#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |