Author Topic: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?  (Read 224912 times)

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #510 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.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #511 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.

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #512 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

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #513 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.)

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #514 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?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 06:11:12 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #515 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!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #516 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?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 06:43:53 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #517 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?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #518 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?



Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #519 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.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Dr.Acula

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #520 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.
Nice words aren't always true and true words aren't always nice - Laozi

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #521 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.




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

« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 06:54:50 AM by Zakalwe »
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #522 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.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #523 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.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 06:59:38 AM by Luke Pemberton »
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #524 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?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams