A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old Yesterday, 04:53 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,599
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:28 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:
Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into
these conspiracy theories...








GOOD COMEBACK.
Nothing like resorting to personal insults during a debate.
And extra points for deleting my whole reply.

So, now that you have set the bar to the lowest peg, I guess my next
counter reply should be .,......."Oh YAA,...well so's yer mom"

You can consider yourself "ignored" from now on


de·bate
noun
1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting ... in which opposing arguments are put forward.

This discussion is hardly formal, and all I did was put forward an opposing argument. albeit with a comment.

Being ignored by a science denier is no great loss for me. Science deniers cannot be reasoned with in any case, and are therefore best ignored in any event ... and now I have the advantage of saying whatever the heck I want, and I won't need to be concerned about you coming back with yet more of your bull**** because you are now ignoring me! Perfect!

The question is, why would a science denier be on an astronomy forum in the first place? Would it be because they enjoy being insulted and disparaged? Because they like to be shown wrong, over and over again? There is virtually no argument that can be made denying man's visit to the moon that cannot be scientifically refuted, no matter how much a science denier repeats it. Every single argument can be scientifically refuted, and have been for a long time.

Science deniers think they have presented evidence in support of their position, but they have not, their evidence is always fatally flawed. They are in the vast minority to start with, and perhaps this is the way they like it to be, active for the minority, no matter the controversy. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here because I really do not understand the mindset of the science denier... except to understand that a huge majority of them are in no way actual scientists, and have apparently embraced the old "I don't understand it and therefore it must be wrong" posture and have decided to stick with that through thick and thin... which is a losing strategy, and always will be.

Science is rarely wrong in the long run, although it certainly has happened (depending on how you choose to define 'long run'), and the scientific method ensures that poor hypotheses are weeded out sooner rather than later. That's what scientists do, try to disprove any and all new hypotheses... and it only takes one such 'disproof' to blow a theory up, and cause it to be modified or abandoned. It is foolish to bet against mainstream science because it is so well monitored by all the other scientists in the pool, each of whom is gunning for the others, constantly attempting either confirm or refute their claims. That's how science works, and it works quite well.

It is not a smart bet to be a science denier, that's my point.
Ads
  #82  
Old Yesterday, 07:42 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,627
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him



palsing wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 8:55:28 AM UTC-8, Bast wrote:
palsing wrote:
Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into
these conspiracy theories...








GOOD COMEBACK.
Nothing like resorting to personal insults during a debate.
And extra points for deleting my whole reply.

So, now that you have set the bar to the lowest peg, I guess my next
counter reply should be .,......."Oh YAA,...well so's yer mom"

You can consider yourself "ignored" from now on


de·bate
noun
1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting ... in
which opposing arguments are put forward.

This discussion is hardly formal, and all I did was put forward an
opposing argument. albeit with a comment.

Being ignored by a science denier is no great loss for me. Science
deniers cannot be reasoned with in any case, and are therefore best
ignored in any event ... and now I have the advantage of saying
whatever the heck I want, and I won't need to be concerned about you
coming back with yet more of your bull**** because you are now ignoring
me! Perfect!

The question is, why would a science denier be on an astronomy forum in
the first place? Would it be because they enjoy being insulted and
disparaged? Because they like to be shown wrong, over and over again?
There is virtually no argument that can be made denying man's visit to
the moon that cannot be scientifically refuted, no matter how much a
science denier repeats it. Every single argument can be scientifically
refuted, and have been for a long time.

Science deniers think they have presented evidence in support of their
position, but they have not, their evidence is always fatally flawed.
They are in the vast minority to start with, and perhaps this is the
way they like it to be, active for the minority, no matter the
controversy. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here because I
really do not understand the mindset of the science denier... except to
understand that a huge majority of them are in no way actual
scientists, and have apparently embraced the old "I don't understand it
and therefore it must be wrong" posture and have decided to stick with
that through thick and thin... which is a losing strategy, and always
will be.

Science is rarely wrong in the long run, although it certainly has
happened (depending on how you choose to define 'long run'), and the
scientific method ensures that poor hypotheses are weeded out sooner
rather than later. That's what scientists do, try to disprove any and
all new hypotheses... and it only takes one such 'disproof' to blow a
theory up, and cause it to be modified or abandoned. It is foolish to
bet against mainstream science because it is so well monitored by all
the other scientists in the pool, each of whom is gunning for the
others, constantly attempting either confirm or refute their claims.
That's how science works, and it works quite well.

