Author Topic: Dan Goldin comment  (Read 80582 times)

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2012, 11:58:07 AM »
The source for Dan Golden comment is from the thread 'Disproving a hoax believer meta-claim'. sts60 post #26 had a link to http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

"There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier."

the above statement was on that page.
that's it, hope it helps.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2012, 12:10:39 PM »
This is not a Dan Goldin comment.  It was originated by a noted conspiracy monger in which he claims to paraphrase a Goldin statement on a source that can not be checked.  Profmunkin, why did you post this as if was accurate and you accepted it as true? 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2012, 01:35:06 PM »
Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made

Please back up your assertion that NASA has done any of the above regarding Apollo.  Provide verifiable examples.

(EDIT)  Nevermind, profmunkin.  I see now that your were quoting somebody else.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2012, 01:44:16 PM by Bob B. »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3814
    • Clavius
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2012, 03:41:43 PM »
NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies...
Such as?

Quote
...uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings.
"Investigating" is such a strong word.  A more accurate description would be, "speculating ignorantly about the Moon landings."

Quote
Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made...
Examples, with evidence?

Quote
the above statement was on that page.
that's it, hope it helps.

Not really.  Quoting other people's work instead of making your own arguments amounts to equivocation.  If what they say makes a strong case, you can co-opt it and make it seem like you too are offering a strong case.  But if the argument goes sour, you can back away from it and say that you're only reporting what someone else has said.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2012, 04:29:01 PM »
Well truth is truth, and lies are lies, no matter who says them, but I agree that does leave a lot of quibble room, Jay.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2012, 06:40:35 PM »
The source for Dan Golden comment is from the thread 'Disproving a hoax believer meta-claim'. sts60 post #26 had a link to http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
NO.  It is NOT.  That is NOT the 'source' for Dan Goldin's comments IN CONTEXT.  Seriously, do you not understand what 'source' (or CITE or REFERENCE) means?  It's no wonder that your research is so horribly flawed if your sources are just idiots with agendas spewing opinions on the 'net.

Quote
that's it, hope it helps.
Yes, it has helped me to realise that:
- your argument is based on nothing
- you do not understand the basics of proper research
- anything you say needs to be backed up by a cite/reference, without which it should be ignored
- that you should not be allowed to continue your Gish Gallop onto other topics before you have properly conceded your errors and misinformation.

Ask me what I really think..

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2012, 10:48:20 PM »
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

I have no argument if we can or can't go 250 miles into space.
When I asked the question it was answered satisfactorily. Done, End of story, Finished.

I am not researching it because I do not care if we really can or can't go beyond 250 miles into space. Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2012, 10:50:30 PM »
Lunarorbit - mr wizard...help

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2012, 10:57:07 PM »
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

From your previous post
Quote
what did Goldin mean by the following statement?
 

If you post an out of context quote from a hoax proponent in the hoax section of a hoax forum, expect people to treat it as your putting it forward for review.   If you want to drop it, that is fine with me.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guru™
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2012, 12:45:32 AM »
Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles?

Without a proper citation, how do you know that he did.  All that you know is that some guy with a web page claims he did.  You're still attributing the quote to Goldin without having verified that he even said it.  See the problem?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2012, 05:04:08 AM »
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

The point is that you are bringing that comment to the table in a discussion, so you should care whether or not he actually said it, which you still have not verified. If he didn't say it then there is nothing to discuss, is there?

Quote
Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles?

Assuming he did, in 1994 Mir had a maximum altitiude of about 250 miles, and the then planned ISS would have a similar maximum altitude. Hubble was higher, but no mission to Hubble lasted longer than a few days. As already said, if he did in fact say anything about it at all, he was talking about missions with intended durations of months or years. The space station missions were the only comparable space flights in terms of duration to be referred to.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2012, 07:12:57 AM »
The limit is also a matter of fuel. Gemini went higher on a couple of missions, but they docked with an Agena Target Vehicle, which boosted them to a higher orbit. Contemporary spacecraft like the Soyuz, Shenzhou, and the former Space Shuttle have, and had, quite limited fuel on-board for changing orbit.

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2012, 09:57:00 AM »
Has anyone actually read my posts.
I do not care what Dan Goldin said in or out of context.

I have no argument if we can or can't go 250 miles into space.
When I asked the question it was answered satisfactorily. Done, End of story, Finished.

I am not researching it because I do not care if we really can or can't go beyond 250 miles into space. Although I just had a thought...why did he put the limit at 250 miles? ah shit!

Sigh. You have no proof whatsoever that he put a limit of 250 or 250,000 miles. You're not really grasping that concept, are you?

Bring us an original source, and we might be able to verify why he said whatever it was he did say. You're basically saying something like, "Frank Smith told me that Joe Jones said that Mike Brown said that apples fall upwards when dropped at midnight. Tell me why Mike Brown said that! Huh, bet you can't explain THAT!"

Offline RAF

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2012, 11:06:57 AM »
Quoting other people's work instead of making your own arguments amounts to equivocation.  If what they say makes a strong case, you can co-opt it and make it seem like you too are offering a strong case.  But if the argument goes sour, you can back away from it and say that you're only reporting what someone else has said.

It seems to be "lession 1" in the hoax believers "book".

As I like to say...if you promote it, then you own it.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 11:08:45 AM by RAF »

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Dan Goldin comment
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2012, 02:18:07 PM »
How many lesions are there? Shouldn't we establish quarantine?