1963 replies to this topic

[turbonium]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

It tells them something is not rational with that!

You assume that "every expert in the world" agrees with you (that Apollo was genuine) .....because they said nothing???!! Their silence means they all accept it as genuine??  

Amazing...

[Likely Guy]

Turbonium, I think that your favourite colour is black, just because it's the least popular colour.

You love the underdog viewpoint in an issue. Just because it's the least agreed on, doesn't mean it's true though.

Proof we went to the Moon = Overwhelming
Proof we didn't go to the Moon = Underwhelming

Edit: ...and yes, I have read this thread from the beginning.

Edited by Likely Guy, 22 December 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 22 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

It is a matter of calling upon the laws of physics to determine who is right and who wrong and I might add that the laws of physics have been called upon from time to time to debunk conspiracist claims, especially concerning the Apollo moon missions, which explains why conspiracist have failed to provide evidence the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

No such laws are needed in Apollo-land. Just babble about the lunar environment and presto, it's debunked!

skyeagle409, on 22 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Do you remember the admiral who told President Roosevelt that the A-bomb would never work and that he spoke as an expert on explosives?

I can't recall that one. My point is that one person can be right about something, as thousands of 'experts' are wrong. I'm well aware of vice-versa, like in your example. It's not about majority is always right and minority always wrong.

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 16 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Are you saying that the spacesuit cannot reflect sunlight? If not, why do you say it has magical properties? All it does is reflect very bright sunlight, that it reflected again off the heel of Aldrin's boot. That is a simple optical principle, not magic.

What exactly are you proposing? Remember the highlight is visible in the boot both at the top of the ladder and the bottom. Your method suggests someone pointing a spotlight at his boot as he comes down the ladder...?

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

[Chrlzs]

A small change..

Likely Guy, on 22 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Proof we went to the Moon = Overwhelming
Proof we didn't go to the Moon = Non-existent

The ludicrous 'evidence' being proffered by Apollo deniers simply reveals their utter ignorance of the equipment and the environment...

If anyone other than turbonium (who clearly wasn't debating in good faith), believes there is something new that might count as evidence, please bring it.

[turbonium]

Chrlzs, on 22 December 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

A small change..


The ludicrous 'evidence' being proffered by Apollo deniers simply reveals their utter ignorance of the equipment and the environment...

If anyone other than turbonium (who clearly wasn't debating in good faith), believes there is something new that might count as evidence, please bring it.

I just did.

You ignored it.

Someone's not debating in good faith, clearly.

[flyingswan]

<p>

turbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

Are you pretending to forget that Postie found the image in the TV footage of Armstrong taking the photo in question?  It clearly showed him only partially in shadow, with a bright sunlight reflection from his right side, a perfect match with Groves "spotlight".

[Waspie_Dwarf]

turbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

It tells a rational person you're still appealing to authority in itself.

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

Here is another link to the video that proves you wrong. Please watch it this time.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...11v_1094228.mpg



Still waiting on answers to the questions in this post.

http://www.unexplain...25#entry4582676

[turbonium]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 22 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

It seems you need a review of who initiated the appeal to authority here...

flyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

So that's why I mentioned two experts in photography who support my position. Of course, that  prompted your side into making another appeal to authority...

skyeagle409, on 09 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

A bit later, I noted ..


If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember this reply?...

Waspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

So I'm obliged to justify my two experts, while you make a lame excuse to avoid justifying even ONE of your experts?!!

Talk about a "double standard", you take the cake...

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

You are consistent with getting the facts all wrong.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

I will make it easy for you. I have already posted undenial evidence that's supported by experts around the globe, so where's your evidence? You have yet to post ANY evidence supporting your case.

[turbonium]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 22 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

You really need to review this matter...

It began with your side making an appeal to authority (still a popular theme for your group, it seems)...  

flyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

Since I was aware of two experts who supported my position, I mentioned it.

That led to your camp making yet another appeal to authority...

skyeagle409, on 09 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

(Sidenote: If you aren't sure the quotes I'm citing are genuine, I urge you to verify it for yourself.)

To recap - I was simply pointing out that there are indeed experts who support me. Your side automatically assumed I am required to defend these experts. So I said...


If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember your reply to that?....

Waspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

In other words - I'm obliged to justify experts who support me, while it would be quite "difficult" to justify all of your experts. so you don't need to justify even one of them??!!

Talk about double standards - you take the cake!!

Oh, btw - I didn't make up your quote, either. You get all the credit for crafting that gem...

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

You really need to review this matter...

I think you should review this!

Quote

Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news171102159.html#jCp

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct?

Mr.  Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics are experts that have consistently debunked claims of Apollo Hoax conspiracist. Check it out.

Quote

Apollo Hoaxer's claim:

Footage of the American flag planted on the Moon shows it flapping, and a flag cannot flap in a vacuum, so it could not have been filmed on the Moon.


Mr Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics say:

A replica of the American flag planted on the Moon into the vacuum chamber. They manipulated the flag in a manner similar to what the astronauts did when they planted the flag on the Moon, then stopped the manipulation. They first tested at normal pressure; the momentum moved the flag around somewhat but quickly dissipated.

In pure vacuum conditions, after the manipulation stopped, the momentum caused the flag to flap wildly as if it were being blown by a breeze. This is because there was no resistance from air to dampen the motion. This proved that in a vacuum, a flag does not need wind to flap for a while after a person sets it in motion.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 December 2012 - 06:17 AM.