It is not a smart bet to be a science denier, that's my point.






BINGO !!!!
You just rattled off how many words in your response ?
Yet none of them are about SCIENTIFIC FACTS,....only rambling and personal
opinion.

I pointed out the scientific faults in your video link evidence

e.g.
Plexiglas will NOT stop radiation in space
The Van Allen Belts envelope the WHOLE EARTH,....there are no weak spots of
low radiation that men can go through.
Spacecraft can not leave the earth at escape velocities, then suddenly stop
and make 90 degree turns in space.
Photographic film is affected and degrades when subjected to x-rays, and
temperature extremes.

And most importantly,....that NASA can not build a spacecreft, even now,
over 60 years after Apollo, that can get men past the van allen radiation
belts without them dying, and still be light enough to be able to launch it
into space.

Orion only works on paper,....they can't make it fly.

That is why the space station orbits only a mere 200 miles above the
surface. Any higher and the men sent there for more than a few minutes would
be getting a death sentence.

Gamma and other short wave radiation in space is nothing to sneeze
at,.....unless you like coughing up blood.

YOU are the one denying the proven science.
And Apollo never went to the moon.



  #83  
Old Yesterday, 08:50 AM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,599
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

So, apparently you lied when you said you were going to ignore me...

Also, all that so-called evidence you have just barfed up has been addressed in the last link I provided... assuming you can read... here it is again....

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

"The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!"

Here are the referenced links...

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/contents.htm

Of course, you will undoubtedly dismiss this evidence as being 'fake', or some such nonsense, which is exactly what is expected of all science deniers, who are essentially uneducated cranks. As such, you should just ignore everything that I say, because, after all, you ignore virtually ALL scientific evidence as though it were the plague... right?

Tell me, what other conspiracy theories are you all whipped up about? I'll bet you subscribe to all the 'popular' ones...

  #84  
Old Yesterday, 02:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,627
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him



palsing wrote:
So, apparently you lied when you said you were going to ignore me...

Also, all that so-called evidence you have just barfed up has been
addressed in the last link I provided... assuming you can read... here
it is again...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

"The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the
Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An
unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he
stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the
belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply
wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the
metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For
a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William
Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by
the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a
history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of
Apollo site. An interesting read!"

Here are the referenced links...

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/contents.htm

Of course, you will undoubtedly dismiss this evidence as being 'fake',
or some such nonsense, which is exactly what is expected of all science
deniers, who are essentially uneducated cranks. As such, you should
just ignore everything that I say, because, after all, you ignore
virtually ALL scientific evidence as though it were the plague...
right?

Tell me, what other conspiracy theories are you all whipped up about?
I'll bet you subscribe to all the 'popular' ones...






Oh well, that's different then.
Your "experts" claim you can run through lethal radiation and it doesn't
hurt you at all.
I suppose it's like if you run fast enough in a rainstorm,.....you won't get
wet. rolls eyes

And of course I will agree that radiation effects can be different depending
on the duration of exposure.
But the levels in space are so much higher than anything on the earths
surface that only places like Chernobyl or Fukushima can be used in
comparison.
So minutes, not hours, make a major difference.

And we know that even decades later when those occured, the technology STILL
does not exist to protect men from radiation exposure for more than a few
minutes without lasting effects......Death or long term illness..

However I am surprised that NASA did not offer those cleaning up those
nuclear accidents, a few of their magical space suits from the 60's Apollo
program.
As they were supposedly able to protect astronauts in the full exposure of
all the solar radiation on the surface of the moon (outside of any shelter)
for hours at a time.
And ZERO detrimental radiation effects.

They could even function in 400 degree roasting temperatures, to, -300
degree temperatures.
Without even needing a way to radiate away the excess heat.

On earth, AC units need heat exchangers that move the heat energy to water
or air, and then that is removed by transgerring it somewhere else
But in the 1960's, a vacuum,....they (NASA) could still do it,......HOW
?????


You keeo claiming I "deny science"
But your science seems to be that of ALCHEMY and Harry Potter
MAGIC,......and THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
It is illusion, designed to fool the masses that P.T. Barnum talked about.





