ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: LionKing on November 20, 2014, 06:36:28 AM
-
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax
-
That's not Wikipedia, it's a conspiracy site called "wikispooks".
There is so much nonsense there, I'm not sure where to begin. What do you want to talk about, wrt that page LionKing?
-
and the point of this thread is??? Debate about wikispooks??
-
Ah ok ..just looked like wikipedia..
you can if you want speak about anything you think that wasn't discussed before and this brings it about
-
There has been nothing new in hoaxist claims for a long time, IMO everything has already been discussed.
What do you want to talk about LionKing?
-
It's full of inaccuracies and is loaded towards the hoax side of the argument. Thread Closed. :D
-
Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?
-
I see the reply here http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html
can we know the whole context
-
Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?
If you read the citations for that quotation (at the bottom of the page), they ALL refer to pro-hoax books.
I think the Clavius page you have linked to discusses it well.
-
Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?
If you read the citations for that quotation (at the bottom of the page), they ALL refer to pro-hoax books.
I think the Clavius page you have linked to discusses it well.
I saw it on youtube. He said it, but Clavius is saying it was out of context if I understood well.
If Jay is goign to write a book someday, and I encourage him to do so, the more we discuss issues the more he or whoever wants to write gains insight on how to refute and the more all of us learn. I understand that the pro-moon hoax may not give full context, but O'Leary can.
-
Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere. I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly. TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).
-
Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere. I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly. TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).
I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.
yes, English is not my first language.
What I think is lacking is the context that he is saying that the pro-hoax party took away O'Leary's quote from its context. Providing the full context would give a better refutation.
Best
-
Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere. I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly. TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).
I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.
As a long time reader of your posts, I understand that you are not patronizing others here. Rather I think it is the reflexive acceptance of alternate/hoax explanations over a critical questioning of them that rubs some people the wrong way.
-
Apologies if my words upset you, LionKing. I meant that it seemed odd to me to offer someone unsolicited advice on something they may or may not choose to do.
-
Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere. I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly. TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).
Echnaton,
If the hoax refutation is not renewed in a sense, and if it is not viewed from new angles , things will become very redundant and boring. If you want this, fine.. I can stop any posts. I haven't went over every detail of the hoax theory and I am ready to learn some more. As I learn more I am sure others learn as well. At any rates, that O'Leary resaid that he believed the moon landings happened is approximately enough, but the quotes are stunning, so it migth be a good idea to say why and how he said them becasue they are not "normal" to hear someone saying that.
I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.
As a long time reader of your posts, I understand that you are not patronizing others here. Rather I think it is the reflexive acceptance of alternate/hoax explanations over a critical questioning of them that rubs some people the wrong way.
-
Apologies if my words upset you, LionKing. I meant that it seemed odd to me to offer someone unsolicited advice on something they may or may not choose to do.
If I advise someone to write up what he has been studying and authoring in a well-organized book it is something odd? even if i advise him to add to something he already written, would that be so aggressive as long as it is posed as a suggestion? Jay did you feel insulted?
-
I didn't say anything about being "aggressive", that's your word not mine. I thought it was patronising that you told him he needed to "gain insight on how to refute", given that he is already an acknowledged expert at that.
Can we drop it, please? I don't think we are going to understand each other.
-
If Jay is goign to write a book someday, and I encourage him to do so, the more we discuss issues the more he or whoever wants to write gains insight on how to refute and the more all of us learn. I understand that the pro-moon hoax may not give full context, but O'Leary can.
Why would Jay write a book? He has already authored what is widely considered the definitive online source of refuation of the hoax claims. After over a decade of doing that, I really don't think he has much to learn about how to refute them.
-
the is ALWAYS room for learning more..if he doesn't want to publish a book that he can put on the net rather than a website and be more detailef, he can add to the eebsite itself ..of course if he thinks he wants to
-
I didn't say anything about being "aggressive", that's your word not mine. I thought it was patronising that you told him he needed to "gain insight on how to refute", given that he is already an acknowledged expert at that.
Can we drop it, please? I don't think we are going to understand each other.
gaining new insight when possible about new things is nothing against courtesy, i believe
-
another thing jay that i think can be added to your website,of course if u think it is a gd idea, is producing the same effect of big mountains versus small mountains. if i remember well our previous discussions there was a ridgeline that made the mountain look smaller.it would b more convincing to put a similar photo
-
The page claims that doubts were expressd about the missions after Apollo 8 and references Chalkin's "A man on the moon".
