A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

lunar walks faked



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 04, 06:42 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default lunar walks faked


"NJ" wrote in message
ll.eu.org...
| THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
| Written by Nathan Jones

You posted this just days ago. I responded in detail. You ignored it.

Explain again why you are not a troll?

| Subject: (1) Forward and Intent

The intent, evident by this time, is clearly to foist off your own view of
the subject in almost complete ignorance of the evidence and pertinent
sciences.

| Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

It takes you inventing a method that is unique to you and which (not
surprisingly) arrives at the conclusion you previously decided to adopt.
Your "method" simply attempts to artificially elevate fear, uncertainty, and
doubt to the level of an appearance of rigor.

| Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio
| broadcasts?

For many reasons, none of which you've seen fit to address. Nor can you
explain why engine noise is not audible on recordings made aboard the
shuttle.

| Subject: (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?

Invisible, just as both theory and practice demonstrate. You cannot extend
your understanding beyond the one single photograph you constantly cite.
You either ignore my counterexamples, or try to dismiss them with a
declaration that is exactly the opposite of actual experience.

| Subject: (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its
| effects?

Thoroughly consistent with theory and practice. Your understanding is
limited to one single photograph.

| Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?

You examine the LLRV/LLTV experience, but then essentially admit that it is
irrelevant to the LM. An elaborate straw man.

| Subject: (12) Where's the blast crater?

You admit that the exhaust affected the surface, but simply demand that
there be a "crater". What is your basis for this demand?

| Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.

You simply say the same effects can be obtained on Earth, but don't
demonstrate this.

| Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon
| say Apollo fanatics.

Affirmative rebuttal with no proof.

| Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof
| right?

Affirmative rebuttal with no proof.

| Subject: (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?

Lots of handwaving with no real understanding. An affirmative rebuttal with
no proof.

| Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.

You refuse to identify the "expert". You refuse to reconcile the
contradictions in your rebuttal. You refuse to reconcile your argument with
actual data that was collected in 1969-1972.

| Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.

You have been asked repeated to provide the photometry calculations. You
have so far declined.

| Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows
| and perspective.

Your reference to heiligenschein is a straw man; the anomaly was explained.
Your dismissal of the parallax argument was shown by empirical data to be
incorrect. Your dismissal of the slope argument ignores the data that
clearly establishes the slope.

You simply ignore data you don't like, and then claim that NASA has not met
a suitable standard of proof!

| Subject: (22) What still film was used?

*Still* no discussion of the difference between emulsion and base. Although
you claim to be a photographer, you don't seem to know this basic
distinction.

| Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?

Your handwaving does not discount the statement in its original context.

| Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.

You are completely, utterly, totally, irretrievably ignorant of the most
important principle of radiant heat transfer. Both of your offerings along
these lines make the same elementary mistake, which you seem frankly too
stupid to realize.

| Subject: (25) How did the space suit cooling system work? (or not)

You are trying to argue that one of the pieces of equipment most universally
used by all spacefaring countries since 1960 doesn't work. You might as
well argue that the automatic transmission is a fraud. The author you
cribbed this from -- Ralph Rene -- is not a physicist; he is a construction
worker. He doesn't understand the heat flux in the sublimator, and neither
do you.

| Subject: (27) Can the Moon rocks be faked?

Affirmative rebuttal with no proof.

| Subject: (28) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?

Affirmative rebuttal with no proof.

| Subject: (29) The Eagle landing site anomalies.

The landing film, telemetry, photographs of two trenches dug by the landing
probes, and the eyewitness testimony of the crew is entirely and uniformly
consistent with the statement that the lander had a significant leftward
drift a few seconds before touchdown. You simply ignore all of that.

Now I've attempted to engage you on these points for more than a year. And
in all that time you keep posting your crapulent excuse for a FAQ every few
months. When you do respond, it's only to call me a liar, derail discussion
by asking for references to sources that have already been posted a dozen
times previously (you ignored them then too), and beat a cowardly retreat
behind your anonymous remailers.

I guess we can safely relegate this document to the "spam" pile. "Nathan
Jones" obviously has little or no intellectual responsibility.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #2  
Old July 22nd 04, 07:07 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Jay Windley
writes

"NJ" wrote in message
ell.eu.org...
| THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
| Written by Nathan Jones

You posted this just days ago. I responded in detail. You ignored it.

Explain again why you are not a troll?


But he is a troll, and the rule "don't feed the trolls" is there for a
reason. Is someone who always responds to trolls also a troll?
  #3  
Old July 22nd 04, 07:54 PM
Tim Auton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:
In message , Jay Windley
writes

[snip]

You posted this just days ago. I responded in detail. You ignored it.

Explain again why you are not a troll?


But he is a troll, and the rule "don't feed the trolls" is there for a
reason. Is someone who always responds to trolls also a troll?


I find the troll troller trollers more annoying than the troll
trollers. Troll troller troller trollers are beyond reproach. I think
it's a symmetry thing.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.
  #4  
Old July 22nd 04, 08:51 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
|
| But he is a troll, and the rule "don't feed the trolls" is there for a
| reason.

Sometimes he responds, sometimes he doesn't. When I first engaged him here
a year ago there followed a lengthy debate with reasonable content.
Nowadays he responds less and less, and so my replies become shorter and
shorter and will likely disappear altogether. The appearance twice this
week of this same document with no followup from him suggests that his
solidification into a brick wall of trollism is likely nearing completion.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #5  
Old July 22nd 04, 10:00 PM
Sam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Nowadays he responds less and less, and so my replies become shorter and
shorter and will likely disappear altogether. The appearance twice this
week of this same document with no followup from him suggests that his
solidification into a brick wall of trollism is likely nearing completion.

Or the drugs are infact kicking in :-)

Sam


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla Astronomy Misc 15 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.