ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 05:31:39 PM

Title: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 05:31:39 PM
Having been involved in scientific debates nearly my entire life, I have over the years never seen a scientific achievement verified and accepted as science fact quite like the N.A.S.A.'s manned exploration of the moon in the last century. On boards like this one dedicated to "debunking" the contention that the Apollo missions were in some part a hoax, the rules and roles of skeptic and claimant appear to the causal observer to have been reversed. No longer is it the claimant of the accomplishment in science that is required to defend his position and provide proof, it is those critical of it tasked with the impossible chore of proving a negative. this sounds strikingly similar to the attitude of a religious faith and it it's proponents. Unless you can prove it to them that it is not true, to them it remains fact.  Scientists often say we can't test the existence of God, because  it isn't possible to falsify the existence of prime creator. They say the existence of a creator is based on faith because it is not falsifiable.

My question to the main participants here like Jay Windley and Phillip Plait, who have displayed a high degree of competency in defending the official position and have been instrumental in NASA public relations is this:

HOW ARE THE APOLLO MANNED MOONLANDINGS FALSIFIABLE USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF INQUIRY ? What proof would you accept and at what point does an overwhelming preponderance of evidence begin to make you doubt you methods and attitude towards what is supposedly a scientific achievement? Aren't you reversing roles? If the critics say Apollo doesn't seen like a credible sceintific achievement because it cannot be independently duplicated or confirmed and all of the evidence comes from the claimant alone, isn't it true that according to the scientific method Apollo is an unproved claim?

There is reason I am pointing this out, and I will reveal it to you the reader  here on this forum dedicated to defending the N.A.S.A. narrative of the Apollo mission. You are here supposedly defending what you claim to be a scientific achievement, and you are claiming to use science to do it, yet you seem to be totally disrespecting the rules of how science has worked for centuries.

It is my contention and feel free to correct me if I am wrong that the bandwagon fallacy is being used and grossly overplayed. You're essentially saying "because the vast majority of scientists do not question the validity of NASA's claims, it is up to you to prove the missions were a hoax".

I know how skillful you are in defending you positions and debunking evidence here on this forum and on others around the internet. How do you defend your reversal of roles in the sceintific process, taxing your opposition with proving a negative and  claiming debunker status while defending a scientific achievement ?

This is not how real science works, it never has been, and it in my opinion is a "rigged game" that is impossible for the skeptic to win because you have somehow convinced people the in this one case, the rules of scientific inquiry have been reversed. Here we have what is without a doubt the very pinnacle of human scientific achievement that is claimed to have been made nearly a half century ago, and not only is it still to this day an unreproducible experiment, even NASA admits it won't be possible for at least a few decades from now to do so. My position is simple. You are making a spectacular claim that you cannot prove using the evidence you have because it can all be explained without your underlying claim being true. There are also many questions about this evidence that cast serious doubt on its authenticity that it is your position it is up to us to prove, as demonstrated by your rules of debate here.

No scientific debate is conducted in this manner, which leads me to conclude that you are not really scientists at all, but some form of propagandists or public relations personnel that have sceintific backgrounds.

I am not making ANY claim here other than you are not respecting the scientific method. How do you defend that accusation?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 05:41:22 PM
On a post here made by Jay Utah (Jay Windley I presume), he made the claim that experiments involving parallax that appear to prove the NASA surface photography used projection screens could not be duplicated and therefor was proof of nothing. That was not entirely true, others can attempt to do the same thing and confirm it. But isn't Jay admitting Apollo cannot be proved unless it can be independently duplicated? (another question!)

I understand your motivation to defend your position here, and I am aware of the resources you have at your disposal to do so, but it is my personal opinion that you avoid having to disprove evidence by making the claim that the skeptic must do what you clearly cannot, and that is prove your claims.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 06:31:01 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 06:58:55 PM
On a post here made by Jay Utah (Jay Windley I presume),

Which post?

Quote
But isn't Jay admitting Apollo cannot be proved unless it can be independently duplicated? (another question!)

Of course I'm not admitting that.

Quote
...and I am aware of the resources you have at your disposal to do so...

Such as?

Quote
...but it is my personal opinion that you avoid having to disprove evidence by making the claim that the skeptic must do what you clearly cannot, and that is prove your claims.

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof.

The hoax claimants spend nearly all their time trying to undercut or erode faith in the evidence already on the table in favor of Apollo's authenticity.  The mountain of evidence.

Your "bandwagon" argument fails as a straw man.  You say that the vast majority of scientists and other people who know what they're talking about "don't question" Apollo, but that's a clever misstatement.  It's more accurate to say they are expertly familiar enough with the evidence in the record and the principles of the sciences that contribute to it to have formed an educated, rational conclusion whether it's more likely to be real or whether this vast horde of largely ignorant naysayers has a point.  Do you really think that when the arguments are as patently stupid as looking for stars in photos, that well-informed people pay it any heed?

Generations of applicable experts agree after rigorous study that the evidence is voluminus, correct, and convincing.  Spin it all you want, but the people who know what they're talking about all agree -- because they know what they're talking about.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:00:11 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry with the purpose of exposing a dishonest tactic being used to suppress it. You have what I call blind faith and protect your beliefs in the same manner as a religious nut.  Most of us realize history is little more than an agreed upon lie by those who write it. Like religion, their are many versions of history, it is not the same sort of empirical based discipline that science is. Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.  History and science are water and oil, and trying to claim a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.

I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant. And you know what? EVery real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing. It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events , and I believe there are several reasons that adequately explain that fact. Number one is motivation. Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this? I Suppose you could write a book and make a moderate profit, but wouldn't your career pretty much be shot?  Another obvious explanation is they are simply disinterested in the subject. Most scientists don't really care because they don't understand the sociological impact is so important. Their minds are occupied with their job tasks. With the few who might be motivated , there is the effect this would have on their careers, which would be negative.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:02:13 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled.  If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 02, 2015, 07:07:56 PM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:13:56 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.
Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled. 

Obviously it behooves you to treat a scientific inquiry as an historical one because it shifts the burden of proof. I am not a historian, I am a scientist. I'm not sure what you are yet, but as the discussion progresses I will be able to make a more accurate judgement.

If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

That's called the bandwagon fallacy. It is a nonsensical assertion. I am not here to discuss his troy, but to debunk what I believe is a scientific hoax that cannot pass muster as a sceintific achievement.What is entered into the "annals of history" does not interest me since it is often simply an agreed upon lie.
Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.

Again, it is dishonest and illogical to claim a debate which relies strictly on empirical evidence and involving science be treated as a debate about historical accuracy. Scientists often rewrite history by disproving it because they don't have to abide in those silly and incredulous rules.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:15:29 PM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:16:54 PM
I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry...

The study of something that happened decades ago is inherently the study of history.  Trying to call it something different so that you can apply a different set of rules -- misuse them, more like it -- is where the dishonesty here lies.

Quote
You have what I call blind faith...

Nonsense.  You will find people here who are eminently well informed on the topic.

Quote
Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.

No, science deals with what can be proved by the scientific method.  Proofs of other kinds arise in all other manner of human study, such as history and law.

Quote
History and science are water and oil...

Agreed, and you're applying the wrong standard.

Quote
...a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.

Trying to paste the label "scientific achievement" on Apollo doesn't change its inherent nature.  That scientific principles were used to produce the means by which the enterprise was undertaken does not make the whole of it somehow magically susceptible to the scientific method.

Quote
I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method...

The scientific method does not and cannot apply to the study of an historical event.  You're not the first person to try to weasel out of a burden of proof by this particular tap dance.

Quote
...and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant.

NASA and its contractors have provided a mountain of evidence to support their claim.  That mountain is widely studied and widely accepted as valid by the relevant professionals.  Hoax theorists spend nearly all their time trying to show that this evidence is fake.  And in doing so, they make affirmative claims to that effect -- often very specific ones.  When you make an affirmative claim, you incur a burden of proof for it.  So it is up to the claimants -- the hoax claimants -- to prove that the evidence we have came by way of fakery and fabrication, as they claim.

Quote
Every real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing.

No, I don't consider you a representative of "real scientists" or of any other group.

Quote
It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events...

Why do you say this?

Quote
Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this?

My goal is not to portray people as "nuts."  My goal is to test claims according to my understanding of the facts.  I simply point out facts that dispute people's beliefs, methods, and claims.  What is the motivation to challenge NASA or any other element of the mainstream?  Quite a number of psychologists have written papers on this.  Are you familiar with them?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:19:00 PM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

I would like to add to this response the following:

Most of these alternate explanations cannot be proved to a certainty any more than your version of events can. But they can be proved to the same level of certainty. this therefor negates your claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders as the one making the claim. this is the sceintific method, and we employ it for a good reason.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:22:37 PM
Obviously it behooves you to treat a scientific inquiry as an historical one because it shifts the burden of proof.

Whether an occurrence in history occurred as claimed or not is the study of history.  It is exactly the study of history.  You're trying to slap a different label on it so that you can use an oft-attempted way by which hoax claimants have previously tried to shift the burden of proof.

Quote
I am not a historian, I am a scientist.

No, you're patently neither.

Quote
I'm not sure what you are yet, but as the discussion progresses I will be able to make a more accurate judgement.

Nonsense.  You've already made up your mind that we're religious nuts following NASA according to blind faith.  Based on that, I don't see that this discussion will last very long.

Quote
That's called the bandwagon fallacy...

No, it's called the historical method.  There are quite a few books written on the subject.

Quote
What is entered into the "annals of history" does not interest me since it is often simply an agreed upon lie.

And if you are claiming Apollo was a lie the you have the burden of proof.

Quote
Again, it is dishonest and illogical to claim a debate which relies strictly on empirical evidence and involving science...

"Involving science" does not mean "testable by the scientific method."

Quote
Scientists often rewrite history by disproving it because they don't have to abide in those silly and incredulous rules.

So apply the "scientific method" and rewrite history.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:27:36 PM
Most of these alternate explanations cannot be proved to a certainty any more than your version of events can. But they can be proved to the same level of certainty.

By whose judgment?  Which "alternate explanations?"  Be specific.

Quote
...this therefor negates your claim and puts the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders...

Wow, you are seriously desperate not to have to make any sort of argument.

Quote
...this is the sceintific method, and we employ it for a good reason.

No, that is not the scientific method.  You do realize that professional scientists post here.  How far do you really think you can get with this bluff and bluster?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:35:10 PM
I am not studying history nor do I have any intentions of entering into this debate under the pretense that I am. This is strictly a scientific inquiry...
The study of something that happened decades ago is inherently the study of history.  Trying to call it something different so that you can apply a different set of rules -- misuse them, more like it -- is where the dishonesty here lies.
No sir, obviously the dishonesty lies with yourself. Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement that has never been proved by the scientific method. As a scientific claim of achievement, only honest way to approach the question is scientifically.What you or anyone else claims to believe is unimportant to me.

Quote
You have what I call blind faith...
Nonsense.  You will find people here who are eminently well informed on the topic.

I suggest that if you are as well informed as you claim to be then you must have serious doubts about the validity of your position.


Quote
Science deals with what can be proved and history is often little more than a majority opinion.
No, science deals with what can be proved by the scientific method.  Proofs of other kinds arise in all other manner of human study, such as history and law.
Correct. So why do you wish to ignore the scientific method, claiming it is invalid for judging the Apollo moonlandings?
Quote
History and science are water and oil...
Agreed, and you're applying the wrong standard.

I am satisfied to get you to admit that you willfully ignore the scientific method relying primarily on the bandwagon fallacy to prove your beliefs.

Quote
..a scientific achievement is proved because it is "historically accurate" is not a valid argument.
Trying to paste the label "scientific achievement" on Apollo doesn't change its inherent nature.  That scientific principles were used to produce the means by which the enterprise was undertaken does not make the whole of it somehow magically susceptible to the scientific method.
I beg to differ. If it does not pass scientific muster it is not a scientific achievement.

Quote
I maintain that Apollo has not been proved as scientific achievement according to the scientific method...
The scientific method does not and cannot apply to the study of an historical event.  You're not the first person to try to weasel out of a burden of proof by this particular tap dance.
Again, I am happy to get you to admit that you are resigned to treating Apollo as a "historical fact" while yourself weaseling out of proving it.



Quote
...and that it is not up to the critics of that claim to prove their positions, it is up to the claimant.
NASA and its contractors have provided a mountain of evidence to support their claim.  That mountain is widely studied and widely accepted as valid by the relevant professionals.  Hoax theorists spend nearly all their time trying to show that this evidence is fake.  And in doing so, they make affirmative claims to that effect -- often very specific ones.  When you make an affirmative claim, you incur a burden of proof for it.  So it is up to the claimants -- the hoax claimants -- to prove that the evidence we have came by way of fakery and fabrication, as they claim.

All of which can be explained without the necessity of an actual successful manned moonlanding.

Quote
Every real scientist in the world that is actually competent and honest will tell you exactly the same thing.
No, I don't consider you a representative of "real scientists" or of any other group.
Ad hominem noted.

Quote
It is true that most scientists do not question NASA's narrative of events...
Why do you say this?
Because they don't?


Quote
Where is the motivation for becoming an outcast and painted a nut by persons like Jay Windley who are skilled at doing this?
My goal is not to portray people as "nuts."  My goal is to test claims according to my understanding of the facts.
Claims involving scientific achievements require the sceintific method to prove of disprove, and you are obviously unwilling to do so.
I simply point out facts that dispute people's beliefs, methods, and claims.  What is the motivation to challenge NASA or any other element of the mainstream?  Quite a number of psychologists have written papers on this.  Are you familiar with them?
I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality, just like your own beliefs about Apollo. There are as many opinions in psychology as there are people practicing it, and none of them are worthy of the title truth. I do know that labels are used to marginalize the bearers of uncomfortable or inconvenient truths.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:40:02 PM

Obviously

I am not a historian, I am a scientist.
No, you're patently neither.

By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 07:43:56 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/Smilies/clap.gif)

The over whelming evidence is that the Apollo programme took place as claimed and the 12 American astronauts walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

1. Almost 500,000 people from numerous countries (and many in other countries) took part in the development of the spacecraft and its systems, the launching and the tracking of the spacecraft and their safe return to earth

2. Millions of people saw the launches both on TV and live and in person at the Cape. Several amateur radio operators actually tracked the Apollo spacecraft privately, and listened to the men who walked on the moon on their own radio equipment.

3. Scientists at Jodrell Bank in England actually tracked the Lunar Modules as they approached and landed on the lunar surface. In the case of Apollo 11, they were even able to tell when Armstrong took control of the LM and stopped descending when he started to look for an alternative landing site.

4. Anyone who claims to have been involved in scientific debates nearly their entire life, and who claims any scientific understanding at all will realise that the lunar surface video could not possibly have been faked on Earth in a 1G environment by merely running video in slow motion. Such things as falling objects and dust kicked up by both the astronaut's activities and the wheels of the lunar rovers was NOT acting as though it were in a 1G environment with air, but was acting as if it were in a low G environment in a vacuum. This was impossible to fake in the 1960s and 1970, and it is still impossible to do now without the use of very sophisticated CGI software that simply was not available in 1969.

5. Scientists from all over the world, including those from Cold War enemy countries who had every reason to pour scorn on the USA, confirmed that the rocks the missions brought back could only have come from the Lunar surface.

6. The Apollo Programme was the most massively, minutely and intricately documented scientific endeavour of all time. That documentation, from first principles through, engineering and electronic schematics, drawings and diagrams, photographs, journals, film and video, all the way to the scientific results, is all available to anyone who wants it. NONE OF THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE HAND WAVED AWAY, which its what idiots like Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing have tried, and failed, to do.

Those who undertook the Apollo missions can account for the entire process in a coherent, moment by moment account, in detail. Every part of the Apollo program ties in with every other part. They can say how it was done. Meanwhile, NOT ONE of the Hoax proponents has ever been able to put together a coherent time line and description of how every stage of the programme was fakes. They always come up with easily debunkable half-truths and "unique" interpretations of the science involved.

Either

a: the Apollo landings took place as claimed. or

b: half a million people of various nationalities world wide, including many of the world's leading scientists and engineers, have been involved in a massive, ongoing global conspiracy for the last 45 years, and NOT ONE OF THEM has eve come forward. and if somehow, some people managed to overcome the impossibility of faking the video of the lunar surface, NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED has spilled the beans.

I know which one I find hardest to believe

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:45:15 PM
Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality. There seems to be a pattern developing here.

Do you know what it is?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:49:25 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.



I know which one I find hardest to believe

Please pardon me for editing the content of you post. i read it, I just did so because I do not feel the need to answer every point. None of what you posted is scientific proof because either it cannot be independently duplicated and confirmed, or alternate explanations can be offered, or both. The burden of proving these things is on you. It is not on me to prove that I do not accept them as proof. I have answered every single one of these claims in great detail in the past and they do not prove a manned landing..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 07:54:24 PM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

Then explain them, every single one of them, in detail (to at least the same level of detail as is contained in the Apollo record) exactly how they were faked.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:55:44 PM
Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement...

Asked and answered.  You simply applying the label "scientific achievement" doesn't magically invoke the scientific method.

Quote
I suggest that if you are as well informed as you claim to be then you must have serious doubts about the validity of your position.

I have no such doubts.  The argument you're trying has been tried many times before.

Quote
Correct. So why do you wish to ignore the scientific method, claiming it is invalid for judging the Apollo moonlandings?

Because it is unsuitable for that purpose.

Quote
I am satisfied to get you to admit that you willfully ignore the scientific method relying primarily on the bandwagon fallacy to prove your beliefs.

I have made no such admission.

I do not "willfully ignore the scientific method."  Instead, I know what it is, where it applies, and how and when properly to apply it.  You've presented no argument to the contrary, except to play word games.  The scientific method does not apply to the question of whether an event in history occurred as advertised or was faked.

I do not rely on the "bandwagon fallacy," which term you're misapplying here anyway.  I rely on a substantial knowledge of the facts and the fields from which they derive.  My belief is based on having tested many hoax theories and having found none of them to be even the least tenable according to the facts.  You concede that the unanimity of similarly informed people arrive at the same conclusion.  You insinuate that these people are somehow derelict or dissuaded in their duty to question their knowledge, but you provide only your vigorous assertion of this as proof.

It is rather telling that your purpose here seems to have been to "get people to admit" things, most of which are words you're trying to cram in their mouths.

Quote
All of which can be explained without the necessity of an actual successful manned moonlanding.

According to whom?  In more than 15 years of vigorously searching and studying these theories, I have yet to find one that offers anything beyond idle speculation.

Quote
Because they don't?

How do you know they haven't questioned it and arrived at the conclusion that Apollo was authentic?

Conspiracy theorists always beg the question of their own credibility and the foundation of their claims.  You have to realize that outside the small circle of such theories, the claims themselves are often patently laughable.  If you want to know why qualified scientists haven't vocally expressed the possibility that just maybe the conspiracy theorists have a point, it's because it's obvious they don't.

Quote
Claims involving scientific achievements require the sceintific method to prove of disprove, and you are obviously unwilling to do so.

I'm unwilling to have terms and definitions foisted upon me and to be browbeaten to accept them.  Don't confuse that with a willingness and ability to talk about the evidence that pertains to Apollo.

Quote
...have no basis of reality, just like your own beliefs about Apollo.

Well, you said you were going to let the debate play out before you drew a conclusion about "what I am."  But here's the second time you have clearly already made up your mind.  Since your mind was obviously made up before you got here, can you tell any of us why we should waste any more time talking to you?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 07:57:08 PM
I would like to state for the record that I am not here on this forum to do the impossible and prove a negative. Science does not and cannot succeed to accomplish anything in that manner.

The reason I am here is to prove that a dishonest method is being employed to defend what i believe is a false claim.  I am as I said a scientist, I have earned that title by being a student of science for 45 years and I believe I have a base of knowledge that is at least comparable to anyone here and can back up that claim, as will become evident. I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions. Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy, we all have them and they all stink.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 07:57:55 PM
Jay obsession alert!!!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 07:58:17 PM
Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality.

I made no such claim.  I said that psychologists are aware of what motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions.  I said nothing about an "abnormality" or anything of the kind.

Quote
There seems to be a pattern developing here.

Yes, there is a pattern of you desperately misrepresenting what other people have said.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:01:49 PM
By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

No.  In fact, let met state it more emphatically.

You are not a scientist.

If you feel it is an ad hominem statement, then report it to the moderator.  But of course it is no such thing.  It is a disputation of your claims to expertise.  You arrived here proposing to school everyone on what it meant to investigate something properly according to the "scientific method," and to establish your ability to do so you have now twice claimed to be a scientist.  Stating the foundation for an allegedly expert judgment is a fair argument, and attacking that foundation -- if it is suspected to be shaky -- is fair comment.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:02:57 PM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

Then explain them, every single one of them, in detail (to at least the same level of detail as is contained in the Apollo record) exactly how they were faked.

As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings. I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it. Much of the information came from people just like yourself, who were trying to  validate their beliefs, and I do appreciate that. Where I can, I will give you the credit you deserve..

My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim. These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:05:15 PM

Jay, you made the claim you didn't try to paint people as nuts because they question your narrative of reality as it relates to NASA and it's claims, and in the same post made the claim that people that do are suffering from some psychological abnormality.
I made no such claim.  I said that psychologists are aware of what motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions.  I said nothing about an "abnormality" or anything of the kind.

And what is it that  motivates people to take up strongly opposed minority positions, as you characterize them?

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:06:48 PM
I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions/

So you get to decide the ground rules and arbitrarily decide when others have opinions. That sounds like the rules for moving the goalposts already.

Quote
Opinions are like a certain part of the anatomy, we all have them and they all stink.

I wash mine regularly thanks.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 08:08:22 PM
Actually folks, when it comes down to tin tack, Apollo is not a scientific achievement, it was an engineering achievement, with scientific spinoffs and benefits (ALSEP, LLR the return of lunar rocks etc)

The Scientific Method i.e. systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses, does not apply to engineering
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:09:08 PM


No.  In fact, let met state it more emphatically.

You are not a scientist.



I believe enough about your character, integrity and tactics have already been revealed to conclude you are not only not a scientist, but are nothing more or less than a character assassin without the courage to engage in a fair fight. I don't mind several against one, I have always been of the opinion that several inferior minds cannot defeat one superior one in an intellectual exercise. But then this isn't an intellectual exercise, is it Mr.Windley?.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:12:13 PM
I would like to state for the record that I am not here on this forum to do the impossible and prove a negative.

No, you're quite clearly here to engage in some fairly predicable rhetorical games such as shifting the burden of proof and stuffing words into your critics' mouths.  I have a few times now invited you to present the actual evidence you say is so strong and presumably establishes some hoax scenario, as you claim, to a commensurate level as the conventional narrative.  But you have done nothing toward that end, and wallow in silly debate tricks that fool no one.

Quote
The reason I am here is to prove that a dishonest method is being employed to defend what i believe is a false claim.

Your attempts to show that it's dishonest rely solely on your private definitions.  If your belief that Apollo missions constitute a false claim relies on affirmatively explaining away by other scenarios the evidence that many accept as evidence of its authenticity, then you have the burden of proof.

Quote
I am as I said a scientist, I have earned that title by being a student of science for 45 years...

One earns the title by means of a series of adjudicated events, beginning with academic study and followed by substantial work in the field, often including publication in peer-reviewed journals on applicable subjects.

What exactly did you do to "earn" your title?

Quote
I believe I have a base of knowledge that is at least comparable to anyone here and can back up that claim, as will become evident.

It's already evident.  You intend to browbeat everyone to accept your contrived standard of proof.  And I daresay you don't know anything about the people here or what their skills are.  Yet you've already written them off as merely having blind faith.

Quote
I would pit my scientific aptitude, knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions.

I choose to measure it in academic degrees in relevant fields from accredited universities followed by substantial professional-level practice in the relevant fields.  How do you measure up in that way?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:12:53 PM
I would pit my scientific aptitude , knowledge and intelligence against anyone here, in any way you choose to measure it, other than your opinions/
So you get to decide the ground rules and arbitrarily decide when others have opinions. That sounds like the rules for moving the goalposts already.

I made a statement of fact. Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar. That is an ad hominem attack. I stated I would be wiling to pit my scientific abilities, knowledge and intelligence against any of you including him in response to that insult. How you proceed from here will reveal your true intents.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:15:02 PM
I believe enough about your character, integrity and tactics have already been revealed to conclude you are not only not a scientist, but are nothing more or less than a character assassin without the courage to engage in a fair fight.

You're welcome to prove that at your leisure.  Unfortunately you're not even remotely interested in a fair fight.  You're obviously interested in foisting your own ground rules, rewriting everyone else's statements, and smack talk.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 02, 2015, 08:15:39 PM
As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings. I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it. Much of the information came from people just like yourself, who were trying to  validate their beliefs, and I do appreciate that. Where I can, I will give you the credit you deserve..

My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim. These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.

How convenient for you.

I'm not a scientist.  I am, however, an amateur historian, and I get how history works.  You clearly don't.  If you claim something is faked, any historian worth their salt will ask for your evidence.  Because a claim that something is fake is a claim that incurs burden of proof no matter what your field.  When the Apollo missions were happening, NASA presented its evidence.  If anyone had determined any part of that evidence to be fake, they would have had to have proved it was a fake.  This would include things like showing how it was faked.

The thing is, we do have an abundance of fakes to examine in the last hundred or so years, and the way they were shown to be faked was the same every time.  The Cottingley fairies?  Piltdown Man?  The Salamander Letter?  It took more to claim any one of them was a fake than just insisting they were, and none of them had a tiny fraction of the evidence behind them that Apollo does. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:17:40 PM
I made a statement of fact.

No, you made a claim.

Quote
Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

No, I disputed your claim.

Quote
That is an ad hominem attack.

No, it is a challenge to the foundation of your claim to expertise.

Quote
I stated I would be wiling to pit my scientific abilities, knowledge and intelligence against any of you including him in response to that insult. How you proceed from here will reveal your true intents.

I've asked for your scientific evidence several times.  Where is it?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:20:53 PM
Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact. A scientist would have presetned their claims by now, rather than flip flop around with the silly games we are witnessing. Please, present your claims. Put up and shut up.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:24:50 PM


I choose to measure it in academic degrees in relevant fields from accredited universities followed by substantial professional-level practice in the relevant fields.  How do you measure up in that way?

By revealing personal information such as this you are able to identify your adversary, which is not something I intend to allow. That said, I do not believe great men such as Nicola Tesla should be ignored by science like they are, and the fact that they do not have the qualifications that you consider what a scientist is does not diminish their accomplishments, their abilities or their respectability.

 I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:25:57 PM
As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings.

Of course not.  You have already claimed they were fake.  And you have already heaped scorn upon those who believe they're real.  But you accept absolutely no responsibility to justify your scorn and prove your belief.

Quote
I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it.

Yet this many pages in, and we have yet to see any of it.  Why don't you start by naming a few of your sources?  Or does your self-absolution cover even that?

Quote
My sole reason for posting this particular thread to this particular forum was to get what I already have, an admission that NASA's dedicated proponents do not wish to and refuse to use the scientific method to prove their claim.

Yes, your sole reason was to appear to have won.  This happens many times.

Quote
These pages have been recorded as screenshots complete with verifiable proof they are unedited and as they appeared here on your forum.

And will you be including links back to this forum so that your readers can see how badly you have misrepresented everyone?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:26:22 PM
Mr Windley insulted me by indirectly calling me a liar.

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact. A scientist would have presetned their claims by now, rather than flip flop around with the silly games we are witnessing. Please, present your claims. Put up and shut up.

My claim is simple and I have already proved it, and that is that NASA's proponents do not respect the scientific method and refused to abide in it in proving their claims
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:28:11 PM
By...

That paragraph tells me everything I need to know.  Thank you.

Quote
I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

That's an ad hominem.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:29:24 PM

But you aren't a scientist, so Jay did not inuslt you. He was stating fact.

Provide proof of your accusation and belittlement
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:29:57 PM
My claim is simple

Finally, something we can agree on.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:33:50 PM
My claim is simple...

Which claim?

You claim we don't use the scientific method, and I discuss that below.  But you also claim Apollo was fake, and that you have considerable proof of that.  But you decline to present any of that proof.  How does that work?  You claim the privilege of proving or not proving whatever you want, but somehow everyone is constrained to use your notions of scientific methodology in order to be credible?  How is that not just special pleading?

Quote
...and I have already proved it, and that is that NASA's proponents do not respect the scientific method and refused to abide in it in proving their claims.

No, that's you once again rewriting your critics.  The scientific method does not apply to questions of historical authenticity, for the reasons already stated.  We respect the scientific method by not applying it where it doesn't belong.  We do not refuse to "abide in it."  Instead we refuse your attempts to foist your layman's definition of what those terms mean to you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:35:40 PM
By...

That paragraph tells me everything I need to know.  Thank you.

Quote
I realize that pedigreed [redacted] like you wave your credentials as proof of competency because you do not wish to acknowledge your inferiority by attempting to prove otherwise. If you could actually do something productive, you wouldn't be doing what you are.

That's an ad hominem.

It is a statement of fact. If you can prove otherwise, do so. You made the claim I am not  a scientist by your standards without having any idea what my qualifications are simple because you so not agree with my position concerning the veracity of NASA's claimed moonlandings. You are not a scientist, you are not skilled in the discipline and you do not abide in it's methodologies. What you actually do is attack the character, integrity and abilities of your adversary without backing it up, you are a propagandist.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:37:28 PM
My claim is simple

Finally, something we can agree on.

You're really witty, aren't you? Taking quotes and hacking them up like that is the dishonest tactics of a cretin.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:39:55 PM
You're really witty, aren't you?

My friends think so. Again, something we can agree on. So are you going to present your claims of fakery?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:43:00 PM
Provide proof of your accusation and belittlement

He already did.  Luke is a professional scientist.  He knows how scientists work and how they present arguments to each other.  When he says you're not a scientist, it's because he knows what he's talking about.

And in fact you are not a scientist.  You backpedal and call yourself a "student of science" instead, which could apply to anyone including those who merely have passing interest in scientific topics.  And you heaped enough disdain upon the notion of adjudicated training end education that it's clear you have no respect for it.  From there it's only a short walk to the notion that you have no actual training or experience in scientific practice.

This is important because those who lack that specific training and experience often misunderstand aspects of scientific methodology and how it works to create confidence in a conclusion.  They also habitually express themselves only in the buzzwords often used to refer to elements of science practice, without really understanding the more nuanced concepts that are important.

So no, we have no reason to suppose that you know what the scientific method is or how properly to employ it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:43:38 PM
You're really witty, aren't you?

My friends think so. Again, something we can agree on. So are you going to present your claims of fakery?

I don't believe I made any specific claim other that NASA's proponents on this forum do not abide in the scientific method to defend their claims. Since Jay admitted they do not and have no intentions of doing so, I consider it a closed case, to borrow a phrase from the legal profession.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:46:36 PM
Provide proof of your accusation and belittlement

He already did.  Luke is a professional scientist.  He knows how scientists work and how they present arguments to each other.  When he says you're not a scientist, it's because he knows what he's talking about.

And in fact you are not a scientist.  You backpedal and call yourself a "student of science" instead, which could apply to anyone including those who merely have passing interest in scientific topics.  And you heaped enough disdain upon the notion of adjudicated training end education that it's clear you have no respect for it.  From there it's only a short walk to the notion that you have no actual training or experience in scientific practice.

This is important because those who lack that specific training and experience often misunderstand aspects of scientific methodology and how it works to create confidence in a conclusion.  They also habitually express themselves only in the buzzwords often used to refer to elements of science practice, without really understanding the more nuanced concepts that are important.

So no, we have no reason to suppose that you know what the scientific method is or how properly to employ it.

You make several claims on your post that you cannot prove, and it is dripping with opinions and innuendos designed to diminish the credibility of your opponent. You have no idea just how little you really do know. As so often is the case, is the least intelligent among us who claim to know the most.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:47:05 PM
It is a statement of fact.

No, it's just an insult.  You very much want to believe that the people you might encounter in the Internet are just layman such as yourself and cannot possibly dispute you with any erudition.  You've already indicated at least twice now in what low regard you us.  Hence you have to now insinuate that someone who posts here, and studies and writes on a topic on which he is well informed, cannot possibly have any "real" professional skill or value.

You've been challenged several times to actually present the evidence you claim is so strong.  But you insist instead on playing games.

Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:47:47 PM
You have no idea just how little you really do know. As so often is the case, is the least intelligent among us who claim to know the most.

Show us your evidence, then.  Prove us all to be the ignoramuses you clearly think we are.  Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:48:23 PM
I don't believe I made any specific claim...

Exactly. Again, something we can agree on. Yet several posts ago you claim that you have studied Apollo for many years and have evidence to back up fakery, but we're four pages into this 'debate' and you are yet to present a single shred of evidence. To remind you and others:

As I have clearly stated, I am not here to prove NASA faked the moonlandings. I have accumulated an absolutely staggering amount of information on this subject and I have spent many years researching it. Much of the information came from people just like yourself, who were trying to  validate their beliefs, and I do appreciate that. Where I can, I will give you the credit you deserve..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 08:49:14 PM
Since Jay admitted they do not and have no intentions of doing so, I consider it a closed case, to borrow a phrase from the legal profession.

So why are you still posting?  If you believe you got the "confession" you came for, why are you still here?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:54:12 PM
You have no idea just how little you really do know. As so often is the case, is the least intelligent among us who claim to know the most.

Show us your evidence, then.  Prove us all to be the ignoramuses you clearly think we are.  Put up or shut up.

I see where your skill lies, Mr.Windley. There can be no mistake about it. You have established rules of engagement here which you do not abide in yourself and which heavily favor you,you  claim scientific knowledge and abilities for both you an your comrades and yet refused to abide in the scientific method. How could anyone win a scientific debate with you here? This is why your forum is nothing more than a self congratulatory ****** **** with no opposition. You will not make fodder for  ridicule out of me. I see what's going on here and I understand the methods much better than you realize..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 08:56:17 PM
How could anyone win a scientific debate with you here?

By presenting their science maybe. Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 02, 2015, 08:57:43 PM
Ahem.  I told you what it would take me to reconsider Apollo.  You claimed to have it, but you will neither tell me what your evidence is nor tell me where you found the information you claim disproves it.  I can tell you, though, that we've seen attempted refutations of the Apollo evidence many times, and they're all garbage.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 08:58:02 PM
Since Jay admitted they do not and have no intentions of doing so, I consider it a closed case, to borrow a phrase from the legal profession.

So why are you still posting?  If you believe you got the "confession" you came for, why are you still here?
I suppose I am still posting because other people are. I am satisfied that I achieved my objective and recommenced unless you have intentions of altering your position you simply close the thread to additional posting. I'm not going to respond to it any longer. If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 08:59:53 PM
Judging by the escalating rudeness and ad-hominem  attacks, I would suggest we might have just been visited by he who shall not be named!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
Ahem.  I told you what it would take me to reconsider Apollo.  You claimed to have it, but you will neither tell me what your evidence is nor tell me where you found the information you claim disproves it.  I can tell you, though, that we've seen attempted refutations of the Apollo evidence many times, and they're all garbage.

An this one was particularly weak
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:01:58 PM
Judging by the escalating rudeness and ad-hominem  attacks, I would suggest we might have just been visited by he who shall not be named!

I don't think so. That was far too pompus to be Jarrah.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:02:17 PM
I see what's going on here and I understand the methods much better than you realize.

Good for you.  Now are we ever going to see any of this allegedly spectacular evidence?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:02:33 PM
How could anyone win a scientific debate with you here?

By presenting their science maybe. Just a suggestion.

Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:09:34 PM
...unless you have intentions of altering your position...

Why should I?  You're altering it just fine on your own.

Quote
If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Given that several people have joined a fairly unanimous chorus asking you to present your evidence, I think you should do so.  The more you do that and the less you attempt to psychoanalyze your critics, the longer you'll be welcome.  I'm not sure what "other claims" you'll be discussing according to your understanding of the "scientific method," but I'm sure by now you realize that you aren't considered an expert in what that is.  That means you don't get to stack the deck by dictating what is or isn't scientific, and what methods are and are not appropriate.  Finally, I don't know what you mean by latitude in this context, but so far it seems like you're asking not to have a burden of proof.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 09:15:44 PM

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

I will take you up on that generous offer. I very much wish for you to post those alternate explanations.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:18:16 PM
Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

"Abide" is your word.  You were told several times that the scientific method doesn't mean what you think it means, and that it's not applicable to studying the authenticity of an event from history.  Many of us here are quite well versed in the scientific method and use it where appropriate.  You have provided no insight to the contrary.  You have simply asserted that, as a 45-year "student of history," you could easily trounce all of us with your knowledge of science and its methods.  Until you actually do, everything you've said is simply bluster.

One of the key concepts of the scientific method is the notion of falsifiability.  In discussing whether the historicity of Apollo were falsifiable, you mentioned you had strong proofs in the form of affirmative alternatives for every bit of Apollo evidence, alluding even to evidence that overt fakery occurred.  How are we to know if those disputed propositions truly are falsifiable if you refuse to show us the evidence that allegedly falsifies them?

In any case, if you had not intended to claim Apollo was faked, you probably shouldn't have.  Now that you have, you're on the hook.  You can either put up or shut up.

Quote
It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it.

So you're not even willing to try?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:18:50 PM
Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

Quote
It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:24:19 PM
...unless you have intentions of altering your position...

Why should I?  You're altering it just fine on your own.

Quote
If you like I will continue to author other threads proving other claims using the scientific method, but I insist on the same latitude you give yoursleves in doing so.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Given that several people have joined a fairly unanimous chorus asking you to present your evidence, I think you should do so.  The more you do that and the less you attempt to psychoanalyze your critics, the longer you'll be welcome.  I'm not sure what "other claims" you'll be discussing according to your understanding of the "scientific method," but I'm sure by now you realize that you aren't considered an expert in what that is.  That means you don't get to stack the deck by dictating what is or isn't scientific, and what methods are and are not appropriate.  Finally, I don't know what you mean by latitude in this context, but so far it seems like you're asking not to have a burden of proof.

You are quite the enigmatic case. Almost schizophrenic for lack of a better word. I will not allow you to reverse our roles. I believe Apollo was a hoax. You are claiming Apollo was according to the official version of events, and are therefor the one making the claim of a positive, which is provable using the scientific method. As I pointed out, one cannot prove a negative using science. I think that is why your forum is structured as it is, with the rules it has, to make it impossible to force you to prove your claims.

As an example, one of the primary reasons almost all persons who believe Apollo was a hoax cite for their doubt is radiation. We cannot prove Apollo astronauts wouldn't survive without duplicating the precise conditions, which is un-doable. We're not required to. You are the one making the claim they could survive. Prove it. That's how science works on the most basic of levels.  You claim I'm no scientist, well, prove that too. As for Apollo,  and until you prove every element of it those elements remain merely a claim and nothing more.Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment (this cannot and will not ever happen obviously) , the only other possible way to prove it is to prove every element using the scientific method. I will say it once more, it is not up to me as a debunker to prove a damned thing to you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:27:38 PM
As an example, one of the primary reasons almost all persons who believe Apollo was a hoax cite for their doubt is radiation.

What particular aspect of the radiation environment do you question?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 09:29:07 PM
Sheesh, if this keeps up, I'll be able to fill out a whole bingo card in one thread!!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:30:22 PM
Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

Quote
It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 09:31:06 PM
Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

Quote
It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession


What confession was that then?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:32:44 PM
Not to be necessarily repetitive, but the objective of this thread was not to prove Apollo was a hoax, it was to establish the fact that NASA's proponents do not abide in the scientific method in defending it.

I have never seen my position as defending Apollo, I see my position as defending the hard working people that made it happen. Apollo could have been a project to mass produce chocolate tea pots for all I care. The notion of defence is yours, not mine.

Quote
It is therefor impossible to prove anything here to their satisfaction that will force them to admit it..

Admit what? My one interpretation of this statement is that you have no evidence and you refuse to partake in any form of honest debate as you know where that will lead. You being out of your depth. I have not seen anything from you that suggests you can adhere to a scientific method. So far you have done nothing but make special pleas that  are loaded with assertions that you possess higher knowledge that we are unworthy of seeing.

AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession


What confession was that then?
Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:33:40 PM
AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

I'm sorry for your pain.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:35:13 PM
Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.

Admitted what? Where?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:38:14 PM
AGAIN< IT pains me to have to keep repeating the same thing, but I have already proved the ONLY claim I made on this post, and I did it by obtaining a confession

I'm sorry for your pain.



I just bet you are.

I will post a new thread if the request to close this one to further posting is honored. As long as it remains active, I will not post another thread. I believe it is necessary and advantageous to the interests of clarity and truth to work systematically, proving one element at a time. What I intend to prove is that NASA's claims of a manned lunar mission are a tissue of lies and fabricated evidence. I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:39:31 PM
Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.

Admitted what? Where?

Gee whiz. It is no wonder you believe in fairy tales. Read the freakin' thread for Christs sake.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Science by dictatorship. If we don't agree?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 09:42:30 PM
The only thing you've proven, Romulus, is that you don't know when and when not the scientific method is applicable.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:42:43 PM
You are quite the enigmatic case. Almost schizophrenic for lack of a better word.

Now you're a psychiatrist?

Quote
I will not allow you to reverse our roles.

You're making an affirmative claim of fraud.  You have the burden of proof.

Quote
As I pointed out, one cannot prove a negative using science.

You don't understand what "prove a negative means."  You're not proposing or being asked to prove a negative.  You say you have alternative explanations for the evidence.  That is an affirmative claim.  The affirmative claim has a burden of proof.  An affirmative proof is not proof of a negative.  It's proof of a different positive.

Quote
I think that is why your forum is structured as it is, with the rules it has, to make it impossible to force you to prove your claims.

The body of evidence in favor of Apollo is out there and widely accepted.  That's what you're frantically trying to explain away.  When you attempt such an explanation in affirmative terms, such as you have, you have the burden of proof.

Quote
We cannot prove Apollo astronauts wouldn't survive without duplicating the precise conditions, which is un-doable.

Who is "we"?
Why is duplication the only method of testing?
Why would such a test be impossible?

Quote
Prove it.

The biomedical science surrounding Apollo is well documented, including the testing programs.  It forms the basis of quite a lot of health physics.  Your claim is simply a handwaving denial of all that.  How is that evidence?

Quote
You claim I'm no scientist, well, prove that too.

You claim you are a scientist.  I disputed that claim and gave you my reasons for disputing it.  If you claim to be a scientist, and on that basis assert that we should accept your wisdom on what proper scientific methodology should be, then you have the burden to prove that foundation.

Quote
...until you prove every element of it those elements remain merely a claim and nothing more.

The body of evidence is out there and has been for decades.  It's what the hoax theorists have been trying to explain away.  You're simply assuring us there exist conclusive rebuttals for all that evidence.  Allusions to evidence are not evidence.

Quote
Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment...

No, that's one of the common layman's misperceptions of what the scientific method is.  Feats in history aren't required to be reproduced in order for the first one to be considered valid.  Reproducibility in science has to do with the way an experiment is constructed with regard to controllable or uncontrollable variables.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:44:30 PM
Gee whiz. It is no wonder you believe in fairy tales. Read the freakin' thread for Christs sake.

You typed that thread title. How can that be an admission by Jay? Where did Jay make an admission, what did he admit? This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:46:41 PM
Windley admitted it.

No, I didn't.  Instead I disputed the whole framework of your accusation, as did everyone else you spoke to.  You just selectively considered that disputation as if I had agreed with you.  How desperate can you get?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
Apollo is a claim of a scientific achievement that has never been proved by the scientific method. As a scientific claim of achievement, only honest way to approach the question is scientifically.What you or anyone else claims to believe is unimportant to me.

I'm a little behind on this thread. I was going to read through it before commenting, but then I saw the above comment and can't resist. So forgive me if twenty people have already said what I'm about to say.

Apollo is more than just a claim of achievement. It's not like NASA just announced one day that they went to the moon. There was nearly a decade of work involved leading up to the first trips to the moon (and I'm just talking about the stuff that happened after Kennedy made the goal official). There were the Gemini and early Apollo flights that tested (scientifically!) the hardware and orbital rendezvous techniques, for example. And then NASA actually went to the moon and brought back all sorts of proof to validate their claims... things like photographs, videos, moon rocks, etc.

So yes, NASA has supported their claim with more than just words.

It's your turn now. NASA has given us their proof. Where is yours? Why should I believe you instead of NASA?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

I'm the moderator here, not you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 09:51:56 PM
I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Do you have any mode besides browbeating?  You were unanimously taken to task on the hidden premise your question rests on, which you subsequently supported only with delusions of grandeur.  Not only have you failed to prove your point, you have failed even to show there's a point to prove.  You have frankly admitted you came here to get an "admission" of some sort, which you think you have.  No one agrees -- not even the person who allegedly gave it to you.  But if this is the excuse you need in order to resign from a debate, then so be it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:52:25 PM


Quote
Unless someone independently reproduces the accomplishment...
No, that's one of the common layman's misperceptions of what the scientific method is.  Feats in history aren't required to be reproduced in order for the first one to be considered valid.  Reproducibility in science has to do with the way an experiment is constructed with regard to controllable or uncontrollable variables.

Feats in history and scientific accomplishments may describe the same thing, but science requires a much more treasonous burden of proof. Apollo is obviously a claimed scientific accomplishment that has many elements that can each be considered a scientific experiment because that's what they are.

 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced, it doesn't just let you off the hook from having to prove them. That's some twisted logic there. It's like a prosecutor saying because the conditions that existed when the defendant murdered the victim and the gun he used cannot be precisely reproduced, I don't have to prove he's guilty.
 , As I said, you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them. I am satisfied I have achieved my objectives and we can move on, if you will allow it by closing this thread.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:53:46 PM
I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Do you have any mode besides browbeating?  You were unanimously taken to task on the hidden premise your question rests on, which you subsequently supported only with delusions of grandeur.  Not only have you failed to prove your point, you have failed even to show there's a point to prove.  You have frankly admitted you came here to get an "admission" of some sort, which you think you have.  No one agrees -- not even the person who allegedly gave it to you.  But if this is the excuse you need in order to resign from a debate, then so be it.

It is my contention that it is you suffering from delusions,  both of grandeur and otherwise. You are obviously pompous and full of yourself.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 09:55:56 PM



I just bet you are.

I will post a new thread if the request to close this one to further posting is honored. As long as it remains active, I will not post another thread. I believe it is necessary and advantageous to the interests of clarity and truth to work systematically, proving one element at a time. What I intend to prove is that NASA's claims of a manned lunar mission are a tissue of lies and fabricated evidence. I will not continue until we are all in agreement that I have proved the assertion in the thread title.

Hold up there, Bub. You said:

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

You did not place any conditions at the time you posted this, and it's too late to impose conditions now.

You categorically stated that you can provide a detailed alternate possibility to "every one of those pieces of evidence." Fine. Kindly do so, here and now.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 09:56:08 PM
Read the title of the thread. That was my claim. Windley admitted it.


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

This is not a claim, its a question. It was answered with neither a confession nor a refutation. You were told that the "Scientific Method" does not apply to history. The fact that you try to apply it at all tells me you have little or no understanding of what the "Scientific Method"is

Quote
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

How can one "observe" Apollo since it all happened in the past?

How can one measure Apollo, since it all happened in the past?

How can one experiment with Apollo since it all happened in the past?

How can one formulate a hypothesis about Apollo?

How can one test Apollo?

Additionally, you actually did make another claim. When gillianren posted this

What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

You replied

Quote
Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explanations.

You claimed you can explain all these things. You have failed to do so despite being repeatedly asked.

As with all HBs who come here, you talk big, but you deliver small. You're like a chocolate soldier; you melt when the heat is applied. As soon as you run up against people who are not sycophants and who challenge you to prove your claims, you suddenly find you are out of your depth. Right now, you will be planning your escape, getting ready to back-pedal into flounce mode.

Nothing new to see here then!

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 09:57:27 PM
It is my contention that it is you suffering from delusions,  both of grandeur and otherwise. You are obviously pompous and full of yourself.

Use of pompous negates the need for the struck through words. Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 09:57:43 PM
By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

I'm the moderator here, not you.

Yes, you are. Add how you handle this situation will either reveal your bias and lack of integrity or not. Your rules say no ad hominems or  personal attacks and your man is using them in his attacks upon my character and honesty
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:00:45 PM
By the rules of your own forum this is not allowed as it is an ad hominem personal attack . Please remove all such ad hominems

I'm the moderator here, not you.

Yes, you are. Add how you handle this situation will either reveal your bias and lack of integrity or not. Your rules say no ad hominems or  personal attacks and your man is using them in his attacks upon my character and honesty

You've basically called everyone here a mindless believer and you DARE to complain when someone calls you out on your claim to be a scientist? You are on thin ice. Choose your words wisely.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:01:34 PM
... you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Nobody admitted that.  What people have said is that we apply the scientific method when it is applicable.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:01:50 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:03:02 PM
... you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Nobody admitted that.  What people have said is that we apply the scientific method when it is applicable.
You either have a reading comprehension issue or a dishonesty problem. This is typical of the NASA proponent. Deny deny deny....
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:04:44 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

It's only slander if it isn't true. If you want to prove that Jay has slandered you then go ahead and prove him wrong. Prove that you are a scientist.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:05:54 PM
The scientific method doesn't apply to the study of history.

Which is to say a different epistemology describes the burden of proof in historical research, specifically where accusations of fraud or fakery are leveled.  If a purported occurrence is plausible enough in its setting and has broad acceptance among the relevant scholars, a charge of fabrication specifically incurs the burden of proof.

Historians are very clear on this.  If you argue some historical event was faked or staged, you always have the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 10:06:48 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one.

So why post it?

Quote
I refuse to be ran in circles.

That is of your choosing and a result of your m.o.

Quote
Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Why should we close it or stop using this forum. I actually learn more from this forum than I do from Apollo debunkers. I quite like being a member. Why should I listen to you? Please, cry me a river.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:07:45 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Once again, you said:

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

It is not slander to ask you to back that statement up, nor is it slander to demand proof of the credentials you claim to have.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:08:39 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

It's only slander if it isn't true. If you want to prove that Jay has slandered you then go ahead and prove him wrong. Prove that you are a scientist.

It is humorous that you would demand I prove I am scientist to prove Windley slandered me but you don't have to prove anything to prove he didn't, do you?

I think this is a case where the referees are having more effect on the score than the players.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:09:21 PM
Apollo is obviously a claimed scientific accomplishment that has many elements that can each be considered a scientific experiment because that's what they are.

No.  A scientific experiment is not simply whatever you say it is.  Your whole approach here has revolved around word games.

Quote
Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced, it doesn't just let you off the hook from having to prove them.

That is not my claim.  My claim is that you don't understand the principle of scientific reproducibility, and that your attempt to apply them to questions of historical authenticity is meaningless.  Once again, I'm not agreeing with you.  I'm challenging the hidden premise in your argument.  Learn the difference.

Quote
As I said, you admitted earlier in this thread that you do not apply the scientific method to your beliefs and you contentions and you will not abide in them.

Quote the post where I said that, in those words.  You can't.  You can only show the posts where I showed where your hidden premise was in error.

Quote
I am satisfied I have achieved my objectives and we can move on, if you will allow it by closing this thread.

"Move on" to what?  I neither allow nor restrict anything.  I'm just a poster on this forum, same as you.  If you don't want to talk about the subjects you brought up, then maybe you shouldn't have brought them up.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 10:12:59 PM
It is humorous that you would demand I prove I am scientist to prove Windley slandered me but you don't have to prove anything to prove he didn't, do you?

No, you've been asked to offer two independent proofs. They're not connnected.

(1) Prove Jay slandered you.
(2) Prove you are a scientist.

You are not being asked for (2) as proof of (1). You do understand the idea of scientific method and hypothesis?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:16:18 PM
I think this is a case where the referees are having more effect on the score than the players.

Oh, boo hoo!  You made a claim to be a scientist.  I told you what would constitute suitable evidence of that, and you explicitly refused to provide it.  Then you tried to redefine what it meant to be a scientist.  You then told us you would satisfy your definition of scientist by providing suitably robust, scientifically erudite arguments.  You didn't do that either, and are apparently looking for ways not to have to.  Since you refused to lay a proper foundation by any standard for your claims to expertise, I'm not at all defaming you at all by saying you are not entitled to that status.  Due diligence has been well satisfied.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:17:06 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one.

So why post it?

Quote
I refuse to be ran in circles.

That is of your choosing and a result of your m.o.

Quote
Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

Why should we close it or stop using this forum. I actually learn more from this forum than I do from Apollo debunkers. I quite like being a member. Why should I listen to you? Please, cry me a river.

A person who closes his mind to the acceptance of new ideas and facts is almost always an person of low intelligence who believes based on faith and not evidence. I am the opposite, and by questioning what i am told I CAN alter the human collective conscious, which I feel is critical at this point in human history.

It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century". This is because no matter what evidence I present that it is impossible for it to have happened as claimed, persons like you can easily just move the goalposts and deny what has been proved. This is why science works in the opposite manner.

 What I can do is cast enough doubt on the integrity of those telling me that [this moonlanding was real] and the evidence they use to back up their ascertains, I can convince anyone with a logical mind who applies deductive reasoning and common sense to his conclusions that it is nearly certain it did not happen.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:20:04 PM
  Your whole approach here has revolved around word games.



OMG!  Pot, meet kettle~!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:20:15 PM
Can an anonymous person who's known only by an Internet nickname be slandered?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:21:29 PM
(1) Prove Jay slandered you.

You can't slander someone unless sound comes out of your mouth to that effect.  The proper accusation would be of libel.  Second, you can't libel a pseudonym.  Nor is it libel in any way against anyone to note that they have not substantiated specific claims about themselves.  If someone claims to be the King of Siam, and they don't provide any proof, then saying "You're not the King of Siam," is not in any way defamatory.

But of course this is all just Romulus' distraction to keep the thread focused on something other than his unwillingness to provide the evidence requested of him.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:21:45 PM
Can an anonymous person who's known only by an Internet nickname be slandered?

No.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:23:42 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:26:40 PM
Can an anonymous person who's known only by an Internet nickname be slandered?

This is true and technically it isn't slander nor libel since Windley can only speculate on who he thinks I am. No harm done really, i just think it's a dishonest tactic that shows a lack of integrity and a sort of desperation to slime someone in an effort to discredit them without any evidence.

I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically. And I'll tell you something else, HE KNOWS IT. What he doesn't know is who he is insulting and demeaning, which is always the mark of an idiot.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:27:09 PM
It is humorous that you would demand I prove I am scientist to prove Windley slandered me but you don't have to prove anything to prove he didn't, do you?

Guess what, chum? If you accused Jay of slander in a court of law you would be required to prove it. The only way to prove Jay slandered you would be to prove your credentials.

I'm more concerned with the way you have repeatedly insulted the members of this forum. You have dismissed our knowledge and experience in this subject as if we are just parroting the words NASA feeds us. That is an insult to our intelligence, not just a comment on our job title.

We have studied Apollo for years. We know how they got to the moon and back. It makes sense to us. You have not provided an alternative that makes more sense than what NASA has claimed. So why should we believe you?

I am therefore making it a requirement for you to prove Apollo was hoaxed or to withdraw the claim. The "scientific method" nonsense is a dead end for you. No one required an independent replication of the Wright Brother's first flight in order to believe that they did it. Like others have said, that is not how history works.

Quote
I think this is a case where the referees are having more effect on the score than the players.

Don't blame me for your inability to score points. Your strategy was flawed from the start. You came here all arrogant and full of yourself, but you weren't prepared for the more experienced players on the field. Maybe you should go back to the minors and get some more practice because you're clearly not ready for the big leagues.

Gee, sport analogies are fun!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 10:29:01 PM
A person who closes his mind to the acceptance of new ideas and facts is almost always an person of low intelligence who believes based on faith and not evidence. I am the opposite, and by questioning what i am told I CAN alter the human collective conscious, which I feel is critical at this point in human history.

How noble of you, and here you are posting on an internet forum arguing about the veracity of history. So critical to human history. Maybe you can apply your uber intelligence to something more noble than arguing with dummies like us.

Quote
It is impossible for me to prove a negative...


Explained to you.

Quote
What I can do is cast enough doubt on the integrity....

That tells us all.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:29:12 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:30:08 PM
A person who closes his mind to the acceptance of new ideas and facts is almost always an person of low intelligence who believes based on faith and not evidence.

But you'd be wrong to assume that's what we do, and that this is how we arrived at our conclusions.  First, most of us have been presented with these "new ideas" (which are, in fact, the same old hoax suppositions repeated over and over again) many, many times.  After having researched them suitably, we have arrived at a reasoned judgment.  Being open to the idea doesn't mean accepting it without testing it.

Second, you haven't presented any new ideas.  You say you have them, but we're apparently not worthy to receive them.  How can you know whether we're open to your new ideas unless you present them?

Quote
I am the opposite, and by questioning what i am told I CAN alter the human collective conscious, which I feel is critical at this point in human history.

So you personally are going to save humanity by your alteration of the collective consciousness?

Quote
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

You're not being asked to prove that negative.  You're being asked to prove the affirmative statement that all the evidence for Apollo was faked.  That was your claim, and that's what you're being asked to prove.

Quote
This is because no matter what evidence I present that it is impossible for it to have happened as claimed, persons like you can easily just move the goalposts and deny what has been proved.

But that's just pure presumption.  You aren't as open-minded as you seem to believe.

Quote
This is why science works in the opposite manner.

The affirmative evidence in favor of Apollo has been presented and is widely available.  You say you can rebut it, but you refuse to do so.  How is that even remotely scientific?

Quote
What I can do is cast enough doubt on the integrity of those telling me that...

So your stated intent is to poison the well?

Quote
I can convince anyone with a logical mind who applies deductive reasoning and common sense to his conclusions that it is nearly certain it did not happen.

Do it, then.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:31:01 PM
You have dismissed our knowledge and experience in this subject as if we are just parroting the words NASA feeds us.
Yes sir, that is exactly what I am doing, and I admit it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

...or "NASA DID fake the Moon missions."  That's an affirmative statement.  Your affirmative statement.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:32:59 PM
Yes sir, that is exactly what I am doing, and I admit it.

So you're not even remotely open to the notion that the people you're speaking to are actually knowledgeable on the subject according to their own research and expertise?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:34:27 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

No, by claiming that NASA didn't go to the moon you are saying that NASA faked it.  That is an affirmative assertion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 02, 2015, 10:35:26 PM
You have dismissed our knowledge and experience in this subject as if we are just parroting the words NASA feeds us.
Yes sir, that is exactly what I am doing, and I admit it.

So you are not open minded as you claim.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:36:56 PM
First, most of us have been presented with these "new ideas" (which are, in fact, the same old hoax suppositions repeated over and over again) many, many times.  After having researched them suitably, we have arrived at a reasoned judgment.  Being open to the idea doesn't mean accepting it without testing it.

Mr.Windley, with all due respect (which it is my opinion is very little), I have seen in these few short pages how you "reach your conclusions", and it is by whatever it is that suits your motivation. You DO NOT consider new evidence, you cast aspersions on it any way you can, just like you did my integrity and honesty.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:37:47 PM
I just think it's a dishonest tactic that shows a lack of integrity and a sort of desperation to slime someone in an effort to discredit them without any evidence.

I think it's a dishonest tactic to claim to be a scientist, refuse to prove that, then redefine what it means to be a scientist.  You want the "title" of scientist without showing that you earned it.

Quote
I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically.

You've been invited several times to prove that, if it matters so much to you.  I'm also wondering why you're so obsessed over me personally.  There are other people on this forum, you know.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:38:43 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

No, by claiming that NASA didn't go to the moon you are saying that NASA faked it.  That is an affirmative assertion.

Talk about word games?

Saying NASA did not land men on the moon in the last century is a NEGATIVE ASSERTION, period. Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: carpediem on February 02, 2015, 10:39:16 PM
You DO NOT consider new evidence, you cast aspersions on it any way you can, just like you did my integrity and honesty.

What new evidence have you presented in this thread?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:41:59 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century".

That is not a negative, it is an affirmative assertion.

You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

No, by claiming that NASA didn't go to the moon you are saying that NASA faked it.  That is an affirmative assertion.

Talk about word games?

Saying NASA did not land men on the moon in the last century is a NEGATIVE ASSERTION, period. Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.
I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:42:17 PM
Saying NASA did not land men on the moon in the last century is a NEGATIVE ASSERTION, period. Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.

"NASA faked the moon landings" is an affirmative assertion for which you which you bare the burden of proof.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
Mr.Windley, with all due respect (which it is my opinion is very little), I have seen in these few short pages how you "reach your conclusions",

But your opinion of me was already solidified before you arrived here, as evidenced by your first post directed to me.  It wasn't based on observation.

Quote
You DO NOT consider new evidence, you cast aspersions on it any way you can, just like you did my integrity and honesty.

You object to having your claims tested?  How does that make you morally and intellectually superior?

You claimed to be a scientist, as a foundation to lecturing us on the scientific method.  I questioned that foundation, which you refused to support.

You claimed Apollo couldn't be assured of success because the lethality of radiation couldn't be determined without an exact duplication of the environment.  That question contains several premises which amount to allegations of fact.  I therefore asked you about those allegations, and you dropped the subject.  Do you really just expect me to take your pronouncements as uncontestable fact?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:44:16 PM
It is impossible for me to prove a negative such as "NASA did not send 12 men to the moon in the last century". This is because no matter what evidence I present that it is impossible for it to have happened as claimed, persons like you can easily just move the goalposts and deny what has been proved. This is why science works in the opposite manner.

If you can't prove that NASA faked the moon landings then why are you here?

Where were Neil, Buzz, and Mike on July 20th, 1969? Prove it. NASA can. Members of this forum have independently proved the location of the Apollo 11 astronauts on a specific date (here (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/884/smoking-gun-barts-footage) and here (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/post/28309/thread). Have you?

Quote
What I can do is cast enough doubt on the integrity of those telling me that [this moonlanding was real] and the evidence they use to back up their ascertains, I can convince anyone with a logical mind who applies deductive reasoning and common sense to his conclusions that it is nearly certain it did not happen.

I believe that's called poisoning the well. Someone who is as concerned with personal attacks as you claim to be shouldn't be doing that. Our "personal integrity" has nothing at all to do with whether Apollo really went to the Moon.

If you can't provide an alternative to the official story that makes sense (from liftoff to splashdown) then you have failed. Where is your logic now?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:44:56 PM
Saying they hoaxed it is the same damned thing.

Explain how accusing someone of perpetrating a hoax is not an affirmative claim.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:46:29 PM
I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:47:37 PM
You're either retarded or willfully ignorant. Or simply lying. An AFFIRMATIVE assertion would be the opposite,  "NASA DID send 12 men to the moon in the last century". I'm surrounded by a moron

Consider this your first warning. The next one gets you placed under moderation... that means your posts will require my approval before they appear in the forum.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:47:59 PM
I just think it's a dishonest tactic that shows a lack of integrity and a sort of desperation to slime someone in an effort to discredit them without any evidence.

I think it's a dishonest tactic to claim to be a scientist, refuse to prove that, then redefine what it means to be a scientist.  You want the "title" of scientist without showing that you earned it.

Quote
I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically.

You've been invited several times to prove that, if it matters so much to you.  I'm also wondering why you're so obsessed over me personally.  There are other people on this forum, you know.

Yes, i know there are others and I men no disrespect to them by concentrating on you. After all, when you raid a whore house you take the piano player too. But you are the main pimp here.  And Phil Plait is the guy who runs the whole show, isn't he? I am not obsessed with you Mr.Windley, but why concentrate on those that nobody knows when you can take down the big braggart with the same effort?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:48:20 PM
I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.

Kinda what I meant   ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:50:19 PM
There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here. It's like a piranha attack. Is this how you prove yourselves, by behaving like pack animals?

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:52:21 PM
You did claim you were more than a match for the collective intellect here. Consider it a personal challenge.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 10:52:43 PM
There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here.

Are you admitting to being a sock puppet?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:53:23 PM
I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.

Kinda what I meant   ;D

being educated either the in  traditional manner or otherwise doesn't correlate with exceptional intelligence, as you have so eloquently proved. What makes you intelligent is  not just  the ability to retain, but to discern the veracity of, both what you learned in academia and in the hard know world of reality. I have been traditionally educated but I did not absorb anything that was not proved to me.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:54:13 PM
You did claim you were more than a match for the collective intellect here. Consider it a personal challenge.

I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:55:26 PM
But you are the main pimp here.

By what standard?

Quote
And Phil Plait is the guy who runs the whole show, isn't he?

Who is saying that?

Quote
I am not obsessed with you Mr.Windley, but why concentrate on those that nobody knows when you can take down the big braggart with the same effort?

Perhaps because the people whom, according to you, "nobody knows" might have relevant knowledge, experience, and reasoning that relates to your evidence?  Is their wisdome so unworthy because they're not a big target for you to "take down?"  At least now we know that showboating is your goal, not a meaningful test of your beliefs or the evidence.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 10:55:31 PM
There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here.

Ah, there it is. The ego of a hoax believer. All of this activity just for you? Does it get you excited? Get over yourself. I'll toss you aside without a second thought. I don't care if the forum is quiet because of it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:56:44 PM
I would love to know what college course you took to come to that conclusion.

Given that Romulus has expressed disdain for academic qualifications, I think it's presumptive to consider that he has been to college.


Kinda what I meant   ;D

being educated either the in  traditional manner or otherwise doesn't correlate with exceptional intelligence, as you have so eloquently proved. What makes you intelligent is  not just  the ability to retain, but to discern the veracity of, both what you learned in academia and in the hard know world of reality. I have been traditionally educated but I did not absorb anything that was not proved to me.
Did that include looking up what Affirmative Assertion actually means?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 10:57:34 PM
You did claim you were more than a match for the collective intellect here. Consider it a personal challenge.

I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.

Think again.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 10:57:49 PM
I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.

How so?

In case you missed it, the major request has been for you to post the evidence you claim effectively rebuts NASA's claim and substantiates your own claim that it was instead faked.  You have provided only one such point, a handwaving reference to radiation.  The rest has been simply a fairly egotistical posturing.  To be clear:  the challenge is for the evidence, not the posturing.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 10:58:34 PM
There hasn't been this much activity on this forum since the last time I was here.

Are you admitting to being a sock puppet?

As in someone who has posted here before? I am not being pretentious. There is only one of me posting at a time here. A sock puppet as I understand the internet definition of it is someone who posts under another identity to bolster their own position. I have not done that. I think what you mean is have I posted here before under another identity..Well, no. Not to this forum. It was called Bad Astronomy the last time I posted to it, and no, I do not care to reveal what my screen ID was on that forum. It is not my responsibility to do so to you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:01:40 PM
I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.

How so?


Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:03:37 PM
Being educated either the in  traditional manner or otherwise doesn't correlate with exceptional intelligence, as you have so eloquently proved.

Well, would you dip either into your formal education or into you auto-didactic exercise and explain how accusing someone of fraud isn't an affirmative claim?

Quote
What makes you intelligent is not just the ability to retain, but to discern the veracity of, both what you learned in academia and in the hard know world of reality.

Agreed.  However, you are simply declaring that you and you alone are capable of that discernment in the case of Apollo's authenticity.  And despite all the requests for you to demonstrate it, you won't.

Quote
I have been traditionally educated but I did not absorb anything that was not proved to me.

That sounds like a cryptic way of admitting you argued with your professors all the way through college as a pissing match and therefore learned nothing.  I taught college.  I am well acquainted with that type of student.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:04:11 PM
I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.

How so?

In case you missed it, the major request has been for you to post the evidence you claim effectively rebuts NASA's claim and substantiates your own claim that it was instead faked.  You have provided only one such point, a handwaving reference to radiation.  The rest has been simply a fairly egotistical posturing.  To be clear:  the challenge is for the evidence, not the posturing.

the ONLY assertion I have made here with this post is that you do not respect the scientific  method and to my satisfaction I have proved that. I have also expressed the OPINION that I believe the Apollo  moonlandings were a hoax. It is not my responsibility to prove my opinion
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:04:53 PM
I do not care to reveal what my screen ID was on that forum. It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

Interdimensional Warrior, I'm guessing.  He didn't even last the evening before descending into a bannable series of obsessive and insulting remarks.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:06:09 PM
the ONLY assertion I have made here with this post is that you do not respect the scientific  method and to my satisfaction I have proved that.

You cannot quote a post where I said that.  You can only quote posts where I questioned the assumptions on which your accusations were based.

Quote
I have also expressed the OPINION that I believe the Apollo  moonlandings were a hoax. It is not my responsibility to prove my opinion

The moderator has made it a condition of your continued participation.  So get with it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 11:06:45 PM
As in someone who has posted here before?

As in someone who has had an account here under another name.

It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

I'm not asking for me.  The moderator may be interested, however, since multiple accounts is against the forum rules.   
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:07:46 PM
Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were.

So I'm just supposed to fall to my knees and admit that you've bested me in every way?  That's the sum total of your argument?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:07:54 PM

Quote
I have been traditionally educated but I did not absorb anything that was not proved to me.
That sounds like a cryptic way of admitting you argued with your professors all the way through college as a pissing match and therefore learned nothing.  I taught college.  I am well acquainted with that type of student.

I didn't argue with them, I educated them when they were wrong. I respected them for what they knew and learned a tremendous amount of knowledge from a  few of them, much of that knowledge not the kind that you find in a textbook. Unlike yourself, they weren't arrogant and hard headed and understood education is a journey and not a destination. you have long since reached your destination Mr.Windley, and it is nowhere..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:09:44 PM
Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were.

So I'm just supposed to fall to my knees and admit that you've bested me in every way?  That's the sum total of your argument?
No sir, but it would be wise to show a bit of respect despite the fact that you have a personal interest in painting me a fool, a liar or a mental case. I assure you I can and will outsmart you an d you probably won't realize it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 11:09:53 PM
I think i have done fairly well in that regard thus far.

How so?


Mr Windley, if you cannot see that I have not only outmaneuvered you but outclassed you as an added bonus, you're not even as smart as I thought you were. You're acting like a jackal.

Wow, I know delusions of gradeur are common among hoax believers, but that's impressive.

Let's have a raise of hands... who here has been convinced by Romulus' argument? Nope... not a single raised hand. That's what I thought.

Let me know when you've come up with an explanation for where Neil, Buzz, and Mike were on July 20th, 1969. Then we can talk about how impressive your intellect is.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 11:11:18 PM
Interdimensional Warrior, I'm guessing.

Now that you mention it, he does sounds a lot like Interdimensional Warrior.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:12:47 PM
As in someone who has posted here before?

As in someone who has had an account here under another name.

It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

I'm not asking for me.  The moderator may be interested, however, since multiple accounts is against the forum rules.
I have no other account. Any that I might have had at one time I do not have the password to any longer, and I don't thin k they exist anyway. If I am required to reveal information I do not wish to for the dubious "privilege" of gracing this forum with my input, I simply will not post here any longer. Fair enough?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 11:13:58 PM
the ONLY assertion I have made here with this post is that you do not respect the scientific  method and to my satisfaction I have proved that.

Impressive. Most impressive. You persuaded yourself that you were right. Good job.

Quote
I have also expressed the OPINION that I believe the Apollo  moonlandings were a hoax. It is not my responsibility to prove my opinion

If you make a claim and want it to be taken seriously, then yes, you do have to prove it. Where were Neil, Buzz, and Mike on July 20th, 1969?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:14:24 PM
No sir, but it would be wise to show a bit of respect...

Respect is earned.

Quote
...despite the fact that you have a personal interest in painting me a fool, a liar or a mental case.

Or maybe I just want you to present your case so we can see whether it holds water.

Quote
I assure you I can and will outsmart you and you probably won't realize it.

So do it already.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:14:34 PM

Let's have a raise of hands... who here has been convinced by Romulus' argument? Nope... not a single raised hand. That's what I thought.



That reminded me of the 2004 Presidential election. You wouldn't be a neoCON would you?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:15:00 PM
No sir, but it would be wise to show a bit of respect...

Respect is earned.

Quote
...despite the fact that you have a personal interest in painting me a fool, a liar or a mental case.

Or maybe I just want you to present your case so we can see whether it holds water.

Quote
I assure you I can and will outsmart you and you probably won't realize it.

So do it already.

I rest my case.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:15:44 PM
...I simply will not post here any longer. Fair enough?

Sure.  It's not as if you're contributing anything of value.  But if you turn tail and run, then how will the world ever know how intellectually superior you are to everyone else here?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:16:22 PM
I rest my case.

On what?  Eleven pages of chest-thumping?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:17:31 PM

 Where were Neil, Buzz, and Mike on July 20th, 1969?

I could say they were drinking and smoking grass down in Mexico with me and prove it just as well as you could prove they were on the moon.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:18:11 PM
I could say they were drinking and smoking grass down in Mexico with me and prove it just as well as you could prove they were on the moon.

Then do it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:18:41 PM
...I simply will not post here any longer. Fair enough?

Sure.  It's not as if you're contributing anything of value.  But if you turn tail and run, then how will the world ever know how intellectually superior you are to everyone else here?
Mr. Windley, intelligence is not something one can imitate. And you are proof positive of that fact.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:19:58 PM
I could say they were drinking and smoking grass down in Mexico with me and prove it just as well as you could prove they were on the moon.

Then do it.

I think that was the point, Mr.Windley. I can't prove it, because they weren't. And that's the same reason you can't prove they were on the moon
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 11:20:16 PM

 Where were Neil, Buzz, and Mike on July 20th, 1969?

I could say they were drinking and smoking grass down in Mexico with me and prove it just as well as you could prove they were on the moon.

Yeah, because all we have is an unsubstantiated claim, right? You sure have to dismiss a whole lot of reality to believe what you believe.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 11:20:31 PM
As in someone who has posted here before?

As in someone who has had an account here under another name.

It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

I'm not asking for me.  The moderator may be interested, however, since multiple accounts is against the forum rules.
I have no other account. Any that I might have had at one time I do not have the password to any longer, and I don't thin k they exist anyway. If I am required to reveal information I do not wish to for the dubious "privilege" of gracing this forum with my input, I simply will not post here any longer. Fair enough?
Far be it for me to speak for anyone else here, but I'm fair sure your contributions won't be missed, one evenings entertainment notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 11:20:38 PM
Apparently I am the only one here who realizes this thread is for all intents and purposes going nowhere since page one. I refuse to be ran in circles. Either close it or I'll just stop posting to this forum because it has no practical purpose other than to cover up the truth and slander Apollo debunkers.

You started running yourself in circles when you made claims that you either couldn't or wouldn't back up.

You will notice that you have now been placed on "watched" status. I'm not a moderator here, but I know what this means. You will be now be expected to back up the claims you have made, with evidence.

The clock is running......  .

NOTE: I should point out that nothing of what I have seen from you is new; its old hat.... very old hat. We've seen it all before; Hoax Believers who try to shift the burdon of proof from themselves to those who support the established facts.

Apollo is 100% an established fact. There are very few who believe it was faked, and that number has been steadily diminishing ever since the LRO has started returning irrefutable photographs of the the six landing sites that clearly show the walking tracks of the astronauts and the wheel tracks of the LRV. The numbers of Hoax Proponents has reduced steadily from a noisy minority to a minor annoyance and are heading inexorably towards (appropriately) the lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorism 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:21:55 PM
Mr. Windley, intelligence is not something one can imitate. And you are proof positive of that fact.

I'm comfortable letting readers determine whether I'm intelligent or not.

However I'm not interested in posturing.  You've said you have evidence that effectively proves Apollo was hoaxed.  And you have said you are capable of defending that proposition with great skill.  I would like to see you demonstrate that, please.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:22:46 PM
Interdimensional Warrior, I'm guessing.

Now that you mention it, he does sounds a lot like Interdimensional Warrior.
I'll tell you something you're not going to believe, but the first time I registered to  Bad Astronomy my ID was the same as yours is now. Which I find intriguing to say the least!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:24:30 PM
I think that was the point, Mr.Windley. I can't prove it, because they weren't. And that's the same reason you can't prove they were on the moon.

Uh, how does your inability to prove some particular claim affect the case for some other claim?  Okay, you admit you have no evidence they were with you in Mexico.  Where were they, then?  And what's your evidence?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 02, 2015, 11:24:33 PM
I can see this is going nowhere fast. Romulus, if all you're interested in is a pissing match with Jay then get lost. You're a waste of our time.

I have to work in the morning, I can't be bothered to babysit you all night. If I wake up to find you have done nothing but boast about your "superior intellect" and insult the other members of the form, I will place you under moderation. If you want to participate in this forum, you can start by making a real argument to support your belief that Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:25:55 PM
Mr. Windley, intelligence is not something one can imitate. And you are proof positive of that fact.

I'm comfortable letting readers determine whether I'm intelligent or not.

However I'm not interested in posturing.  You've said you have evidence that effectively proves Apollo was hoaxed.  And you have said you are capable of defending that proposition with great skill.  I would like to see you demonstrate that, please.

I have la ready stated my conditions to continue, and that is my right and my prerogative. this may be your forum but I am a free man, and if you attempt to restrict my freedom with your demands you will find yourself pissing into the wind. Close the thread and I will post another, with another proof. It is not important to me what you or your comrades here claim I proved. No one has ever proved anything to any of you in 15 years that I can see.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:27:57 PM
I can see this is going nowhere fast. Romulus, if all you're interested in is a pissing match with Jay then get lost. You're a waste of our time.

I have to work in the morning, I can't be bothered to babysit you all night. If I wake up to find you have done nothing but boast about your "superior intellect" and insult the other members of the form, I will place you under moderation. If you want to participate in this forum, you can start by making a real argument to support your belief that Apollo was faked.
I believe I have repeatedly related to you that the only thing I set out to do with this thread has been accomplished. i even asked you to lock it to prevent the pissing match as you call it, because it serves your interests better than my own by obfuscating the facts. If you lock this thread I wil post another, with another objective.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 11:30:16 PM
The arrogance displayed in coming into someone else's house and trying to set your own rules is truly astounding.


. If you lock this thread I wil post another, with another objective.
All the more reason to leave this one open, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:31:53 PM
But you are the main pimp here.

By what standard?

Quote
And Phil Plait is the guy who runs the whole show, isn't he?

Who is saying that?

Quote
I am not obsessed with you Mr.Windley, but why concentrate on those that nobody knows when you can take down the big braggart with the same effort?

Perhaps because the people whom, according to you, "nobody knows" might have relevant knowledge, experience, and reasoning that relates to your evidence?  Is their wisdome so unworthy because they're not a big target for you to "take down?"  At least now we know that showboating is your goal, not a meaningful test of your beliefs or the evidence.

No sir, showboating is not my intention, if it were I would identify myself. Whee is the glory in this?

My intention is to drop big game, not a chipmunk.And I don't give a damned if that game ever knows who I am or even that I am there.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:33:01 PM
No one has ever proved anything to any of you in 15 years that I can see.

In 15 years no one has posted anything but the same old regurgitated, long-debunked nonsense -- it remains unconvincing, and not because its critics are mentally ill, as you claim.

But you won't even try.  You've already decided that you've "won" and that you won't present any actual argument because you've decided we're unworthy of it.  A dozen pages of bluster convinces no one of anything.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:33:51 PM
My intention is to drop big game...

Then drop it already.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:33:58 PM
The arrogance displayed in coming into someone else's house and trying to set his own rules is truly astounding.
I am not trying to set any rules, i am  simply asking you to abide in them as you set them for me, a fair game and a somewhat level playing field. the last 9 pages have all been about attacking my integrity, my ability and my honesty. I have simply been defending myself using what I believe is the best strategy, a good offense.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:36:31 PM
...because it serves your interests better than my own by obfuscating the facts.

You present no facts.  You don't present anything but bluster.

You say your purpose here has been accomplished.  But a dozen pages later you're still trying to "drop big game."  Whatever that means, it certainly doesn't seem to mean presenting actual evidence and discussing it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:38:17 PM
the last 9 pages have all been about attacking my integrity, my ability and my honesty.

No, it's been about trying to get you to present the actual evidence you say you have, which substantiates your belief.

Quote
I have simply been defending myself using what I believe is the best strategy, a good offense.

No, you've just been offensive.  You say your purpose is satisfied, so leave.  If your purpose isn't satisfied, state what your new purpose is an do something about it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 11:38:38 PM
The arrogance displayed in coming into someone else's house and trying to set his own rules is truly astounding.
I am not trying to set any rules, i am  simply asking you to abide in them as you set them for me, a fair game and a somewhat level playing field. the last 9 pages have all been about attacking my integrity, my ability and my honesty. I have simply been defending myself using what I believe is the best strategy, a good offense.

Thus far you have failed to demonstrate any integrity. You offered to present detailed alternate explanations of Apollo, yet you refuse to post them. You claim to be more qualified than the learned individuals here, yet you refuse to.provide evidence of credentials.

Thus far all you have done is insult Mr. Windley, toot your own horn, and tick off the moderation staff, and claim some sort of victory at that.

Well done...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:39:15 PM
No one has ever proved anything to any of you in 15 years that I can see.

In 15 years no one has posted anything but the same old regurgitated, long-debunked nonsense -- it remains unconvincing, and not because its critics are mentally ill, as you claim.



As the moderator stated, this is going nowhere and I agree. What i do not agree on is who hid the  map. Lock the thread and i will post another, proving another contention. it was  important to prove this one first so that we all understood the rules. I am required to do what most scientists regard as impossible, and I am willing to try. that might seem arrogant to you, but I've done things most people regard as impossible in the past and it is not blazing any new trails for me. I realize you will never believe me because your ego will not allow you to, but I can easily manipulate you at will while you think you're manipulating me. I simply explained why I can't do the impossible with this thread, which is force you to admit anything. I have no doubt you do understand.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:41:53 PM
You say your purpose is satisfied, so leave.

I understand your eagerness to see me do that,Mr Windley, but I am a man who keeps my word and I believe dishonesty dishonors only oneself.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:45:04 PM
I can see this is going nowhere fast.

I think it might have went in a direction you had not intended. Isn't the usual procedure to censor in that case?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:46:58 PM
As the moderator stated, this is going nowhere and I agree.

Because the requests for you to do what you say you can and will do go unheeded.

Quote
What i do not agree on is who hid the  map. Lock the thread and i will post another, proving another contention.

Most of us would be delighted if you would pick some contention and prove it, rather than to continue picking meaningless fights.

Quote
it was important to prove this one first so that we all understood the rules.

No, "we all" don't agree with your strategy of dictating to everyone else what they must accept from you or provide to you.

Quote
I am required to do what most scientists regard as impossible...

No, you are required to what most scientists, historians, lawyers, and reasonable people regard as necessary -- satisfy the burden of proof for your affirmative claim.  Your inability or unwillingness to recognize it as an affirmative claim is not my problem.  I've asked you several times to elaborate on that, and you refuse.

Quote
I realize you will never believe me because your ego will not allow you to...

No, not everyone who disagrees with you is an egotist.

Quote
I can easily manipulate you at will while you think you're manipulating me.

You propose to win a debate by manipulation?  What happened to all that extraordinary evidence you promised?

Quote
I simply explained why I can't do the impossible with this thread, which is force you to admit anything.

Well, make up your mind.  You spent a big portion of this thread crowing over how you supposedly got me to admit something that you apparently plan to use to "take me down."  But now when you're asked to put up, you say you won't because you can't get anyone to admit anything.

Quote
I have no doubt you do understand.

No, I don't understand.  It's like you're reading another thread.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:47:37 PM


. If you lock this thread I will post another, with another objective.
All the more reason to leave this one open, in my opinion.

Thank you, you revealed a lot  about yourself with that retort.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 02, 2015, 11:48:16 PM
Boy, I don't check the forums for a few hours and look what happens.

Romulus, what exactly is the point of all this?

Perhaps you could explain to us how one would go about using the scientific process to verify a past event.



Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 02, 2015, 11:48:33 PM
I understand your eagerness to see me do that,Mr Windley, but I am a man who keeps my word and I believe dishonesty dishonors only oneself.

I'm eager only for you to put up or shut up.  Either one is fine with me.  But I'm not going to indulge you in 12 more pages of a pissing match.  Put up your evidence right now, or shut up right now.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 02, 2015, 11:49:11 PM
As the moderator stated, this is going nowhere and I agree. What i do not agree on is who hid the  map. Lock the thread and i will post another, proving another contention. it was  important to prove this one first so that we all understood the rules. I am required to do what most scientists regard as impossible, and I am willing to try. that might seem arrogant to you, but I've done things most people regard as impossible in the past and it is not blazing any new trails for me. I realize you will never believe me because your ego will not allow you to, but I can easily manipulate you at will while you think you're manipulating me. I simply explained why I can't do the impossible with this thread, which is force you to admit anything. I have no doubt you do understand.


You've proved nothing in his thread except that...

1. You have been rude, pompous and arrogant.

2. You are not a scientist

3. You ignore the requests of other posters for you to post evidence to back up the claims you have made.

4. You are nothing special; just another Hoax Believer posting the same, tired old stuff that has been previously debunked numerous times before

5. Once you take on people who have the skill, the knowledge and the expertise to challenge you back, you find yourself hopelessly out of your depth and have to resort to #1 above
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 02, 2015, 11:51:44 PM
I'll tell you something you're not going to believe, but the first time I registered to  Bad Astronomy my ID was the same as yours is now. Which I find intriguing to say the least!

Neat trick considering that I was registered there using the same name.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:54:53 PM

No, "we all" don't agree with your strategy of dictating to everyone else what they must accept from you or provide to you.


I will put it to you as succinctly as possible. I am not here to provide amusement  for your twisted entertainment . Your job is obviously to prevent disclosure of evidence proving that NASA fabricated evidence of the moon landings. Your position is that I am required to prove a negative. I am willing to accept that challenge but only if some semblance of fair debate is honored. Right now it is 6 versus 1, 1 of which is threatening to censor me.. I don't really think the debate needs to be more unbalanced than that to be fair to you, do you?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 02, 2015, 11:56:59 PM


. If you lock this thread I will post another, with another objective.
All the more reason to leave this one open, in my opinion.

Thank you, you revealed a lot  about yourself with that retort.

Not nearly as much as you reveal with the initial statement.

Walking into someone else's house and dictating terms is bad form. I merely suggest you not be allowed to do so by leaving this thread open.  Try not to stroke your own ego by reading any more into it than that...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 02, 2015, 11:58:38 PM
Boy, I don't check the forums for a few hours and look what happens.

Romulus, what exactly is the point of all this?

Perhaps you could explain to us how one would go about using the scientific process to verify a past event.

The standards you must abide in are not  some well concealed secret. you are required to use empirical evidence and the scientific method. If you do not know what that means, LOOK IT UP.. Since you cannot duplicate the event, the onus is upon you to prove it. That's how science has always worked for centuries, that is until NASA came along and then it was just "you believe it because this is the way we said it happened!"

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:01:13 AM

Walking into someone else's house and dictating terms is bad form.

I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

I see.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2015, 12:03:36 AM
I will put it to you as succinctly as possible. I am not here to provide amusement  for your twisted entertainment . Your job is obviously to prevent disclosure of evidence proving that NASA fabricated evidence of the moon landings. Your position is that I am required to prove a negative. I am willing to accept that challenge but only if some semblance of fair debate is honored. Right now it is 6 versus 1, 1 of which is threatening to censor me.. I don't really think the debate needs to be more unbalanced than that to be fair to you, do you?


That is a goalpost shift of such tremendous proportions that you have moved them to the middle of next season

You are NOT being asked to prove a negative, you have been asked to prove your claims that

1. The Lunar surface video was faked
2. The moon rocks are fake
3. The Saturn V launched were faked
4. The entirety of the Apollo record including all engineering documents, audio/visual records, photographs and journals are all faked
5. Apollo is a global, ongoing conspiracy

These are not "claiming a negative".....they are YOUR POSITIVE CLAIMS, the burdon of proof for these claims is upon YOU!!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:04:16 AM
I am not here to provide amusement for your twisted entertainment.

Did I ask for amusement or entertainment?  I asked for your evidence.

Quote
Your job is obviously to prevent disclosure of evidence proving that NASA fabricated evidence of the moon landings.

You refuse to present any of it.  You're doing quite well all by yourself at preventing its disclosure.

Quote
Your position is that I am required to prove a negative.

No.  "NASA fabricated evidence of the moon landings," is an affirmative claim.

Quote
I am willing to accept that challenge but only if some semblance of fair debate is honored.

Fair debate does not allow you to shift the burden of proof or decline it.

Quote
Right now it is 6 versus 1

Numbers weren't important when you were so confident in your own abilities.  Besides, you already proposed to ignore all of them but me, just as IDW did at Bad Astronomy.

Quote
1 of which is threatening to censor me.

Only governments can censor.  The owner of the forum you're using at his sole expense and pleasure is threatening to control your use of it unless you agree to its terms of use.  Don't like it?  Get your own forum where you can post to your heart's content.

Quote
I don't really think the debate needs to be more unbalanced than that to be fair to you, do you?

You already said you could best any and all of us.  After that, it's inappropriate for you to complain about unfair treatment.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:05:55 AM
I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

No.  This is LunarOrbit's forum.  I participate in it on exactly the same footing as you do.  I have no special powers, no special access, and no special authority.  You may be obsessed over me, but the rest of the forum is not.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 12:06:57 AM
Your job is obviously to prevent disclosure of evidence proving that NASA fabricated evidence of the moon landings.

Then why have we been requesting for several pages now for your to present your evidence?

Right now it is 6 versus 1, 1 of which is threatening to censor me.

The condition that was set for you to not be placed on moderation is for your to present your evidence.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:07:12 AM

Walking into someone else's house and dictating terms is bad form.

I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

I see.

No, you don't understand. We are all in Lunar Orbit's house. YOU are trying to set rules the rest of us are under no obligation to follow, and Lunar Orbit has no obligation to honor.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:07:41 AM
 "

The standards you must abide in are not  some well concealed secret. you are required to use empirical evidence and the scientific method. If you do not know what that means, LOOK IT UP.. Since you cannot duplicate the event, the onus is upon you to prove it. That's how science has always worked for centuries, that is until NASA came along and then it was just "you believe it because this is the way we said it happened!"



No, you are asserting that you should investigate an historical event by those means, it has been explained to you that one does not investigate historical events using a scientific method. You think you can. Show us how.

As an analogy, John killed Mary in 1953, There were photographs, film, witnesses etc.

You seem to be saying that the only way to know if John killed Mary is for sure is for Fred to kill Martha in the same way.

What you should be doing is examining the photos, film, and talking to surviving witnesses and come to a reasonable conclusion that John did indeed kill Mary.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:09:48 AM


You are NOT being asked to prove a negative, you have been asked to prove your claims that

1. The Lunar surface video was faked
2. The moon rocks are fake
3. The Saturn V launched were faked
4. The entirety of the Apollo record including all engineering documents, audio/visual records, photographs and journals are all faked
5. Apollo is a global, ongoing conspiracy



I don't recall mentioning any of those things and I was very careful not to...yet. I understand I implied I believed they must have been faked. I haven't gotten to any of that yet. i think by piling on both opponents and many requirements at once you have made it impossible to do what you claim you want to give me the opportunity to do. it's obvious what you really want to do is create a situation with rules where it is impossible for me to prove anything. that is why this debate has went on for nearly 50 years now. it certainly isn't because NASA has proved what it brags to have done. Niel Armstrong didn't remember being on the moon because he wasn't. He, unlike you was unwilling to brag about a lie.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:12:05 AM
The standards you must abide in are not  some well concealed secret. you are required to use empirical evidence and the scientific method. If you do not know what that means, LOOK IT UP.

Again, you are speaking in many cases to professional scientists.  You have not substantiated your claim to be a scientist or to have any special knowledge of, expertise with, or insight into the scientific method.  Thus such condescension is unwarranted.  To that end, you have been asked specifically how "empirical evidence" and "the scientific method" can apply to similar events in history.  You haven't provided that very important justification.

Quote
Since you cannot duplicate the event, the onus is upon you to prove it.

The proof has been submitted.  It is that very proof that you are trying to explain away.  When you try to explain it by claiming affirmatively that arose by some other means, the burden of proof moves to you.

Quote
...until NASA came along and then it was just "you believe it because this is the way we said it happened!"

Nonsense.  NASA and its associates have given a mountain of evidence in various forms.  They explicitly do not ask you to take their word for it.  They provide as much detail as you can hope for, allowing you to check up on every detail of their claims.

You, on the other hand, provide absolutely nothing.  You are the one asking us to take your word for it that you have incontrovertible proofs and the superior intellect to argue them.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 12:14:12 AM
Wait, when did Neil Armstrong ever say he didn't remember being on the Moon?  He actually talked about it quite a lot.  His memories, and those of the others who were involved in Apollo, are just one of the pieces of evidence you have to explain in order to prove that Apollo was faked.  And it isn't an implication that all those pieces were faked.  It's a necessary component in the idea that the Apollo missions weren't real.  Which you did, in fact, affirmatively state that you could prove was faked.  I read what you wrote, even if you didn't.

When the Cottingley Fairy pictures were proven to have been faked, the easiest part was finding the books the pictures had been cut out of to make the fakes.  So how about it--how about you find the easiest piece of Apollo evidence to prove was faked.  Pick one part and show your evidence.  Any evidence.  Any at all.

[crickets]
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:14:18 AM
I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

No.  This is LunarOrbit's forum.  I participate in it on exactly the same footing as you do.

You GOTTA be kidding!

Phil Plait runs this forum and you and he have the identical same job description and objectives. I wonder just who you think you're fooling. this is why you have zero credibility as far as I am concerned. This is a WHOPPER
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:17:34 AM

Again, you are speaking in many cases to professional scientists. 

No sir, I see no evidence any of you are scientists nor even understand the scientific process on a basic level.

 i am not speaking to scientists and it is crystal clear what i am really speaking to is propagandists skilled in the art of misinformation and subterfuge.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 12:17:47 AM
Phil Plait runs this forum...

Phil Plait has nothing to do with this forum.  I don't even think he's a member, and if he is, he's not an active participant.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:18:25 AM
I don't recall mentioning any of those things...

Yeah, that's the problem.

Quote
I haven't gotten to any of that yet.

Yeah, that's the problem.

Quote
I think by piling on both opponents and many requirements at once you have made it impossible to do what you claim you want to give me the opportunity to do.

That wasn't a problem when you claimed you could best all of us in a debate.  You have spent page after page praising your ability to argue your case.  Now argue it.

Quote
it's obvious what you really want to do is create a situation with rules where it is impossible for me to prove anything.

No, you want ground rules that absolve you from ever having to prove anything or do anything except say how well-founded your beliefs are.  If you cannot prove your claims, then resign the debate.  If you can, then do so now please.

Quote
that is why this debate has went on for nearly 50 years now.

No.  Your inability to convince anyone is not a consequence of your critics taking unfair advantage.

Quote
it certainly isn't because NASA has proved what it brags to have done.

According to whom?

Quote
Niel Armstrong didn't remember being on the moon because he wasn't.

Armstrong wrote and spoke extensively about his experiences on the Moon.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:19:20 AM
No sir, I see no evidence any of you are scientists nor even understand the scientific process on a basic level.

Then present your scientific arguments and confound us all.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:21:13 AM
Phil Plait runs this forum...

Phil Plait has nothing to do with this forum.  I don't even think he's a member, and if he is, he's not an active participant.

Well there went any credibility you might have had. You do realize it is common knowledge he represents NASA  in an "outreach" program (propagandist), and operates this website?

Gee whiz!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:21:35 AM
Phil Plait runs this forum...

No, he doesn't.

Quote
...and you and he have the identical same job description and objectives.

According to what evidence?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:22:48 AM
You do realize it is common knowledge he represents NASA  in an "outreach" program (propagandist), and operates this website?

If it's common knowledge, as you say, that he operates this web site, you should be easily able to find evidence of that within the next few minutes.  Do so.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:23:36 AM
Looks like Romulus has an odd infatuation with Jay and Phil.

Are they the enemy Rommy? Are you trying to get them?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:23:43 AM

Armstrong wrote and spoke extensively about his experiences on the Moon.

That is simply not true. Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA, and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon. He has however made several comments that many interpret as cryptic confessions that it was a hoax. Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:24:44 AM
I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

No.  This is LunarOrbit's forum.  I participate in it on exactly the same footing as you do.

You GOTTA be kidding!

Phil Plait runs this forum and you and he have the identical same job description and objectives. I wonder just who you think you're fooling. this is why you have zero credibility as far as I am concerned. This is a WHOPPER

Careful, Bub. Your Expert Scientist facade is beginning to show serious cracks...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:24:54 AM
Looks like Romulus has an odd infatuation with Jay and Phil.

Are they the enemy Rommy? Are you trying to get them?
WTF is   "Rommy"?

Put down the crack pipe
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:25:54 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:26:10 AM
I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

No.  This is LunarOrbit's forum.  I participate in it on exactly the same footing as you do.

You GOTTA be kidding!

Phil Plait runs this forum and you and he have the identical same job description and objectives. I wonder just who you think you're fooling. this is why you have zero credibility as far as I am concerned. This is a WHOPPER

Careful, Bub. Your Expert Scientist facade is beginning to show serious cracks...

And just how is that? By being right again?

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:27:21 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

You sound a bit "off" in the head to me. It's no wonder you're affiliated with this crowd
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:28:07 AM

Armstrong wrote and spoke extensively about his experiences on the Moon.

That is simply not true. Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA, and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon. He has however made several comments that many interpret as cryptic confessions that it was a hoax. Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

Clearly you never saw his outstanding key note speach at the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:29:02 AM
I understand... I am not just another poster here like Windley said he was. I am in his and your house.

No.  This is LunarOrbit's forum.  I participate in it on exactly the same footing as you do.

You GOTTA be kidding!

Phil Plait runs this forum and you and he have the identical same job description and objectives. I wonder just who you think you're fooling. this is why you have zero credibility as far as I am concerned. This is a WHOPPER

Careful, Bub. Your Expert Scientist facade is beginning to show serious cracks...

And just how is that? By being right again?

Yeah, that must be it.... :o
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:29:21 AM
That is simply not true. Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA, and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon.

That's according to one conspiracy author who complained that Armstrong was reluctant to see him.

Quote
Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:30:35 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

I believe you're a 'sock puppet' for another user here, probably Windley. You want to be able to say things that support him but do not degrade his credibility any worst than it already has been. 14 posts? You registered the account to attack me.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:31:44 AM
14 posts? You registered the account to attack me.

A fact you could easily have checked by reading all 14 posts.  But you didn't.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

I believe you're a 'sock puppet' for another user here, probably Windley. You want to be able to say things that support him but do not degrade his credibility any worst than it already has been. 14 posts? You registered the account to attack me.

Yeah, he registered two months ago in anticipation of the gem of a thread JUST to attack you.

Facade still cracking......
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:33:26 AM
He has however made several comments that many interpret as cryptic confessions that it was a hoax.

All made possible by the fact that it's remarkably easy to find examples where he talked about having been to the Moon.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:36:42 AM
That is simply not true. Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA, and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon.

That's according to one conspiracy author who complained that Armstrong was reluctant to see him.

Quote
Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Mr. Windley, you will have to excuse me for being blunt, but you are a horrible liar. The "surface journal" was required to be attributed to Armstrong because if it didn't exist the hoax would be obvious. Armstrong resigned from NASA a few years after the 'moonlandings" and refused to discuss the moon landings with ANYONE. He was virtual recluse who valued his privacy and when he did make public appearances he didn't discuss Apollo. He worked as a professor and didn't allow his students to treat him any different than anyone else. He abhorred the attention and showed all the signs of being a man with integrity unwilling to participate in a lie.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:37:48 AM
No not a sock puppet, but I do have a sister in the Navy.

How have I attacked you, I thought I was being nice.

I actually started another thread a few days ago because I wanted to know about Jarrah White.

I have had plenty of experience with Conspiracy Theorists though, and you could probably suffice for two or three bingo cards, except you keep pulling out the same two numbers.

I was getting bored of your ranting and decided to placate you by giving you a nickname Rommy.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:38:09 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

I believe you're a 'sock puppet' for another user here, probably Windley. You want to be able to say things that support him but do not degrade his credibility any worst than it already has been. 14 posts? You registered the account to attack me.

Yeah, he registered two months ago in anticipation of the gem of a thread JUST to attack you.

Facade still cracking......
Well, yeah, you should have fabricated the date of registration too.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 12:41:28 AM
Mr. Windley, you will have to excuse me for being blunt, but you are a horrible liar. The "surface journal" was required to be attributed to Armstrong because if it didn't exist the hoax would be obvious.

Circular reasoning.

Quote
Armstrong resigned from NASA a few years after the 'moonlandings" and refused to discuss the moon landings with ANYONE.

Everyone except for the people he did talk to about it, which enabled them to publish the statements that conspiracy theorists interpret to be confessions.

Quote
He was virtual recluse who valued his privacy...

As he did before Apollo, or even indeed before becoming an astronaut.  That makes it hard to attribute to fake Moon landings.

Quote
...and when he did make public appearances he didn't discuss Apollo.

Except, of course, when he did.  Such as the aforementioned Apollo 11 40th anniversary.  And to his biographer.

Quote
He worked as a professor and didn't allow his students to treat him any different than anyone else. He abhorred the attention and showed all the signs of being a man with integrity unwilling to participate in a lie.

But according to you he did participate in a lie.  Which is it?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:43:10 AM
No not a sock puppet, but I do have a sister in the Navy.

How have I attacked you, I thought I was being nice.

I actually started another thread a few days ago because I wanted to know about Jarrah White.

I have had plenty of experience with Conspiracy Theorists though, and you could probably suffice for two or three bingo cards, except you keep pulling out the same two numbers.

I was getting bored of your ranting and decided to placate you by giving you a nickname Rommy.

I do not theorize about conspiracies publicly. By the time I speak of them publicly I am beyond the "theory" stage. For instance the biggest conspiracy of all is so immense and so all encompassing, few can ever  comprehend the scope of it. JFK spoke of it , Lincoln too. What else do they have in common?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 03, 2015, 12:45:54 AM

That is simply not true. Armstrong was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA, and he very seldom spoke of being on the moon.

That's according to one conspiracy author who complained that Armstrong was reluctant to see him.

Quote
Site a reference to Armstrong pontificating about the moonlandings

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.

Mr. Windley, you will have to excuse me for being blunt, but you are a horrible liar. The "surface journal" was required to be attributed to Armstrong because if it didn't exist the hoax would be obvious. Armstrong resigned from NASA a few years after the 'moonlandings" and refused to discuss the moon landings with ANYONE. He was virtual recluse who valued his privacy and when he did make public appearances he didn't discuss Apollo. He worked as a professor and didn't allow his students to treat him any different than anyone else. He abhorred the attention and showed all the signs of being a man with integrity unwilling to participate in a lie.

Or, just maybe, he wasn't an egomaniac looking for praise.  Maybe, just maybe, he wanted an orderly classroom environment that benefited his students, without the distraction of his fame.

I am curious about you, though.  Why is this so important to you? And, please, because I'm really interested in your motives, why Jay in particular? 

Finally, give me, as a pilot, just one piece of evidence that will help make your case, or at least begin building it.  Anything at all.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 12:46:02 AM
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

I believe you're a 'sock puppet' for another user here, probably Windley. You want to be able to say things that support him but do not degrade his credibility any worst than it already has been. 14 posts? You registered the account to attack me.

Yeah, he registered two months ago in anticipation of the gem of a thread JUST to attack you.

Facade still cracking......
Well, yeah, you should have fabricated the date of registration too.

How would I do that, I'm just a junior memeber here?

I was wondering when paranoid delusion would emerge....
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:48:26 AM

I do not theorize about conspiracies publicly. By the time I speak of them publicly I am beyond the "theory" stage. For instance the biggest conspiracy of all is so immense and so all encompassing, few can ever  comprehend the scope of it. JFK spoke of it , Lincoln too. What else do they have in common?

Oh my, we do have delusions of grandeur don't we. Tell me how long have you been feeling this way?

Actually I am fascinated. Please divulge the details of this big conspiracy.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 12:48:46 AM
http://www.daytondailynews.com/photo/news/photos/e56866f3aa6aecf8701aaae4759de1ff/pYh5q/

Quote
(http://www.braeunig.us/pics/Armstrong_Aldrin.jpg)

Astronauts Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, left, Neil Armstrong, right, the first man on the moon, talk about the Apollo 11 mission and the upcoming 40th anniversary of the historic event on July 20, 2009. Aldrin and Armstrong were participating in the National Aviation Hall of Fame President's Dinner Friday evening, July 17 at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in Fairborn, Ohio.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 12:55:35 AM


But according to you he did participate in a lie.  Which is it?

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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 12:57:30 AM
Don't leave Rommy. I want to know about the bigger than big all encompassing world conspiracy!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 01:00:53 AM
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.

Yet they never managed to silence Bill and Ralph? Quite inept for an organisation that has covered up a multi-billion dollar swindle for over 40 years.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 01:03:03 AM
Mr.Windley, I am done with you...for now.

But I'm not done with you.  You lit into Armstrong and then left it hanging while you changed subjects.  Earlier you were complaining that it was all too much for you and that you were outnumbered and the cards were stacked against you.  Now you're Gish-galloping from radiation to Armstrong to yet another of the same hoax claims everyone always brings up.

Let's stay on Armstrong until we're satisfied we've covered the topic in sufficient depth for you to prove your superiority.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 01:10:48 AM
Well he's still here reading this topic.

So Romulus, how about it?

Give your best evidence on Armstrong, and Armstrong alone, and Jay will counter, or possibly agree. I'm sure he would be more that willing to concede to factual information, if there is any.

Aaand GO!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: dwight on February 03, 2015, 01:15:35 AM
Sorry to weigh in, but talk of Astronauts being bumped off reminded me of the barbeque Im having Wednesday week. It is the annual "Im glad to be alive because I live the lie" bbq and the usual secret handshake is required. This year's venue is, surprise, surprise, Moonbi, Nsw.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 01:18:38 AM
The following is a transcript to an interview that Armstrong gave in 2001.  During the last part of the interview he talks at length about his Apollo 11 experiences.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/ArmstrongNA/ArmstrongNA_9-19-01.pdf
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 01:28:39 AM
I have no problem conceding that Armstrong was more private than the other astronauts.  As a matter of fact, all the crews hated the press junkets and public appearances.  But Armstrong did not enjoy the intense publicity, and never did.  But to attribute this to some supposed shame over faked Apollo missions is purely conjectural.  Most conspiracy theorists obsess over Armstrong, as if he were some sort of proxy for all the astronauts, or conversely, the only astronaut that mattered.  Having identified in him a salient personality trait, they simply build a house of speculation upon it.

Romulus has asserted that the contributions to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal attributed to Armstrong are instead fabricated.  That's his burden of proof.  His skepticism on this point his selective.  He doesn't question the authenticity of the quotes he wants to interpret as confessions.  Those are presumed authentic.  Nor has he provided any proof that ALSJ fabricated the Armstrong quotes -- it's simply what he needs to be true in order for his beliefs to hold.

Most people are surprised that an astronaut would resign from NASA.  As a senior astronaut, Armstrong had flown in space many times, including in the X-15 before joining NASA.  While the Apollo missions have more historical gravitas and more notoriety, Armstrong mentioned he preferred the X-15.  More importantly, as a highly recognizable astronaut, it is highly unlikely Armstrong would have been assigned another flight after Apollo 11.  His resignation from NASA is not as suspicious as it seems when all the factors are considered.  In the general case, being an astronaut is strenuous work that most men did not want to do for long periods.  Early astronautics took its toll on marriages and friendships.  NASA now has a policy allowing families to watch their astronauts train, hoping to extend the time an astronaut is willing to make that degree of commitment.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 01:36:39 AM
When I started my analysis of Apollo images of Earth I set about it by gathering all the evidence, looking for all possible explanations for the images, using logical processes to eliminate possibilities and to come to reasonable conclusions that are supported by the evidence. I referenced all my sources and made sure everything tied together. My work is out there for anyone to challenge and to use the same data and sources to provide alternative explanations for the fact that every image of Earth taken by Apollo contains time and date specific meteorological data that is perfectly matched by at least one, and occasionally 3, other sources of data. These data also tie in with different secondary sources of information, such as TV broadcasts and mission transcripts.

What part of that was not following a scientific process? What standard of proof have I not met?

Here's another thing. Although I have a science degree and PhD, I don't actually have to follow that scientific process, because my work is not a science project. There's nothing that says I have to.

I am not acting as a scientist. I am not up for peer review.  I am not proving a hypothesis. I am not even providing results to a funding body. I am demonstrating that the historical record is accurate, and it is. I am defending the integrity of people involved in the process, many of whom are still alive, against the accusations of morons and fraudsters. I am doing this not to follow some paradigm, but because it is important to defend the truth against liars.

The people who have analysed the data from the seismic probes, or any other aspect of the ALSEP data, or the rock samples - those are the people that need to follow the scientific method and their work is publicly available for others to verify or discount as appropriate. I have several volumes of conference proceedings where that has happened.

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.

If the OP is merely indulging in philosophical point scoring about the nature of debate then good luck, it's not a debate I give a **** about. If he wants to claim Apollo didn't happen and we are all wrong because our proof is inadequate, then put up or shut up. Let's see some alternative hypotheses and data.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 02:04:07 AM
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.

Setting up the investigator's expectations as a standard by which data is to be judged is expressly non-scientific.  The way reproducibility really works in the scientific method is that any sort of measurement or judgment or reckoning that's part of a scientific experiment has to be the result of an objective process, not the opinion of someone.  If data can vary based on who conducts the investigation, it is not reproducible -- that same person would have to be there to render the same judgment in all reproductions.  Hence proposing to judge the propriety of Neil Armstrong's behavior based on what the investigator personally thinks should have been done is a patent violation of scientific methodology.  Romulus promised us he would adhere to the scientific method, but he's messed up already.

And as if that weren't bad enough, attributing Armstrong's behavior -- subjectively judged as "odd" -- to remorse over allegedly participating in a lie is an absurd begging of the question.

Quote
Maybe, just maybe, he wanted an orderly classroom environment that benefited his students, without the distraction of his fame.

The story I heard, probably apocryphal, is that he allowed the first class period of each semester to be a discussion of his space missions, and thereafter the subject was forbidden.  Reasonable enough, in my opinion.

Quote
[W]hy Jay in particular?

He already answered that, sort of.  He considers me the kingpin in a cadre of debunkers.  So apparently he thinks that if he can conspicuously confound me, no one else will matter.  I guess it's the same sort of obsession that AwE130 exhibits.  And yeah, it's inappropriate.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Allan F on February 03, 2015, 02:09:10 AM


 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 03, 2015, 02:11:40 AM
Romulus has set criteria which in my opinion are nonsensical. He is apparently not interested in debating his hoax theories, which are undoubtedly not unique nor robust. He is the worst kind of conspiracy theorist. So close minded it beggars belief.

Apparently because he thinks you must apply a scientific process to determine whether the missions were hoaxed or not and,because we have stated we would not apply scientific methods to the problem, because you can't, he thinks he has won, something. Not sure what, but there you go.

What he does not appear to realise is that many here are directly involved with the aerospace industry and contract to companies who rely on their expertise to produce serviceable products. Others such as myself are in allied fields and understand enough of the technology to make a confident decision on whether it was faked or not.

I really detest the ''blind faith'' slur. It is because of the complete opposite that we can understand the truth. Not taking things on face value and not trusting common sense is how we keep people in the air or in space as safely as possible.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 02:22:03 AM


 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.

Precisely! And which elements can not be reproduced exactly?

Launching something to orbit and then onward to the moon?
Entering lunar orbit?
Landing on the surface?
Sending data back?
Lunar samples?
Orbital rendez-vous?
Biological material to the moon and back?
An EVA suit that functions in a vacuum?

Every material element of the Apollo programme has been done by other nations and in other programmes - the only exception being feet on the ground.

Sooner or later there will be feet on the ground again, probably Chinese. Then what?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 02:30:06 AM
Romulus has set criteria which in my opinion are nonsensical.

Nonsensical, circular -- take your pick.

Quote
Not sure what, but there you go.

It's all based on the word game of calling Apollo a "scientific achievement."  He seems to think that label magically converts Apollo into something that all the features of scientific methodology have to govern.  The word "science" was used, after all.

Quote
What he does not appear to realise is that many here are directly involved with the aerospace industry...

I think he disbelieves that, or else considers it a motive to lie.  Keep in mind that Romulus has already invoked the meme of the Monumentally Ginormous Conspiracy, which naturally would include the aerospace industry and all of us associated with it.  So for that reason, I guess, he thinks we're all paid propagandists.

Quote
I really detest the ''blind faith'' slur. It is because of the complete opposite that we can understand the truth. Not taking things on face value and not trusting common sense is how we keep people in the air or in space as safely as possible.

Of course.  The "blind faith" slur is especially odious because the "Recluse Armstrong" argument is not original to him, nor especially new.  He just read and believed someone else's claim that Armstrong was a recluse, that he never gave interviews or talked about Apollo.  He says he has done extensive research into Apollo, but we've seen none of it.  Typically when a hoax advocate says something like that, he means he's read a lot of hoax books and just believed them without question.  So when examples of Armstrong's Apollo mission discussion are presented, the predictable thing happens -- he changes the subject and departs the field.  Those factors weren't covered in his sources, so he has no answer.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dalhousie on February 03, 2015, 02:56:11 AM


 Since we both agree these various elements cannot and will never be reproduced

I haven't read it  all yet - but here is a clear piece of nonsense.

Apollo CAN be reproduced. If somebody PAYS for it. The main problem with getting back to the moon is FUNDING.

It could be argued that most aspects of Apollo have been reproduced technically.

1 All basic operations required by human spaceflight including launch, living in space for a week or more, rendezvous and docking, EVA and EDL - Russia, China and of course the US (independently of Apollo through the Shuttle program)
2 Lunar orbit - Russia, China, ESA, Japan, India, and numerous unmanned US missions
3 Lunar soft landing and surface operations - Russia, China and of course the US (Surveyor).
4 Living things returned safely to Earth from cis-lunar space - Russia and (probably) China
5 Return to Earth from lunar surface - Russia

Only an end to end human mission to the Moon (either orbit or surface) has yet to be repeated (beyond the six landings and three cis-lunar missions of course).

EDIT - Sorry, just saw onebigmonkey's post
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 02:56:55 AM
So . . . does going on 60 Minutes count as never talking about Apollo publicly?  Because wow.  That's a pretty public venue, I thought.  And the video clips are lots of places online.

Also, I'm trying to remember the last time I communicated with Phil, and it's been a while.  Certainly it was never here.  BABB/BAUT, before the Accursed Merger, sure.  Here?  No.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 03:35:17 AM
I do not care to reveal what my screen ID was on that forum. It is not my responsibility to do so to you.

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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: dwight on February 03, 2015, 03:52:56 AM
I am just happy that the latest group of hoax advocates have seriously lifted their game. Surely Im not the only one who has noticed solid arguing with mountains of facts, a marked absence of the usual psychotic nonsense, and complete abandonment of personal attacks and focus on one Mr Jay Utah. No sir, these days it is nigh on impossible to mistake the new generation of hoax advocates for absolute nutbars.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2015, 05:05:49 AM
Romulus' whole focus appears to be on attacking Jay, with whom he seems obsessed. I think he reasons that if he can take Jay down, then it will substantially weaken our resolve. I could liken it to continually using "unnecessary roughness" on Tom Brady to try to injure him in order to make the Patriots easier to beat.

I expect he'll just be another drive by shooter, which usually takes the form of

1. Regurgitating tired old hoax claims that have previously been debunked,
2. Get angry when things don't work out the way he expects and start abusing people.
3. Claim censorship.
4. Declare victory.
5. Flounce in a fit of pique.

Nothing new there then!

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: beedarko on February 03, 2015, 05:53:23 AM
I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically. And I'll tell you something else, HE KNOWS IT. What he doesn't know is who he is insulting and demeaning, which is always the mark of an idiot.

This thread started with so much yummy bluster.  Rom's stance was predictably absurd, but he showed at least some semblance of an ability to defend his positions with carefully chosen nonsense.  Sadly after being a few pages in, it became apparent that our new guest is just a common jarrah/adrian zealot, his game devolving into schoolyard name-calling and embarrassingly transparent appeals to his own (lack of) authority.

"we"
"propagandist"
"burden of proof"

The unmistakable talking points of the modern day internet hoax theorist.  Second only to the cesium atom for enduring predictability.


Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 06:28:50 AM
There's another typical hoaxer trait, which is to dictate a very narrow frame of reference within which they consider debate and/or evidence to be acceptable, refuse to countenance anything outside that frame of reference and call foul whenever their self imposed diktats are ignored. The goalposts are set inches apart, then routinely moved later.

If our new friend wants to have a 'scientific' debate, then he needs to reveal his or her academic credentials so that we can examine their research record in this field.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 08:48:06 AM
You do realize it is common knowledge he represents NASA  in an "outreach" program (propagandist), and operates this website?

Gee whiz!


Wow...how clueless can one hoax believer get.


added...sad thing is that Phil is no longer frequent on ANY discussion board. Apparently he prefers to talk at others rather than with them.

 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 09:00:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 03, 2015, 09:37:11 AM
You will not make fodder for  ridicule out of me.

To be completely fair, Rommy did that piece all by himself.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 10:01:47 AM
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?

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 03, 2015, 10:34:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: slaver0110 on February 03, 2015, 12:58:38 PM
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!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 01:09:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 03, 2015, 01:23:19 PM

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¿? :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 03, 2015, 01:29:10 PM

 What I can do is cast enough doubt...

You should contact AWE130.  ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 01:42:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2015, 02:01:59 PM
....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......


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/buzz-punches-bart-o.gif)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 02:02:38 PM

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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 02:58:26 PM

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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Allan F on February 03, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:11:00 PM
Romulus, present your evidence that Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:12:03 PM
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.

By 'here' are you suggesting that we make money by posting on this forum? I seek clarification of this statement.

Quote
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.

So present the evidence of your scrutiny for us all to see.


Quote
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.

Cite examples where there are mistakes. If you want to invoke the 'scientific method' then you must present your evidence. You are making the affirmative claim, the burden rests with you.

Quote
I agree with you that I am in the minority with my conclusions as they relate to the Apollo project.

There is a reason that you are in the minority. Maybe you should think about this.

Quote
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

What scientific aptitude. I see no evidence for such claims. I see a lot of bluster.

Quote
Just as you have done here. It is very predictable. And because you are so predictable you are very easy to expose.

What did you expect? This is our house and we are all members of this forum, under the moderation of LO. We are all entitled to post. That is your problem, not ours.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:12:52 PM
Romulus, present your evidence that Apollo was faked.

Right now I am busy proving that this is your job. Thanks for not disapointing
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:14:24 PM
Right now I am busy proving that this is your job. Thanks for not disapointing

How so? What proof do you have that this is my job? Please present evidence of pay slips or cash transfers into my bank account.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 03:14:52 PM
It's not as though anything about Challenger is a secret, so clearly, not much of a cover-up there.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:15:43 PM
Romulus, present your evidence that Apollo was faked.

Right now I am busy proving that this is your job. Thanks for not disapointing

I'm retired.  Life if great when you no longer have to hold a job.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 03:17:08 PM
There's also this.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  NASA could not pay me enough to lie about history.  I believe lying about history is a sin, a word I don't use very often.  It is our duty and obligation to tell the truth whenever possible.  I wouldn't lie for profit.

Further, anyone who sees my current standard of living can tell you that the theoretical money NASA is paying me, if that were how I maintained said standard of living, could not be called "earning a living."
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:18:33 PM

There is a reason that you are in the minority. Maybe you should think about this.



Yes, and I believe you know what that reason is. The bandwagon fallacy is proof of nothing besides the majority of persons are incapable of independently thinking or of determining for themselves the facts. The science that disproves NASA's body of evidence is very complicated and there is only a small percentage of humans capable of understanding it (which BTW do not include you or 9/10ths of the persons pontificating on the subject), most of which have no motivation to do what I have.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:18:55 PM
My my my. Dedicated, aren't we?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:19:52 PM
I can see this is going nowhere fast. Romulus, if all you're interested in is a pissing match with Jay then get lost. You're a waste of our time.

I have to work in the morning, I can't be bothered to babysit you all night. If I wake up to find you have done nothing but boast about your "superior intellect" and insult the other members of the form, I will place you under moderation. If you want to participate in this forum, you can start by making a real argument to support your belief that Apollo was faked.

Romulus, supporting your argument that Apollo was faked is a condition of your continued unmoderated participation in this forum.  Please present your evidence without further delay.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:21:26 PM
Right now I am busy proving that this is your job. Thanks for not disapointing

How so? What proof do you have that this is my job? Please present evidence of pay slips or cash transfers into my bank account.

What you believe I have or have not proved is  irrelevant. It is of no concern to me what you claim to believe. It seems to be of great concern to you what I believe.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:21:41 PM
There's also this.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  NASA could not pay me enough to lie about history.  I believe lying about history is a sin, a word I don't use very often.  It is our duty and obligation to tell the truth whenever possible.  I wouldn't lie for profit.

Same here.  Lying is not in my DNA.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:23:12 PM
The science that disproves NASA's body of evidence is very complicated and there is only a small percentage of humans capable of understanding it...

So complicated that you won't post it here then? I guess we aren't worthy of such complicated science. Please, try me, I'm always ready to learn.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:23:33 PM
I can see this is going nowhere fast. Romulus, if all you're interested in is a pissing match with Jay then get lost. You're a waste of our time.

I have to work in the morning, I can't be bothered to babysit you all night. If I wake up to find you have done nothing but boast about your "superior intellect" and insult the other members of the form, I will place you under moderation. If you want to participate in this forum, you can start by making a real argument to support your belief that Apollo was faked.

Romulus, supporting your argument that Apollo was faked is a condition of your continued unmoderated participation in this forum.  Please present your evidence without further delay.

I did not come to this forum  to jump through hoops like a trained poodle.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, I have already proved the premise of this thread, as I am sure you are aware.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:24:15 PM
There's also this.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  NASA could not pay me enough to lie about history.  I believe lying about history is a sin, a word I don't use very often.  It is our duty and obligation to tell the truth whenever possible.  I wouldn't lie for profit.

Same here.  Lying is not in my DNA.
OMG!

Get real, man.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:25:53 PM
The science that disproves NASA's body of evidence is very complicated and there is only a small percentage of humans capable of understanding it...

So complicated that you won't post it here then? I guess we aren't worthy of such complicated science. Please, try me, I'm always ready to learn.

I will proceed with another proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which it has been to my satisfaction) and this thread locked to prevent backstabbing slander on it
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 03:27:08 PM
There's also this.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  NASA could not pay me enough to lie about history.  I believe lying about history is a sin, a word I don't use very often.  It is our duty and obligation to tell the truth whenever possible.  I wouldn't lie for profit.

Same here.  Lying is not in my DNA.

The thing is, in a way, it very much is in mine.  Bipolar disorder often makes for very good liars; I have a friend who I don't much trust when he says certain things, because I'm pretty sure it's his illness talking, not him.  But I find lying so repulsive on a personal level that I've worked to overcome it.  Oh, there are a few places you shouldn't trust me, but it's mostly when I tell you that I'm totally working on a project that's due tomorrow.  Because I've probably been putting it off until I finish it hurriedly and not very well at the last minute.  However, even then, I really try not to, because it's wrong.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:27:19 PM
I did not come to this forum  to jump through hoops like a trained poodle.

No, you chose to come and bang a huge empty vessel. So please, enlighten us all with your complicated science.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:28:00 PM
I did not come to this forum  to jump through hoops like a trained poodle.

Then you've come to the wrong place.  You agreed to the forum rules when you registered and those rules state you must support your claims.  Abide by the rules that you agreed to and present your evidence without further delay.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:28:48 PM
...I have already proved the premise of this thread, as I am sure you are aware.

Was the premise that you are an uneducated troll?

...because that is the only thing you have "proved", here.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 03:29:07 PM
No improvement, I see.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:29:22 PM
There's also this.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  NASA could not pay me enough to lie about history.  I believe lying about history is a sin, a word I don't use very often.  It is our duty and obligation to tell the truth whenever possible.  I wouldn't lie for profit.

Same here.  Lying is not in my DNA.

The thing is, in a way, it very much is in mine.  Bipolar disorder often makes for very good liars; I have a friend who I don't much trust when he says certain things, because I'm pretty sure it's his illness talking, not him.  But I find lying so repulsive on a personal level that I've worked to overcome it.  Oh, there are a few places you shouldn't trust me, but it's mostly when I tell you that I'm totally working on a project that's due tomorrow.  Because I've probably been putting it off until I finish it hurriedly and not very well at the last minute.  However, even then, I really try not to, because it's wrong.
If you lie about anything, you will lie about everything.
As for lying not being in my DNA, there seems to be some powerful anecdotal evidence to that effect, but I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say it is my belief that a lie dishonors only myself.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:30:17 PM
I did not come to this forum  to jump through hoops like a trained poodle.

Then you've come to the wrong place. 

Thank you, that was priceless
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
No improvement, I see.

Did you expect anything else?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:31:37 PM
No improvement, I see.

No. Do I get to invoke the dead parrot sketch?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:32:13 PM
No improvement, I see.

Good afternoon, Mr.Windley. Yeah, no change. Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

I agreed to move on to the next proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which you have done) and this hread locked to prevent it being used to attack me as it has been
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:33:10 PM
No improvement, I see.

No. Do I get to invoke the dead parrot sketch?

Funny you should mention the word parrot.

Polly wanna cracker?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:33:36 PM
If you lie about anything, you will lie about everything.

Speaking from experience, no doubt.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:33:58 PM
Thank you, that was priceless

Abide by the rules that you agreed to and the instructions of the moderator and present your evidence that Apollo was faked.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:34:50 PM
Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

You've been watching too much Despicable Me. Next you'll accuse Jay of trying to steal to Moon, and the members here being in cahoots with him.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:35:48 PM
Polly wanna cracker?

No need, I've found plenty in your posts. There's some right crackers. Thanks all the same.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 03:36:10 PM
I tested all of my arguments against the best NASA had to offer...

What arguments, and whom?

Quote
many people would post simultaneously trying to overtax my abilities to respond...

Irrelevant.  You choose the venues, so your inability to deal with the venue is your problem.

Quote
...and the conversation was directed or steered away from the evidence and subject, and on to my own credibility and scientific aptitude...

No, it's the other way around.  You've done almost nothing in this thread but brag about your aptitude, despite several requests for you to present your evidence and engage in a debate on it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:37:28 PM
...I have already proved the premise of this thread, as I am sure you are aware.

Was the premise that you are an uneducated troll?

...because that is the only thing you have "proved", here.

You're not the one who will ultimately make that judgement.What you claim I have proved is of no interest whatsoever to me. I have to get on with things. i will return when I have the time. I would appreciate it if we all behave like gentlemen  and endeavor to treat each other with respect,it is your choice whether or not we will, not mine
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 03:39:30 PM
Good afternoon, Mr.Windley. Yeah, no change. Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

Quit whining and present your case.

Quote
I agreed to move on to the next proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which you have done) and this hread locked to prevent it being used to attack me as it has been

You don't make the rules here or dictate terms.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:39:41 PM
I tested all of my arguments against the best NASA had to offer...



Quote
many people would post simultaneously trying to overtax my abilities to respond...
Irrelevant. 

I think this goes to the core of your personality disorder, Mr.Windley. To you , fair is whatever allows you to prevail.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
Dear Members,

Forgive my sarcasm in the last two posts, I couldn't resist.

:)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:41:02 PM
Abide by the rules that you agreed to and the instructions of the moderator and present your evidence that Apollo was faked.

He can't do that...he apparently is incapable of following the simplest of directions, or he would have done so by now...


 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:41:26 PM
Good afternoon, Mr.Windley. Yeah, no change. Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

Quit whining and present your case.

Quote
I agreed to move on to the next proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which you have done) and this hread locked to prevent it being used to attack me as it has been

You don't make the rules here or dictate terms.
I don't propose to be allowed to make the rules ,  only that we all abide in them.

I will return in about 4 hours and If I see you have agreed to act with integrity and respect, i will continue. That's not a lot to ask.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:42:09 PM
Per the forum rules:

Quote
The definition of trolling on this forum is:

a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.

I think we can check off every one except (e).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
Abide by the rules that you agreed to and the instructions of the moderator and present your evidence that Apollo was faked.

He can't do that...he apparently is incapable of following the simplest of directions, or he would have done so by now...

I do not take directions from inferiors shouting out orders. Supposedly you're on an equal footing to me here, as Mr.Windley claimed.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:43:35 PM
I think this goes to the core of your personality disorder, Mr.Windley.

Below the belt. I insist that you apologise to Jay for making such a comment.

You insist that people behave in a certain manner at many levels, but you make yourself exempt from your own standards.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:43:44 PM
i will return when I have the time.

So you're going to run away from this discussion, again??

The term "intellectual coward" fits you to a "T".
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:44:03 PM
Per the forum rules:

Quote
The definition of trolling on this forum is:

a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.

I think we can check off every one except (e).

And i think we can agree that you do not abide in the rules. Show the proof I ahve done any of those things.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:44:53 PM
I think this goes to the core of your personality disorder, Mr.Windley.

Below the belt. I insist that you apologise to Jay for making such a comment.

You insist that people behave in a certain manner at many levels, but you make yourself exempt from your own standards.
He presented the proof of what I said with his post that I quoted
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 03, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
i will return when I have the time.

So you're going to run away from this discussion, again??

The term "intellectual coward" fits you to a "T".
WHen I was a kid growing up, we had a word for what you are doing. We called it a "ni**erpile
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 03:46:20 PM
And i think we can agree that you do not abide in the rules.

Please quote the posts in which I've broken any rules.

Show the proof I ahve done any of those things.

Just about every post that you've made past the first page.  But I'm not the final arbitrator.  That is up to Lunar Orbit.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:46:55 PM
He presented the proof of what I said with his post that I quoted

You have a perverse sense of what attributes proof.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:49:27 PM
We called it a "ni**erpile

Offensive to say the least, and deliberately provocative.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 03, 2015, 03:51:11 PM
I wonder if Romulus realizes that alleging or imputing recklessly that someone is mentally ill does constitute libel in all but three U.S. states.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 03:52:12 PM
I wonder if Romulus realizes that alleging or imputing recklessly that someone is mentally ill does constitute libel in all but three U.S. states.

I thought that would stand without question, given his superior intelligence.  ::)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:54:46 PM
I do not take directions from inferiors shouting out orders.

In other words, you have no evidence Apollo was faked...no evidence to present.


Again....why are you here???
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 03:57:19 PM
WHen I was a kid growing up, we had a word for what you are doing. We called it a "ni**erpile


...and our little troll is also a racist...how cute.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 03:59:31 PM
The science that disproves NASA's body of evidence is very complicated and there is only a small percentage of humans capable of understanding it...

So complicated that you won't post it here then? I guess we aren't worthy of such complicated science. Please, try me, I'm always ready to learn.

I will proceed with another proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which it has been to my satisfaction) and this thread locked to prevent backstabbing slander on it
Can't slander an anonymous coward. Try better next time.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 04:00:13 PM
...and our little troll is also a racist...how cute.

I can't think of anyone else that claimed superior intelligence and was a racist... unless I invoked the Nazis, but this thread isn't ready for that  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 04:02:07 PM
We called it a "ni**erpile

Offensive to say the least, and deliberately provocative.


...and don't forget ignorant...really, really ignorant.


Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 03, 2015, 04:02:14 PM

Neat trick considering that I was registered there using the same name.

If he was registered as Bob H., I'd say, this is IDW  :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 04:02:23 PM

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.

I am not trying to make a living here.

Quote
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 make the same mistake many hoaxers do: equating an enthusiasm for, and a willingness to defend, the Apollo missions with tacit approval of everything NASA does. How, btw, did NASA get on with hiding their mistake there? Got made public pdq if I recall.
 
Quote
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.

And so far you have failed to do any picking.

Quote
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.

Apart from spending a substantial amount of your posts basking in unsupported self-aggrandisement.

Quote
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.

Diddums. Poor baby.

Go ahead and 'expose me' then. Do your worst, then tell us how Apollo was faked.

It's very telling the part of my post that you choose to quote and the posts you chose not to address.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:06:15 PM
No improvement, I see.

Good afternoon, Mr.Windley. Yeah, no change. Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

I agreed to move on to the next proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which you have done) and this hread locked to prevent it being used to attack me as it has been
Why do you want this thread locked? As far as I can tell that is simply a tantrum to impose your own demands much as a child would do, and also a distraction from the fact that you can present nothing at all.

If you have something to present, present it here and now, or be consigned to the bit bucket as a noisy empty vessel. You will not "win" by means of rhetorical skullduggery, but I can guarantee you will be judged on the quality of evidence you present (if you ever do).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 03, 2015, 04:07:29 PM
The science that disproves NASA's body of evidence is very complicated and there is only a small percentage of humans capable of understanding it...

So complicated that you won't post it here then? I guess we aren't worthy of such complicated science. Please, try me, I'm always ready to learn.

I will proceed with another proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which it has been to my satisfaction) and this thread locked to prevent backstabbing slander on it

Another?? When did the first one happen??
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 04:08:20 PM
..and don't forget ignorant...really, really ignorant.

...which does not match well with claims of superior intellect. I'm no angel, and there are times when I have crossed the line with HWSNBN. I have certainly made aspersions about the mental health of CTers, but I have stood well and truly corrected on that point and rethought my own approach, but such phrases are unwarranted. Quite ironic given his previous claim of wanting to alter our collective consciousness at this critical point in human history.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:08:32 PM
Good afternoon, Mr.Windley. Yeah, no change. Your minions are still doing their jobs, attacking my character.

Quit whining and present your case.

Quote
I agreed to move on to the next proof as soon as this one is acknowledged (which you have done) and this hread locked to prevent it being used to attack me as it has been

You don't make the rules here or dictate terms.
I don't propose to be allowed to make the rules ,  only that we all abide in them.

I will return in about 4 hours and If I see you have agreed to act with integrity and respect, i will continue. That's not a lot to ask.
Why do you exempt yourself from those very criteria?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 04:10:23 PM
Why do you want this thread locked? As far as I can tell that is simply a tantrum to impose your own demands much as a child would do, and also a distraction from the fact that you can present nothing at all.

That is exactly what it is.  If Romulus is indeed IDW, then he will continually tap dance around and do everything he possibly can to distract from ever having to actually present any evidence.  It's his modus operandi.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Rob260259 on February 03, 2015, 04:11:59 PM
Romulus owns a pub.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:16:49 PM
Why do you want this thread locked? As far as I can tell that is simply a tantrum to impose your own demands much as a child would do, and also a distraction from the fact that you can present nothing at all.

That is exactly what it is.  If Romulus is indeed IDW, then he will continually tap dance around and do everything he possibly can to distract from ever having to actually present any evidence.  It his modus operandi.
I believe, at this point, that Romulus full well knows that if he were to make any attempt to present what he calls "evidence", it would be swiftly shredded.

And here is a prediction. Now that I have pointed out his hiding behind anonymity, he will counter accuse me of also being anonymous. Last person to do that to me was sent scuttling off with their tail between their legs. Still, true to form, he will try it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 04:19:28 PM
If you have something to present, present it here and now, or be consigned to the bit bucket as a noisy empty vessel. You will not "win" by means of rhetorical skullduggery, but I can guarantee you will be judged on the quality of evidence you present (if you ever do).

I agree. we've had enough pages of distraction...present your evidence that Apollo was faked, Romulus, or retract your claim that it was faked, but do one or the other without further "side-tracks" into irrelevant discussions.


Are you able to do that? ...or is that just too difficult?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 03, 2015, 04:20:15 PM
I've created my own InterDimensionalWarrior-bingo card.

It includes the following phrases:

1.: Astronaut stomps on a frog
2.: Deadly radiation
3.: He has worked out anything "in great detail beyond a reasonable doubt"
4.: We are all paid.
5.: We use keyloggers.

Ok, I know, these are only 5 points. For more I have to look at several YT-clips.  ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:31:13 PM
If you have something to present, present it here and now, or be consigned to the bit bucket as a noisy empty vessel. You will not "win" by means of rhetorical skullduggery, but I can guarantee you will be judged on the quality of evidence you present (if you ever do).

I agree. we've had enough pages of distraction...present your evidence that Apollo was faked, Romulus, or retract your claim that it was faked, but do one or the other without further "side-tracks" into irrelevant discussions.


Are you able to do that? ...or is that just too difficult?
Minor quibble, you quoted me but attributed onebigmonkey. Artefact of quoting posts I guess but I point it out since our protagonist will proceed to claim that I and onebigmonkey are one and the same and also that you know it and are a participant in the big conspiracy to deny him.

You or I would of course consider this a trivial thing. Our protagonist will make up all sorts of baloney out of it. I simply point it out before such accusations inevitably occur.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: RAF on February 03, 2015, 04:44:11 PM
Minor quibble, you quoted me but attributed onebigmonkey. Artefact of quoting posts I guess

Fixed it...and you're right...I've had trouble today with quoted posts. :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:46:55 PM
I've created my own InterDimensionalWarrior-bingo card.

It includes the following phrases:

1.: Astronaut stomps on a frog
2.: Deadly radiation
3.: He has worked out anything "in great detail beyond a reasonable doubt"
4.: We are all paid.
5.: We use keyloggers.

Ok, I know, these are only 5 points. For more I have to look at several YT-clips.  ;D
I'm not convinced it is IDW. His latest rantings on GLP show that he will fly off the handle at the drop of a hat. I mean serious descent into spittle filled ranting. I would be be very surprised if IDW could restrain himself this long, therefore I provisionally reject that hypothesis.

Nevertheless, he has stated that he is a sock of somebody, so who? Dr. Socks? He's dead. The antipodean who shall not be named? Possibly, the ego trip is certainly an indicator. Turbo? He confines himself to ATS mostly. It's all speculation. As an engineer, I believe in dealing with what we have in front of us, and what we have in front of us is no more than "I know something you don't know" followed by "not telling". That's all we have. Small wonder that everyone asks for more data. Romulus is not providing, and I suggest it is because he doesn't have it to provide.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 04:48:06 PM
Minor quibble, you quoted me but attributed onebigmonkey. Artefact of quoting posts I guess

Fixed it...and you're right...I've had trouble today with quoted posts. :)
No worries, it really bothers me not a whit, but you know what CT's would make of it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 04:57:17 PM
The antipodean who shall not be named? Possibly, the ego trip is certainly an indicator.

In fairness to Jarrah he wouldn't hide behind a pseudonym, he would join as Jarrah White, there would be no hiding. He would also present his claims. Also the writing of this Sith is far too flowery to be Jarrah.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 05:01:13 PM
The antipodean who shall not be named? Possibly, the ego trip is certainly an indicator.

In fairness to Jarrah he wouldn't hide behind a pseudonym, he would join as Jarrah White, there would be no hiding. He would also present his claims. Also the writing of this Sith is far too flowery to be Jarrah.
Whoever it is, I hope LO does not ban him anytime soon. He is awfully amusing.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 05:05:27 PM
Whoever it is, I hope LO does not ban him anytime soon. He is awfully amusing.

There are a lot of people here who have been involved in the forum community much longer than I have, and they may have different views on a ban. I am rarely in favour of moderation and bans. It has to be fairly extreme behaviour in my very humble opinion.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 03, 2015, 05:14:21 PM
There are a lot of people here who have been involved in the forum community much longer than I have, and they may have different views on a ban. I am rarely in favour of moderation and bans. It has to be fairly extreme behaviour in my very humble opinion.

It usually takes a lot for Lunar orbit to ban somebody.  I've seen him moderate and suspend people, but an outright ban is rare.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: slaver0110 on February 03, 2015, 05:19:50 PM

What you believe I have or have not proved is  irrelevant. It is of no concern to me what you claim to believe...

Your entire philosophy in a clearly-worded statement.  Well done.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 03, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
It usually takes a lot for Lunar orbit to ban somebody.  I've seen him moderate and suspend people, but an outright ban is rare.

The point I was making in a veiled way. I did not want to sound presumptious when there are those here who have contributed much more over the years and know LO much better than I do.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Humots on February 03, 2015, 07:00:49 PM
I have just finished reading this thread with great amusement, and I think it very likely that Romulus is Interdimensional Warrior.

Romulus displays IDW's style in every way, except for the lack of outright obscenities, which I expect would get him banned immediately.

I have noticed that IDW avoids obscenities on all sites except GLP, where such things are tolerated.

I suspect that the last thing he wants is to be banned for a rules violation that clearly has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

I have also noticed that he is a very prolific poster, based on his output at GLP under numerous titles (Interdimensional Warrior, IDW, Anonymous Astrophysicist, AA to name a few). 

However, he doesn't seem to have posted on GLP for the last few hours, so he would have time to post here. 

For your amusement: his latest GLP thread is about his anti-gravity experiments.  Nothing new. 

I am an "Anonymous Coward" at GLP, so it is possible that he will make me with this post.  I expect to find out soon enough, when he touts this as proof that I am a NASA shill.

Gentlemen, you are doing splendidly.  Have at it!


Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 07:47:03 PM
He is online right now, yet strangely silent.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 03, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
Mr Romulus has his priorities in the wrong order

1. THE CLAIM: Apollo went to the moon and landed men there. This is what NASA claimed

2. THE EVIDENCE: In support of their claim, NASA provided documentation and a plan (a priori), audio & video records and journals (both LIVE and a posteriori), photographic records (a posteriori) and personal testimony (a posterior) both from the men who went there and everyone who made it happen. There is also the evidence of independent witnesses who were not a part of NASA such as DSN staff in several countries and amateur radio operators and astronomers.

3: THE REFUTATION: Anyone who wishes to claim that this never took place must first challenge the evidence that supports the claim. It is not acceptable to ask the claimant to reprove their claim nor is it a reasonable course of action. If you do not accept the evidence you must prove that it is false. So far, no-one has ever got past this stage; not Sibrel, not Kaysing, not Jack White, not Jarrah and certainly, not you.

Mr Romulus. You claim to have solid evidence that NASA are lying about having put men on the moon between 1969 and 1972, and that you can refute all their evidence that they did so. Yet it seems you are unwilling to put that evidence up for discussion. This leads me to one of two conclusions;

a. That you are a liar - you have no evidence, or
b. That you are a coward  - you know that the evidence you claim to have will not stand up to the scrutiny it will face if presented here.

All I have seen from you here is the usual bluff and bluster that we have all seen before from the likes of Hunchbacked, Heiwa, IDW, Dr Socks, AWE130 and the Blunder from Down Under et al; long on self-congratulations, superciliousness and claims of victory, short on facts!

Until you present your case with facts and evidence, your credibility here will continue to be zero.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 07:54:10 PM
<respectful snip>
"Humots"...where have we met before? That handle rings a bell, but I can't quite place it. JREF? ISF? UM? Similar?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 03, 2015, 07:59:22 PM
Romulus:  I am seriously curious to see any shred of evidence you may have that Apollo was faked.  Because, if it was, there is a huge vacuum that wants to be filled, such as, but certainly not limited to:

What did all those people on the Atlantic Seaboard see launched?
What were all those naive contractor employees really working on?
How were all the transmissions of all types, ranging from voice to video to telemetry faked, to multiple, independent receivers?
How was the photography faked?
What was the motivation for this grand conspiracy?
What happened to the money?

You see, it's not enough to try to prove Jay and "his minions" wrong.*. Without the above and more, you've left an immense gap in the historical record that cannot be left open.  What would take it's place?

==========
*For the record, Jay and I have never met.  He (and the rest of you) have a standing offer to hoist a few if we should find ourselves at the same airshow/aviation event.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 08:01:28 PM
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.

My most recent encounters have been at GLP. But I think he treats discussion there as more of a social occasion and doesn't feel quite so constrained to pretend politeness.

I have to admit, the number of "tells" is already large, and growing. The "I have proved..." phrasing and the "No-one here is intelligent enough to understand my argument" meme both showed up strongly within the next group of posts after I replied.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 03, 2015, 08:09:09 PM
WHen I was a kid growing up, we had a word for what you are doing. We called it a "ni**erpile


...and our little troll is also a racist...how cute.

And that makes two more. Darn it. I was so sure on the lack of creative spelling and punctuation. Maybe he got a copy editor?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 03, 2015, 08:17:56 PM
Romulus:  I am seriously curious to see any shred of evidence you may have that Apollo was faked.
You will not get it because Romulus has none to offer

Because, if it was, there is a huge vacuum that wants to be filled, such as, but certainly not limited to:

What did all those people on the Atlantic Seaboard see launched?
What were all those naive contractor employees really working on?
How were all the transmissions of all types, ranging from voice to video to telemetry faked, to multiple, independent receivers?
How was the photography faked?
What was the motivation for this grand conspiracy?
What happened to the money?
Romulus thinks everyone is in on the scam except for him.

You see, it's not enough to try to prove Jay and "his minions" wrong.*. Without the above and more, you've left an immense gap in the historical record that cannot be left open.  What would take it's place?
Romulus thinks that nothing exists outside the US. Romulus has no concept of how small a proportion of humanity comprises the sub 5% that the US is. Romulus thinks nothing exists outside the US.