I'd like to know which specific part of the book this is referencing.
-
gaining new insight when possible about new things is nothing against courtesy, i believe
The point is that there is nothing new there, LionKing. The claims there have been presented and refuted over and over again. They might be new to you, but not to us.
-
As others have said, is there any specific claims you'd like to discuss, LionKing?
I know the good members of this board are more than happy to discuss them, but simply posting a link gives us no real place to start. What do you, Lionking consider among the more convincing arguments in favour of a hoax? As the idiom goes, at least meet us half way.
-
For an alternative view, here's something that actually is from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
If Jay is goign to write a book someday, and I encourage him to do so...
I'm writing it, yes, and thank you for the encouragement.
[T]he more we discuss issues the more he or whoever wants to write gains insight on how to refute and the more all of us learn.
This is true. Sometimes I sit back and let other people make whatever arguments they feel work best. Even though Bob B. and KA9Q are also engineers, they each often take a different approach than I would.
I understand that the pro-moon hoax may not give full context, but O'Leary can.
He did. The article at Clavius is his largely unedited response to how he had been quoted by the hoax proponents. Several years after that, Jarrah White contacted him and alleged that O'Leary had returned to his earlier hoax beliefs. When I contacted him to see if he had changed his mind in any way, he reaffirmed that the Clavius page still represented his thoughts. Inexplicably, O'Leary didn't give me permission to publish that email, but I'm confident that what I have written is accurate. White similarly maintains his claims, but in my case I have a witness -- O'Leary's friend Wade Frazier was copied on all the correspondence between myself and Brian O'Leary and can vouch for their content. White refuses to contact Frazier to hear his testimony.
-
If Jay is goign to write a book someday, and I encourage him to do so...
I'm writing it, yes, and thank you for the encouragement.
[T]he more we discuss issues the more he or whoever wants to write gains insight on how to refute and the more all of us learn.
This is true. Sometimes I sit back and let other people make whatever arguments they feel work best. Even though Bob B. and KA9Q are also engineers, they each often take a different approach than I would.
I understand that the pro-moon hoax may not give full context, but O'Leary can.
He did. The article at Clavius is his largely unedited response to how he had been quoted by the hoax proponents. Several years after that, Jarrah White contacted him and alleged that O'Leary had returned to his earlier hoax beliefs. When I contacted him to see if he had changed his mind in any way, he reaffirmed that the Clavius page still represented his thoughts. Inexplicably, O'Leary didn't give me permission to publish that email, but I'm confident that what I have written is accurate. White similarly maintains his claims, but in my case I have a witness -- O'Leary's friend Wade Frazier was copied on all the correspondence between myself and Brian O'Leary and can vouch for their content. White refuses to contact Frazier to hear his testimony.
Thanks Jay for the reply. Wish you all the best
-
White similarly maintains his claims, but in my case I have a witness -- O'Leary's friend Wade Frazier was copied on all the correspondence between myself and Brian O'Leary and can vouch for their content. White refuses to contact Frazier to hear his testimony.
Yes, but White does tend to use the flimsiest of excuses to make a chest thumping video that accuses you of being a bare faced liar. We all know that.
If my memory serves me correctly, the last time Frazier visited this forum he vouched for the email content. Is that correct? If so White doesn't really need to contact Frazier, he simply needs to read these boards.
-
Jay, I certainly don't want to discourage you from writing anything (if you are, I want a copy!) but I am wondering just how much more can be usefully written about the Apollo "hoax". Except maybe to collect and organize all of what has already been written.
There haven't been any new "arguments" in a long time, and of course the old ones have been thoroughly driven into the ground for anyone who cares to listen and apply some reason.
So why am I involved? Well... to be perfectly honest part of me thinks it is largely a waste of time. But another part readily admits to enjoying a good argument, especially when I can be (unlike with many things) absolutely certain I'm right.
But more seriously, it has caused me to learn a lot more about Apollo and related technology than I would have otherwise by going to the primary references. Perhaps it is these references that ought to be carefully organized, annotated and published as Dwight has done with the Apollo TV subsystem.