Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[LunarOrbit]

1. You appear to be incapable of accepting that it is your interpretation of the information that is wrong and not everyone else's.
2. You have been repeatedly asked to stop calling people names like "apollogists".
3. You have been repeatedly given answers to your claims, which you repeatedly dismissed or ignored.
4. until the claim was resolved to everyone's satisfaction,
5. And let's be clear: I am not required to tolerate anyone that I don't like. I pay for this forum, and I'm not going to pay to be insulted.

1. Did I NOT concede HERE that the Lunar Launch Acceleration is NOT proof of the hoax?  Did I NOT concede that "Sand Falls Too Fast" is ambiguous enough to allow for other people's opinions?

It only took months... and you're only conceding because you want to move on to other topics. You have failed to convince people that you are right, and you haven't sincerely acknowledged that you are wrong. Therefore, the topics have not been satisfactorily resolved.

2. "Apollogist" - please tell me what you'd like to be called, and I'll do it.  Are you going to mandate that people like me not be called "HB's"?

HB = Hoax Believer. It is not offensive to be called a believer of something if you are in fact a believer of that thing.

"Apollogist" implies that we are defending what you believe to be a lie. It has a negative connotation.

3. "Given Answers - ignored/dismissed" - As have BOTH side.  It's called Debate.  BOTH sides give answers, and in the end, the debaters walk away with some disagreements.  Which means they are BOTH dismissing the "answers" given by the other side.  This is how debates ALWAYS work.  Except for the Salem Witch Trials - where only one present conclusion is mandated.

The people supporting Apollo, the commonly understood to be true history, only need to show that there are reasonable explanations for your claims. They have done so repeatedly. You must provide counter arguments that disprove their explanations... you have failed to do that. You merely dismissed their explanations and declared victory.

4. "Everyone's Satisfaction" -- even if that "satisfaction" REQUIRES me to concede to something that I do not agree with?  This is like putting the witch on trial, and she cannot be saved from death unless she confesses to being a Witch...  because that's the ONLY admission that "satisfies" the court.

No. No one gets to unilaterally declare victory. If I said "I saw the ghost of Elvis... prove me wrong!" you would be right to say that it was up to me to prove that I saw him. Your inability to prove that I didn't doesn't mean I'm automatically telling the truth.

You made claims. Even if we hadn't provided explanations, it doesn't mean you are automatically correct. Just because you believe you found something that you think "breaks physics" doesn't mean it has... you haven't ruled out the possibility that you have made a mistake or misinterpreted something.

People have provided reasonable explanations for every single one of your claims, to the best of their ability. You have never disproven their explanations, you have only ever dismissed them.

Tell me where to send you some money to pay for this forum.  What is it costing you?   I'll help you bear that cost burden, if NASA isn't already (they should be).

It's not about the money. It's about respect. If you came into my home and behaved this way I would have tossed you to the curb a long time ago.

You certainly can't buy your way into a position where I'll let you disrespect people with impunity.

[LunarOrbit]

If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.   So maintaining the bias is a service to NASA, and deserves payment.

Why do you presume that being neutral means being a contrarian to the "official" history by default? If you automatically assume that every official fact is a lie then you are setting yourself up to look like a fool who disagrees just to disagree, like a flat Earther.

The base line for me is that Apollo is true until proven otherwise. The Earth is a globe until proven otherwise. If you believe the Apollo landings were faked you're going to have to convince me, and so far you have failed miserably.

I do suspect that certain key individuals might be subsidized.  Otherwise, I'm not understanding the irrational levels of bias I see here

Just because my understanding of the truth just happens to align with what the government says (for this subject anyway) doesn't mean I'm "subsidized". They have convinced me, you haven't.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't expect me to automatically go along with it.

[najak]

I'd like to get your feedback on the other 2 threads.

This is what I mean when I say you're Gish galloping.

No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION -- making a claim, but then changing the subject with intent of NEVER resolving the claim you made -- leaving some viewers with ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE CLAIM, never cross-examined to conclusion.   We've completed this thread.  Conclusion and CONSENSUS has been reached -- there is no longer ANYONE HERE who believes this "Lunar Launch Too Fast" claim holds weight to prove a hoax.  No one. 

And there is no one here who wants to learn more about the complexities of transient behavior analysis during rocket engine ignition where the nozzle output is mostly blocked.  No one.  And if there is - then this is a separate topic called "Educate person 'X' about topic 'Y'".

I'd like to hear your rebuttal for the 9 flag movements of A14, as this thread has now reached it's end.

[JayUtah]

No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION...

No, per the commonly accepted definition I provided.

And there is no one here who wants to learn more about the complexities of transient behavior analysis during rocket engine ignition where the nozzle output is mostly blocked.  No one.

Irrelevant. You made a testable claim and it will continue to be tested. Anyone who isn't interest in the discussion is free to ignore it.

I'd like to hear your rebuttal for the 9 flag movements of A14, as this thread has now reached it's end.