==========
*For the record, Jay and I have never met.  He (and the rest of you) have a standing offer to hoist a few if we should find ourselves at the same airshow/aviation event.
As far as romulus is concerned, we are all jay, nothing exists beyond jay. You are a jay sock. I am a jay sock. Everyone is a jay sock. Nonetheless, I will stand my round and then some. I could do a role call, but I suspect I would run out of keyboard. You know who you are. Rommy does not.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: DD Brock on February 03, 2015, 08:22:59 PM
If we are all Jay socks, can I be argyle?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Humots on February 03, 2015, 08:35:12 PM
<respectful snip>
"Humots"...where have we met before? That handle rings a bell, but I can't quite place it. JREF? ISF? UM? Similar?

I post occasionally on JREF and Cosmoquest. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: dwight on February 03, 2015, 08:56:05 PM
I think Romulus has scarped to another misinformation thread...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2015, 09:25:11 PM
WHen I was a kid growing up, we had a word for what you are doing. We called it a "ni**erpile

You claim to be superior to us and yet here you are proving yourself to be one of the lowest forms of life in existence... a racist.

I think this goes to the core of your personality disorder, Mr.Windley. To you , fair is whatever allows you to prevail.

I recommend not making any further comments like that, if you wish to continue posting here freely.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Kiwi on February 03, 2015, 10:25:55 PM
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?

Romulus: Did you notice the above post?  Have you looked at the many instances provided of Armstrong talking about the moon?

Please answer the questions.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2015, 11:03:11 PM
If you lie about anything, you will lie about everything.

Oh, baloney.  You don't even really believe that yourself.  Everything?  From the contents of my shopping list to the name of my child?  Everything?  No.  You just want to believe that I'm lying about the historical record, because that's more convenient to you than simply presenting your alleged evidence.
Title: Romulus original premise ("scientific method")
Post by: sts60 on February 03, 2015, 11:58:56 PM
Hello, Romulus.  Welcome, belatedly, to the board.  I have skimmed this thread, and finally have a moment to chip in, so I wanted to briefly address your original claim.

If I understand you correctly, you say that the Apollo manned lunar missions are, collectively, a scientifically unproven claim, because the "scientific method" requires that they be reproduced.  In support of this assertion, you claimed you were a scientist (which you qualified by saying you were a student of science for a long time). 

Although my undergraduate degree was in space physics, I will stipulate that I am no scientist.  My graduate degrees and work experience are in engineering.  However, I think your "scientific method" premise suffers from two major flaws:

First, while people have been saying Apollo is an engineering subject, or a historical subject, rather than a scientific one, the whole truth is that Apollo is an engineering subject and a historical subject and a scientific one.  So Apollo can be validated in a variety of different ways, and it is very thoroughly documented in each of those ways.  The consensus of the relevant communities of practice in each field is that Apollo happened.  More importantly, this consensus can be explored in almost any level of detail you can specify; Apollo is arguably the most heavily-documented large technical project in history.  So the expert consensus is available for anyone to confirm.  You've also stated that it's riddled with examples that prove your contention, and I see you've started a thread about photographic examples, but I have yet to see any such example hold up to informed scrutiny.  We'll see if you come up with something different.

Second, even if we artificially restrict ourselves to only the "repeatability" argument, that argument in itself fails.  A couple of posters have already pointed this out - forgive me, it's late, I have a ratty Internet connection, and I don't want to spend the time right now looking for their posts again - that in many ways Apollo has been reproduced.  To revisit what's already been pointed out. consider the Apollo aspects that have been repeated:
- First lunar landing?  Repeated by Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.  But let's look at non-Apollo examples.
- Earth-orbit manned flights and EVAs: repeated by Soviets/Russians and Chinese.
- Earth-escape, cislunar, translunar, and lunar orbit operations: repeated by Soviets/Russians, European coalition, Chinese, Indians, Japanese (did I forget anyone?).
- Lunar soft landing: Soviets/Russians, Chinese.
- Lunar sample return: Soviets.
- Man-rated vehicles and living organisms sent around Moon: Soviets.

Also repeated were many of the technologies - rocket engines, manufacturing methods, guidance techniques, etc. - developed for Apollo.  The gigantic and complicated prelaunch processing, checkout, and launch facilities used for Apollo have been in constant use for decades, getting modified for each successive launch and space system to use them.  I work with a guy who was on the team that used an Apollo Guidance Computer to control the first digital fly-by-wire aircraft.  I've used one of the same thermal vacuum chambers that was used to test the Apollo lunar module.  Examples abound of the heritage of Apollo being confirmed by reuse and adaptation.

So, the only things that haven't been repeated since the last Apollo flight are humans actually being in a spacecraft to the Moon.  You've said that NASA "admitted it can't be done for decades" (or words to that effect - I stipulate that's not a direct quote), but the reality is that there's no technical reason it can't be done.  It's just hugely expensive, and without a clear political mandate no one has been willing to lay out the enormous amount of money to do it soon.

In short, there is more than one way to validate Apollo, and it's been done; and even in the most restrictive sense, Apollo capabilities have been very well reproduced.  So I have to say that your starting premise is fundamentally broken. 

That's all I have time for now, but I will try to address some of your other points when I have time.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 01:34:30 AM
And my collection of "tells" has reached a number close enough to certainty. I could even point to the post, and the single character that tipped it for me, but the weight of the tells is quite sufficient now.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 04, 2015, 04:40:03 AM
Romulus,
Can you acknowledge post 258 please?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Peter B on February 04, 2015, 10:32:54 AM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

I, for one, would be very interested in your alternate possibility regarding the rocks. For me they represent one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the reality of Apollo.

So, to get things rolling, how about I provide some of what I consider to be the positive evidence for the reality of Apollo.

1. The Apollo rocks show characteristics unlike rocks on Earth. For example the chemicals they consist of contain virtually no water, they show evidence of having formed in a vacuum, and they show evidence of having formed in a low gravity environment. There is no mechanism available on Earth to change terrestrial rocks in such a way to make them look like they came from the Moon. Therefore the Apollo rocks aren't altered Earth rocks.

2. The Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms, collected over six missions. The Soviets, by contrast, collected about 350 grams of material in three unmanned sample retriever missions. In other words, the Americans recovered roughly 1000 times as much material on their missions as the Soviets did. The Apollo rocks include core samples over 2 metres long, rocks over 10kg and soft clods of compressed soil. There is no evidence that the Americans ever designed, built or operated unmanned sample retriever missions capable of retrieving this amount of material. Therefore, the Apollo rocks aren't genuine Moon rocks collected from the Moon by unmanned missions.

3. The Apollo rocks show the effects of exposure on the surface of the Moon. Upper surfaces of rocks show alteration by solar radiation, and are also marked by tiny craters - zap pits - caused by the high-speed impact of dust particles. Some Moon rocks have been found in Antarctica as lunar meteorites. However, these rocks show alteration caused by the high-speed passage through the Earth's atmosphere, and contamination caused by sitting on the surface of the Earth. There is no mechanism to fake the effects of solar radiation or to fake zap pits, meaning it isn't possible to take lunar meteorites collected on Earth and alter them in any way to pass them off as rocks collected on the Moon. Therefore, the Apollo rocks aren't genuine Moon rocks which reached the Earth as meteorites and were then altered.

4. As the Apollo rocks can't be altered Earth rocks, can't be genuine Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions, and can't be altered lunar meteorites, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Apollo rocks is that they're genuine Moon rocks collected from the Moon by astronauts.

I would be grateful for any comments you could make in refutation.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 04, 2015, 11:23:35 AM
What would disprove Apollo?  How about an alternate explanation for the evidence?  And that's all the evidence, not a cherry-picked data point or three.  When the rockets were launched, where did they go?  How were the radio transmissions faked?  The viewings from Earth?  The photos?  The film?  The TV transmissions?  The rocks?  The core samples?  There are literally tons of evidence, and if Apollo was faked, so was all the evidence.  How?

Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

No that's NOT how this works. >:(

The Lunar samples have been studied by some of the world's eminent geologists. Many, many papers (http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/LSCREF45.pdf) have been written by those geologists. The papers, along with the credentials of the authors are in the public domain.

It is not up to gillianren to defend those findings. If you wish to critique any of those findings, then author a paper and submit it for peer-review along with your credentials in the field.  As an alleged scientist  ::) you will know how peer-review works. For you to even consider that it is up to a total stranger on a small website to defend the peer-reviewed works of experts in the field is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ineluki on February 04, 2015, 11:59:15 AM

By revealing personal information such as this you are able to identify your adversary, which is not something I intend to allow. That said, I do not believe great men such as Nicola Tesla should be ignored by science

Coming late to this thread, I could not help to notice this false claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Things_named_after_Tesla

Isn't it funny that "someone who is ignored by science" even got an unit named after him?

Tesla, an SI-derived unit of magnetic flux density (or magnetic inductivity)


Makes one really wonder about the quality of the other "research" done by Romulus
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 04, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
Isn't it funny that "someone who is ignored by science" even got an unit named after him?

I had to shake my head at that one too.  Tesla is widely regarded as one of the greatest engineers/inventors of all time.  His contributions are hardly ignored.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 04, 2015, 12:31:47 PM
But by not accepting all of them, even the manifestly crazy ones that didn't actually work, we are tarnishing his reputation, I tells you.  Tarnishing!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 04, 2015, 01:56:05 PM
Standard crank-magnetism at work. Belieives the Moon landings are hoax: Check Believes that Tesla was an ignored genius: Check. All we now need is some 9/11 or Nibiru action....  ::) :P
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: frenat on February 04, 2015, 03:05:49 PM

I assure you that Jay Windley is no match for myself intellectually or academically. And I'll tell you something else, HE KNOWS IT. What he doesn't know is who he is insulting and demeaning, which is always the mark of an idiot.
This sounds awfully similar to a recent pompous claim from IDW on GLP.  Are you IDW?  He shares the same obsession with Jay that you do.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 04, 2015, 03:08:38 PM
Standard crank-magnetism at work. Belieives the Moon landings are hoax: Check Believes that Tesla was an ignored genius: Check. All we now need is some 9/11 or Nibiru action....  ::) :P

This fits my IDW-checklist either  ;D
I'm still waiting for the next points: evil jews, evil freemasons, holocaust was faked.
Mr. Hawkins, this alleged half-breed Indian (or was it quarter-breed? I don't care), is easy to spot.  ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 04, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
Not as easy as the late (?) Doctor Socks. He just enjoyed the fake biographies he came up with too much to abandon them, as well as the impressions he was too tone-deaf to carry out successfully. Well, that and the coprophilia. 


Oddly enough, I was just at dinner with a 33rd degree.  Was working at the temple the last couple of weeks (but they weren't the ones signing my checks).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 03:46:52 PM
I'm still waiting for the next points: evil jews, evil freemasons, holocaust was faked.

I have a cunning plan.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Rob260259 on February 04, 2015, 04:06:54 PM
I'm still waiting for the next points: evil jews, evil freemasons, holocaust was faked.

I have a cunning plan.

Luke, I've seen many of these truthers. Most of them lack self esteem. Because they are so embarrassed at how dumb their comments and 'contributions' are, they seem to create Walter Mitty fantasies where they are the internet James Bond, 'defeating' the most diabolical minds in history. All through a few, quick Google searches from the basement. They have a bizzare, Scooby Do Fantasy where Cheney and Bush, while getting handcuffed look them in the eye and say: "We would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!" Many of them probably dress as Thelma.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 04:08:43 PM
This sounds awfully similar to a recent pompous claim from IDW on GLP.  Are you IDW?  He shares the same obsession with Jay that you do.

And the same inability to have a science discussion in anything but vague, dogmatic absolutes.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?62859-1st-Question-How-was-the-Apollo-space-craft-cooled
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 06:16:46 PM
This sounds awfully similar to a recent pompous claim from IDW on GLP.  Are you IDW?  He shares the same obsession with Jay that you do.

And the same inability to have a science discussion in anything but vague, dogmatic absolutes.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?62859-1st-Question-How-was-the-Apollo-space-craft-cooled


Ooh, these comments are telling...

Count Zero: "IDW has questions he wants addressed about the veracity of Apollo. He started one thread about the structure of the discussion, now he is beginning the discussion itself."

Same Modus Operandi - Starting a thread to try to dictate the framework of the discussion in order to suppress dissenting views, then starting a discussion thread.

Interdimensional Warrior: "....and why was the crew cabin on the A13 LEM said to be cold on the way back? This question will require a basic knowledge of physics to answer, and without relying on any of the Apollo details or specifics."

Same Modus Operandi again - Asking a question and then trying to limit the allowed answers to try force the answer he wants.

He appears stupid enough to think that we are too stupid to spot what he is trying to do.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Northern Lurker on February 04, 2015, 06:18:51 PM
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster here. My user name is actually misnomer, it should be Nordic Lurker. As a citizen of European, liberal, social democratic country I don't have any dogs in this fight. Also English is not my primary language so I apologise for my lack of grammar and other mistakes.

I have been thinking about Romulus' idea about history needing reproducibility. Taking that line of thought to it's logical end means that since none has reproduced a Tyrannosaurus Rex (the film doesn't count), the Jura Period is just a myth. Also assassination of Abraham Lincoln and JFK are unreproduced so they must be myth too. So are Pearl Harbor, Normandy Invasion, Vietnam and Korean wars and so on...

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

Also wasn't "Nobody has been to Moon" the null hypothesis until NASA came and showed the moon rocks and core samples, still photos, telecasts and film made on the way to Moon, while being there and on the way back. Not to mention professional and amateur astronomers and radio operators who followed the missions to moon and back. And small mountain of technical documentation, testimony of the astronauts and  of those 400 000 people working for the space program. And designs, procedures, facilities and project management techniques that survive to this day. After world's aerospace practitioners, geologists and other professional accepted that evidence "NASA went to moon" is now the null hypothesis.

To overthrow the current null hypothesis you don't have to prove negative (NASA wasn't on the Moon). You just need to prove that those rocks, pictures, telecasts etc. are fake and make consistent narrative how the hoax was planned, prepared and perpetrated.

Northern Lurker


edit: typo
<lurk>
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 04, 2015, 06:27:54 PM
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

Long time lurker, first time poster here. My user name is actually misnomer, it should be Nordic Lurker. As a citizen of European, liberal, social democratic country I don't have any dogs in this fight. Also English is not my primary language so I apologise for my lack of grammar and other mistakes.

I have been thinking about Romulus' idea about history needing reproducibility. Taking that line of thought to it's logical end means that since none has reproduced a Tyrannosaurus Rex (the film doesn't count), the Jura Period is just a myth. Also assassination of Abraham Lincoln and JFK are unreproduced so they must be myth too. So are Pearl Harbor, Normandy Invasion, Vietnam and Korean wars and so on...

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

Also wasn't "Nobody has been to Moon" the null hypothesis until NASA came and showed the moon rocks and core samples, still photos, telecasts and film made on the way to Moon, while being there and on the way back. Not to mention professional and amateur astronomers and radio operators who followed the missions to moon and back. And small mountain of technical documentation, testimony of the astronauts and  of those 400 000 people working for the space program. And designs, procedures, facilities and project management techniques that survive to this day. After world's aerospace practitioners, geologists and other professional accepted that evidence "NASA went to moon" is now the null hypothesis.

To overthrow the current null hypothesis you don't have to prove negative (NASA wasn't on the Moon). You just need to prove that those rocks, pictures, telecasts etc. are fake and make consistent narrative how the hoax was planned, prepared and perpetrated.

Northern Lurker


edit: typo
<lurk>

Welcome to the forum

In this one single first ever post of yours, you have made infinitely more sense than Romulus/IDW has made in all of his 189 posts put together.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 04, 2015, 06:29:21 PM
welcome, lurker.

What you will find here is a whole lot of expertise and information to beat the band. Enjoy it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 04, 2015, 06:33:20 PM
Welcome Lurker. Great 1st post.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 08:32:37 PM
Welcome, and thanks for a great first post.

I admit not being a scientist or a historian but I'm thinking that Romulus' idea of using scientific method for history just bovine excrement.

It is, and not just specifically on the point of replication and reproducibility.  What we call "the scientific method" (or rather, it's logical and philosophical underpinnings) is more properly called the hypothetico-deductive method.  History is more inductive.

You point out the mountain of evidence that attends Apollo.  Inductive reasoning attempts to reason from specific to general.  More to the point, it takes the thousands of fiddly bits of evidence such as rocks, photos, radio observation, direct observation, etc. and distills them down to a general statement, "People went to the Moon."  That's the same mode of reasoning a courtroom employs.  The jury is asked to distill a bunch of testimony, documents, and circumstantial evidence down to a general statement, "The defendant is guilty."  If the evidence doesn't clearly marshal under that simple statement, then the induction fails.

So a more historically-directed method for determining authenticity looks at all the fiddly bits and tries to determine whether all the evidence best induces into "Apollo missions were real," or into "Apollo missions were a hoax."  The latter appears to be an inductive conclusion under which the evidence fits.  Statements such as "They faked the photos," and "They faked the rocks," seem to marshal the evidence properly, but the parsimony rule of induction says you can't just speculate.  The more speculation you leave unproven, the greater the "inductive leap" at the end.  And the conclusion with the smallest inductive leap is the one most rationally held.

Romulus proposes an inductive chasm.  Which is to say, he seems to think all he has to do is come up with some conjectural explanation and he has satisfied his burden.  If he can only merely think of way it could happen alternatively, there is -- according to him -- no value in the conventional scenario no matter how well supported it is.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 04, 2015, 11:07:24 PM
It is, and not just specifically on the point of replication and reproducibility.  What we call "the scientific method" (or rather, it's logical and philosophical underpinnings) is more properly called the hypothetico-deductive method.  History is more inductive.
But isn't it fair to say that we can (and do) use the scientific method to test individual elements of evidence for some historical event? The canonical example here is the laboratory analysis of returned Apollo samples. The scientific requirement of repeatability can be satisfied by having another geologist repeat a test, assuming the original lunar sample or a comparable one is still available.

Of course, this merely proves that the samples in question came from the moon, not that Apollo actually happened. But in the context of all the other evidence (extensive engineering and operational records, third party observations of mission events, surplus hardware on public display, etc) such scientific tests certainly support it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 04, 2015, 11:40:12 PM
But isn't it fair to say that we can (and do) use the scientific method to test individual elements of evidence for some historical event?

Absolutely yes.  And such individual tests can be undertaken in questions of historical authenticity.  It's important to recognize the difference between these small-scoped individual tests, which often are susceptible to the hypothetico-deductive method, and the broad overall question, which is inductive.

Let's say a boot is found at the site of a purported battlefield.  A comparative morphological examination could reveal it to be consistent with boots made for Prussian soldiers in the late 1700s.  That is "soft" science, but often helpful and revealing.  Additionally the boot leather could be subjected to radiocarbon dating.  The narrow hypothesis here might be, "The boot was made in the late 1700s."  The deductive part of the H-D process is to deduce that if the boot was made in that time, the carbon isotope ratios will be consistent with that age.  In that way, we propose this (of possibly several) methods as a way to test the hypothesis empirically.  The falsification would occur if the ratios were reliably computed for the sample but were not consistent with a late 1700s date.  But if the ratio matches to an acceptable epsilon, our prior deduction now allows us to assert the hypothesis.

This might be part of a larger historical question such as, "Did Prussian soldiers fight on this battlefield in 1780?"  The scientific confidence in the age of the boot and the comparative assurance of its style may surely convince us that at least a Prussian boot was here.  Whether the historical question is confirmed at the larger scale would require other examinations such as whether the bulk of evidence (not just the boot, but perhaps also uniforms, ammunition, Prussian money, etc.) induces to that conclusion.  If the evidence is just the boot then you would entertain other possibilities such as a Prussian boot borrowed or captured.  In the end the large question is entirely inductive, even though it has been considered according to several deductive steps.

A similar process is followed for scientific evidence in court, such as crime-scene analysis.  If we hypothesize that the accused was at the crime scene, we can deduce that he left behind evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, footprints.  The null hypothesis is that the accused is innocent, which implies the null sub-hypothesis that he was not at the crime scene.  The comparison of DNA is a reasonably reliable process, hence we deduce further that if a DNA match occurs, it is because the DNA-bearing material was physically there and not because of a fault in the process.  If we find a match, the null sub-hypothesis is falsified -- the accused was evidently at the crime scene.  A jury may decide later that this and other evidence is best considered inductively by the parsimonious verdict that he is guilty.

That the individual elements are deductive indicates only the form of reasoning we use to structure the experiment.  It does not guarantee that the result is deductively strong.  Deductions would be something like, "DNA is unique to a person; the sample matches the subject, therefore the sample came from the subject."  That doesn't rule out laboratory error or prosecutorial misconduct.  But if the results are contested in that way, the defense bears the burden of proof for that point alone.  Jury instructions are explicit in cases like that, and all the courtroom mechanisms that vary based on who carries the burden of proof shift to favor the prosecution.

Romulus' unique formulation of methodology seems to center upon his simple mention of an alternative as an effective defense or rebuttal, without any further substantiation.  The pro-Apollo camp not having affirmatively and conclusively refuted his speculative alternatives to him constitutes an abrogation of the original burden of proof and therefore somehow unscientific.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 02:18:45 AM
</lurk>

Hi everyone!

<lurk>

Welcome on board, and thanks for the great post.

I was thinking along similar lines last night. Coincidentally, a news article popped up about Harper Lee, who is wrtiting a follow up to her best selling "To Kill a Mockingbird". I applied Rommy's "logic" to this story (after downing a half-bottle of whisky and striking myself on the forehead with a large hammer to get to the required intellectual level  ;D ) and came up with the conclusion that "To Kill a Mockinbird" is indeed a fake. The author wrote a single book which was published in 1960. She never repeated the exercise. She was a famous recluse and refused to give interviews. She rarely referred to the book

That is simply not true. Armstrong Harper Lee was a recluse who appeared to be highly reluctant to represent NASA "To Kill a Mockingbird", and he she very seldom spoke of being on the moon a world famous author. He She has however made several comments that many interpret as cryptic confessions that it was a hoax attempts to write another book, all of which failed to be published. Site a reference to Armstrong Harper Lee pontificating about the moonlandings"To Kill a Mockingbird"
Now, by Rommy's standard, Harper Lee is the perpetrator of a terrible hoax. She must be in league with a shadowy organisation that pretended to publish millions of copies of her work. Heck, she has even manipulated the public into believing that there was a major motion picture. The nefarious influence of this shadowy organisation has managed to mind-control people like Gregory Peck who supports the lie by claiming to act in the movie. This shadowy organisation is supported at the highest level- witness her being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Armed with this shocking insight into a 50 year-long conspiracy I closed all the curtains in my house (the NWO probably have snipers lurking in the bushes...) and went to my bookshelf. Funnily enough, "To Kill a Mockingbird" was still there. With words and everything. I logged onto the 'Net and the critical reviews were still there. Just like those Moon rocks, hoards of documents, designs, plans, videos of the launches. But I KNOW the truth and it's up to you lot to prove that Harper lee isn't part of some nefarious hoax. Isn't that right, eh Romulus.  :o :o :o ::) ::)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: dwight on February 05, 2015, 06:06:08 AM
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Count Zero on February 05, 2015, 09:22:40 AM
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.

"Wanton attacks on self-esteem... Grievously wounding an inner child... Blatant disregard for superiority-as-claimed... Callous refusal to accept this and other claims... Repeated harassment in the form of requests for supporting evidence..."
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 11:11:31 AM

"Wanton attacks on self-esteem... Grievously wounding an inner child... Blatant disregard for superiority-as-claimed... Callous refusal to accept this and other claims... Repeated harassment in the form of requests for supporting evidence..."

Guilty!

Penalty: You have to watch all video-clips from Jarrah one after another in full volume to enjoy the voice.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 05, 2015, 11:18:43 AM
I believe the Constitution forbids that kind of punishment.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
I believe the Constitution forbids that kind of punishment.

It took some seconds for me to realize, that you would be the accused.
In this case: acquittal

Now let's take a beer.. or two  :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 05, 2015, 11:29:00 AM
Guilty!

Penalty: You have to watch all video-clips from Jarrah one after another in full volume to enjoy the voice.

 ;D ;D ;D




Just make sure that you have a sick bucket to hand!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 11:31:49 AM




Just make sure that you have a sick bucket to hand!

What was it about the Constitution?  :D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 05, 2015, 12:07:39 PM
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.

That made me giggle. The reason for my custodial sentence does escape me though, unless one can serve 10 years for being overly sarcastic.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 12:27:38 PM
I love how we all should be in jail. Id love to hear the judge during sentencing.

That made me giggle. The reason for my custodial sentence does escape me though, unless one can serve 10 years for being overly sarcastic.
This reminds me of two YT-posters (and I think it's the same person): potrodsas and NASACrooks. They (He) want to send the astronauts and all involved people into jail.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 05, 2015, 12:41:54 PM
That, at least, makes a vague kind of sense.  If Apollo had been faked, it would be fraud, after all.  Or at least an argument could be made.  But unless they throw people in prison for occasional and infrequent jaywalking, I haven't done anything that would send me there.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 05, 2015, 01:09:04 PM


This reminds me of two YT-posters (and I think it's the same person): potrodsas and NASACrooks. They (He) want to send the astronauts and all involved people into jail.

Nasacrooks has several sock puppet accounts, NASAtellslies, NASAfakedit (which he originally called NASAfaketit) and lots more.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Trebor on February 05, 2015, 02:39:57 PM


This reminds me of two YT-posters (and I think it's the same person): potrodsas and NASACrooks. They (He) want to send the astronauts and all involved people into jail.

Nasacrooks has several sock puppet accounts, NASAtellslies, NASAfakedit (which he originally called NASAfaketit) and lots more.

Really? I thought some of those were the individual formally known as humanmonkey or humanmonkeyrace?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 05, 2015, 02:51:12 PM


Really? I thought some of those were the individual formally known as humanmonkey or humanmonkeyrace?

This special guy is another one. He has been banned so often, I don't know his actual name. He used i.e. fuckutube74. And I know he is from UK.

Podrotsas is from Greece.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Count Zero on February 05, 2015, 05:04:30 PM
That, at least, makes a vague kind of sense.  If Apollo had been faked, it would be fraud, after all.  Or at least an argument could be made.  But unless they throw people in prison for occasional and infrequent jaywalking, I haven't done anything that would send me there.
(http://www.missionmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpg)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 05, 2015, 06:25:38 PM
I would love to know what Romulus' last posts were, obviously more of the same but still amusing.

Has anyone noticed if IDW has made any claims about being censored or kicked off any particular forums?

Funny, the first thing I remembered when I saw the picture of Donald Sutherland was the squealing noise and it reminded me of Jarrah's voice.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: HeadLikeARock on February 07, 2015, 09:07:46 AM
Well, I've read the thread. I think I missed the post with the evidence that was going to be presented, which is a shame. I hope he comes back and presents it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 07, 2015, 10:50:12 AM
Well, I've read the thread. I think I missed the post with the evidence that was going to be presented, which is a shame. I hope he comes back and presents it.

My experience with this guy leads me to the following conclusion: No, he won't come back. Or he won't present any shred of evidence, when he'd really come back.

Isn't this the typical modus operande of a HB, when he has nothing?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Nowhere Man on February 07, 2015, 01:51:09 PM
I would love to know what Romulus' last posts were, obviously more of the same but still amusing.
Lunar Orbit said he approved them anyway, so you can go to Romulus's profile and look for his most recent posts.  That's what I did.

Fred
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 07, 2015, 02:01:17 PM
Lunar Orbit said he approved them anyway, so you can go to Romulus's profile and look for his most recent posts.  That's what I did.

...to find snippets like this...

IT'S A BIG HOAX, A LIE, PSY OP, IT"S DAVY CROCKETT WINNING THE BATTLE OF THE ALAMO WHILE HIDING IN THE BASEMENT OF  A STOLEN MISSION AND BEING CUT TO PIECES BY SANTA ANA'S ARMY. REMEMBER THE ALAMO! REMEMBER APOLLO!

Not just bragging of a false accomplishment, but claiming the most amazing thing in human history, and it is a goddamned lie.

I AM THE KILLER OF ANCIENT GODS.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 07, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
Back away slowly.  Don't make eye contact.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Allan F on February 08, 2015, 07:03:33 AM
Well, I've read the thread. I think I missed the post with the evidence that was going to be presented, which is a shame. I hope he comes back and presents it.

My experience with this guy leads me to the following conclusion: No, he won't come back. Or he won't present any shred of evidence, when he'd really come back.

Isn't this the typical modus operande of a HB, when he has nothing?

Yes, huff and puff, grandiose claims, no substance, flounces in a hissy, and the occasional meltdown.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 08, 2015, 07:54:08 AM

Yes, huff and puff, grandiose claims, no substance, flounces in a hissy, and the occasional meltdown.

But I give him some points for comedy  ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 08, 2015, 12:34:44 PM

Yes, huff and puff, grandiose claims, no substance, flounces in a hissy, and the occasional meltdown.

But I give him some points for comedy  ;D

Romulus disintegrated so fast there is little other way to look at but as some bizarre comedic performance art.  A man wrestling with a darkly perverse muse. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 12:45:50 PM
Romulus disintegrated so fast there is little other way to look at but as some bizarre comedic performance art.

Quite. I really found it difficult to understand that NASA lied about everything yet he wanted the TLI data that NASA hadn't published so he could prove that they have lied about everything.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 08, 2015, 01:41:12 PM
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known

Since Newton's time.

Quote
I never quite understood this position.

He didn't want the data.  He wanted to argue that NASA didn't publish the data, as part of an overall plan to keep everyone in the dark.  When he was told the data were published, he wanted particulars so that he use them could accuse NASA of lying.  His approach is confusing because you're interpreting it as a quest for information or the desire to make a reasoned argument.  Interpret it instead as forming a new attack on NASA with every new bit of information, without regard for anything that has been said previously.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 08, 2015, 01:48:58 PM
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.

Nobody that has the ability to think logically would take this position as it doesn't make any sense. But, then, if they had the ability to think logically they wouldn't be a hoax-believer in the first place.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 01:53:52 PM
Since Newton's time.

Phew, so all I learned at high school and college (deliberate Americanisms from the Brit) are indeed true. I didn't waste my time after all.  ;)

Quote
His approach is confusing because you're interpreting it as a quest for information or the desire to make a reasoned argument.  Interpret it instead as forming a new attack on NASA with every new bit of information, without regard for anything that has been said previously.

I found the position of his logical constructs difficult to understand rather than the mode of his argument, he was basically looking for a fight, that much I do comprehend. I rather choked on my coffee when he claimed he wanted data from an organisation that he accussed of lying so he could prove they were lying - all in one setence. I can't quite connect that position to a common logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 01:57:33 PM
Nobody that has the ability to think logically would take this position as it doesn't make any sense. But, then, if they had the ability to think logically they wouldn't be a hoax-believer in the first place.

There is that. I've clarfied my position with a reply to Jay, I'm really searching for a logical deconstruct of his data line in a single encompassing fallacy.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 08, 2015, 02:03:37 PM
Phew, so all I learned at high school and college (deliberate Americanisms from the Brit) are indeed true. I didn't waste my time after all.  ;)

One could argue you should have been outside playing football, and later, drinking beer.  Waste is subjective.

Quote
I found the position of his logical constructs difficult to understand rather than the mode of his argument, he was basically looking for a fight, that much I do comprehend. I rather choked on my coffee when he claimed he wanted data from an organisation that he accussed of lying so he could prove they were lying - all in one setence. I can't quite connect that position to a common logical fallacy.

Circular reasoning?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 02:08:39 PM
One could argue you should have been outside playing football, and later, drinking beer.  Waste is subjective.

Would that be the oval ball or round ball you are referring to? I did spend time with an oval ball in the winter, but it didn't involve pads, and the game was played in two halfs not four quarters. I reverted to a form of baseball in the summer months, but it just wouldn't be cricket to compare it with baseball.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote
Circular reasoning?

Obviously. I'm not great with always connecting faulty logic to the logical fallacy. I can spot the errors in the logical argument, but pinning a name to it I'm less than secure with.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Northern Lurker on February 08, 2015, 02:26:46 PM
After watching several HB:s having problems with Apollo trajectories I'm getting feeling that they have naive expectation for google maps style directions:

-take off and head 100 miles up
-turn 90° to left
-take two orbits
-aim for the 3rd star from right for 3 hours
-aim for the moon for 2 days

Instead of quite cryptic orbital elements and orbital mathematics...

Lurky
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 08, 2015, 02:29:52 PM
Would that be the oval ball or round ball you are referring to? I did spend time with an oval ball in the winter, but it didn't involve pads, and the game was played in two halfs not four quarters. I reverted to a form of baseball in the summer months, but it just wouldn't be cricket to compare it with baseball.  ;D ;D ;D

In the spirit of Anglo-American cooperation I left that ambiguous, as also the temperature of the beer.

Quote
Obviously. I'm not great with always connecting faulty logic to the logical fallacy. I can spot the errors in the logical argument, but pinning a name to it I'm less than secure with.

Taxonomizing the logical fallacies is not as easy or useful as you think.  Aristotle's "sophistical refutations" paint one picture, and a number of subsequent attempts end up overlapping this with that and then yet another thing.  Can one reason in circles without also begging the question?  What exactly did Aristotle mean by ignoratio elenchi?  Is it the same as "changing horses?"  Or is it more like a non sequitur?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 02:44:31 PM
After watching several HB:s having problems with Apollo trajectories I'm getting feeling that they have naive expectation for google maps style directions:

Absolutely, it's not like driving a car. A classic example of the detail involved is the Voyager 2 mission and how the 'alignment' of the planets were exploited to send Voyager 2 to the edges of the solar system. There are so many facets to setting up an orbit and I defer it to the real experts.

One of the classic fails in hoax history is the combinatorial arguments of Jarrah White and Ralph Rene and their Apollo 13 analyses.

Jarrah claimed that Apollo 13 would not have enough fuel to enter a lunar orbit so could never return to Earth. One issue with this argument, Apollo 13 did not need fuel to enter lunar orbit, it was on a free return trajectory. To paraphrase the movie: Newton was in the driving seat. They did use fuel for course correction.

Then there was Ralph's argument. He claimed that the moon would not have 'slowed' Apollo 13 down sufficiently to bring Apollo 13 back on a free return. Given that he claimed to over turn Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, I'm not surprised he did not understand the higher level orbital mechanics involved in free return.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 03:01:56 PM
...as also the temperature of the beer.

Cheap shot, but made me laugh. (We get a lot of stick from Australians about 'ale' temperature.)

Quote
Taxonomizing the logical fallacies is not as easy or useful as you think.  Aristotle's "sophistical refutations" paint one picture, and a number of subsequent attempts end up overlapping this with that and then yet another thing.  Can one reason in circles without also begging the question?  What exactly did Aristotle mean by ignoratio elenchi?  Is it the same as "changing horses?"  Or is it more like a non sequitur?

That summarises the difficulty I have with taxomony. One could argue that by omitting data from an argument one is drawing an irrelevent conclusion, but one can invoke several fallacies to counter the position, such as fallacy of omission. Sometimes the fallacy is clear, as with Jarrah's (sorry) 67% film speed debacle. His correction was a very definite example of circular reasoning and thus easy to label with a fallacy. Your explanation helps. Thanks.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 08, 2015, 03:05:10 PM
He didn't want the data.  He wanted to argue that NASA didn't publish the data, as part of an overall plan to keep everyone in the dark. 
Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

Or maybe it was just too late in the free-for-all before he flounced.

I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist. It's never anything that they really want, will bother to read or could even understand if they tried. It's just some MacGuffin they claim NASA has suppressed as part of the conspiracy. When I provide it, they invariably move the goalposts and claim that it's just NASA propaganda or isn't what they really want. But I can still see the wind suddenly leave their sails.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 03:19:43 PM
Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

That's new information. You PM'd him?

Quote
Or maybe it was just too late in the free-for-all before he flounced.

Yes, it does become a free-for-all. I find when it gets like that I spend time writing a reply and the big red box tells me that there have been 10 other replies before mine. I really should check that others have not made the same point before posting.

Quote
When I provide it, they invariably move the goalposts and claim that it's just NASA propaganda or isn't what they really want. But I can still see the wind suddenly leave their sails.

Then there is Cosmored, the serial spammer, who claimed that no one could really characterise the cislunar radiation environment during Apollo because the data was incomplete and has only just been understood. I did ask him how in that case the CTs could actually quantify the space environment to make such a robust case. No answer.

Then there is Jarrah and his flounce at the IMBd. He claims that Jay was asking him the impossible when requested to correlate proton data with H-alpha prominences. He ran away and then made a video about Jay was asking him to provide proton data when the GOES records only started in 1976. So Jarrah, how do you reconcile the graph that you use for a SPE from the 1950's to calculate dose for the Apollo astronauts?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 08, 2015, 03:31:05 PM
Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

That's new information. You PM'd him?
See my reply #368.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 08, 2015, 03:32:30 PM
Which explains why he totally ignored my message pointing to the NASA document giving the detailed (and I mean detailed) trajectory for the Apollo 11 mission.

