0 members (),
1,036
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
People who "think critically don't get lost on one article. Childish games? Yes, you do play them. Not an insult, just the truth.
"So you can see it certainly does not speculate that any of these effects would appear on the dayside, which is where the Apollo 12 astronauts were."
You read it wrong...again.
"It's an exact quote from the same person."
Other scientist say it differently. Read and learn. I'll offer this, then yoyo.
"Charge differential between the day and night side of the Moon might actually generate an ion “wind” flowing from the negatively charged night side into the more positively charged sunlit side."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
Two options here...
1. NASA is lying about Apollo 12. 2. NASA (and others) are lying about the magnetotail.
All in all...NASA is lying. Can't be trusted.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Other scientist say it differently. Read and learn. I'll
Got some references? negatively charged night side into the more positively charged sunlit side." OK, now I see that you're just not understanding it. It also clearly says that wind would be the strongest on the boundary between night and day. The astronauts weren't on the boundary, and there's no mention of how noticable it might be further into the day side. So you read it wrong. Will you apologize for repeatedly insulting me?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Two options here...
1. NASA is lying about Apollo 12. 2. NASA (and others) are lying about the magnetotail.
All in all...NASA is lying. Can't be trusted. "You have already shown that you will only insult the scientists and take things out of context and I'm too old for those kind of childish games." This is getting tiring Max. You clearly are not somebody who can form any kind of reasoning in his mind. That's not going to change by talking to me because you're not even trying to think.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
No, you are trying to argue over speculation. I have no interest in joining you.
1. I did not come here to argue with anyone. 2. I did not come here to debate speculation. 3. I did not come here to disprove a moon landing.
I read an interesting article that seemed odd. I knew my memory was correct. I remember sitting on the front porch, looking at the full moon, wishing that I was one of the astronauts, filled with pride that WE were there. Then, I remembered this thread and thought it would be fun to add this to it.
Red faces at NASA. Shame on you! Three years later, published all over, and I'm the only one to notice? Sad!
BTW, I have read a lot on this topic. I haven't formed my opinion from just one article and I have not misread the article that I linked to. The ESA has a lot of info on this topic. So, all that and we're back to where we started...
1. Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail.
2. There was a full moon on Nov 19 1969 3. Man flew to, landed on, walked on the full moon, and then returned home during the 6 day magnetotail crossing of Nov 19 1969 and doesn't remember, nor did they notice anything out of the ordinary.
One is wrong. Two are true. NASA knew about the magnetotail. Are you saying that they used human guinea pigs?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
BTW, I have read a lot on this topic. I haven't formed my opinion from just one article and I have not misread the article that I linked to. The ESA has a lot of info on this
No matter how much you've read, if you can't describe a complete logical argument (even to yourself) then you cannot trust your conclusion. Talking to others is a great opportunity. Would you really want to form an opinion knowing that it's never been challenged? 1. Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail. 2. There was a full moon on Nov 19 1969 3. Man flew to, landed on, walked on the full moon, and One is wrong. Two are true.
Yea that makes sense. I vote for #2 and #3 being true based on no reason to be wrong (#2) and a wide range of different evidences (#3). What evidence do you have for #1 being true?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
A similar story coming from the same scientist: "Because the biggest flows would involve microscopic particles too small to see with the naked eye, an astronaut would not notice dust speeding past. Still, if he or she were on the Moon's dark side alert for lunar sunrise, the astronaut 'might see a weird, shifting glow extending along the horizon" Is that consistent with what you found?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
"Is that consistent with what you found?"
The Japanese articles that I've read actually show a model of the moon with the dust rising over the entire surface. Still, speculation, and not why I'm here. Try to understand at least that much. I know it is difficult, but try.
"What evidence do you have for #1 being true?"
A lot. You would too if you would just read and learn. You do know about the ESA cluster satellites, right? NASA has already said that they are going to have to rethink space travel. Yes, I should have bookmarked the articles, but I didn't realize that I was going to find evidence of a faked moon landing.
Claiming to have gone to the moon during a magnetotail crossing would just compound the other lies.
Apollo 11 and 12...Fraud.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
No one has responded to the question about Russian observation. Two possible reasons for this come to mind.
1. It is a totally naive question, the absurdity of which escapes me. I can live with that.
2. It is a reasonable question, but it takes the fun out of conspiracy theory. Far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
No one has responded to the question about Russian observation. Two possible reasons for this come to mind.
