Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[onebigmonkey]

I do love the little world that gets conjured up by the hoaxtards out there - it amazes me what they think goes on and how little resemblance it bears to what actually happens.

Hey Romulus, what's my story?

[Zakalwe]

You will not make fodder for  ridicule out of me.

To be completely fair, Rommy did that piece all by himself.

[Kiwi]

Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

See the thread in the Reality of Apollo section:
Neil Armstrong Talking About the Moon
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=765.msg25739#msg25739

Just three quick questions:

In New Zealand we use the word "cite" in the context you used "site". Is it not the same where you live?

My copy of Websters defines "pontificate" as: "To act or speak pompously or dogmatically." Do you really think Neil Armstrong talked like that, or were you just insulting him?

Could you please hurry up and present your evidence for a moonlanding hoax?

[Zakalwe]

Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

Your choice of words appears to be typically obnoxious. However, here's an hour long interview that Armstrong gave a year before his death.

Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA

More bollocks.
Are you not aware that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins spent 37 days touring the world on their "Giant Leap" tour, specifically representing NASA and the American space program? This was the itinerary:
Departed Washington DC            09/29/69
  01 Mexico City, Mexico          09/29-30/69
  02 Bogota, Columbia             09/30-10/01/69
     Brasilia                     10/01/69
  03 Buenos Aires, Argentina      10/01-02/69
  04 Rio de Janeio, Brazil        10/02-04/69
  05 Las Palmas, Canary Islands   10/04-06/69
  06 Madrid, Spain                10/06-08/69
  07 Paris, France                10/08-09/69
  08 Amsterdam, Netherlands       10/09/69
  09 Brussels, Belgium            10/09-10/69
  10 Oslo, Norway                 10/10-12/69
  11 Bonn, Germany                10/12/69
     West Berlin, Germany         10/12-14/69
  12 London, England             10/14-15/69
  13 Rome, Italy                  10/15-18/69
     Vatican                      10/16/69
  14 Belgrade, Yugoslavia         10/18-20/69
  15 Ankara, Turkey               10/20-22/69
  16 Kinshasa, Zaire              10/22-24/69
  17 Bombay, India                10/24-25/69 
  18 Dacca, Bangladesh            10/25-26/69
  19 Bangkok, Thailand            10/26-28/69
  20 Tehran, Iran                 10/28-31/69
     Perth, Australia             10/31/69
  21 Sydney, Australia            10/31-11/02/69
  22 Agana, Guam                  11/02-03/69
  23 Seoul, South Korea           11/03-04/69
  24 Tokyo, Japan                 11/04-05/69
     Elmendorf AFB Alaska         11/05/69 
Arrived Washington DC             11/05/69

Directly following that Armstrong set off again as a special guest on Bob Hope's 1969 USO tour with stops in Germany, Italy, Turkey, Taiwan, Guam, Thailand and Vietnam.   
Pretty good going for "a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA".

and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon.

Even more bollocks. He spoke at length about it (see above). What he did not do, however, was allow the achievement to dictate the rest of his life. He was 39 when he landed on the Moon and he wanted to pursue other interests for the next part of his life.

[gillianren]

I've been thinking, and it's odd to me that the conspiracists assume we're hiding our connections to one another.  I've talked about my connection to Phil on other websites.  (Such as it is; as I said, I haven't heard from him in years.)  I have an in joke about Jay with some friends who have never talked to him, because I've talked about him when telling some of the funnier conspiracy stories.  There are people here and at what I still call BAUT in my head that I genuinely consider my friends, people who know a good deal about my life and have standing invitations to dinner if they're ever in my area.  Even though, in some cases, that would mean traveling to another continent.  It seems to me that the conspiracists aren't really friends with one another, because this is probably another example of basing their assumptions about our behaviour on their own.

[slaver0110]

Or, just maybe, he wasn't an egomaniac looking for praise.

That is substantially the consensus of those who knew him, including his biographer.  He didn't let fame go to his head.  Ironically that sensible approach is what the conspiracy theorists have latched onto as somehow suspicious.

Contrary to Romulus' insinuation this is not a novel or especially convincing claim.  Fundamentally it's just, "I think Armstrong should have done ___ but he did ___ instead; therefore hoax!"  That he was treated as a superstar by some seems to create the expectation that he should behave as one, or as how some people think superstars should behave.

Something I've noticed about this phenomena as it applies to hoax claims, especially Apollo Hoax claims pertaining to the Astronauts.
In the modern-media culture, we see thousands of examples of high-public-profile personalities (movie stars, performers of all genres, etc) who over perhaps the last century the public has come to expect to be very verbal and publicly active on an almost constant basis.
In a certain sense, I see the exact same expectation aimed at the Apollo Astronauts; not just from HB's, but from the public in general.

So, as far as the guy in the basement spewing HB drivel through the anonymity of the internet, it's almost expected for him/her to lay down such an unreasonable claim at those who walked the surface of Luna.

Just my two cents. Cheers!

[onebigmonkey]

Or, just maybe, he wasn't an egomaniac looking for praise.

That is substantially the consensus of those who knew him, including his biographer.  He didn't let fame go to his head.  Ironically that sensible approach is what the conspiracy theorists have latched onto as somehow suspicious.

Contrary to Romulus' insinuation this is not a novel or especially convincing claim.  Fundamentally it's just, "I think Armstrong should have done ___ but he did ___ instead; therefore hoax!"  That he was treated as a superstar by some seems to create the expectation that he should behave as one, or as how some people think superstars should behave.