Oh,....and I also "science deny" man made global warming/cooling/climate
change is affecting anything.
Especially that the self-proclaimed experts can't even decide what to call
it, from week to week.

And I also "science deny" modern feminism, and its teaching that there is a
gender wage gap.

And I "science deny" that hitlery clinton should not be rotting in a jail
cell.

And I "science deny" that Trump is a bad president, or that you libertard
morons will even have a democratic party left to run a candidate against hin
in 2020.

And I "science deny" that any movies coming out of hollywood in the past two
decades are worth the price of a theater ticket to go to see.
Or even the time it takes to download them illegally for free.



.......There you go, those should keep you spitting bile for well into 2018

And with that, I am going to move on to enjoying the Christmas season....I
now will completely ignore this thread and anyone posting to it.
So knock yourselves out, patting each other on the back in your echo
chamber.

Buu-Bye




  #85  
Old Yesterday, 05:05 PM posted to alt.astronomy
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,599
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

" ...I now will completely ignore this thread and anyone posting to it."

Well, you've said that before, more or less, and it proved to be a lie. Too bad, I really wanted hear your answer as to why you are here in an astronomy forum in the first place, if you think the subject matter is all bull****. Oh well, you clearly don't know the first thing about it, so it is just as well that you avoid it altogether...
  #86  
Old Yesterday, 06:00 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Hägar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,290
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

"Bast" wrote in message news
Hägar wrote:
"Sarah Ehrett" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:56:28 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into
these conspiracy theories...


She is a dingbat trying to troll the newsgroup. Used to have a
partner but it looks like he even got tired of her idiocy. Imagine
low shameful she is lying about her sister dying on 9/11.


*** they thrive on making up **** ...




If that was true, I would have a job at NASA


NASA: they built and fly space craft to Pluto and its Moons.

Bast: cannot even parallel park a car.

  #87  
Old Yesterday, 06:11 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bast[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,627
Default How to drive a NASA-head crazy

..


  #88  
Old Yesterday, 06:35 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Notroll2016
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him



"Hägar" wrote in message
...

"Bast" wrote in message news
Hägar wrote:
"Sarah Ehrett" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:56:28 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

Most of your questions are answered here...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...lo.html#crater

... the Grandaddy of all debunking sites...

Really, you need to be several fries short of a Happy Meal to buy into
these conspiracy theories...


She is a dingbat trying to troll the newsgroup. Used to have a
partner but it looks like he even got tired of her idiocy. Imagine
low shameful she is lying about her sister dying on 9/11.


*** they thrive on making up **** ...




If that was true, I would have a job at NASA


NASA: they built and fly space craft to Pluto and its Moons.

Bast: cannot even parallel park a car.

Hagar: cannot even parallel park his house.

http://webpages.charter.net/notroll2015/

  #89  
Old Yesterday, 09:43 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Hägar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,290
Default How to drive a NASA-head crazy


"Bast" wrote in message news

snip X-ray of Bast's brain



Nice shot, Bast ... we knew it would be devoid of content ...

..

  #90  
Old Yesterday, 11:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Sarah Ehrett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default Hagar still willingly bending over to let NASA do it to him

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:05:21 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

" ...I now will completely ignore this thread and anyone posting to it."


If only. I remember a time when people actually interested in the
subject participated. Then the trolls and mentally ill like Bast
arrived and we get the nonsense we have now.

Well, you've said that before, more or less, and it proved to be a lie. Too bad, I really wanted hear your answer as to why you are here in an astronomy forum in the first place, if you think the subject matter is all bull****. Oh well, you clearly don't know the first thing about it, so it is just as well that you avoid it altogether...


Bast need to get on Twitter and share her comments there. I'm certain
she'll love the feedback she receives.
 




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
FR Bending of Light -- Proof oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 0 January 25th 10 09:14 PM
FR Bending of Light philippeb8 Astronomy Misc 221 December 8th 09 07:31 PM
A question about the bending of light. brian a m stuckless Policy 0 May 1st 06 11:46 PM
A question about the bending of light. brian a m stuckless Policy 0 May 1st 06 04:53 PM
A question about the bending of light. brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 May 1st 06 04:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.