He was given several sources and ignored them all.  First Jay directed him to Apollo by the Numbers.  Then he cried "Can you please post the specific translunar injection claimed by NASA", to which I posted the actual data.  He then responded with "What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else."  To this Jay pointed out that Apollo by the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.  I then directed him to this document (http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/SaturnV1969.pdf) and ka9q directed him to this document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700014995.pdf).  He didn't acknowledge any of it and soony afterward flounced.

I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist.

That happens all the time.  It comes from blindly believing what the hoax merchants say without doing any real research.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
Aside from the entire scientific method versus historical event argument, the fact that he howled more and more when given references on a plate rather makes his original post title redundant. By ignoring the evidence he falsified his own question. I'm rather stating the obvious now. I'm not going to get into armchair diagnoses, but is he just an ubertroll?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: darren r on February 08, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
Aside from the entire scientific method versus historical event argument, the fact that he howled more and more when given references on a plate rather makes his original post title redundant. By ignoring the evidence he falsified his own question. I'm rather stating the obvious now. I'm not going to get into armchair diagnoses, but is he just an ubertroll?

I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on. That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.

We can throw as much evidence at them as we like, but they won't accept it because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea that the US is capable of being honest about anything.



Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 08, 2015, 04:44:08 PM
Trolls generally don't take themselves seriously.  Their sole aim is to stir up mischief and attract attention any way they can.  Yes, that can take the form of patently incoherent and illogical approaches.

I really don't think that's what Romulus is aiming for.  I think he's the kind of conspiracy theorist who doesn't need much logic or coherence in his beliefs as long as he can maintain the illusion that he's absolutely brilliant and has everything figured out, and that all his life's troubles are due to oppression and malfeasance on others' part.  My gut feeling tells me he's the kind of person who really needs the fantasy construct for ego reinforcement.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 08, 2015, 04:55:27 PM
I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on.

Yes, there is all of the above of course and I agree that this fits the profile of many Apollo CTs I have encountered. There are those where the above resonates loudly, but there are those where untangling their motives is complex. Romulus was hell bent on making it very personal and from an early point made it clear that his intelligence was greater than any of us at this board. Even his ID suggests a position of self-grandeur. I'm not entirely sure his motives were so anti-US.

Now that the debate is well established at this little corner of the internet I am more convinved that the motive is to 'take on' Jay, Phil Plait and others. There is almost a dragon slaying mentality about the Apollo hoax now. This a negative position for the CTs, as it illustrates that they are gunning for those that have inflicted the most damage to the CT arguments.

Jarrah White shows the same m.o. Any challenge to the argument and he descends in a self aggrandising manner with personal barbs mixed in for good measure.

Quote
That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.


Yes, let's not forget the Alamo.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 08, 2015, 05:52:21 PM
This behaviour is nothing new. Romulus simply tried to narrow the confines of his argument so tight that he could simply hand wave away any evidence that he deemed inapplicable to what he was trying to argue. It is somewhat analogous to a lawyer in a trial demanding only a "yes" or "no" answer to a question so that the witness cannot add other relevant information that the lawyer doesn't want revealed. Then of course, Romulus throws his toys out of his cot when we redirect or elaborate anyway.

As for his is BS about applying the sceintific method to an historical event like Apollo, well that is just yet another blatant attempt at shifting the burden of proof away from the conspiracy theorist. His idea falls over on two basic points...

1. The Oxford English Dictionary (as good a reference as any) defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." How can we "observe" a historical event from the past? How can we "measure" the event. How can we perform experiments on that event?

2. The available evidence that Apollo took place is overwhelming; those who say it didn't happen have the burden to prove it did not happen, i.e. they have to prove that the TV broadcasts, the photographs, the radio transmissions etc, were all faked, and that the public and about half a million people who were involved have been duped.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 08, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
... and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: darren r on February 08, 2015, 06:11:21 PM


I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

Romulus made a reference to the long-standing controversy about the exact circumstances of Davy Crockett's death - whether he died fighting (per the 1960 movie) or was captured and executed (which is the scenario the 2004 movie went with).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 08, 2015, 06:11:47 PM
... and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo

I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, that David Crockett (what historians call him; Davy Crockett is what they call the folk hero variant of the historical figure) didn't go out in a blaze of glory but instead surrendered and was executed.  The evidence seems to pretty strongly support that latter point, unless you're a Texan, apparently.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 08, 2015, 06:37:50 PM
Had a win on the weekend.

It was my youngest brother's bachelor party and naturally when a large group of men get together and drink, one of them is bound to come up with one conspiracy or another.

Apollo came up, but with some really old arguments, flags, shadows etc. So not satisfied with just debunking them I actually gave him some of the more sophisticated CT arguments and then told him why they were wrong as well. I gave him a lot to think about and he wants links to Clavius and Apollohoax, but he was pretty happy with my responses. Now 9/11 on the other hand was a different story.......
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Count Zero on February 08, 2015, 08:10:41 PM
I do have to say that some of my most satisfying moments in arguments with hoaxers is when I give them a piece of data they've been screaming for in the mistaken belief that it doesn't exist.

That's always been a reliable "tell" for the kind of person who shows up on a board.  For example, instead of asking, "Are there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?" they ask, "Why aren't there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?"  They are assuming instead of inquiring.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 09, 2015, 12:28:00 AM
I haven't heard that one.  What are they saying about the Alamo?

I met Fess Parker once.  Does that count for anything?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 09, 2015, 12:42:36 AM
That's always been a reliable "tell" for the kind of person who shows up on a board.  For example, instead of asking, "Are there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?" they ask, "Why aren't there any pictures of the Earth taken from the Moon?"  They are assuming instead of inquiring.

Indeed, the Complex Question is a well-worn way of sneaking your premise past the opponent.  Phrased this particular way, it not only places the premise beyond easy argument, it turns the question into a debate over propriety and motive rather than fact.  Subjective questions like motive can be argued incessantly without resolution.  That serves the conspiracist's desire to prolong the debate rather than resolve it.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 09, 2015, 04:28:46 AM

Quite. I really found it difficult to understand that NASA lied about everything yet he wanted the TLI data that NASA hadn't published so he could prove that they have lied about everything.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the laws of orbital mechanics well known, and wouldn't someone on the planet at the time be able to produce a set of orbital parameters for a TLI and simply publish them. The entire idea that he wanted their data (that he did not trust) to prove that they had lied was bizarre in the circumstances of his claim. I never quite understood this position.

I think the TLI is very well known. There was a publication in 1963 by Albert (Arthur ?) Schwaninger about that. Even Henri Poincaré wrote about it at the end of the 19th century. And this was a research of about two minutes.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 09, 2015, 04:35:24 AM

I think that his motivation is the same as many other Hoax Believers, no matter how much they try to dress it up in scientific terms : their disbelief comes from a skewed political or philosophical standpoint. They cannot accept that Apollo happened because, as they see it, it's tainted by its inextricable links with the United States, its government, military and so on. That's why they always throw 9/11, JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin and (a new one) the Battle of the Alamo into the mix.

We can throw as much evidence at them as we like, but they won't accept it because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea that the US is capable of being honest about anything.

If this guy Romulus was really IDW (which I tend to believe), then there would be another standpoint. There is a religious standpoint. In a discussion on a YT channel he characterized himself as a follower of creationism.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 09, 2015, 05:50:44 AM
If this guy Romulus was really IDW (which I tend to believe), then there would be another standpoint. There is a religious standpoint. In a discussion on a YT channel he characterized himself as a follower of creationism.

I would tend to side with this view. In Romulus's various rants he appeared racist, homophobic and used having Liberal views as an insult. Like many with extreme right-wing beliefs he clearly suffers from crank-magnetism. I'm surprised that he didn't bring Obama's birth certificate into his ranting. No doubt he also believes that Sarah Palin is an intelligent person and a fine upstanding candidate to lead the US.  ::) ::)


You are a liberal democrat, aren't you?


I think his politics are reflective of his character.I think he's a liberal cretin with zero integrity.

Mr.Windley, you lie like a rug and waffle like a liberal democrat                       
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 09, 2015, 10:13:31 AM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 09, 2015, 01:04:24 PM
I met Fess Parker once.  Does that count for anything?

It makes me jealous, anyway.  I had such a crush on him when I was a kid and had the Disney Channel.  This, I admit, is weird, but there we are.

I declined, incidentally, from telling him any of my political beliefs, because they're none of his business and don't influence my stance on Apollo.  My dad was a conservative, and one of the things I remember about him is going out one Sunday a month to fire model rockets.  He died when I was six (thirty-two years ago yesterday), but I consider that an indication that he was not a hoax believer, even though the subject never came up.  I do remember being awakened in the middle of the night to watch an eclipse, so yeah.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 09, 2015, 01:31:08 PM
It makes me jealous, anyway.  I had such a crush on him when I was a kid and had the Disney Channel.  This, I admit, is weird, but there we are.

Why would it be weird to have a crush on him?  I met him about the time my avatar picture was taken, which was only a few short years before he died.  One of the other actors in that play had been in several episodes of both Fess Parker television shows -- Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, which were largely indistinguishable back then.  They'd maintained a friendship, and Parker was passing through town.  Shifting for a minute from Crockett to Boone, the theme song is right as far as Parker was concerned:  I don't know if Boone was a "big man," but Fess Parker was enormous.  He was also one of the most personable of the well-known actors I've met.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 09, 2015, 02:11:34 PM
No doubt he also believes that Sarah Palin is an intelligent person and a fine upstanding candidate to lead the US.

...and what exactly is wrong with Sarah Palin? [Sound of stupid British guy ducking for cover.]


No, I'm not sure why he brought politics into the debate, although I use debate in the loosest sense of the term.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 09, 2015, 02:22:24 PM
No doubt he also believes that Sarah Palin is an intelligent person and a fine upstanding candidate to lead the US.

...and what exactly is wrong with Sarah Palin? [Sound of stupid British guy ducking for cover.]


From a British perspective nothing - it would be hilarious, in the same way that the rest of the world would find Nigel Farage a real hoot if he got anywhere near power.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 09, 2015, 02:24:58 PM
From a British perspective nothing - it would be hilarious, in the same way that the rest of the world would find Nigel Farage a real hoot if he got anywhere near power.

I'd swap the UK for Alaska if that happened, I mean it, I really would. Really, really, really... like really!!!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 09, 2015, 03:43:22 PM
From a British perspective nothing - it would be hilarious, in the same way that the rest of the world would find Nigel Farage a real hoot if he got anywhere near power.

I'd swap the UK for Alaska if that happened, I mean it, I really would. Really, really, really... like really!!!

Quite possibly me too.

i would roughly calculate the chances of either of them getting elected as the same as Romulus coming out and announcing that he is gay for Jay..... ::)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 09, 2015, 06:13:43 PM
Why would it be weird to have a crush on him?

Because it was about 1987.  Not many girls born in the '70s had crushes on Fess Parker.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 09, 2015, 08:14:36 PM
...and what exactly is wrong with Sarah Palin? [Sound of stupid British guy ducking for cover.]


From a British perspective nothing - it would be hilarious, in the same way that the rest of the world would find Nigel Farage a real hoot if he got anywhere near power.
Need I remind you that the US has nuclear weapons?

As John Cleese said, McCain simply picked the wrong Palin.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 09, 2015, 08:58:06 PM
...and what exactly is wrong with Sarah Palin? [Sound of stupid British guy ducking for cover.]


From a British perspective nothing - it would be hilarious, in the same way that the rest of the world would find Nigel Farage a real hoot if he got anywhere near power.
Need I remind you that the US has nuclear weapons?

As John Cleese said, McCain simply picked the wrong Palin.

I think Cleese called her a "good looking parrot"
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 09, 2015, 09:15:57 PM
I wouldn't even go that far. The way the male right-wing commentators drooled all over her during the 2008 campaign was just downright creepy.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2015, 11:44:50 AM
I was actually kind of offended by their selection of her, since they admitted it was intended to woo female Hillary Clinton voters who were mad that Obama got the nomination instead.  And say what you like about Hillary, but at least no one has ever accused her of being dumb.  Dumb is a dealbreaker for me in a politician, and the fact that they think women are interchangeable to female voters, regardless of political slant, is just insulting to female voters.

And the way the male commentators drooled over her is, in my opinion, directly related to how they insult left-wing female politicians' appearance.  Okay, so Nancy Pelosi isn't winning any beauty contests (though, in my opinion, Sarah Palin isn't all that attractive, either), but so what?  That's not what she was elected to do!  But it's this whole "our women are competent and more attractive than liberals!"  Except Sarah Palin was missing the first part of that no matter your opinion of her appearance.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 10, 2015, 12:29:14 PM
I think a lot of us, male and female, were just as offended by McCain's choice. But for me it had nothing to do with her gender or appearance or accent and everything to do with her near-total lack of a brain and downright mean-spiritedness.

Aside from placing an utterly incompetent person a heartbeat from the presidency, it also disqualified McCain for the job. One of a president's most important jobs (if not the most important) is to select the right people for a wide range of very important positions, from cabinet members to agency heads to military generals to Supreme Court justices. He clearly blew it with his choice of running mate, so why should I expect his judgment to be any better with any other appointments?

And he sure doesn't do much to keep my respect by still insisting he made the right choice. I know he's not that dense, so he can only be lying to save face. And that's a dangerous trait for a president. It's a shame, because through his principled and vocal opposition to torture he was one of the few Republicans to ever gain my respect.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 10, 2015, 12:54:10 PM
But for me it had nothing to do with her gender or appearance or accent and everything to do with her near-total lack of a brain and downright mean-spiritedness.

The same here.  I move in local politics, and I have dealings with legislators of both sexes, all races, both parties, many religions and no religion, and a variety of backgrounds.  Some have even been guests in my home.  I have two principal criteria by which I evaluate how successful I think they are:  how informed they are, and how committed they are to the constitution and the rule of law.  Palin failed miserably on the first.

Quote
One of a president's most important jobs (if not the most important) is to select the right people for a wide range of very important positions...

I think this is why Ronald Reagan commanded so much respect.  He seemed to put a lot of competent people in key positions and gave them a lot of autonomy.  Politics aside, the Reagan years seemed well-organized and effective, and I think it's precisely because knew how to delegate effectively.

Quote
And he sure doesn't do much to keep my respect by still insisting he made the right choice. I know he's not that dense, so he can only be lying to save face.

I think McCain chose Palin in order to appeal to the Tea Party, which was then seen by some as the future of the GOP.  In other words, she was chosen to win the election by solidifying the GOP base, not to lead the country in any meaningful way.  McCain appealed to the centrist elements, while Palin appealed to the far right and to women.  That's sadly the state of modern electoral politics -- the criteria by which we judge people's leadership ability is not the criteria by which we decide for whom to vote.

And since the GOP can't yet jettison the Tea Party safely, McCain can't yet alienate them by lowering the esteem of one of their stars.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 10, 2015, 01:19:23 PM
the fact that they think women are interchangeable to female voters, regardless of political slant, is just insulting to female voters.

Pandering is such a part of politics that I never even bother to feel insulted anymore. Even as galling as this particular example should have been.  It was an act of desperation because despite the fact that McCain got the nomination, he was a terrible presidential candidate and had been from the first time he tried for the nomination.  There was simply no one better that year.  But pandering often works and some people will vote for candidate based on their sex, ethnicity or other superficial characteristics. 

As much as I don't care for H. Clinton's politics, she is a remarkable person and can handle herself at a press conference or anywhere else.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 10, 2015, 01:39:28 PM
Am I the only person who watched Veep?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 10, 2015, 01:52:04 PM
Pandering is such a part of politics that I never even bother to feel insulted anymore.

Douglas Adams got it right, I think.  In introducing the character Zaphod Beeblebrox, he noted that any person who could manage to get himself elected to a high office should under no circumstances be allowed to have the job.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 10, 2015, 03:04:20 PM
Yes, that is one of my favorite HHGttG bits.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 10, 2015, 04:02:48 PM
To me, a stupid person must be incapable of understanding, reasoning, wit, or sense.  I seldom believe that conspiracists are incapable of thinking.  In fact, we've seen that most of them are actually capable of attaining degrees, holding decent jobs, and so forth.  They aren't stupid.  (Most of them.)
I was actually kind of offended by their selection of her, since they admitted it was intended to woo female Hillary Clinton voters who were mad that Obama got the nomination instead.  And say what you like about Hillary, but at least no one has ever accused her of being dumb.  Dumb is a dealbreaker for me in a politician, and the fact that they think women are interchangeable to female voters, regardless of political slant, is just insulting to female voters.

Seriously?  Conspiracists aren't stupid but Sarah Palin is?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2015, 05:35:24 PM
Seriously?  Conspiracists aren't stupid but Sarah Palin is?

Yeah, I can go along with that.

Conspiracy Theorists can be quite intelligent, articulate individuals, just sadly misguided. Intelligence does not make a person immune from doing or saying stupid things. I think Bill Clinton would agree with me on that.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is just plain stupid.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 10, 2015, 06:10:32 PM
To me, a stupid person must be incapable of understanding, reasoning, wit, or sense.  I seldom believe that conspiracists are incapable of thinking.  In fact, we've seen that most of them are actually capable of attaining degrees, holding decent jobs, and so forth.  They aren't stupid.  (Most of them.)
I was actually kind of offended by their selection of her, since they admitted it was intended to woo female Hillary Clinton voters who were mad that Obama got the nomination instead.  And say what you like about Hillary, but at least no one has ever accused her of being dumb.  Dumb is a dealbreaker for me in a politician, and the fact that they think women are interchangeable to female voters, regardless of political slant, is just insulting to female voters.

Seriously?  Conspiracists aren't stupid but Sarah Palin is?

Sarah Palin suffers from verbal incontinence, I don't think she is as stupid as she looks she just isn't very articulate and she tends to try to use her supporter's fears to gain brownie points.

I feel that putting a woman in power just for the fact she is a woman is an insult to all women. It's like saying " You may or may not be as good as a man but have the job anyway because we need to suck the female demographic in". Equality should mean the right person for the job regardless of gender.

I disagree with a particular quota of women in cabinet same as I disagree for a particular quota of 'ethnics'. I do understand the notion of appealing to certain demographics, I just think it should be done on the merits of the policies not who are selling them.

I do feel, probably naïvely, that all politicians should be accountable for their performance during their time in power. Get rid of the lobbying, put aside x amount of dollars of equal amounts for both parties' campaigns and let the policies speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 10, 2015, 06:43:54 PM
I don't think of Palin as stupid, which anyways  is a vague way to describe anyone and just name calling.  Probably just about average overall with a few significant strengths and notable weaknesses.  But totally ill suited for national politics.  One characteristic she seems to share with many conspiracy theorists is that she appears to be clueless or carefree  as to how others perceive her.  She does what she does without any appearance of refection on how it will come off.  Like a bad character actor that can only deliver a few lines in one voice.  Once she has to step outside her "act" she is off persona and bumbles things badly.  It can be as strength and a weakness in politics depending on the level and how well the "on" persona connects with voters. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 10, 2015, 06:54:09 PM
Pandering is such a part of politics that I never even bother to feel insulted anymore.

Douglas Adams got it right, I think.  In introducing the character Zaphod Beeblebrox, he noted that any person who could manage to get himself elected to a high office should under no circumstances be allowed to have the job.
Quite the conundrum.  Do we allow ourselves to be governed by those who have proven themselves unsuitable through popular election or governed by those who have proven themselves to be unsuitable by not seeking popular election.  Or just enjoy a nice cup of tea with which to toast Adams wisdom. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: nomuse on February 10, 2015, 07:55:58 PM
Devil's Avocado, some of Palin's difficulty may have been that it takes a real knack to speak dog whistle. The real poets both sound like they are making sense, and even sound like reasonable human beings, when every word is carefully encoded with what the rabid fringe wants to hear.

And the really cool part of the trick is that the rabid fringe is full of contradictory beliefs. That's why dog whistle or empty platitudes is the only way to talk at them. The closer you get to decipherable human language, the more the logical inconsistencies become too obvious to be ignored any longer.

Palin was relatively facile at lining up a row of well-tested, well-used phrases. She just wasn't good enough at putting the insulation between the cracks.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 10, 2015, 08:29:20 PM
  From the Distinguished Gentleman:           

             We ran a positive campaign. We
              campaigned on the issues. The
              issue is leadership. Leadership
              for the future. Ask not what you
              can do for your country. The
              people have spoken. The only
              thing we have to fear is fear
              itself. If you can't stand the
              heat stay out of the kitchen.
              Live Free or Die. And in
              conclusion...read my lips!

Unfortunately this is as much as most say these days.


Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 10, 2015, 08:37:42 PM
Pandering is such a part of politics that I never even bother to feel insulted anymore.

Douglas Adams got it right, I think.  In introducing the character Zaphod Beeblebrox, he noted that any person who could manage to get himself elected to a high office should under no circumstances be allowed to have the job.

... and should immediately be issued with a pair of "peril-sensitive" sunglasses!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 10, 2015, 09:06:48 PM
Conspiracy Theorists can be quite intelligent, articulate individuals, just sadly misguided.

I don't think they are intelligent at all.  I think they are just bullshit artists who are good at making themselves sound smart.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin is just plain stupid.

I think she was unqualified for the office she sought and was in way over her head, but I think calling her stupid is unfair.  She's no rocket scientist, but I believe she's a reasonably intelligent individual.

(Re-reading what I wrote above, I think we could replace she with he and we'd be talking about President Obama.)

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 10, 2015, 09:14:41 PM
My impression is that "intelligent" and "stupid" have a variety of nuanced connotations that make them relatively unusable as simple labels that we all agree on.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 10, 2015, 09:16:17 PM
Am I the only person who watched Veep?

Don't get the channel, and I'm not there in the library catalog yet.

Seriously?  Conspiracists aren't stupid but Sarah Palin is?

Look, if you present me with a conspiracist who can't name what book or newspaper they've read lately and then refers to it as a trick question, I'll totally grant you that the conspiracist in question is dumb.  You'll note I don't say that none of them are dumb, and I'm certainly not saying they're smart, either.  I think most of them are of average intelligence and are trying to sound smarter, and that is, I'll admit, also where she gets in the most trouble.  On the other hand, while some of her most famous quotes were actually said by Tina Fey, you could absolutely believe she'd said them.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 11, 2015, 01:56:32 AM
Sarah Palin suffers from verbal incontinence, I don't think she is as stupid as she looks she just isn't very articulate and she tends to try to use her supporter's fears to gain brownie points.
Another adjective probably describes her best. It's a word I first heard used not long before, in connection with George W. Bush:
Quote
incurious:  adjective
1. not curious; not inquisitive or observant; inattentive; indifferent.
2. Archaic. lacking care or attention; careless; negligent.
It really does describe them both. Regardless of their ability to learn (i.e., native intelligence) neither one seems particularly interested in learning anything. And I've learned that motivation often counts for considerably more than ability.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: raven on February 11, 2015, 02:22:22 AM
I would say it very much is.  Part of what makes a great teacher is the ability to build enthusiasm, to encourage the desire to learn. Without it, aptitude counts for crap. It's like a stone wall around one's mind.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 11, 2015, 10:57:49 AM
I would say it very much is.  Part of what makes a great teacher is the ability to build enthusiasm, to encourage the desire to learn. Without it, aptitude counts for crap. It's like a stone wall around one's mind.

Indeed.  It takes a lot to get an engineering student interested in politics.  This is the guy (http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/media/facultyexperts/asexperts/matthew_kerbel.html) who did it for me.  He was a professor of political science at Univ. of Michigan at the time.  He was able to line up guest speakers such as John Anderson (for non-Americans:  independent presidential candidate in 1980) and sitting senators and judges.  He also made us actually want to read the Federalist Papers (for non-Americans:  a series of essays on government and politics written in the late 1700s under a pseudonym by a handful of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2015, 11:04:52 AM
I think she was unqualified for the office she sought
For better or worse the hurdles for becoming vice president are being 35+ years of age, a 14 year resident of the U.S., "native born," not being from the same state as the presidential candidate and getting the majority vote of the Electoral College.   By that standard, she was completely qualified but unsuccessful in the last part.

Quote
and was in way over her head,
No doubt about that.  She was probably just treading water in Alaska, the minute the currents of fortune took her from those shores, she went under.  But hey, she got a reality show out of it.  ???
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 11, 2015, 11:23:27 AM
By that standard, she was completely qualified but unsuccessful in the last part.

I'd argue she was eligible, but not qualified.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 11, 2015, 12:12:18 PM
Look, if you present me with a conspiracist who can't name what book or newspaper they've read lately and then refers to it as a trick question, I'll totally grant you that the conspiracist in question is dumb.

Not Sarah Palin's finest moment, but you mischaracterize the situation.  Palin chose not to answer and she didn't refer to it as a trick question. She said she was annoyed by it, along with other questions, and wanted to move on to other topics that she thought were more important.  Don't forgot also that at this time she was under relentless attack by the liberal media, so she was afraid that whatever she might say would be turned into a negative and used to criticize her.  She therefore chose to answer in a nonspecific way hoping that Katie Couric would just move on to the next question.  If anything, Palin was guilty of over thinking the situation and, in retrospect, should have just answered the question.  A gaffe no doubt, but not proof positive of lack of intelligence.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 11, 2015, 07:43:16 PM
Heh.  Yeah.  "Liberal media."  You do realize that studies consistently show that Republican candidates get more favourable and neutral stories written about them and fewer negative ones, right?  I'm sure she doesn't realize that, because she's in a Fox News vacuum, but if the media were really all that liberal, they wouldn't have taken Bush administration stories about Iraq at face value, now, would they?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 11, 2015, 08:12:00 PM
Let's end the political discussion, please. It's off topic in this thread.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 11, 2015, 09:08:58 PM
By that standard, she was completely qualified but unsuccessful in the last part.

I'd argue she was eligible, but not qualified.
A fine distinction.   The sources I've read have used both words.  Eligible though does seem better when satisfying the Constitution's requirements.  So Bob, I'm with you now in saying Palin is not qualified.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 11, 2015, 10:50:47 PM
Let's end the political discussion, please. It's off topic in this thread.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 15, 2015, 02:25:10 AM
With all of the "brilliant minds" around here I am not surprised not a one of you could really actually figure out what Sarah Palin's appeal actually is. Dumb men like a dumb broads with a nice rack.

 If you look at most Presidential elections it is usually the more physically attractive of the two that wins because this is how simple minded humans actually are. Nixon didn't have a chance running against Kennedy, the women swooned over him.

As for Sarah Palin, men wouldn't vote for her if she was running for President, but she wouldn't make a bad choice for a Republican vice President. Women like the idea of a woman candidate , especially the feminazi crowd, so that would pull some Demoncrapic women over from the other side of the aisle. You have to admit, she's a lot better to look at (and think about) than Hillary Clinton.   
Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of NASA's moonrocks, but in the end does it really matter? Does a vice President actually make any decisions? Does a President?

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 15, 2015, 03:12:13 AM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.

Don't quit your day job.

 One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

My history is of leading ,not following. Almost without exception, my positions on such things as Apollo and the 911 false flag start out being marginal, and as time goes on it changes to mainstream belief.

My goal in debunking the NASA moon landing hoax is to remove a cornerstone element of a fabricated reality, a fabrication I feel is detrimental to the interests of the human race..

I have no problem admitting feeling alienated in a restrained and regulated  intellectual environment like this forum that is geared towards staying within certain boundaries in order to form an illusion that intelligent people do not doubt NASA's claims or integrity as a whole.

Surely you realize that is not an accurate representation. smart people are much more likely to question what they're told and with subject like Apollo they're going to go through the same stages I did..

.I think you have to do a lot of moral compromising and rationalization myself, and it undoubtedly leaves you feeling alienated and somewhat guilty.  I know that a person who knows the truth and yet prefers not acknowledge it to himself is technically mentally ill.

  In the real world there are two opinions concerning Apollo: 1) I don't give a damned, I'm too busy and distracted just trying to survive; or 2) What a freaking' farce. If you had ever been a part of "the real world" you would know that.

People like you marginalize others because it's an easy way to assassinate their character and impinge upon their credibility without effort, but the problem is there are few people in the world who have not been confronted with the words "you're crazy" when they said something exposing a guilty cretin. It is a weapon nearly as effective as bludgeoning them with the blunt instrument of your stupidity....but I am wondering, do you realize just how unhealthy it is psychologically to actually believe that the belief in conspiracies is the domain of the mentally ill?      Oh, and how convenient THAT "diagnosis" is! We live in a world where 99% of the people are totally detached from any grounding in reality, a collective conscious that is manipulated for the good of a very tiny few. And it's a few none of you are part of but willingly serve anyway for what little gravy they let drip off the table onto the floor so you can lick it up. When your usefulness runs out, so will your luck. 

I have news for you, if you actually believe that the nature of human interactions and interrelations in politics, business, academics, you name it, is not on all levels  to some degree or another steeped in conspiracy, you're not only an idiot, you're nuts.

Conspiracy is simply two or more people secretly agreeing to take part in the same endeavor, usually *something that by it's nature needs to be concealed, and it is always at the expense of some other group.

I suggest if  you find yourself spending your entire life defending a hoax that has been over and done with for 46 years , a hoax that a large percentage of people now alive don't even care about and in some case don't even know about  anyway, I wouldn't condescend to cast aspersions on anyone else using some derogatory psychobabble pseudo-psychiatric "diagnosis" as a form of cheap character assassination.  .

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 15, 2015, 10:22:56 AM
Let's end the political discussion, please. It's off topic in this thread.

With all of the "brilliant minds" around here I am not surprised not a one of you could really actually figure out what Sarah Palin's appeal actually is. Dumb men like a dumb broads with a nice rack.

 If you look at most Presidential elections it is usually the more physically attractive of the two that wins because this is how simple minded humans actually are. Nixon didn't have a chance running against Kennedy, the women swooned over him.

As for Sarah Palin, men wouldn't vote for her if she was running for President, but she wouldn't make a bad choice for a Republican vice President. Women like the idea of a woman candidate , especially the feminazi crowd, so that would pull some Demoncrapic women over from the other side of the aisle. You have to admit, she's a lot better to look at (and think about) than Hillary Clinton.   
Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of NASA's moonrocks, but in the end does it really matter? Does a vice President actually make any decisions? Does a President?

You really don't know how to follow directions do you, Romulus?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 15, 2015, 10:42:04 AM
With all of the "brilliant minds" around here I am not surprised not a one of you could really actually figure out what Sarah Palin's appeal actually is. Dumb men like a dumb broads with a nice rack.

 If you look at most Presidential elections it is usually the more physically attractive of the two that wins because this is how simple minded humans actually are. Nixon didn't have a chance running against Kennedy, the women swooned over him.

As for Sarah Palin, men wouldn't vote for her if she was running for President, but she wouldn't make a bad choice for a Republican vice President. Women like the idea of a woman candidate , especially the feminazi crowd, so that would pull some Demoncrapic women over from the other side of the aisle. You have to admit, she's a lot better to look at (and think about) than Hillary Clinton.   
Sarah Palin is dumber than a box of NASA's moonrocks, but in the end does it really matter? Does a vice President actually make any decisions? Does a President?

I almost didn't approve that post. It is insulting to women (by suggesting that the only way they can accomplish something is by being physically attractive) and to men (by suggesting that we would only vote for a woman if she was attractive). I approved the post only to make it clear (if it wasn't already) what kind of small minded person Romulus is.

While physical attractiveness does play some role is a person's success, it is insulting to suggest it is the primary factor.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 15, 2015, 10:54:54 AM
I strongly protest against the use of the word "feminazi" and the numerous ad hominem attacks in Romulus' second post.

Nothing but abuse from him, I see no reason to put up with it (even for the purpose of giving him enough rope).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 15, 2015, 11:16:37 AM

My history is of leading ,not following.

The number of followers seems to be easily manageable.

Quote

My goal in debunking the NASA moon landing hoax is to remove a cornerstone element of a fabricated reality, a fabrication I feel is detrimental to the interests of the human race..
Until now you haven't shown any evidence supporting your various claims. Debunking doesn't work this way.

Quote
Surely you realize that is not an accurate representation. smart people are much more likely to question what they're told and with subject like Apollo they're going to go through the same stages I did..
Remembering your apalling low level of research (my two favorites: capsule white on the launchpad and publication of Apollo by the Numbers), I guess, you haven't found any stage until now.

Quote
  In the real world there are two opinions concerning Apollo: 1) I don't give a damned, I'm too busy and distracted just trying to survive; or 2) What a freaking' farce. If you had ever been a part of "the real world" you would know that.
Fixed it for you: 1) I don't understand anything, so it must be fake. 2) I'm too lazy to do a proper research, because this would destroy my "real life"

And now you can go to GLP and explain your "victory" here.  ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 15, 2015, 11:53:13 AM
I almost didn't approve that post. It is insulting to (insert person, sex, race, religion, etc.)

That describes everything that Romulus posts.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 15, 2015, 12:14:02 PM
My history is of leading, not following. Almost without exception, my positions on such things as Apollo and the 911 false flag start out being marginal, and as time goes on it changes to mainstream belief.

No.  Your posts on Apollo are simple repetitions of claims made by others, all of which were debunked more than a decade ago, and many of which are not even claimed anymore by today's hoax claimants.  They are neither original nor persuasive, nor are they gaining greater acceptance over time.

Quote
My goal in debunking the NASA moon landing hoax is to remove a cornerstone element of a fabricated reality, a fabrication I feel is detrimental to the interests of the human race..

No, I don't think that's your goal.  I think your goal is to aggrandize yourself, and to do that by means of singling out for scorn the people whose attention you envy.  You said it yourself.  You came here to get dirt on people for the purposes of "taking them down," and you affirm that you got the screen shots you needed and had no more reason to participate.  How disingenuous of you now to claim you had noble aims.

You have attempted to prove a fabrication, but you cannot.  You clearly don't understand any of the sciences or methods that pertain to Apollo or space travel in general.  You may have convinced yourself that you do, but you have not convinced anyone else.  As a result, you rely on borrowed claims that you do not understand; you seem to think they are self-evidently correct.

Quote
I have no problem admitting feeling alienated in a restrained and regulated  intellectual environment like this forum that is geared towards staying within certain boundaries in order to form an illusion that intelligent people do not doubt NASA's claims or integrity as a whole.

No, your inability to convince anyone of your beliefs has nothing to do with rules of this forum that prohibit your preferred method of foul-mouthed browbeating.  It has more to do with your incompetence in the relevant sciences, your inability to think critically, and your reliance on long-forsaken third-party material.

Quote
Smart people are much more likely to question what they're told and with subject like Apollo they're going to go through the same stages I did...

No, I do not believe you arrived at your belief by means of an intellectual exercise.  Nor do I accept your tacit prediction that "smart people" will necessarily come to the same beliefs as you by the same process.  Nor do I consider your belief in hoaxed Apollo missions evidence that you are a "smart person."

Quote
I know that a person who knows the truth and yet prefers not acknowledge it to himself is technically mentally ill.

No, your critics are not mentally ill because they refuse to admit you're right.  If you cannot conceive that a rational alternative exists to your belief, then you do not hold your own beliefs rationally.

Quote
If you had ever been a part of "the real world" you would know that.

I am part of the real world that creates aerospace technology for both general and special uses, including the airliners that carry hundreds of thousands of people a day.  In that world, Apollo is a widely-studied, well-known program accepted properly as fact by the people who have the relevant training and experience.  As long as you're dividing up people into groups, find a group of real scientists -- not self-proclaimed ones like you -- who dismiss Apollo and its findings as a hoax.

Quote
People like you marginalize others because it's an easy way to assassinate their character...

No, you are the only one obsessed with character.  We are simply concerned with whether you can support your claims with a civil, factual argument.  Any damage to your character is done by you.

Quote
I suggest if you find yourself spending your entire life defending a hoax that has been over and done with for 46 years...

Its age doesn't seem to bother you at all.  There would be no need for forums such as this if there were no people such as you.  You are the one dredging up a decades-old historical event that you say no one cares about, and making it the focal point of your personal crusade to change the hearts and minds of the whole planet with your virtuous and infallible character.  If that endeavor cannot stand up to a little scrutiny, then where does that leave you?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 12:23:42 PM
Don't quit your day job.

I wouldn't, not on your say-so or advice. I actually quite enjoy my day job.

Quote
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

No one here is projecting. Most of my questions can be tracked to inconsistencies in your argument and the nature of solar x-rays. You have yet to answer any of those questions.

Quote
My history is of leading, not following. Almost without exception, my positions on such things as Apollo and the 911 false flag start out being marginal, and as time goes on it changes to mainstream belief.

Later in this post you claim a large percentage of people don't care about a 46 year old hoax. It can't be mainstream and a 46 year old hoax that no one cares about. Which is it? 

Quote
My goal in debunking the NASA moon landing hoax is to remove a cornerstone element of a fabricated reality, a fabrication I feel is detrimental to the interests of the human race.

What will happen to the human race if, according to you, the Apollo scam is not exposed? Why is something that is 46 years old so detrimental?

Quote
I have no problem admitting feeling alienated in a restrained and regulated  intellectual environment like this forum that is geared towards staying within certain boundaries in order to form an illusion that intelligent people do not doubt NASA's claims or integrity as a whole.


I'm glad you now see that the forum is a place of intellect. A point we can agree upon.

Quote
Surely you realize that is not an accurate representation. smart people are much more likely to question what they're told and with subject like Apollo they're going to go through the same stages I did..

History is littered with 'smart people' as you can call them, that have questioned what they have told them. In my own field, Einstein questioned Newton, a cornerstone of physics for 200 years, and in doing so revolutionised science. Plank and Bohr questioned the nature of atoms and ushered in quantum mechanics. You couldn't even arrive at an answer that explained the difference between flux and photon energy when applied to dosimetric calculations. Whatever illusion you have, you are not some unrecognised genius shunned by the mainstream, you are a maverick entity that no one is interested in. Your arrogance about your super intelligence does not impress, it only leaves people here laughing at you.

Quote
I think you have to do a lot of moral compromising and rationalization myself, and it undoubtedly leaves you feeling alienated and somewhat guilty.  I know that a person who knows the truth and yet prefers not acknowledge it to himself is technically mentally ill.

So now you are a psychiatrist.

Quote
In the real world there are two opinions concerning Apollo: 1) I don't give a damned, I'm too busy and distracted just trying to survive; or 2) What a freaking' farce. If you had ever been a part of "the real world" you would know that.

I am aware of what the real world looks like, as I hold down a full time job. It's a salaried job, and some weeks I work 60+ hours so I can meet the expectations.

For a lot of people (1) is the case, most people that I know do not care about Apollo, so why do you insist that it has to be exposed as a sham. I don't understand your economic-social postion with your online position.

Quote
People like you marginalize others because it's an easy way to assassinate their character and impinge upon their credibility without effort, but the problem is there are few people in the world who have not been confronted with the words "you're crazy" when they said something exposing a guilty cretin.

Cry me a river.

Quote
It is a weapon nearly as effective as bludgeoning them with the blunt instrument of your stupidity....but I am wondering, do you realize just how unhealthy it is psychologically to actually believe that the belief in conspiracies is the domain of the mentally ill?

So now you are a psychiatrist.

Quote
Oh, and how convenient THAT "diagnosis" is! We live in a world where 99% of the people are totally detached from any grounding in reality, a collective conscious that is manipulated for the good of a very tiny few. And it's a few none of you are part of but willingly serve anyway for what little gravy they let drip off the table onto the floor so you can lick it up. When your usefulness runs out, so will your luck.

Where do you get the 99% figure from, and by whose reckoning or judgement are all these people ungrounded. 

Quote
I have news for you, if you actually believe that the nature of human interactions and interrelations in politics, business, academics, you name it, is not on all levels  to some degree or another steeped in conspiracy, you're not only an idiot, you're nuts.

So now you are a psychiatrist.

Quote
Conspiracy is simply two or more people secretly agreeing to take part in the same endeavor, usually *something that by it's nature needs to be concealed, and it is always at the expense of some other group.

400 000 people?

Quote
I suggest if  you find yourself spending your entire life defending a hoax that has been over and done with for 46 years , a hoax that a large percentage of people now alive don't even care about and in some case don't even know about  anyway, I wouldn't condescend to cast aspersions on anyone else using some derogatory psychobabble pseudo-psychiatric "diagnosis" as a form of cheap character assassination.  .

If people don't care a 46 year old hoax, why are you investing your time in it then? Why should this cornerstone be overturned for the sake of a better humanity if it is not in the collective psyche of humanity? I fail to understand your position.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 15, 2015, 12:32:10 PM
Romulus seems very keen to talk about mental illness for someone who said
I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality


I find it interesting that HBs seem to think that we swallow whole the NASA story - as though we did not take responsibility to educate ourselves and understand what has been claimed and why.  Do HBs tell themselves this so they do not have to confront the fact that we have gone through the questioning stage and have come to conclusions diametrically opposed to the conclusions the HBs have drawn?  Because it might mean our experience is valid for the reasons they claim theirs is... And so they might actually be mistaken?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 12:35:57 PM
Romulus seems very keen to talk about mental illness for someone who said
I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality

Another inconsistency in his argument. Thanks for that spot. Andromeda, you are a whizz for picking out such details, it has to be said - amongst many other things too  :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 15, 2015, 12:38:32 PM
Romulus seems very keen to talk about mental illness for someone who said
I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality

Another inconsistency in his argument. Thanks for that spot. Andromeda, you are a whizz for picking out such details, it has to be said - amongst many other things too  :)

Aw, thank you.  I'm sorry I haven't been around much, but I have enjoyed your posts :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 12:43:45 PM
Aw, thank you.  I'm sorry I haven't been around much, but I have enjoyed your posts :)

Thanks, and we do miss your encyclopedic knowledge of this forum. The number of times you step in with a link to something that was said 5 years ago does amaze us. You are on 666 posts by the way. Move on quickly :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 15, 2015, 12:47:59 PM
Good job I'm not superstitious.

*Falls over a black cat*
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 12:50:23 PM
Good job I'm not superstitious.

*Falls over a black cat*

While walking under a ladder, carrying a mirror and accidentally rocking an empty rocking chair. Phew that was close.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 15, 2015, 12:53:35 PM
NASA is totally unwilling to publish detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories.

He was given several sources and ignored them all.  First Jay directed him to Apollo by the Numbers.  Then he cried "Can you please post the specific translunar injection claimed by NASA", to which I posted the actual data.  He then responded with "What I actually said is that NASA does not publish any detailed information on the translunar injection trajectories. I wasn't referring to books written by propagandists. I want NASA's data so I can use it to prove they lied like they do about nearly everything else."  To this Jay pointed out that Apollo by the Numbers is written by a NASA employee and published by NASA.  I then directed him to this document (http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/SaturnV1969.pdf) and ka9q directed him to this document (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700014995.pdf).  He didn't acknowledge any of it and soony afterward flounced.

Romulus, do you care to acknowledge that NASA has published detailed information about the translunar injection trajectories?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 15, 2015, 01:08:48 PM
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

How's that working out for you?

Quote
My history is of leading ,not following. Almost without exception, my positions on such things as Apollo and the 911 false flag start out being marginal, and as time goes on it changes to mainstream belief.

Aaaah the baseless self-aggrandisement rears its head again. Please do tell us which of your positions has become mainstream belief.

Quote
My goal in debunking the NASA moon landing hoax is to remove a cornerstone element of a fabricated reality, a fabrication I feel is detrimental to the interests of the human race..

We're going to get lizards and aliens soon aren't we? You actually haven't yet managed to debunk anything, so your life so far is proving pretty worthless.

Quote
I have no problem admitting feeling alienated in a restrained and regulated  intellectual environment like this forum that is geared towards staying within certain boundaries in order to form an illusion that intelligent people do not doubt NASA's claims or integrity as a whole.

Good. You should indeed feel out of your depth here. You also need to get it through your head that most (if not all) people here have no loyalty towards NASA. I could care less what they do or say. What I am interested in is defending the truth against an assault by morons.

Quote
Surely you realize that is not an accurate representation. smart people are much more likely to question what they're told and with subject like Apollo they're going to go through the same stages I did.

I am very much questioning what I'm being told by you.

Quote
.I think you have to do a lot of moral compromising and rationalization myself, and it undoubtedly leaves you feeling alienated and somewhat guilty.  I know that a person who knows the truth and yet prefers not acknowledge it to himself is technically mentally ill.

How's that working out for you?

Quote
  In the real world there are two opinions concerning Apollo: 1) I don't give a damned, I'm too busy and distracted just trying to survive; or 2) What a freaking' farce. If you had ever been a part of "the real world" you would know that.

There are a lot of people who believe the first one. A tiny tiny number think the second. Those are the sort of people who don't know how to use an apostrophe.

Quote
People like you marginalize others because it's an easy way to assassinate their character and impinge upon their credibility without effort,

I have gone to a considerable amount of trouble, research and hard work to impinge upon the credibility of hoax believers. They are more than capable of assassinating their own character every time they post something monumentally dumb, which is regularly.

Quote
but the problem is there are few people in the world who have not been confronted with the words "you're crazy" when they said something exposing a guilty cretin.

This does not stop ill-informed cretins being crazy.

Quote
It is a weapon nearly as effective as bludgeoning them with the blunt instrument of your stupidity....but I am wondering, do you realize just how unhealthy it is psychologically to actually believe that the belief in conspiracies is the domain of the mentally ill?

I know plenty of very intelligent people with a mental illness. Hoax believers I just regard as cretins.

Quote
     Oh, and how convenient THAT "diagnosis" is! We live in a world where 99% of the people are totally detached from any grounding in reality, a collective conscious that is manipulated for the good of a very tiny few.

Except you, oh exalted one, with your superior intellect.

Quote
And it's a few none of you are part of but willingly serve anyway for what little gravy they let drip off the table onto the floor so you can lick it up. When your usefulness runs out, so will your luck. 

No-one here does this for gravy. Do you really, really, really think all of the people who disagree with you and people like you because there is some kind of personal reward in it? You really are completely deluded if you think people disagree with you for any other reason than because you are completely and utterly wrong.

Quote
I have news for you, if you actually believe that the nature of human interactions and interrelations in politics, business, academics, you name it, is not on all levels  to some degree or another steeped in conspiracy, you're not only an idiot, you're nuts.

Is that the voice of a guilty cretin calling someone who disagrees with you crazy?

Quote
Conspiracy is simply two or more people secretly agreeing to take part in the same endeavor, usually *something that by it's nature needs to be concealed, and it is always at the expense of some other group.

Any proof of a conspiracy over Apollo? At all? Anything?

Quote
I suggest if  you find yourself spending your entire life defending a hoax that has been over and done with for 46 years , a hoax that a large percentage of people now alive don't even care about and in some case don't even know about  anyway, I wouldn't condescend to cast aspersions on anyone else using some derogatory psychobabble pseudo-psychiatric "diagnosis" as a form of cheap character assassination.  .

And yet here you are, defending your beliefs over and over again, abusing people, calling people guilty, casting aspersions, claiming all manner of nonsense without any kind of basis in reality. So far you'v been racist, sexist, homophobic, and all within the confines of a civilised forum. We all know what a deeply unpleasant person you are in less well regulated environments.

We're also all still waiting for you to out us as conspirators - so far you haven't managed to show anyone anything but your lack of knowledge and an ability to copy and paste. When do I get to be exposed by your incisive investigative powers?

You're nothing more than a hypocrite, and you need to take the beam out of your eye.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 15, 2015, 01:24:46 PM
Oh.  He's back.

Actually, refusal to believe something you know must be true is called "cognitive dissonance," and humans do it all the time.  Whether they're mentally ill or not.  In point of fact, the not-true things many mentally ill people believe, they don't know aren't true.  It's called "delusions" and is a whole different mental process.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 15, 2015, 02:07:15 PM
I strongly protest against the use of the word "feminazi" and the numerous ad hominem attacks in Romulus' second post.

Nothing but abuse from him, I see no reason to put up with it (even for the purpose of giving him enough rope).
Strongly disagree. Far better to give him the rope he desires to publicly demonstrate what he really is. And he will. He cannot help himself. He believes so many abhorrent things that he simply has not the self control to prevent himself descending into spittle filled rage.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 02:14:56 PM
I strongly protest against the use of the word "feminazi" and the numerous ad hominem attacks in Romulus' second post.

Nothing but abuse from him, I see no reason to put up with it (even for the purpose of giving him enough rope).
Strongly disagree. Far better to give him the rope he desires to publicly demonstrate what he really is. And he will. He cannot help himself. He believes so many abhorrent things that he simply has not the self control to prevent himself descending into spittle filled rage.

I do object to the use of feminazi, but I know you weren't disagreeing with that aspect of the post Abaddon.  :P

I do actually agree with Abaddon on this point, and personally I would like to see his moderation turned off to give him one last chance and a right to reply for a while without moderation. Maybe we'll see him descend into a spittle filled rage and then we can draw a line underneath his presence here. His posting rights are LO's decision of course, and I respect LO's judgement fully.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 15, 2015, 03:08:35 PM
I find it interesting that HBs seem to think that we swallow whole the NASA story - as though we did not take responsibility to educate ourselves and understand what has been claimed and why.  Do HBs tell themselves this so they do not have to confront the fact that we have gone through the questioning stage and have come to conclusions diametrically opposed to the conclusions the HBs have drawn?  Because it might mean our experience is valid for the reasons they claim theirs is... And so they might actually be mistaken?
This is probably the single most infuriating claim I encounter. And yes, I think it's so they can tell themselves that we have no valid reasons for our positions. No matter how much you've studied the details of Apollo, you've just blindly swallowed the government line, just as you believe everything the government says on any topic.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 03:21:20 PM
No matter how much you've studied the details of Apollo, you've just blindly swallowed the government line, just as you believe everything the government says on any topic.

Yet at the same time, the US government that tells whopping lies about 9/11, JFK and Apollo can't keep a lid on scandals such as Water gate, Irangate and the Lewinsky affair. Any journalist worth their salt would have won the Pulitzer by now if Apollo was a hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Footnote: I'm not singling out the US government as a special case here, only in context that Apollo was a US project.

ETA: I spelt Planck incorrectly in a previous post, I don't think my pinky caught the keyboard. Please don't rib the physicist for spelling Planck incorrectly.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Northern Lurker on February 15, 2015, 04:23:33 PM
Romulus

You came to this board claiming you are an expert and you have conclusive proof that Apollo was faked. Your expertise was found imaginary and your proof was either ages old drivel or something you refused to reveal. Added with your condescending attitude and outright slander no wonder you don't make much progress here.

So put up or shut up. Show your evidence for fakery and defend it with facts. If you can't, just accept that you are wrong. Or go away because you don't contribute anything for this forum. Your claims of forum members being paid NASA shills are just desperate gambit to avoid admitting that you are wrong and don't know much about Apollo or rocket science.

And how can I know that they are right and you are wrong? Not because I trust NASA or govt of USA blindly but because all Apollo evidence which I can verify with my meager intelligence and tiny relevant expertise turns out to be true. And all hoax proponents "evidence" which I can verify doesn't add up. For the rest I just have to trust expert with relevant education and work experience. And they all agree Apollo happened.

Lurky
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 15, 2015, 04:59:46 PM
Yet at the same time, the US government that tells whopping lies about 9/11, JFK and Apollo can't keep a lid on scandals such as Water gate, Irangate and the Lewinsky affair.
I make this point all the time, to no avail. Neither does my point that as an engineer I have actually studied many Apollo systems, understand them, and see no reason they couldn't perform as advertised.

They simply repeat their mantra that I'm so gullible I blindly believe everything the government tells me, and there's no non-NASA evidence for  Apollo. I don't think they even read what I say.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 15, 2015, 05:21:24 PM
I make this point all the time, to no avail.

Yes, I have seen you make this point many times over in the wilds of YT where they are impervious to such sense. It reminds me of the Penn and Tell BS episode where they referred to Watergate.

Quote
Neither does my point that as an engineer I have actually studied many Apollo systems, understand them, and see no reason they couldn't perform as advertised.

It is clearly apparent at this forum that your expertise extends far beyond your electrical engineering background. There is much to be learned here.

Quote
They simply repeat their mantra that I'm so gullible I blindly believe everything the government tells me, and there's no non-NASA evidence for Apollo. I don't think they even read what I say.

For people that can't manipulate basic equations and use them correctly they have no leg to stand on. That is the frustrating part. I recall when we had an active YT community and the argument with Jarrah was that he makes that many mistakes with basic physics and maths that he simply cannot be taken seriously. What he sees as pedantic, I see as part of presenting science correctly. So when he does not represent the structure of silicon dioxide correctly or does not understand that oxidation means more than adding oxygen, I immediately doubt his position. I use him as an example. So while you clearly write in an articulate and detailed manner, they simply ignore you with their anti-government arguments while unable to reach base 1 with basic scientific literacy. It is indeed frustrating.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 15, 2015, 06:17:40 PM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 15, 2015, 06:28:10 PM
This is probably the single most infuriating claim I encounter. And yes, I think it's so they can tell themselves that we have no valid reasons for our positions. No matter how much you've studied the details of Apollo, you've just blindly swallowed the government line, just as you believe everything the government says on any topic.

I agree, it is definitely infuriating.  I also think that is likely the single stupidest claim that a hoax believer can make.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: raven on February 15, 2015, 06:47:25 PM
I like to point out in such circumstances that they have undoubtedly lied some time in their lifetime. Does that mean I should immediately disbelieve anything they say, up to 'The sun is shining' because, according to CT logic, once a liar always a liar.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 15, 2015, 11:19:01 PM
I like to point out in such circumstances that they have undoubtedly lied some time in their lifetime. Does that mean I should immediately disbelieve anything they say, up to 'The sun is shining' because, according to CT logic, once a liar always a liar.

I personally believe repeating a lie because you believe it yourself is forgivable, but requires repentance and compensation to those damaged by the lie. What is not forgivable is lying when you know that you are.  If you knowingly lie, you ARE a liar.

I think it is a safe assumption that if you lie about one thing, given the motivation you will lie about anything.

 I have a weighty disadvantage when dealing with folks like yourself and that is that I am constrained by my own morals and ethics to only make claims that I believe myself to be true. I may be wrong and I do not deny I have been before, but if you prove it to me I will admit it. I don't see where you've proved anything in opposition to my claims, you've simply waved hands ,piled on ,declared me a loon and claimed I am unqualified to have an opinion or reach a conclusion.

I believe that if I lie to you even though you identify as my enemy that I have dishonored only myself. I may not reveal weaknesses, but I won't lie about them.
Your position seems to be that it is fair game to lie to me and about me because I am the opposition, you have a far different set of rules to abide in that gives you a tremendous advantage. You do realize that, don't you?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 15, 2015, 11:31:23 PM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus.
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right. I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 16, 2015, 12:40:02 AM
Strongly disagree. Far better to give him the rope he desires to publicly demonstrate what he really is. And he will. He cannot help himself. He believes so many abhorrent things that he simply has not the self control to prevent himself descending into spittle filled rage.

How much rope is enough?  Anyone who can't tell how vile Romulus is by this point simply isn't paying attention.  He has nothing of value to contribute to the conversation.  He is personally abusive to individuals here and broadly abusive to categories into which individuals here belong.  (You're damned right I'm a feminist.)  Why should we listen to him?  What is being contributed?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Chief on February 16, 2015, 12:53:04 AM

In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

That's because you have not demonstrated any competence. You still don't seem to understand that most here do understand how the Apollo missions were achieved and none of them have found any anomalies. This is due to their own knowledge, not from believing NASA. That is why you have no validity. You are just plain wrong.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

Again, wrong. You don't follow a scientific manner. If you had, and you understood, You wouldn't think the Apollo missions were fake. Circular reasoning, I know, but occasionally it has to be said.


The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right.

The Apollo hoax, and the dismantling of ignorance is one of our pastimes. Some here are more dedicated than others but it is not a job that was given nor offered. In regards to disregarding the truth, nothing could be further from the truth. Did it ever occur to you that what you consider 'promulgating the hoax' is actually solid knowledge that we are right and you are wrong? We don't change our stance because we know, to the best of our ability, the truth. A red car will always be a red car no matter how many times someone says it's green.


I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

That's a ridiculous question. Other peoples mental welfare is not our responsibility and I would still love to know who is supposed to have hired me. I could throw it back at you. Have you ever thought about the possibility that you are psychologically damaging people by proposing ridiculous hoaxes just to give yourself an ego boost?


Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you.

Wacked out loons have nothing to do with it on either side of the fence. If you can't see the truth and understand the science, you're not a whacked out loon, you're just wrong.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: BazBear on February 16, 2015, 01:18:31 AM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus.
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right. I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you
Well my goodness  ::) If your feelings are that easily hurt, especially after all the vile shit you've dished out, perhaps it would be best for you not to play on interwebz forums, at least until you find your big boy pants.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 16, 2015, 01:28:58 AM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus.
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right. I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you
Well my goodness  ::) If your feelings are that easily hurt, especially after all the vile shit you've dished out, perhaps it would be best for you not to play on interwebz forums, at least until you find your big boy pants.

If you believe you have "hurt my feelings" you are giving yourself far too much undeserved credit. I am quite aware of the effects I am having on at least some of you and I am satisfied that I have proved what I set out to, that you are not at all interested in proving your claims of great achievements using any acceptable scientific method or civilized rules of debate, you're really just a bunch of cretinous monkey brained idiots throwing feces on anyone who provides scientific disqualifications that you cannot address and patting each other on the back. Not a one of you has an independent opinion on anything because your opinions are bought and paid for and part of a larger agenda to corrode society and imprison the human race in a self serving fabricated reality with zero in common with actual reality.

HAVE A NICE NITE....keep in mind, if you find yourself having to censor the words of one man engaging many in a wildly unbalanced contest, you are admitting you are totally inadequate to the task..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2015, 01:37:37 AM

In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

One of the first things requested of you when you rode in here on your grand chariot pulled by bejewelled elephants was to provide some sort of verification of the grand claims you made (the accompanying slave fanfare was a nice touch) to superior knowledge and proof of a conspiracy. You have not seen fit to demonstrate the validity of your position or your competence, let alone any conclusions.

Quote
It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

So you're a troll as well as a hypoocrite?

Quote
The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right.

This is a lie. It is no-one here's job to demonstrate that you are completely wrong and living in a deluded fantasy world. We do it for fun. If you think I get paid for this, I suggest you get to work and find out which office I work in, who pays me and how much. That should keep you out of harm's way for a while.

Quote
I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Ummmm....nope, don't care. I have endured too much abuse to worry about whether their feelings are hurt. If they can't stand the heat they should stop setting fire to themselves.

Quote
Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you

And you. Especially you and people like you. I strongly suggest you look at the posts made attacking Apollo, the people employed in it and the people defending it before crying about how horrible people are being to them elsewhere. The intellectually deficient out there are far more virulent in their offensive diatribes than anyone here. Take that vile idiot Interdimensional Warrior as an example - he's a really nasty piece of work who needs his mouth washing out with soap.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 16, 2015, 02:14:45 AM

 I have a weighty disadvantage when dealing with folks like yourself and that is that I am constrained by my own morals and ethics

You've amply displayed your morals and ethics, both here and on GLP. You are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. You have also shown yourself an an inveterate liar, claiming to be a scientist and theoretical physicist when you are clearly no such thing.   Believe me when I say that such a set of morals and ethics are nothing to be proud of.

In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

You have NO competence. Again you have amply displayed your ignorance, not only of simple Apollo knowledge, but of science in general. After one of your "they should see stars" rants  on GLP, I pointed out the UV photography experiments and you had no idea that such experiments existed. You claimed that you "must have missed them", and that there was no information available.  ::) You claim to have extensively studied the Apollo program and "missed" an important set of experiments???

 So, so you ever wonder why people find it so easy to rip you to shreds?  You have displayed a despicable online persona, an inability to learn an iota and an outstanding lack of knowledge.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Obviousman on February 16, 2015, 02:18:45 AM
All I am seeing is <Yap Yap I got no response to evidence Yap Yap>.

All the pro-Apollo side evidence can be verified and backed up by scientific methods or professionals.

All the anti-Apollo side evidence turns out to be wrong, misinterpreted or just plain lies.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Romulus on February 16, 2015, 04:48:08 AM
. You are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic.
You have NO competence. .

The challenges still stands, to any of you who think you can back up your empty claims:

20,000 dollars to any one of you who can :

A) score a minimum of 30 points lower than myself on a standardized IQ test

or B)  score higher than myself on any standardized  scientific aptitude test

The money will be held by a licensed book and the test administered by a qualified  and unbiased testing facility

Put your money where you mouth is , monkey brains
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 16, 2015, 04:48:10 AM
Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 
Could you please summarize Proust for us? (Sorry.)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 05:04:56 AM
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

For someone that has expressed sexist and racist views you are on thin ice accusing others of attacking characters when you slur whole groups of people based on nothing more than gender and skin colour. Further, you're not immune from attacking characters yourself are you? I offered you a gentle barb and your retort was to call me a cretin. I suggest that you grow a thicker skin as the people here have done nothing more than gently rib you.

You seem quite sensitive to having your ego damaged, that is very telling given your position. It's a trait of CTs that I have observed. Finally, I have read and followed Echnanton for several years now, and you really are picking a fight with the wrong person. If anything, Echnanton is one of more balanced voices at this forum and has on occasion been swift to remind other members about the boundaries of decorum. Echnanton lives the other side of the world to me and thus I have never met him in person, but I would consider him someone that I would share dinner with. He is a gentleman and thought of highly at this forum for his genteel manner and considered philosophical approach to all subjects. He is also delightfully funny and has a razor wit, so if you can't stand the heat, you know where to find the door.

Quote
It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.

LO runs the site out of good grace. He could stop running it tomorrow if he wishes. He is in no way connected to NASA. I'm not quite sure how we trapped you, you arrived here under your own steam. You knew the welcome you would get, so quit moaning or get out of the kitchen.

Quote
Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities.

You've proved nothing other than your self-aggrandising manner. You declared superior intelligence to every member of this board and then could not answer basic questions on x-ray energies and flux. You demanded TLI data, which you claimed NASA had not published, and when given several sources of data you showed no grace in admitting that it was you who was wrong. Then you have the effrontery to claim that people attack you? It's a bit like being in Louvre and demanding to see the Mona Lisa, claiming that it is faked when all along you are standing right in front of it and then not apologising to paying members of the gallery for making a scene.

If you come to this forum making such demands what did you expect? People here to say 'Oh, he's got us there, NASA didn't publish the TLI data, whoops!' I'll give you a clue, they aren't going to say that my pedigree chum. What they are going to do is give you a link to the data because... that's right, they know Apollo like the Queen knows how much gold is in the Bank of England vaults. There are people here that know every part of Apollo, down to the torque settings applied to the wingly-floppety-wangle nuts in the flubber-injector-flange.

Quote
You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

Says you.

Quote
The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right.

Prove it is my job. Show evidence that NASA had made payments to me. Where is that evidence? For someone that is so demanding of proof and sets the bar high for others, you sure do throw bare assertions around.

Quote
I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

I thought you said psychology was a pseudoscience (credit to Andromeda for that spot - but then she is a woman so I guess that would be a problem for you Romulus? Maybe she hasn't got the brain to spot your inconsistencies eh?)

I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality

Quote
Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you

Can I remove my foil hat now please?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 16, 2015, 05:14:16 AM
You've amply displayed your morals and ethics, both here and on GLP. You are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. You have also shown yourself an an inveterate liar, claiming to be a scientist and theoretical physicist when you are clearly no such thing.   Believe me when I say that such a set of morals and ethics are nothing to be proud of.

You forgot dishonest and misogynistic!
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 05:29:23 AM
I personally believe repeating a lie because you believe it yourself is forgivable, but requires repentance and compensation to those damaged by the lie. What is not forgivable is lying when you know that you are.  If you knowingly lie, you ARE a liar.

Such as constantly invoking psychology when you have declared:

I know that psychology is a pseudoscience that is based entirely on opinions that have no basis of reality

Quote
I think it is a safe assumption that if you lie about one thing, given the motivation you will lie about anything.

That much is true, you lied about your superior intelligence and after that everything was a lie about yourself. You claim the moral high ground, but you have not produced evidence to show that you should occupy it.

Quote
I have a weighty disadvantage when dealing with folks like yourself and that is that I am constrained by my own morals and ethics to only make claims that I believe myself to be true.

Such as racism and sexism. What a wonderful set of morals and ethics. Do you actually read back what you write? Again, you shout about claims that you believe are true but simultaneously you set others with very high bars for proof. Why should we believe your claims just because you say they are true?

Quote
I may be wrong and I do not deny I have been before, but if you prove it to me I will admit it. I don't see where you've proved anything in opposition to my claims, you've simply waved hands ,piled on ,declared me a loon and claimed I am unqualified to have an opinion or reach a conclusion.

No one here has waved hands. After a lot of dancing about you finally lay claim that radiation was prohibitive to photography on the moon. No one hand waved at this point. Quite the contrary in fact, you were asked pertinent questions regarding the nature of x-rays from the Sun. You could not answer these questions. In the end Jay and others explained to you that these x-ray are generally soft x-rays. Did you go away and confirm this 'handwaving?' No you did not, instead you moved onto TLI data and were then given various sources of TLI data that you claimed did not exist.

Quote
Your position seems to be that it is fair game to lie to me and about me because I am the opposition, you have a far different set of rules to abide in that gives you a tremendous advantage. You do realize that, don't you?

Lie to you? Did you follow up with checking the TLI data or NOAA data on solar activity?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 05:58:54 AM
You have also shown yourself an an inveterate liar, claiming to be a scientist and theoretical physicist when you are clearly no such thing. Believe me when I say that such a set of morals and ethics are nothing to be proud of.

Really? How interesting. I don't recall that claim in this thread, did I miss it?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 16, 2015, 06:16:09 AM
One of the first things requested of you when you rode in here on your grand chariot pulled by bejewelled elephants was to provide some sort of verification of the grand claims you made (the accompanying slave fanfare was a nice touch) to superior knowledge and proof of a conspiracy. You have not seen fit to demonstrate the validity of your position or your competence, let alone any conclusions.
Indeed.

In fact, Romulus stands out in having provided even less so-called "evidence" than the average hoaxer who comes here. Usually they finish trotting out the usual list of long-debunked stuff before they start playing the selfless, dedicated and unfairly persecuted "truth" seeker. He just jumped right into that role. All that's missing now is his self-comparison with Galileo -- or did I miss that part?


Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 06:27:56 AM
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

The invalidity of your position concerning the material facts of physics, the information available about space travel and the appropriate methods of investigating them is well demonstrated in your posts.  Romulus, you don't know what you are talking about.  Your character as presented on this forum, Romulus, can be described as ignoring criticisms of your positions, ignoring questions, insisting that your personal standards are sufficient for all situations, responding to critics with whining about personal attacks while making those very attacks on them.

That is the character anonymously presented here and about whom I have commented.  Whoever you are and whatever you do in other parts of your life are, of course, unknown to me.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 16, 2015, 06:39:50 AM

In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.


Your position as a HB is clear. You've damaged any integrity yourself by showing your moral and ethic level as a racist, sexist and homophobic. Until now you haven't shown any competence. Your knowledge about Apollo is really low. You didn't know about "Apollo by the Numbers", about UV-photos taken by Apollo 16, the reason why the capsule was white on the launchpad. You didn't know about the TLI. All these is available free and very easy. No, I don't see any competence.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 16, 2015, 06:49:52 AM
You have also shown yourself an an inveterate liar, claiming to be a scientist and theoretical physicist when you are clearly no such thing. Believe me when I say that such a set of morals and ethics are nothing to be proud of.

Really? How interesting. I don't recall that claim in this thread, did I miss it?

He made the claim on GLP.
Quote from: IDW
Yes, understood, AND I AGREE. I am no "rocket scientist", never claimed to be, I am simply a theoretical physicist/astrophysicist that has a solid base of knowledge and a above average ability to see things the way they really are instead of how everyone else thinks they are. I blaze my own trails and sometimes they lead nowhere, and other times they lead to great advances in human understanding. Whether or not I ever get credit for these advances is not really my primary concern.
 (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2682209/pg29#48778600)



You've amply displayed your morals and ethics, both here and on GLP. You are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. You have also shown yourself an an inveterate liar, claiming to be a scientist and theoretical physicist when you are clearly no such thing.   Believe me when I say that such a set of morals and ethics are nothing to be proud of.

You forgot dishonest and misogynistic!

I assume that misogyny would come under the banner of sexist? Or should we add it to the rap sheet as a specific?
 ;D

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Peter B on February 16, 2015, 06:50:57 AM
...I am constrained by my own morals and ethics to only make claims that I believe myself to be true. I may be wrong and I do not deny I have been before, but if you prove it to me I will admit it. I don't see where you've proved anything in opposition to my claims, you've simply waved hands ,piled on ,declared me a loon and claimed I am unqualified to have an opinion or reach a conclusion.

I believe that if I lie to you even though you identify as my enemy that I have dishonored only myself. I may not reveal weaknesses, but I won't lie about them.
Your position seems to be that it is fair game to lie to me and about me because I am the opposition, you have a far different set of rules to abide in that gives you a tremendous advantage. You do realize that, don't you?

Good day Romulus,

In that case could you please respond to my post at http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=763.msg26085#msg26085

You said:
Quote
Since I can explain every one of those pieces of evidence with an alternate possibility, it is up to you to prove them. If you wish i will post those alternate explainations.

I asked:
Quote
I, for one, would be very interested in your alternate possibility regarding the rocks. For me they represent one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the reality of Apollo.

So, to get things rolling, how about I provide some of what I consider to be the positive evidence for the reality of Apollo.

1. The Apollo rocks show characteristics unlike rocks on Earth. For example the chemicals they consist of contain virtually no water, they show evidence of having formed in a vacuum, and they show evidence of having formed in a low gravity environment. There is no mechanism available on Earth to change terrestrial rocks in such a way to make them look like they came from the Moon. Therefore the Apollo rocks aren't altered Earth rocks.

2. The Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms, collected over six missions. The Soviets, by contrast, collected about 350 grams of material in three unmanned sample retriever missions. In other words, the Americans recovered roughly 1000 times as much material on their missions as the Soviets did. The Apollo rocks include core samples over 2 metres long, rocks over 10kg and soft clods of compressed soil. There is no evidence that the Americans ever designed, built or operated unmanned sample retriever missions capable of retrieving this amount of material. Therefore, the Apollo rocks aren't genuine Moon rocks collected from the Moon by unmanned missions.

3. The Apollo rocks show the effects of exposure on the surface of the Moon. Upper surfaces of rocks show alteration by solar radiation, and are also marked by tiny craters - zap pits - caused by the high-speed impact of dust particles. Some Moon rocks have been found in Antarctica as lunar meteorites. However, these rocks show alteration caused by the high-speed passage through the Earth's atmosphere, and contamination caused by sitting on the surface of the Earth. There is no mechanism to fake the effects of solar radiation or to fake zap pits, meaning it isn't possible to take lunar meteorites collected on Earth and alter them in any way to pass them off as rocks collected on the Moon. Therefore, the Apollo rocks aren't genuine Moon rocks which reached the Earth as meteorites and were then altered.

4. As the Apollo rocks can't be altered Earth rocks, can't be genuine Moon rocks collected by unmanned sample retriever missions, and can't be altered lunar meteorites, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Apollo rocks is that they're genuine Moon rocks collected from the Moon by astronauts.

I would be grateful for any comments you could make in refutation.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 06:57:51 AM
He made the claim on GLP.

Are we sure that he is IDW? Given our quibble is founded upon various bare assertions he makes, is their definitive proof on our part that he is IDW or is it circumstantial? With respect to you and others ought we keep our responses to what he has brought to these boards as Romulus?

Quote
I assume that misogyny would come under the banner of sexist? Or should we add it to the rap sheet as a specific?

It would be interesting to defer that one to Gillianren. I have always assumed that sexism and misogyny are related but contextually different.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 16, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

Your character and integrity have been made plainly evident.  You behave in a despicable manner, and you did not need any prompting from anyone here to do so.

The validity of your position has been tested.  You have presented no original material in support of your beliefs.  Instead you have borrowed from Aulis with practically no ability to discuss the content yourself.  That material has long been debunked.

Your competence has been tested and found to be non-existent.

None of these failures on your part has the least bit to do with others here "psychoanalyzing" you or attacking your character.  You are simply not able to demonstrate the ability to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

Quote
It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities.

You display no understanding of science.  You merely wished to foist your personal beliefs.  You plainly stated that you came here to "take down" (as you put it) certain individuals for whom you have harbored long-standing hatred, and that once your precious screen-shots of alleged confessions were obtained, you had no further business here.  All the rest of your contribution has been pseudoscientific posturing, delusion, and personal insults.

