Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 21097 times)

Offline bobdude11

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 68
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #465 on: June 13, 2019, 01:58:29 PM »
I did NOT learn to generate a theory and then only find evidence to prove me right

Don’t talk crap, if I find evidence which proves me right, then the evidence to the contrary must be wrong, right? Or am I overcomplicating things? I know what you were trying to say, but that’s not the way you wrote it down.

Quote from: cambo
A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour.

Quote from: bobdude
You made a statement. I read it. I love humor (or humour for my friends in the UK). Love it. Your statement was not humor (not even subtle) - you made the statement, own it, admit you misspoke and let's move on.

It was a joke and you didn’t get it, because like everyone else on here, you are so busy looking for flaws in HB’s comments, you fail to spot sarcasm and humour, even when it should be obvious, so instead of resorting to these childish attacks on my credibility, why don’t you either concede that you may have misconstrued my comment, or just let it go and move on as you put it?

It’s a well-known fact that the majority of Americans just don’t get British humour, as it’s too subtle and clever for them to grasp. There’s an old saying that goes something like “you can take an American to see Ricky Gervais, but you can’t make it laugh”, or words to that effect.

You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it

Quote from: cambo
So when did you last unfold a LRV?

Quote from: bobdude
When did you? You missed the point of the statement, entirely.

No I didn’t, it was a terrible analogy. Nearly everyone over the age of six knows how to open an umbrella, so it is you that missed my point entirely.

Quote from: cambo
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

Quote from: bobdude
The principal of CG, pitch, yaw, roll, energy, thrust, etc. still apply. Even someone like myself can understand that. Why can't you? Why do you insist on ad hominem attacks when proven incapable of following a simple, proven principle of science?

An aircraft relies on air to manoeuvre, which we are told there is a severe lack of in space. So go on Mr clever clogs, describe the principle which governs an aeroplanes ability to manoeuvre in flight, and then explain how that principle is applied to a crafts manoeuvrability in a vacuum.

Did you misread my post? Or have you been reading other people’s replies and got yourself a little confused? In any case, that was a rash statement on your part, and it shows that it is you with a lack of understanding and I would suggest that you put a little more thought into your posts in future to avoid any further embarrassment. You made the statement, own it!

Quote from: cambo
The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back

Quote from: bobdude
Yes it did. Back when Apollo deployed and used it on the Moon; in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. You are the only one that insists that blueprints are the ONLY way to prove it existed/worked as designed.

I think you’ll find that I’m only one among millions of people who would find it absurd that the plans to build a working Rover, LM and Saturn V rocket are nowhere to be found, along with the tools used to build them. Oh but wait, you and millions of others have seen live TV footage which is proof of their authenticity. Pardon me for being such a naive fool.

Quote from: bobdude
You fail to understand a simple concept, one person, just one, that knows will inevitably tell another

Not if they’ve signed a contract. Can you even begin to imagine what it would be like to be sworn to secrecy by your government, because I certainly can? The responsibility must be enormous, and what about the people who refuse to sign it? I would imagine they would be in the same situation, only a lot poorer. To blab would be an act of treason in the eyes of their government, and they, and I suspect their families would pay the price.

Quote from: bobdude
You also forgot to quote your source on the paragraph with the math

By your own admission you are not one of the more “educated” members on here, and it shows, which is a good thing as you still have a chance to free yourself from the shackles of your indoctrination, but if you’re incapable of looking up gravity equations, then you aren’t deserving of my attention.

Ok, I am a little late to this reply.

You state my umbrella analogy was too simple, yet, you fail to construe the ultimate point: You DON'T need blueprints to know it works, just witness it (like videos of the LRV) or is that too complicated for you?

You also state the plans are not available. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and do a Google search? You might be surprised at what you find.

As to your response to my theory statement:

 Evidence to the contrary, when isolated against the OVERWHELMING evidence in favor, points me to the possibility that my theory (and even the evidence I believe contradicts) is wrong when, ultimately, the majority of experts provide all of the DETAILS to explain why my evidence is incorrect. I then would have to state that my theory has been proven incorrect and I would need to either abandon that theory or rework it and then attempt to prove or disprove.

You take evidence that you claim is contradictory and say it fits your theory. You essentially form the theory, then find evidence to 'prove it'.

I may not be at the level of Jay or many others on here, but I know enough to see the fallacies you present.

The ad hominem of my education (while you know nothing of it), is uncalled for.

MY point is this: it is not MY responsibility to look up gravitational equations. YOU presented your 'evidence' without the source. It is YOUR responsibility to show your work.

I make no claims to be educated in the requisite sciences, but I do hold a Masters in Information Security (backed by a BS in Computer Info Systems, 30 years experience in component level PC repair, 20 years in InfoSec, a CISSP (99487), multiple MCSE certifications, ITIL and previously held several CompTIA certs (A+, Network+, and Security+). ). As you can see, I make no claim to aerospace or any kind of engineering degrees.

I also have a thirst for knowledge, the ability to read and comprehend, and the ability (via my InfoSec training and experience) to follow basic scientific principals

I will never:
  • Make claims I cannot back up with evidence (that said, if I misinterpret that evidence, my claim is obviously invalidated. At that point, it will be withdrawn or corrected to resolve the interpretation)
  • Attack anyone who criticizes my ignorance (I am ignorant for a reason - any criticisms against a statement I make in that ignorance is well deserved and an opportunity to learn and update my knowledge with correct and appropriate information)
  • Create a theory then only provide 'evidence' that proves the theory
I will:
  • Enter into debates with an open mind
  •   Respond (maybe not timely) to anyone responding to me
  •   Review the information provided, attempt to comprehend it (asking questions or for clarification on points I do not understand), and adjust my responses to reflect my understanding (even correcting my mistake(s) and if necessary, apologize for anything misconstrued)
  • Recognize that I do not know very much about many, many things and rely on the experts to help me grasp concepts and better understand science

To that end, I have a some questions for you; one that will help me understand (hopefully) your motivation for your posts:
  • Why do you wish to disprove Apollo so badly?
  • What is in this for you? (There is a reason why you would do this - I am looking to understand that reason)
Robert Clark -
CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications.
I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory
"Everybody remember where we parked." James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise