14134 replies to this topic

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

You remind me of thise movie critics who protest a movie they haven't seen, but 'know' how it goes vy its title.

Let me see it before another whining about it, ok?

I will. Get your excuses in early is my advice.

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 14 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

I will. Get your excuses in early is my advice.

f
You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

f
You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

Like I said, get your excuses in early!

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

f
You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

You don't believe any other Apollo documents, why would you believe one that confirmed the knee flexion of an A7L?

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, because but evil willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest and hopelessly deluded turbonium would then spoil will ignore it and / or hand-wave away evidence that contradicts his position, cherry-pick quotes that he thinks support his position, fabricate more evidence when he can't find anything to support his position, shift his goal posts further and further apart, shirk, or rather, completely ignore his burden of proof, then eventually drop the topic and start with a new set of willfully ignorant misunderstanding and misinterpretations or dig up some previously debunked idea of his and try to bring it forward as a new idea again it'

Fixed that for you Turbs... now it is actually representative of reality.




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 14 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, because evil turbonium would then spoil it'

What next?

The reason why you haven't posted any evidence is because you don't have any evidence to post.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

If you've seen documentation which "destroys" my argument, why are you hiding it with such a lame-o excuse?

Well, you are doing a very good job of destroying your own argument without any assistance from us.

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 14 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

You say the risk of being caught is small, I say it's huge. Regardless, the consequences of being caught are catastrophic. The USA would become a laughing stock. The Space Programme, instead of being a national beacon during troubled times, would become an embarrassment.

And, who would face the most severe consequencea? The chief of NASA.

Which explains Webb's resignation

postbaguk, on 14 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

This is a hoaxer trope that keeps getting rolled out, but when you discuss the alleged hoax in detail, you keep on needing to add more and more people into the hoax for it all to hold together. Look at the claim that mission control didn't need to be 'in on it', as they could be fooled by the simulators. They probably knew when a simulation was being run, as they could just look through the plate glass window into the computer room and see the technicians running the simulations!

Nonsebse

They coukd easily run their sims from anywhere. Why do you think it can only be run from that site? That's  ridiculous.

Edited by turbonium, 15 April 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 15 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

And, who would face the most severe consequencea? The chief of NASA.

Which explains Webb's resignation

Fitting the facts to suit your worldview. People resign from their post all the time without being privy to a massive hoax. Perhaps Webb resigned due to the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire? Regardless, how did the remaining hoaxers know he wouldn't blow the lid off the hoax? Why wasn't he bumped off?

Quote

Nonsebse

They coukd easily run their sims from anywhere. Why do you think it can only be run from that site? That's  ridiculous.

I can't even be bothered to argue the point with you. It's far more revealing that you chose not to address the main issues I raised, which are salient points regardless of where the missions were allegedly hoaxed from.

And what about CAPCOM? He was in constant radio communication with the astronauts. They could ask them questions in real time. They spoke to them during the televised EVAs. It would be impossible to pre-record the televised EVAs, especially when you consider that Ed Fendell was also in mission control, remotely operating the cameras. So the televised EVAs would have to be live, with all the potential for something going catastrophically wrong and giving the game away. Then you have to figure out a way to realistically fake the 1/6th g in real time. Whenever you see an astronaut taking a photo during EVA, you'd need a Hasselblad accurately corresponding to the same scene.

Then you've got to be able to fool the entire world's space-faring nations, not just for a couple of years, but for all eternity. Tale the LROC images of the Apollo sites, which clearly verify the Apollo images and film footage of landings and lift-offs. This requires a whole new generation of people who need to be in on the hoax, both at NASA and ASU. They are faking images, in the full knowledge that any space-faring nation could at some point send a probe to the moon capable of imaging the Apollo sites at a higher resolution than LRO, and blowing the whole thing out of the water. Unless you accept that all the world's space-going agencies, both nationally and privately funded, are also in the pocket of NASA (that 'small team' is expanding exponentially).

