Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by AtomicDog on June 20, 2018, 02:02:31 PM »
There
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
I'm not sure he is actually doing it on purpose.  It's more likely, given his disdain for any kind of science or technology, that he's just unable to learn how to use the quote feature properly.

His very infrequent posting, about once a week, and the time it must take to add quote marks to all the quoted snippets, leads me to think he's spending hours manually putting his posts together, rather than learning how to use the tools provided for the job.

There's nothing stopping him from making an individual reply to an individual post. That's actually easier than the way he is doing  it; just like you did to my post. I'm sorry, I think he's doing it intentionally.
22
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by molesworth on June 20, 2018, 01:11:07 PM »
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
I'm not sure he is actually doing it on purpose.  It's more likely, given his disdain for any kind of science or technology, that he's just unable to learn how to use the quote feature properly.

His very infrequent posting, about once a week, and the time it must take to add quote marks to all the quoted snippets, leads me to think he's spending hours manually putting his posts together, rather than learning how to use the tools provided for the job.
23
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by gillianren on June 20, 2018, 12:58:36 PM »
The thing is, if you pick a topic that's actually a matter of opinion, you could doubtless get an array of opinions from us.  (For example--I don't actually like Kubrick films much!)  His fault if he happens to be attempting to challenge fact, where we all agree because we have enough sense to see which way the evidence points.
24
The Hoax Theory / Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Last post by JayUtah on June 20, 2018, 11:56:50 AM »
He uses a lot of wire diagram noting "now this can't work" or words to that effect.  They are produced for the novice that can easily grasp the "simple" concept of what he is trying to describe.

And I would say that's because his own understanding is simplistic.  He can say "It's supposed to be like this," and a layman can understand that.  28V DC circuits are not, by themselves, rocket science.  If you've installed your own lawn sprinklers, you can grasp something of what's going on.  But advanced concepts like modulation or switch-in spares aren't intuitively obvious from that perspective.

At the broader scope, this is mostly how a lot of fringe theories work.  "It's supposed to be like this, but it's like that instead -- therefore conspiracy."  It's an argument meant to jump over the rationale for "it's supposed to be like this."  Most of those arguments come from lay claimants relying on intuition or poor research.  Some few, like Hunchbacked, claim expertise.  In most cases that brand of claimant is careful not to expose his expectations to those who really know the field because they'll quickly be found out.  But as many have noted, Hunchbacked doesn't seem bothered by being revealed as ignorant time after time and creating controversy over whether he really believes his own hype.  I've seen a very few who are so far gone as to think their fantasy world is real to everyone else too.

Quote
The real kicker that I have with him is his lack of visual perception.  Many times he will describe in his videos what the observers should see, then shows that to be correct only to indicate it doesn't show what he described.  I find it difficult to describe because he actually shows the phenomenon he discusses.

That sort of person is the kind I generally leave alone.  If they don't understand their own arguments, no amount of correct refutation will be effective.  Analogously what has happened in the past with a few is that they get so wound up in fighting the good fight, discrediting their critics, etc. that they don't bother to connect the argument du jour with any of their claims.  The argument never rises beyond casting random aspersions.  But beyond that there is a small class of people who really don't get how a line of reasoning works, how ipso facto works, or what a logical inference is.  They are left to a cargo-cult style of argumentation.  I remember when Hunchbacked was trying to argue about the hardware and software of the guidance computer, and based all his expectations on modern Intel-based personal computers.  It didn't seem to occur to him that a computer could be designed and built any other way.  It's very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't know what he doesn't know, and isn't the least suspicious that there might be things he doesn't know.

As for spatial perception, this is important if you want to be an aerospace engineer.  I give all my design engineering candidates a standardized spatial reasoning test, and you have to score pretty high on it to advance.  And you need a high score because spatial reasoning is the heart and soul of any brand of engineering that involves actual objects in a three-dimensional environment.  The same skills are required of a successful airplane pilot.  There is a rigorous framework of mathematics that governs the science of spacecraft dynamic control.  And that formalism is important to guaranteeing a correct solution.  But the nuts and bolts of a practical solution comes from second-nature understanding of spatial relationships.  It has to exist in your head first, and then you adjust it to the formalism.  And this is why I have a hard time believing Hunchbacked has any sort of real qualification in aerospace engineering.
25
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by JayUtah on June 20, 2018, 11:16:09 AM »
I get the impression he's more raging against the machine than actually cogently trying to argue a point.  That would explain the wall o' screed.  He said flatly that he doesn't much care who he's talking to, since he thinks were all interchangeably "of one mind."
26
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by AtomicDog on June 20, 2018, 11:04:13 AM »
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
27
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by bknight on June 20, 2018, 10:54:44 AM »
I'm not going to respond directly to Cambo until he makes it clear to whom he's talking.  But I will say that I'm pretty sure people mocked on The Daily Show aren't more believable to the average person.


I feel the same way as I indicated in my previous post.  No one but cambo knows who the comments are directed.

His wall-o-text is still boring.
28
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by jfb on June 20, 2018, 08:53:36 AM »


Another video for cambo, this one from Apollo 7.  Interested to hear what kind of wire rigs were used to fake this one. 
29
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by jfb on June 20, 2018, 08:41:57 AM »
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

All of them, Katie.

I mean, you know that’s going to be the response, much like a squid squirting a cloud of ink while running away.  I don’t think cambo’s capable of following a single argument. 
30
The Hoax Theory / Re: Faking the moon landings
« Last post by Zakalwe on June 20, 2018, 05:33:41 AM »
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10