Dan Goldin comment

[Mr Gorsky]

The motive for going to the moon wasn't to show up the Soviets, as some hoax believers seem to think.  The motive was to actually develop the technology to assure America's place as the world leader in space.  You don't accomplish that by faking it.

Pretending to have capabilities you don't only makes things worse because it spurs your enemy to work hard to increase his.

Indeed.

And imagine what would have happened if, in the aftermath of a faked Apollo 11, the Soviets had got their N1 rocket to leave the ground in one piece rather than 20,000, decided their first mission would also land in the Sea of Tranquility and when they got there, they found no US hardware waiting for them and no evidence of them ever having been there ...

[raven]

Am I the only one who wishes they had gotten that fragile beast working?
Two nations sending people to the moon, what would have been the results?

[AtomicDog]

Am I the only one who wishes they had gotten that fragile beast working?
Two nations sending people to the moon, what would have been the results?

My guess? We would have a Moonbase and a Mars expedition either completed or at least in the late planning stage.

[JayUtah]

There is no reason to even consider discussing on this board some of the subjective evidence that forms my opinions...

Why do you think the question of whether some historical event happened or not is affected in the least by your subjective opinions?

because this board is myopically focused on an absolute fact that Apollo went to the moon.

No, this is a common hoax-believer complaint.  Hoax claimants whine because their evidence is not the least convincing, and seek to soothe their wounds in sour-grapes fashion by claiming that their critics must be intractable.

Discussing these issues is like discussing with a born-again-christian...

Hogwash.  Nothing about the conclusion held by the regulars here is simply taken on faith.  You'll find that most members can clearly articulate the rationales for believing as they do.  In contrast all the arguments you've brought to the table have boiled down to suspicion deriving from your lack of specific knowledge.  How does you not knowing what you're talking about translate into blind faith on our part?  Guess what:  ignorant handwaving doesn't convince people who actually know what they're talking about, nor should it.

Just look at the stink-storm from asking the Dan Goldin question, craziness!

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, because there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

Straw man.  You simply haven't presented evidence that rises above your inability to understand what's going on.  That's not convincing, nor should it be.  Simply because you have no good evidence or a working knowledge of the domains from which that evidence would necessarily arise doesn't mean you get to accuse your critics of being closed-minded.

Further, you're welcome to present your subjective feelings for discussion, but I fail to see how that would constitute evidence for the authenticity of an event.  Therefore I understand your reluctance to present them.

[Abaddon]

That faint sound we can all hear? that would be frantic backpedalling.

[twik]

There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

Provide compelling evidence, and I think you'll find people can conceive it.

But "I think the government is evil, and lies, and things don't look exactly like I think they should, although I suppose that there may be explanations for each of those individually," is not going to change anyone's mind about your ideas.

[stutefish]

There can not be an exchange of ideas on subjective evidence, ibecause there is not a person on the board that could conceive that it might have been even possible to have faked the Apollo missions.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that everybody on the board could conceive of the possibility of faking Apollo. You can tell by the answers you get: Nobody says "you're suggesting that Apollo might have been faked, so you're wrong." 

Instead, they say, "your specific concept of fakery is flawed for these specific reasons, and therefore it is a wrong concept." That's the answer of someone who conceived of the possibility, and then tested it.

Your problem is not that everybody else can't conceive of the possibility--obviously they can. It's that you won't test your concepts. What's worse, you won't accept anybody else testing your concepts.

This entire board is dedicated to conceiving of the possibility of Apollo fakery. However, it's not a very easy concept to take seriously, or pursue very far, because whenever it gets properly tested, it fails miserably right out of the gate.

[profmunkin]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

Sick and twised

[Bob B.]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

Sick and twised

What does that mean?

[profmunkin]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

Sick and twised

What does that mean?

"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."

[LunarOrbit]

What is sick and twisted about what Jay said?

[Bob B.]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

Sick and twised

What does that mean?

"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."

I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?

[ChrLz]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.
Yes, and let me add to that by proving that you were indeed DISHONEST (not just 'in error').  In your first post about Dan Goldin, you said:

what did Goldin mean by the following statement?

And then you provided a statement that purportedly quoted Goldin.  You DID NOT tell us where that statement came from.  You DID NOT provide any proviso about him being misquoted/misrepresented/taken out of context, so you very clearly intended us to take your words for it being an accurate and complete 'quote'.  What is more, you then linked to a forum post (which DID NOT include any actual quote from Goldin), stating that:

the above statement was on that page.

Goldins actual statement was NOWHERE on that page, just the rambling opinion of an Apollo denier.

I'd call that DISHONEST.  What would you call, it prof?  'Slightly flawed research', perhaps?

Further, you then said:

My question was answered thankyou
...
Seriously I have no questions concerning space travel or if we can or can't go beyond 250 miles.

Quite quickly followed by:

why did he put the limit at 250 miles?

I'd call that dishonest too.  Why on earth should anyone engage with a person who behaves in that way?

[Echnaton]

I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?

It means profmunkin is on the conspiratists merit badge spiral.  Small insults -> melt down ->  banned.

[Glom]

You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us.

Sick and twised

What does that mean?

"You were dishonest about your claim and the source for them.  We helped you achieve honesty in that regard, for which favor you now criticize us."

I know what Jay said, what does your comment mean?

Maybe Jay told him about the party in Ogden that time.