[MID]

turbonium, on 15 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

And, who would face the most severe consequencea? The chief of NASA.

Which explains Webb's resignation

Your knowledge of history and how things work in politics is as lacking as is your understanding of technical matters and your inability to apply effort or rigor when forming an opinion.


Jim Webb's resignation can be easily explained as being for the same reason that Dr. Mike Griffin resigned his position as NASA Administrator.

Webb had of course been grilled by Congress, almost daily, since th Apollo 1 fire.  There's no doubt it took it's toll, despite the fact that Webb's efforts resulted in the the heat being taken off the President, and NASA itself.  Rightfully so of course.

But the real issue was that President Jophnson had announced that he wasn't running for re-election in 1968.  He knew Tom Paine had been picked by Johnson to succeed him, and, with a new President coming into office in January, 18969, he'd be replaced anyway.

Very much like Griffin resigned because that's SOP when a Democrat comes into office, and you were appointed by a Republican...regardless of what that means for NASA and the U.S space program.

Just as Obama too rid us of the best NASA administrator we'd had since Webb/PPaine, and has made the agency weak as a reult of appointing a puppet who would do his bidding..despite the fact the this bidding destroyed a program and cost thousands of jobs...so Webb knew that he didn't want to hang around in case another President, without the far reaching vision he and his bosses posessed, would be elected in 1968.

Webb was correct. It happened just like that.
Nixon saw to that.


Jim Webb was, in many ways a visionary...unlike Nixon, and unlike Obama today.


That's the real story, conrtrary to the fantasies your imagination will attempt to wrap around it.

[MID]

turbonium, on 15 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Nonsebse

They coukd easily run their sims from anywhere. Why do you think it can only be run from that site? That's  ridiculous.

Really, Doc?
From anywhere?

What's really ridiculous is you making mindless declarations as if you actually know something about that which you speak.

I'd ask you to prove your contention...to tell us all where (as well as why and how.  ),  but that would be silly of me to ask of you...since you can't prove anything you contend.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

turbonium, on 14 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The point should be clear to you now...

Several points are clear to me. It is clear to me that when any evidence you don't like is presented you will simply disregard it.

Another point is that the level of hypocrisy and double standards you are prepared to use are truly staggering.

Let's look at your argument logically and with out the double standards shall we?

Your argument appears to go something like this:
The Soviet Union sometimes told the truth and sometimes they lied. The fact that they sometimes lied means that any evidence from them can simply be disregarded as propaganda."

Now if your argument is logical we should be able to apply it to other situations. Let's come up with a hypothetical one shall we?

A moon hoax believer makes many posts on a forum (let's call it Unexploded-Miseries) arguing his case. One day this hypothetical poster (we'll call him tromboneium) is caught out in a blatant lie, say (hypothetically of course) he invents a quote which he claims supports his case. He is (hypothetically) later forced to admit he invented the quote but claims he was only joking.

Now if we apply your logic (without applying your double standards) then tromboneium would simply be a propagandist and all his posts could simply be disregarded.

Your move tromb, sorry, turbonium.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 15 April 2012 - 08:14 PM.
typo

[Czero 101]

So glad that you're back, Waspie...





Cz

[Jackdaw]

Turbonium- I applaud your zest and enthusiasm for the truth.
Waspie Dwawf - you are an asset to the hoax believers.
This thread asks DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?
Answer - NO YOU DID NOT at the time you duped the world into believing that did.
End of debate.
If you did . . . . . . then prove it :-D
And not with fluttering flags or fake moon rocks or touched up photos or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it?... as to how it got there or was built etc etc etc

Edited by Jackdaw, 15 April 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Jackdaw]

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?
i.e. differing tread pattern to the so called astronauts?
Maybe its print was made by an over excited stage hand?

Edited by Jackdaw, 15 April 2012 - 08:10 PM.