2. It is a reasonable question, but it takes the fun out of conspiracy theory. Far be it from me to spoil anyone's fun. I vote for option #2. To me the interest is in the technical details.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
A lot. You would too if you would just read and learn. You do
Yea, common story. Read lots of things and formed a general opinion but you have no idea how you came to it. You never stopped to analyse your reasoning. It's just a belief representing your prejudices.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
Bill, I haven't seen anything from the Russians on this topic. What were they watching with and what did they see? (edit) Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12. Thanks
Kallog, You've read nothing and made your choice. Smart! For some illogical reason, you think that insulting scientists will prove your point. (alarmist method) I've grown tired of that type of brain dead argument and refuse play your silly game. So, you focus your attacks on me. (alarmist method)
1. You never stopped to analyse your reasoning.
2. It's just a belief representing your prejudices.
You must enjoy being wrong about everything. There is a lot to learn out there. Get busy.
(edit) Apologize? Yes, you do owe Tim Stubbs an apology.
Last edited by Max; 03/01/11 07:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12. Unfortunately I don't have access to this information. Part of the reason I raised this point was that I find it difficult to believe that with all the technology available, one nation could claim to have put men on the moon, with all the monitorable communication this would involve, without a close competitor in the space race being able to keep an eye on what they were really doing. I hoped that someone else might have more information.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
illogical reason, you think that insulting scientists will
To avoid that you must blindly accept every word every scientist says. To do otherwise would be insulting them the way I did. Now quite sure how "NASA are liars" is any better. At the end of the day, you have no reasons, so it's just a belief. I'm not trying to show people my beliefs. I'm trying to discover the holes in yours. I already did that.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840 |
Show me the Russian observations for Apollo 12. I hoped that someone else might have more information. We should know that information does not cure such beliefs. If 40 odd years of information has failed to penetrate the locked-down mind of the denialist, then I don't anticipate that even your gallant efforts will be the key, Bill.
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
Ahh, another alarmtard with his imaginary enemy, the denialists. You even had to invent a word for them. I can invent words, too. Alarmtards will believe anything. Like, Global warming...Alarmtard language for "the advance greenhouse effect". You are absolutely wrong with your attack. For about 40 years, I believed the moon landings were real without a doubt. An open mind allowed me to see the flaws. My mind has been changed, yours is still in a 40 year lockdown mode.
Bill, Why are there no independent observations? This seems crucial to you. Shouldn't the Russians (and others) have documented some type of observation?
Kallog, The only thing you've discovered is how to do the alarmist dance. You have avoided the salient points and tried to debate speculation and then claimed victory for your ignorance. My beliefs aren't important because I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. I have no need to insult scientists because the content is all that matters. If the content fails, the scientist fails. No need to mention anything about the scientist. I had you figured out from your first post and wasn't going to give you anything else because nothing is worse that an internet alarmist know it all who is above all other scientist. Our debate would be nothing more than your attacks on scientists, cherry picking irrelevant quotes and using them out of context, insult me for something written in an article that I didn't write, you telling me what I believe, climaxed by self-proclaimed victory over all scientists and everyone else because no one compares to you. BTW, I haven't read any of your comments in the climate change section. I can see that you are an alarmist just from your writing style in this thread. You guys are easy to spot.
Anyway, I've enjoyed stringing you along and watching you do the alarmist dance. In the end, the truth will be found.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
I can see that you are an alarmist just from your writing style in this thread. You guys are easy to spot. Kallog; this question would be way off topic if it were not for the above quote. Some time ago my son looked at just one of your posts, in an exchange with Bryan, and decided that you were a Libertarian. Could he have been right?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Shouldn't the Russians (and others) have documented some type of observation? I suspect that in the competitive atmosphere of the time any doubt that could have been cast, would have been cast. This is why I chose to ask about the Russians rather than any others.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100 |
Kallog, The only thing you've discovered is how to do the alarmist dance. You have avoided the salient points and tried to debate speculation and then claimed victory for your
Huh? I clearly showed that the 3-website connnect-the-dots idea you posted did not lead to the conclusion you claimed. That's it. I don't know what other reasoning you might have because you haven't stated it. If you believe every document on NASA's website is gospel truth then it's impossible to claim that Apollo 12 was faked.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93 |
The three websites didn't lead to a conclusion, they lead to a comment..."one is wrong, two are true". My "opinion" is that #3 is wrong and your opinion is #1 is wrong. Why would you assume that I believe that NASA speaks the truth about anything?
|
|
|
|
|