Quote
I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging...

Do you ever think about the possibility that you are wrong?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: frenat on February 16, 2015, 09:51:09 AM
He made the claim on GLP.

Are we sure that he is IDW? Given our quibble is founded upon various bare assertions he makes, is their definitive proof on our part that he is IDW or is it circumstantial? With respect to you and others ought we keep our responses to what he has brought to these boards as Romulus?
He's admitted it on GLP.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 09:54:50 AM
He's admitted it on GLP.

Thanks. In that case I am proven to be in error and retract my comments.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 16, 2015, 10:22:28 AM
...anyone who provides scientific disqualifications that you cannot address

When has that ever happened?  I must have missed it.  Can you provide examples?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 16, 2015, 10:25:07 AM
Quote
HAVE A NICE NITE....keep in mind, if you find yourself having to censor the words of one man engaging many in a wildly unbalanced contest, you are admitting you are totally inadequate to the task..

If I wanted to prevent people from discussing the hoax theory I wouldn't have been running this forum for the last 10 years. There are many posts expressing the belief that Apollo was faked in this forum and they are all publicly visible. So what does that tell you about my thoughts on censorship?

Let me make it clear to you and anyone else who doubts my fairness. I do not like to ban people or limit their ability to post. When I do it is because they are incapable of having a conversation without repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum. If you really want to prove the moon landings were faked then by all means, go ahead and try. But you DO NOT get to freely insult the other people here. I will bend over backwards to give you a chance, to the point where people are complaining to me that you've offended them and I didn't do anything about it.

If you were at all capable of discussing this subject without insulting people I wouldn't have to restrict your posts. But there were numerous posts by you waiting for moderation this morning and not one of them actually attempts to prove that the moon landings were faked. They are nothing but attacks against the members of this forum.

I gave you a chance, but now I see that you are not worthy of our time. You aren't bringing anything new to the discussion, you're just repeating the same old garbage that has been debunked for at least 15 years. And now it seems like you're not even interested in discussing Apollo at all... you're only interested in attacking people.

But there is one particular post by you waiting in moderation that is the reason why you are now banned. It is so offensive that I will not allow it in the forum. I will quote the first part to give everyone the gist of it:

You are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and homophobic.

Thank you, I consider that a high compliment.

I pay for this forum. I therefore do not have to tolerate any people that I do not like, and people like you disgust me.

I am more than willing to discuss the hoax theory with anyone. I will never delete a post or ban someone just because they express hoax beliefs. All I ask is that you be relatively polite. I understand the discussion can sometimes get heated and some insults will be used. It's just something we have to put up with if we want to have a discussion. But you, as a proud bigot, are not worthy of membership in this forum.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 16, 2015, 10:43:49 AM
If I wanted to prevent people from discussing the hoax theory I wouldn't have been running this forum for the last 10 years. There are many posts expressing the belief that Apollo was faked in this forum and they are all publicly visible. So what does that tell you about my thoughts on censorship?

The closest thing to censorship that I've witnessed was the conspiracist who, after experiencing an embarrassing shellacking, went back and deleted his own posts to hide his epic failure.  To Lunar Orbit's credit, he took immediate steps to prevent such a thing from occurring in the future.  Not only does Lunar Orbit not censor, but he has taken positive steps to assure that the words of those with whom he disagrees are preserved and remain accessible.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 16, 2015, 10:52:14 AM
Very true, but no doubt Romulus will declare himself victorious (smartcooky predicted so, with the pigeon/chess analogy).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 10:53:30 AM
Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 
Could you please summarize Proust for us? (Sorry.)

Remembrance of Things Past is a series of seven books.  In audio form, most of them last between 25 and 30 hours.  The particular feature that is of interest to me and applicable in this context is the richness of descriptions found in them.  Sometimes Proust will invoke three of four similes to describe a minor feature of a room, a distant sound or the emotional effect of a few words spoken by a character.  One that comes to mind; in invoking the mood of a cold winter day with a faint sun, he describes the pale color of the light as the sun peaked into the room to warm itself by the fire.  The richness of the characters, particularity their inner life, is wonderful.  The plot is semi-autobiographical and follows Marcel  through his life from the perspective of his later life while still evoking the characteristics that are appropriate to the age at which the memory comes from.   The plot is slow moving and incidental to the descriptiveness.  That is his childhood is told with and adults perspective but evokes the needs. longings and misinterpretations of a child.  As Marcel ages the characteristics of this childhood evolve but also linger, unresolved.   Just as they do for us, only in more descriptive detail than most people could ever evoke, or even wish to do so. 

I contrast this to Beckett, whose novels are sparse of word and many of the characters are largely and unknowingly disconnected from the world in which they live or are part of some obscure order or hierarchy that directs them.   They either don't know how they got to where they are or follow instructions because the consequences of disobedience are vague but bad.  Or both. 

In Romulus' case, as presented here, he is long on descriptive words  and inner life but short on connecting them any objective version of the world. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 16, 2015, 10:57:06 AM
Very true, but no doubt Romulus will declare himself victorious (smartcooky predicted so, with the pigeon/chess analogy).

Indeed. I think the GLP thread will be "spammed" by him in some minutes/hours. He is well known for this MO.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Andromeda on February 16, 2015, 11:00:34 AM
I'm glad he's gone from here, though.  Thank you, LO.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 11:06:34 AM
If I wanted to prevent people from discussing the hoax theory I wouldn't have been running this forum for the last 10 years.

Specifically, we are here to discuss allegations of the hoax of a moon landing.  We encourage CTists to post and explain themselves.  We (collectively) offer the service of allowing them to test their theories against an audience that will take them seriously and address their specific arguments.  Apollohoax is the only place in the universe dedicated to offering this service. And we do if for free, except of course for LO, who graciously pays for the privilege of allowing CTers a forum in which to prove themselves. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2015, 11:17:57 AM
"Look on my works ye mighty and despair"
"Ummm..ok..which works?"
"Don't quibble. I have works, and I demand that you look upon them and despair"
"So far I am despairing of seeing them."
"They'll be along shortly, but I strongly advise that you despair anyway."
"Can I wait until I've seen them before despairing?"
"No. They're amazing, and by golly you will despair, trust me."
"Will they be along soon, only I need to get the tea on?"
"Pah! You imbeciles are going to be really sorry you you didn't despair sooner when I get these works to you...wait...come back..how dare you..."

[exit, pursued by a bare assertion]
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 16, 2015, 11:23:38 AM
"Look on my works ye mighty and despair"
"Ummm..ok..which works?"
"Don't quibble. I have works, and I demand that you look upon them and despair"
"So far I am despairing of seeing them."
"They'll be along shortly, but I strongly advise that you despair anyway."
"Can I wait until I've seen them before despairing?"
"No. They're amazing, and by golly you will despair, trust me."
"Will they be along soon, only I need to get the tea on?"
"Pah! You imbeciles are going to be really sorry you you didn't despair sooner when I get these works to you...wait...come back..how dare you..."

[exit, pursued by a bare assertion]

Great.. and true  ;D

Why do I think actually about Jeff Dunham and Ahmed and his hysterical voice when being upset?

"Pah! You imbeciles are going to be really sorry you you didn't despair sooner when I get these works to you...wait...come back..how dare you... I KILL YOU"

 ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 12:03:56 PM
I'm glad he's gone from here, though.

Yes, he was quite tiresome and offensive at many levels. He was extremely precious about his higher level intellect, but was most unwilling to put it on display. There was certainly a lot of bluster.

I think the poking about his '-isms' and '-phobias' finally broke the camel's back, and thankfully moderation was already in place so none of us had to see his darker side. I don't see what he had to gain knowing that his posts were moderated, what a waste of effort and time from someone that claimed he did not have a lot of time.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 12:05:29 PM
Apollohoax is the only place in the universe dedicated to offering this service.

A bold claim, but in balance... probably true.  :P :P :P
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 16, 2015, 12:12:28 PM
I'm glad he's gone from here, though.  Thank you, LO.

Indeed, he is not worthy of an intelligent person's attention.  Good thing he has his moral ethics and character to fall back on.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 12:27:48 PM
Apollohoax is the only place in the universe dedicated to offering this service.

A bold claim, but in balance... probably true.  :P :P :P

Based on two quesitonable items. 

1. My ignorance of any other place on earth.
2. The assumption that any place other than earth has not heard of the Apollo hoax, specifically.  Although if populated by carbon based life forms, they likely have quite similar problems to deal with.  I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 16, 2015, 12:28:48 PM

He's admitted it on GLP.

GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Oh bye bye, Romulus I would say it's been a pleasure but that would be a lie. :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 12:42:35 PM
GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Yes, a place that I never ever go. There are some brave souls here that venture out that far. We must go, the sand people are becoming restless.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on February 16, 2015, 12:46:03 PM
and they will be back in greater numbers..
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 12:46:37 PM
I'm glad he's gone from here, though.  Thank you, LO.
His time was certainly up.  One wonders if a fringe reset will occur.  It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2015, 12:47:20 PM
I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.

Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 12:51:48 PM
Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...

If only you knew how much that has made me laugh.

'Yes, move along, nothing to see...'
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 16, 2015, 12:55:08 PM
It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.

IDW was here?  That must have been when I took a break from the forum about 1 to 2 years ago.  Can you direct me to the threads?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 12:55:13 PM
I don't have a guess for how silicon based life would be.  But if the singularity crowd is right, we may get a glimpse of the  silicon based mentality in some undefined but not to distant future.


Probably best to gloss over how we developed computers when they turn up...


Quote from: Richard Dawkins
Once upon a time there was carbon based life,
and it gave over to, silicon based life.

I don’t view the prospect with equanimity,
maybe I’m just sentimental

From the libreto of Three Tales by Steve Riech
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 16, 2015, 12:56:47 PM
"Look on my works ye mighty and despair"
"Ummm..ok..which works?"
"Don't quibble. I have works, and I demand that you look upon them and despair"
"So far I am despairing of seeing them."
"They'll be along shortly, but I strongly advise that you despair anyway."
"Can I wait until I've seen them before despairing?"
"No. They're amazing, and by golly you will despair, trust me."
"Will they be along soon, only I need to get the tea on?"
"Pah! You imbeciles are going to be really sorry you you didn't despair sooner when I get these works to you...wait...come back..how dare you..."

[exit, pursued by a bare assertion]

This delights my English major soul on every level, and I thank you.

I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.  I'm not sure what we saw here went up to the level of misogyny, but it was right up there.  It's clear that he thought of women as "lesser than," but that's so common that I can't even see it as misogyny.  The fact that he was proud of it does reach into misogyny territory.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 12:57:57 PM
It took year from IDW's last romp through this forum to develop the Romulus character and return.

IDW was here?  That must have been when I took a break from the forum about 1 to 2 years ago.  Can you direct me to the threads?

That should have been years.

Maybe I am conflating BABB or BAUT with the first AH board though.  It was a long time ago. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 01:03:36 PM
I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.

That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 16, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
and they will be back in greater numbers..

Nah. They're bantha fodder!

posted via Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Bob B. on February 16, 2015, 01:10:33 PM
That should have been years.

Maybe I am conflating BABB or BAUT with the first AH board though.  It was a long time ago.

Ok, sorry for the confusion.  I know IDW paid a visit to BABB/BAUT some years ago.  I think this may have been his first visit to this forum (or its predecessors).
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 01:23:31 PM
Ok, sorry for the confusion.  I know IDW paid a visit to BABB/BAUT some years ago.  I think this may have been his first visit to this forum (or its predecessors).

The confusion is on my part.  So I'll just retract the concern about a fringe reset.  I really don't want to inadvertently disparage Romulus/IDW now that he is no longer able to repsond.   
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: frenat on February 16, 2015, 01:58:54 PM

He's admitted it on GLP.

GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Oh bye bye, Romulus I would say it's been a pleasure but that would be a lie. :)
yes, GodlikeProductions.  A lovely board with little moderation that allows completely anonymous posting that has both free and paid memberships.  Paid members can ban people from threads they create and are immune from other bans.  Post there long enough and you'll get banned either "randomly" (all available evidence points to the random bans really being an attempt to extort money for paid memberships) or because you posted a link to a different website off some secret banned list.  As far as I know, only the forum admins know the websites on the banned list (the bans are autobans that kick you off before your post goes through) but it includes Above Top Secret, JREF, and Snopes.  When banned you can't even see the forum, you just get redirected to a page saying that paid members are immune to bans and a link to request to be unbanned which nobody ever responds to.  Wait long enough and everyone banned gets unbanned (they do it every few weeks).  The moderation there only really cares about threats of violence or egregious spamming and a few will go on power trips and ban those they don't like for the heck of it.  Free and paid memberships have a Karma system where other posters can rate you up or down once a week.  Karma points can be exchanged for various perks (pin a thread, temporary upgraded membership, etc.)  Karma rating are supposed to be anonymous unless you put your name in the comment but I had a mod track me down for a comment he didn't like about himself.

Venture at your own risk.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 02:02:08 PM
The moderation there only really cares about threats of violence or egregious spamming and a few will go on power trips and ban those they don't like for the heck of it.  Free and paid memberships have a Karma system where other posters can rate you up or down once a week.  Karma points can be exchanged for various perks (pin a thread, temporary upgraded membership, etc.)  Karma rating are supposed to be anonymous unless you put your name in the comment but I had a mod track me down for a comment he didn't like about himself.

It sounds like a cross between the Wild West, Nazi Germany and Buddhism.  :o
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: frenat on February 16, 2015, 02:03:29 PM
There was a recent comment of his on GLP comparing the CSM to the size of a semi-truck.  He posted a link for the semi and claimed the weight was lower than the only figure on his link (seems the figure on the link might have been the towing capacity but was not labled as such) then when the difference was pointed out he derided the poster claiming they should know better.  Because apparently everyone drives semi-trucks.  It was this that makes me wonder if he's a truck driver, an angry truck driver perhaps?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 16, 2015, 02:11:33 PM
There was a recent comment of his on GLP comparing the CSM to the size of a semi-truck.  He posted a link for the semi and claimed the weight was lower than the only figure on his link (seems the figure on the link might have been the towing capacity but was not labled as such) then when the difference was pointed out he derided the poster claiming they should know better.  Because apparently everyone drives semi-trucks.  It was this that makes me wonder if he's a truck driver, an angry truck driver perhaps?

Oooh. What was that poster's name again?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Al Johnston on February 16, 2015, 02:26:06 PM
Sounds like Margamatix
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: BazBear on February 16, 2015, 03:23:16 PM
He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.
One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus.
In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right. I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you
Well my goodness  ::) If your feelings are that easily hurt, especially after all the vile shit you've dished out, perhaps it would be best for you not to play on interwebz forums, at least until you find your big boy pants.

If you believe you have "hurt my feelings" you are giving yourself far too much undeserved credit. I am quite aware of the effects I am having on at least some of you and I am satisfied that I have proved what I set out to, that you are not at all interested in proving your claims of great achievements using any acceptable scientific method or civilized rules of debate, you're really just a bunch of cretinous monkey brained idiots throwing feces on anyone who provides scientific disqualifications that you cannot address and patting each other on the back. Not a one of you has an independent opinion on anything because your opinions are bought and paid for and part of a larger agenda to corrode society and imprison the human race in a self serving fabricated reality with zero in common with actual reality.

HAVE A NICE NITE....keep in mind, if you find yourself having to censor the words of one man engaging many in a wildly unbalanced contest, you are admitting you are totally inadequate to the task..
More delusional rubbish.  :o (feigned surprise)

Well, now that you've finally pushed LO into banning your bigoted, foul mouthed, and hypocritical butt, you can go enjoy your martyrdom at whatever nutjob echo chambers you prefer.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 16, 2015, 04:12:26 PM
There was certainly a lot of bluster.

Bluster often seems to work against reasonable people because they become frustrated and simply give up.  Then that can be reinterpreted to mean the reasonable person has resigned the debate and conceded the point.

Quote
I don't see what he had to gain knowing that his posts were moderated, what a waste of effort and time...

He gains the ban.  Someone else takes reasonable action that he can then redefine as censorship and oppression and go on to play the victim.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 04:21:05 PM
Bluster often seems to work against reasonable people because they become frustrated and simply give up.  Then that can be reinterpreted to mean the reasonable person has resigned the debate and conceded the point.

Except that the reasonable people here tend to keep hold of the bone once they have it in their grasp. I had to smile when he complained about having no chance at this forum because there would be one against many. He even used the phrase 'Windely and his pack of wolves' very early into the proceedings. It was clear early on that he was looking for a fight with you.

Quote
He gains the ban.  Someone else takes reasonable action that he can then redefine as censorship and oppression and go on to play the victim.

Yes, I'm looking through the eyes of someone that is reasonable, I tend to do that and not see it from their mindset. Maybe the self destruct button is something they opt for once they realise there are many dogs here with large teeth and powerful jaw muscles (which reminds me of something my dentist once said - but I'll leave that story here). I guess he can skulk his way to GLP and claim his moral victory.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 16, 2015, 07:05:01 PM
Paid members can ban people from threads they create and are immune from other bans.  Post there long enough and you'll get banned either "randomly" (all available evidence points to the random bans really being an attempt to extort money for paid memberships) or because you posted a link to a different website off some secret banned list.
This is a trend with electronic media that has me worried. Rather than expose themselves to a diverse range of viewpoints, people often form insular "echo chambers" and actively isolate themselves from those they disagree with. E.g., on Facebook it seems common to "friend" a lot of former colleagues and school classmates, distant family members and the like, only to quickly defriend them when a heated (usually political) argument develops. Then everyone is left talking only to like-minded people. You even see them developing their own distinctive language and culture, as isolated groups always do. E.g., hoaxers using "LEM" instead of "LM".

Computers are just tools, and it's vital that their end users always remain in control. You obviously can't force anyone to talk to anyone, and even the most open-minded people still need "defriend" and "ban" mechanisms to deal with outright spam, abuse and the like. So this is a people problem, and I don't know what to do about it. I'm an engineer, not a sociologist.

Computers do introduce some new social problems of their own, such as the well-known lack of tonal inflection in written text. Key & Peele did a sketch recently that illustrates this problem beautifully (and hilariously):




Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 16, 2015, 08:59:36 PM
That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny

Just an eye-roll, I promise.

Okay.  In the Dresden Files series of books, Harry is sexist.  He opens doors for a female friend whom he knows it irritates, and he has a real problem hitting women even if they hit him first.  That's treating women differently than he treats men, usually without regard to their actual abilities or actions.  That's sexist.  But I would never call Harry misogynist, because he likes women in general about the same as he likes men in general, and there are plenty of female characters that he comes to rely on--but he still doesn't like doing it, because they're women and he should be protecting them.  Even the ones who can kick his butt.  Unless they're faerie queens or similar, and sometimes even then.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: smartcooky on February 16, 2015, 11:11:09 PM
I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.

That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny

Sexism can go either way. A club that is exclusive to men is every bit as sexist as a club that is exclusive to women. They are both gender based discrimination

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women. It can include sexual discrimination, denigration and sexual objectification of women, and violence against women. Its counterpart (NOT its opposite) is Misandry; the hatred of men
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dalhousie on February 17, 2015, 01:46:00 AM
I don't open the door for you because you are a woman, I open the door for you because I am a gentleman. :)
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 17, 2015, 04:09:47 AM
I open the door for you because I'm going through it and you will be soon.  If you do not accept my opening the door for you because I am female and you are male, you are sexist.  (Though Simon likes pushing the handicapped button to open the door, and a very patient woman at the mall waited for him to do it the other day even though she got to the door first.  Why take away his pleasure?)  And, yes, I've had that happen.  None of my disabilities prevent me from opening a door, nor do my two X chromosomes.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 17, 2015, 05:36:45 AM
Just an eye-roll, I promise.

I think that means I got away with my cheeky comment.  ;)

Quote
In the Dresden Files series of books, Harry is sexist.  He opens doors for a female friend whom he knows it irritates, and he has a real problem hitting women even if they hit him first.  That's treating women differently than he treats men, usually without regard to their actual abilities or actions.

That clarifies it, thanks. I was brought up never to hit women, but now I think hitting anyone is unpleasant, regardless of gender. I tend to live a very defensive life and not get myself into situations where there is violence. It is one reason you won't find me in clubs (also too old now) or out drinking in towns on a Friday night. I would like to think that I open the door to people because I am polite. I will hold a door for someone, even if they are several yards behind me, usually because I want to portray that there are still nice people in the world. At work I do it because it's nice to to engage in a conversation when that person arrives at the open door. I'd like to think that the person I am holding the door open for thinks nothing of it, other than it being a gesture of manners and social nicety.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 17, 2015, 05:51:53 AM
I would like to think that I open the door to people because I am polite. I will hold a door for someone, even if they are several yards behind me, usually because I want to portray that there are still nice people in the world. At work I do it because it's nice to to engage in a conversation when that person arrives at the open door. I'd like to think that the person I am holding the door open for thinks nothing of it, other than it being a gesture of manners and social nicety.

^^This^^

After all, it would be terribly sexist for a woman to think that a man holding the door open is doing so because she is a woman. He may hold the door open to anyone that follows him through.  Automatically assuming that he is being sexist is itself sexist, especially if the woman does not think the same of another woman if she held the door open.

I will hold the door open as a measure of politeness, without considering the gender of the person coming through. A little politeness can go a long way towards making an otherwise dreary day a little bit brighter.

Lets not even consider the dreaded toilet seat conundrum other than to say that if it's up and you need it down, then just put it down. And, if it's down and you need it up, then just put it up. Life's too short to be worrying about such things.

Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 17, 2015, 06:08:37 AM
A little politeness can go a long way towards making an otherwise dreary day a little bit brighter.

Absolutely, which is why I found the manner with which Romulus entered the forum so frustrating, and it is becoming typical of many CTs I have encountered. I know that I am looking at this through reasonable eyes, I just can't understand their bad manners (his bigotry aside). Can they not see that they are letting their side down? As LO says, he would never censor anyone for expressing hoax beliefs, but what thought processes go through the heads of people like Romulus? To barge in, refuse to be accountable for his claim and throw a tantrum because no one accepts his argument without question. Was he layering himself in a protective cloak because he knew that he would not stand up to scrutiny and be out of his depth? Is that what all the bluster and claims of super-intelligence was about?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 17, 2015, 07:17:34 AM
To barge in, refuse to be accountable for his evidence and throw a tantrum because no one accepts his argument without question. Was he layering himself in a protective cloak because he knew that he would not stand up to scrutiny and be out of his depth? Is that what all the bluster and claims of super-intelligence was about?

IMHO, almost certainly. It's the tactic of the bully...trying to use force to make others accept his argument.  Most normal people when presented with this approach will recognise the trouble-maker and quietly retreat. Which allows the bully to, incorrectly, assume that his argument is in order, instead of realising that he is getting no responses because 99% of normal people will not converse with people like that.

The same thing happens in real-life. If you are walking down the street and you see a guy who's obviously drunk and being obnoxious or violent then you will cross the street to avoid an encounter, safe in the knowledge that reasoned debate will not be listened to and you are likely to end up in a scuffle for your efforts. It's left to the Police (in this case Lunar Orbit) to remove the individual to prevent him ruining the pavement (or forum) for everyone else. The only place that such people get attention is in a room full of other drunken idiots (aka GLP). The obnoxious drunk can then carry the delusion in his head that he is the smartest/wittiest/toughest baddass in town, up to the point that he finds himself pinned to the floor with the handcuffs being applied.

To a normal person, GLP is like walking sober into a room full of these drunks whilst wearing a suit of armour. You can poke and prod them and then watch them explode into a fit of incoherent rage and spittle-flecked apoplexy safe in the knowledge that a black-eye will not be the result. OK, you might get chucked out every now and then, but the room will still be full of loons.

 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 17, 2015, 07:24:27 AM
That is an excellent analogy. I had heard GLP mentioned a few times before Romulus's entry, but never gave the place much thought. I have taken a sneaky look at it over the last few days given IDW/Romulus's foray here. It really is like a bar full of drunks spouting whatever thought enters their head. Suffice to say, I will observe from a distance.  :o
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 17, 2015, 07:54:28 AM
That is an excellent analogy. I had heard GLP mentioned a few times before Romulus's entry, but never gave the place much thought. I have taken a sneaky look at it over the last few days given IDW/Romulus's foray here. It really is like a bar full of drunks spouting whatever thought enters their head. Suffice to say, I will observe from a distance.  :o

I dropped in a couple of times to poke IDW in the eye. It's a bit like badger-baiting except that it's a lot kinder to dumb animals.... ;D
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 17, 2015, 09:38:11 AM
Adrian and his newest nonsense on his playground Planet Infowars:

Quote
The following quote is from a 1966 Dutch news clipping Russian “Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land”. Obvious it would make much more sense to send an animal before man. The NASA used some monkeys* but they didn’t go beyond low Earth orbit, as far as the public information goes. The Russians did sent a tortoises* around the moon in September 1968. The following 1968 American news article confirms what Titov said in 1966. Were is the record of NASA landing animals* on the moon? Wake up people the whole Apollo project is losing all common sense.
Translation Dutch clipping 1966,
“Meanwhile, President de Gaulle, Harold Wilson and the Indian President congratulated the Russians with their amazing technical achievement. During a press conference in Moscow are numerous assumptions expressed about what the Russians plans are now. Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land. Presumably, the Soviets also plan a manned flight around the moon, before people do land.”
* We do strongly disagree that animals are used for these kind of experiments.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Zakalwe on February 17, 2015, 11:03:02 AM
Adrian and his newest nonsense on his playground Planet Infowars:

Quote
The following quote is from a 1966 Dutch news clipping Russian “Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land”. Obvious it would make much more sense to send an animal before man. The NASA used some monkeys* but they didn’t go beyond low Earth orbit, as far as the public information goes. The Russians did sent a tortoises* around the moon in September 1968. The following 1968 American news article confirms what Titov said in 1966. Were is the record of NASA landing animals* on the moon? Wake up people the whole Apollo project is losing all common sense.
Translation Dutch clipping 1966,
“Meanwhile, President de Gaulle, Harold Wilson and the Indian President congratulated the Russians with their amazing technical achievement. During a press conference in Moscow are numerous assumptions expressed about what the Russians plans are now. Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land. Presumably, the Soviets also plan a manned flight around the moon, before people do land.”
* We do strongly disagree that animals are used for these kind of experiments.

Argument from incredulity.
So Adrian reckons that unless you landed an animal first then you couldn't land a man? What nonsense! Where were the first chimps to break the sound barrier? Why was there no elephants sent to the bottom of the Marianas Trench before Piccard and Welsh went down? heck, you could play that game about any scenario. Why were there no trained parrots in the room before the first computer was switched on?   ::)

Sheesh...does that boy have nothing better to do with his time than spew drivel 24/7???  :o :o
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Dr.Acula on February 17, 2015, 11:17:14 AM


Argument from incredulity.
So Adrian reckons that unless you landed an animal first then you couldn't land a man? What nonsense! Where were the first chimps to break the sound barrier? Why was there no elephants sent to the bottom of the Marianas Trench before Piccard and Welsh went down? heck, you could play that game about any scenario. Why were there no trained parrots in the room before the first computer was switched on?   ::)

Sheesh...does that boy have nothing better to do with his time than spew drivel 24/7???  :o :o

It's his life. He wants to be a hero by uncovering a worldwide hoax.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: frenat on February 17, 2015, 11:25:34 AM
Adrian and his newest nonsense on his playground Planet Infowars:

Quote
The following quote is from a 1966 Dutch news clipping Russian “Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land”. Obvious it would make much more sense to send an animal before man. The NASA used some monkeys* but they didn’t go beyond low Earth orbit, as far as the public information goes. The Russians did sent a tortoises* around the moon in September 1968. The following 1968 American news article confirms what Titov said in 1966. Were is the record of NASA landing animals* on the moon? Wake up people the whole Apollo project is losing all common sense.
Translation Dutch clipping 1966,
“Meanwhile, President de Gaulle, Harold Wilson and the Indian President congratulated the Russians with their amazing technical achievement. During a press conference in Moscow are numerous assumptions expressed about what the Russians plans are now. Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land. Presumably, the Soviets also plan a manned flight around the moon, before people do land.”
* We do strongly disagree that animals are used for these kind of experiments.

Argument from incredulity.
So Adrian reckons that unless you landed an animal first then you couldn't land a man? What nonsense! Where were the first chimps to break the sound barrier? Why was there no elephants sent to the bottom of the Marianas Trench before Piccard and Welsh went down? heck, you could play that game about any scenario. Why were there no trained parrots in the room before the first computer was switched on?   ::)

Sheesh...does that boy have nothing better to do with his time than spew drivel 24/7???  :o :o

That argument comes up on GLP often.  They seem to think it is some kind of safety issue.  They don't realize that by that time the conditions were either already known, and could be found out/had been found out by probe and that developing an automated craft to send monkeys first was just a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 17, 2015, 11:49:35 AM
So Adrian reckons that unless you landed an animal first then you couldn't land a man? What nonsense!

Indeed, it's cargo-cult reasoning.  "The Russians used animals a certain way, therefore the Americans should use them in the same way."

And while he says it's obvious that animals should be sent before humans, he morally objects to it.  I'm having a hard time reconciling that.  It either makes sense or it doesn't.  He can't have both his line of reasoning and his indignance, because his indignance provides one reason he doesn't consider for perhaps not having used animals for further testing.  But in my experience, such a rebuttal is far too complex for Adrian to grasp.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: JayUtah on February 17, 2015, 12:16:26 PM
That argument comes up on GLP often.  They seem to think it is some kind of safety issue.

I'm not sure how that would work.  If you send a spacecraft aloft and it malfunctions, it will do so with or without a tortoise or chimpanzee aboard.  In fact, you might needlessly harm an animal by putting it in an untried ship.  The spacecraft itself isn't any safer somehow with a passive living specimen aboard, and the testing of the equipment for eventual use by humans doesn't require an animal being present in order for its operators to detect a hazardous condition.  Indeed, in some cases mission safety and success is enhanced by having a highly-trained, creative pilot on board to deal with unexpected conditions.

MR-2 was indeed the final qualification flight, but Ham wasn't aboard to test the spacecraft -- which incidentally malfunctioned and would have killed him had he not been in his own isolated environment.  Ham was there to test primate physiology in space, the ability to carry out complex tasks in microgravity.  That's only tangentially related to safety, and doesn't need to be done repeatedly.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 17, 2015, 04:03:40 PM
Lets not even consider the dreaded toilet seat conundrum other than to say that if it's up and you need it down, then just put it down. And, if it's down and you need it up, then just put it up. Life's too short to be worrying about such things.

I flush with the lid down completely.  More sanitary.

But you know, I'm generally a very polite person.  I joke that the reason I say, "You're welcome!" to the card reader machines at the store is that it says thank you first, but I impressed a friend with my parenting because I say please and thank you and so forth to Simon all the time.  Even for little things.  But hey, manners start early.  I'm polite to people in part by nature and in part because I really do feel you get more out of life if you're nice to people.  It usually makes them want to be nice to you in return.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 17, 2015, 05:02:45 PM
Lets not even consider the dreaded toilet seat conundrum other than to say that if it's up and you need it down, then just put it down. And, if it's down and you need it up, then just put it up. Life's too short to be worrying about such things.

Yeah!

In computer science we call this lazy evaluation. You defer doing some operation until it's actually needed. Many times it's not, so it can save a lot of useless effort. So if you (assuming a male) leave the seat up and you're the next one to use it, you've just saved two useless operations. Why can't women understand this?

Edit: it's actually three avoided useless operations: down at the end of the previous usage interval, plus the up and down operations during the current usage interval...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: ka9q on February 17, 2015, 05:09:59 PM
And we won't even mention how Newton's First Law of Motion is repealed when you live together...
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 17, 2015, 06:45:38 PM
...but I impressed a friend with my parenting because I say please and thank you and so forth to Simon all the time.

Fantastic parenting, I wish all parents would show the same investment. Children are shaped the moment they arrive in this world, every reaffirming smile, teaching them shapes and colours, counting with them, playing games, reading to them and so forth. Every little investment helps.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 17, 2015, 07:08:51 PM
In computer science we call this lazy evaluation. You defer doing some operation until it's actually needed. Many times it's not, so it can save a lot of useless effort. So if you (assuming a male) leave the seat up and you're the next one to use it, you've just saved two useless operations. Why can't women understand this?

Edit: it's actually three avoided useless operations: down at the end of the previous usage interval, plus the up and down operations during the current usage interval...


If you live with a woman, you are asking her to do the extra effort, and probably more often, since women have smaller bladders.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 17, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
Adrian and his newest nonsense on his playground Planet Infowars:

The following quote is from a 1966 Dutch news clipping Russian:

“Cosmonaut Titov pointed to the possibility that dogs will send to the moon before there letting people land”.

Another example of Adrian citing a source to back his conspiracy views, yet the same source confirms space travel beyond the van Allen belts is possible. Clearly Titov states that man and dogs could land on the moon. Does Adrian realise that the LD50 for a dogs is generally considered less than for a man? When will he throw in the towel?
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Halibut on February 17, 2015, 11:13:57 PM
In computer science we call this lazy evaluation. You defer doing some operation until it's actually needed. Many times it's not, so it can save a lot of useless effort. So if you (assuming a male) leave the seat up and you're the next one to use it, you've just saved two useless operations. Why can't women understand this?

Edit: it's actually three avoided useless operations: down at the end of the previous usage interval, plus the up and down operations during the current usage interval...


If you live with a woman, you are asking her to do the extra effort, and probably more often, since women have smaller bladders.

Plus, she is reversing in, probably in the dark. I only had to accidentally drop my wife in the toilet a couple of times before I realized that it's SUPPOSED to be down. I know better now
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Sus_pilot on February 18, 2015, 12:21:54 AM

In computer science we call this lazy evaluation. You defer doing some operation until it's actually needed. Many times it's not, so it can save a lot of useless effort. So if you (assuming a male) leave the seat up and you're the next one to use it, you've just saved two useless operations. Why can't women understand this?

Edit: it's actually three avoided useless operations: down at the end of the previous usage interval, plus the up and down operations during the current usage interval...


If you live with a woman, you are asking her to do the extra effort, and probably more often, since women have smaller bladders.

Plus, she is reversing in, probably in the dark. I only had to accidentally drop my wife in the toilet a couple of times before I realized that it's SUPPOSED to be down. I know better now

If you really want to learn a lesson, have your sopping wet three-year old daughter come stomping into the kitchen saying "Dad, you did it again!"
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Echnaton on February 18, 2015, 07:08:41 AM
My answer to the toilet seat debate is two fold.  1. It it polite when dealing with essentially trivial matters, to defer to the person that has the most emotional investment in the issue.  2. Strategically, if one defers to one's wife on such issues, she will recognize that you are thinking of her and the response will be more than adequate to make up for the minor inconvenience.

Finally, if number one and number two don't work for you, see a professional. 
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Peter B on February 18, 2015, 07:17:50 AM
...but I impressed a friend with my parenting because I say please and thank you and so forth to Simon all the time.  Even for little things.  But hey, manners start early.  I'm polite to people in part by nature and in part because I really do feel you get more out of life if you're nice to people.  It usually makes them want to be nice to you in return.

We do the same with our three. My figuring is that if we went to a restaurant, I wouldn't say "Thank you" to the waiter just the once, I say it every time (s)he performs a service at the table. So with the children - if they do something for us we say thank you.

It has to be said it's a work in progress. Our oldest is now seven, and he and his younger brother (four) both occasionally have to be reminded to say thank you when we give them food, although the younger one usually says "Excuse me" before he starts another round of incessant talking. In public, however, their manners are pretty good - it's gratifying having teachers and other parents congratulate us on their manners.

I'm one of the group who holds a door open for anyone who's near, and who doesn't mind if a woman holds the door open for me if I'm near.

And as for toilet seats - at home the seat goes down completely for flushing, but at work in the gents' it stays up.
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: gillianren on February 18, 2015, 02:21:30 PM
It does get tedious to thank him for handing me lint every time, especially since he will occasionally hand me imaginary lint, but still.  He is giving me something, so I say, "Thank you, Simon!"
Title: Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
Post by: Abaddon on February 18, 2015, 03:27:16 PM
It does get tedious to thank him for handing me lint every time, especially since he will occasionally hand me imaginary lint, but still.  He is giving me something, so I say, "Thank you, Simon!"
Mmm. If only I had a buck for every time this happens. In reality, it is like trying to hop on a moving bus, you are sprinting just to keep up, let alone jump aboard. I have entirely lost track of the many "wait, what?" moments with my own. Goes with the territory I'm afraid.