Author Topic: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?  (Read 159041 times)

Offline Chief

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #210 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?

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #211 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

Offline DD Brock

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #212 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...

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #213 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

Offline Chief

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #214 on: February 03, 2015, 12:25:54 AM »
Rommy, it's a term of endearment my little cherub.

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #215 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?


Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #216 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

Offline DD Brock

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #217 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

Offline DD Brock

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #218 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

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3755
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #219 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Romulus

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
  • BANNED
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #220 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.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3755
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #221 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline DD Brock

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #222 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......
« Last Edit: February 03, 2015, 12:34:43 AM by DD Brock »

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3755
    • Clavius
Re: Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?
« Reply #223 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.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Romulus

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