This thread is not over just because you say it is. Baiting me to switch to one of the many other subjects you've raised is exactly how the Gish gallop works to avoid accountability on any one issue.

[najak]

If this forum were Neutral - it would work against NASA/Apollo.

That is literally contradictory. If this site were neutral it would take a side? Seriously?

Pretend you are an ordinary person wanting to find out "why do some people question the moon landing", then turn to Google/YT and see what you can find.  Nothing but "debunking of strawmen", almost entirely.   It's near impossible to find a video produced by someone other than Sibrel (the worst of the skeptics), who actually believes we didn't land on the moon.

But if you look up Flat Earth - you'll find PLENTY of videos by people who actually believe the Earth is Flat -- AND also don't think we went to the moon.

So why is it easy to find PRO "Flat Earth videos", but NOT for "Moon Landing Hoax"   In my view, there is a distinct difference between the two -- the first one, Flat Earth, is FALSE, and therefore not a threat to our government and societal world view.  The 2nd one -- is different.

And so, it's TRUE that for this forum to be NEUTRAL would work AGAINST NASA...   

Google/YT/etc are all complicit in HIDING the good Moon Landing Hoax materials from the general public.  If you really want to find this stuff, you have to buy a book, which opens this door more.

Rasa's FB group, reached 40K+ members -- then was hijacked by hackers -- and now permeated with BAD Hoax Theories -- such that anyone looking for a ML Hoax group to join, is most likely to find this one, and then be fed VERY BAD LOGIC -- which is presented as "good evidence"... and the average mind who is dabbling in MLH will be "made a fool of".

If you spent a year trying to be MLH -- you'd see how the whole system is stacked against MLH, in ways that are UNIQUE, compared to other hoax theories -- such as Flat Earth.

And yet--- when I dig into the Moon Landing evidence, I find a LOT OF EVIDENCE that had previously been completely unmentioned and very difficult to find -- if you only rely upon Google/YT/search-engines.

And I'm seeing NASA do considerable clean-up where mistakes were made.

IMO - it's US vs. THEM ... and y'all may be fighting for the wrong side here.

And so - I continue to dig in to find out which parts of the MLH evidence can be debunked, vs. which parts cannot.

And a NEUTRAL FORUM would be a benefit to us all.   But works against NASA's current scheme, having everything already stacked against MLH.

[JayUtah]

Google/YT/etc are all complicit in HIDING the good Moon Landing Hoax materials from the general public.

That you don't appear to be as interesting or appealing as someone else is not evidence that nefarious forces are suppressing your views or the rebuttal of them. Get over yourself.

[najak]

1. Therefore, the topics have not been satisfactorily resolved.
2. HB = Hoax Believer. It is not offensive to be called a believer of something if you are in fact a believer of that thing.
3. No. No one gets to unilaterally declare victory.
4. People have provided reasonable explanations for every single one of your claims, to the best of their ability. You have never disproven their explanations, you have only ever dismissed them.

1. 3 of 4 topics are fully resolved.  There is nothing left to be done with them.  I conceded two.  And on one my statement is simply "no viable explanation offered for the 8 flag motions".  If I'm wrong on this statement, tell me whose explanation is actually viable...  and we can discuss.  Otherwise, the topic is terminated.

2. HB, is far too generic, to include the "Round Earth Hoax", etc, etc....   I am only skeptical of the Moon Landing.
You surely believe the "Gulf of Tonkin" was a hoax... as they all admit it.   This attack that got us into Vietnam was known to be false.  As was the Bush-era WMD evidence -- another Hoax.  So certainly you are a "HB" too, since you believe in at least ONE hoax.

Apollogist shouldn't threaten ANYONE.  Apologist is a neutral term, where the apologists themselves self-identify with this term.
If you insist that it's so awful and hurts peoples' feelings - please do tell me a short term to describe "those who defend the evidences of the Apollo Moon Landings"?

3. You have MANY members here unilaterally declaring victory over me.   Every person in every debate may walk away thinking "my side won that debate" -- We all have the right to "believe what we believe" -- free thought.   Except here.   I'm not allowed to "think I won a debate", or else I can't have any more debates.

4. Same as with ALL debates.  When I'm presented with good evidence, I follow it.   As with this thread here -- Static Pressure Thrust seems to me as good evidence which can adequately disarm the claim I was making.  I proved it myself, and declared defeat.

Same with "Sand Falls too Fast" - I surmised that the evidence is muddy, due to bad resolution and limitations on 2D photos.  So declared "Not provable; too ambiguous".

[Mag40]

IMO - it's US vs. THEM ... and y'all may be fighting for the wrong side here.

What a troll.

[JayUtah]

As with this thread here -- Static Pressure Thrust seems to me as good evidence which can adequately disarm the claim I was making.  I proved it myself, and declared defeat.

Asked and answered. You conceded one conclusion only to replace it with a different one and declare victory on that point. It's still a testable claim and if you aren't willing to participate in the test then you aren't finished with the thread.

[JayUtah]

What a troll.

Indeed. This post https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.msg59019#msg59019 seems to have become newly relevant.

[najak]

No Gish Gallop, because Gish Gallop relies upon NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION...

No, per the commonly accepted definition I provided.

Gish Gallop:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gish-gallop
Not what's been done here; not even close.

Irrelevant. You made a testable claim and it will continue to be tested. Anyone who isn't interest in the discussion is free to ignore it.

Except me?  I've admitted defeat.  If you want to prove my testable claim false, please do, and I'll likely accept your explanation fully.

This thread is not over just because you say it is. Baiting me to switch to one of the many other subjects you've raised is exactly how the Gish gallop works to avoid accountability on any one issue.

This thread is OVER because there is NO ONE LEFT TO DEFEND THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.... that person now agrees that the original claim has sufficiently been debunked, or is most likely easy-to-debunk even if the accuracy of my current debunk is flawed.

I'd like to see your response on the 8-flag movements.

The effectiveness of Gish Gallop hinges upon me trying to fool the audience into thinking that this "Lunar Launch Too Fast" was a "win" for me...   It wasn't, and I'm admitting that.  So this CANNOT be Gish Gallop.

Your insistence on keeping me here on a CLOSED TOPIC where we already agree -- is perplexing.  Are you trying to save my life from NASA?  or trying to save face by not engaging in a simpler context where you won't be able to escape to the obscurities of "rocket science".

Please comment on the 9 flag motions...  how do you explain them?

[najak]

You conceded one conclusion only to replace it with a different one and declare victory on that point. It's still a testable claim and if you aren't willing to participate in the test then you aren't finished with the thread.

OK - I concede too on my 2nd point.  I do NOT defend my own counter argument to my claim.  For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends.

I no longer have ANY CLAIMS related to the Lunar Launches.  If you want to PROPERLY create a counter-argument to my original claim - be my guest.  I'll likely accept it, and spread it.

There is NO ONE HERE LEFT to defend ANY CLAIMS related to the Lunar Launches.

Now please engage in a thread where you cannot escape to the obscurities of "rocket science".  I'd like to see how you do there.

[najak]

So yes, working at 1000 fps would be that infinitesimal change. But the video you have does not work at that level. That is one reason your analysis is flawed.
Honestly, Jay is a decent guy; as are all the others here - apart from LO, he's a real pain  . Ask the question and think about the answer. We're a good bunch with the same day to day issues as everyone else. There is no us and them.

You seem to be both very smart and nice.  Thank you for that and for engaging.

Surely you can sense the unfair treatment I'm receiving here, mostly because I'm a Skeptic of Apollo.

Perhaps I should have disguised myself as an Apollogist who was dealing with "difficult questions and wanted to know how to Debunk X, Y, and Z".

I'm simply here to do EXACTLY THAT -- figure out which Apollo Hoax claims can be debunked, vs. which ones cannot (at least by the people here).  I purposefully came to the place where I believed I could find the best chance of debunking these claims.  But I'm not even allowed to create a thread for any (more) of them.

[JayUtah]

For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends.

"Works for me" has nothing to do with its objective correctness. If you want to convince me you no longer have faith in the objective correctness your proposed method, then remove it from publication and issue an explicit retraction.

If you want to PROPERLY create a counter-argument to my original claim - be my guest

You don't get to tell me how "properly" to challenge your claims. If you're willing to continue to be educated on the basis of the estimations you asked for, you can show that by doing such things as fixing your thermodynamics homework and we can continue where we left off, or engaging with the hints I gave you recently. As I have repeatedly told you, I will not provide a solution that you do not buy into as we go.

There is NO ONE HERE LEFT to defend ANY CLAIMS related to the Lunar Launches.

If you are no longer claiming that you have a physically valid explanation for the LM ascent you observe, then you should retract any public claims to that effect. Otherwise it's fair to assume this is just another insincere rhetorical evasion.

Now please engage in a thread where you cannot escape to the obscurities of "rocket science".  I'd like to see how you do there.

I'm not interested in indulging your sick fixation with me personally. When I am convinced your apparent obsession is inconsequential, I may engage you on other points.

[Mag40]

I'm simply here to do EXACTLY THAT -- figure out which Apollo Hoax claims can be debunked, vs. which ones cannot (at least by the people here).

Whilst ignoring counter claims that prove motion on the lunar surface you have evaded.

Surely you can sense the unfair treatment I'm receiving here, mostly because I'm a Skeptic of Apollo.

Well, 1/ you aren't being treated unfairly and 2/ any objectionable issues you have can be better explained by you acting like an arse and 3/ poor old you.

Any credible physicist would look at the hours of lunar footage and observe the extreme movement of the dust. This exaggerated horizontal motion all on its own proves the low gravity. Your biased, blinkered approach is getting in the way of things that everyone here can see clearly.