fan of that here (or maybe he's at CosmoQuest these days).
By the way, your description is laughably wrong, but that's okay; let's pick that one, lets actually discuss the durn thing instead of flapping off in all directions at once. Then you might be worth paying real attention to.