Something I've noticed about this phenomena as it applies to hoax claims, especially Apollo Hoax claims pertaining to the Astronauts.
In the modern-media culture, we see thousands of examples of high-public-profile personalities (movie stars, performers of all genres, etc) who over perhaps the last century the public has come to expect to be very verbal and publicly active on an almost constant basis.
In a certain sense, I see the exact same expectation aimed at the Apollo Astronauts; not just from HB's, but from the public in general.

So, as far as the guy in the basement spewing HB drivel through the anonymity of the internet, it's almost expected for him/her to lay down such an unreasonable claim at those who walked the surface of Luna.

Just my two cents. Cheers!

And the hoax community seem oblivious to the fact that most of the surviving Apollo astronauts make regular public appearances at space fairs, conventions and as guest speakers. You can hear their personal testimony very easily.

Once I see James Lovell in October I will be able to say that I've met 6 of them. If I had more money I could add another couple to the list just this year in the UK.

There is also a market for the minor Apollo players - Sy Liebergot (Apollo 13 EECOM) spoke at an event in the UK last year, and Chuck Deiterich ('RETRO') will be speaking in Sheffield in May.

Many people related to the Apollo programme are still around and not that hard to get hold of, yet somehow the conspiracy theorists seem unable to find them. Perhaps this is a good thing, although Buzz knows how to deal with the ones that do poke their head out of the sewer.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Mr.Windley, I am done with you...for now.           

I'll leave you with this final word..There seems to be a disturbing history of untimely deaths for people who become problematic to NASA and the larger conspiracy in general. 15 astronauts died in '"accidents" during the "space race". Armstrong was smarter than you, and aware of the reality of the situation.

Was that a flounce¿?

[Dr.Acula]

 What I can do is cast enough doubt...

You should contact AWE130. 

[Bob B.]

Interdimensional Warrior, I'm guessing.  He didn't even last the evening before descending into a bannable series of obsessive and insulting remarks.

Naw. The flavor is similar, but IDW would never get this far without starting to snarl about the juice, and begin general meltdown. And I refuse to believe in the spellcheck software that would make his usual output look like this.

From my prior experience with IDW, Romulus sounds like a dead ringer.  The m.o. and style are virtually identical.  For instance (1) false claims of higher education and expertise, (2) claims of intellectual superiority, (3) delight in the fantasy that he has bested other intellectuals, (4) belittlement of those who have true professional credentials, (5) claims to have information/evidence that he steadfastly refuses to reveal, and (6) he's an habitual liar.  Furthermore, the IDW that I remember didn't show any propensity to meltdown.

[smartcooky]

....although Buzz knows how to deal with the ones that do poke their head out of the sewer.

Oooh, I tried, I really tried, but I just can't resist posting this again for all to enjoy......

[Abaddon]

Mr.Windley, I am done with you...for now.           

I'll leave you with this final word..There seems to be a disturbing history of untimely deaths for people who become problematic to NASA and the larger conspiracy in general. 15 astronauts died in '"accidents" during the "space race". Armstrong was smarter than you, and aware of the reality of the situation.

Was that a flounce¿?

Question is can he stick the flounce?

18 pages in 2 days and I managed to miss it. Oh, well.

[Romulus]

I've seen this disingenuous approach before, and sooner or later it will boil down to "all the data come form NASA, and NASA tells lies" with a healthy dose of "no one else has replicated the process therefore it is suspect". It's just a verbose JAQ-ing off.

I don't have a whole lot of time to respond ATM as I am busy doing the same thing you are here, trying to make a living.

Your summation of my position is essentially correct, and I certainly do not deny it. It is a fact that when confronted with any sort of bad publicity disaster, NASA employs propagandists and "PR" men to lie to the people, and to congress. A typical example was when the Challenger shuttle exploded on launch, needlessly and senselessly killing 7 astronauts and destroying an expensive piece of hardware that the American people paid for simply because Ronald Reagan was in town speaking to Republicans and thought it would be a "swell PR boost" to have the launch coincide with his Florida visit.

Morton Thiokal had pleaded with NASA not to launch, because the knew the O ring seals between sections of the solid rocket booster were compromised by the cold conditions. So what does NASA do?

You're right, I believe if all of the evidence originates with once source and that source is a proven liar that evidence has to be scrutinized  carefully and methodically, which is what I have done. I also believe the evidence NASA provides itself can be used to prove a negative because it so well documented, and when  you document something that didn't really happen of this scope your make thousands, probably millions of mistakes. And an individual  like myself can systematically pick that evidence apart, not in just certain areas, but nearly all of it.

I agree with you that I am in the minority with my conclusions as they relate to the Apollo project.  What I do not agree with is that what I am doing represents some sort of marginal unscientific witch hunt prosecuted for personal glory or gain.

I tested all of my arguments against the best NASA had to offer, and what I found was that there was a consistent pervasive pattern, many people would post simultaneously trying to overtax my abilities to respond and the conversation was directed or steered away from the evidence and subject, and on to my own credibility and scientific aptitude, as well as my integrity and in many cases sanity. Just as you have done here. It is very predictable. And because you are so predictable you are very easy to expose.

[Allan F]

Yes, many people answer at the same time.

Just like many people laugh when you fall down the stairs.  What you are doing is the intellectual equivalent to falling down the stairs carrying a piano.

[Bob B.]

Romulus, present your evidence that Apollo was faked.