• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Indeed, and they've never lived it down even after publishing a correction.
Click to expand...

Especially considering when they published that correction...

I'm not sure which was worse, that the NYT printed the editorial or that no one seemed to notice the glaring mistake at the time.
 
sts60 said:
I should also add that FF88/DavidC's Magic Sand is just another in endless series of ad hoc attempts to deny parts of the Apollo record. Not only does he have no evidence for any of his claims, nor any clue about any of the relevant principles; he has no coherent narrative - even less so than poor delusional Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea - as to how a hoax might actually work. All he can do is reflexively deny anything to do with the Apollo record - like his hilarious premise that there's no such thing as the South Atlantic Anomaly.

The problem with such knee-jerk denialism is that he must expand the pool of conspirators and conspiracy victimes to include everyone who doesn't agree with him. Thus, if you point out his claims are ridiculous and unsupported, you must be a gullible dupe - unless you show you know what you are talking about, in which case you must be a conspirator and liar. Thus, his claim that Jay, others, and myself must be lying when we debunk his claims - in DavidC/FF88/rocky's paranoid mindset, everyone who's not with him must be against him. He simply can't conceive that people who understand the subject (which he manifestly does not) honestly don't agree with him.

Oh, that reminds me, DavidC/FF88 - I'm still waiting for that direct evidence, or that retraction and apology.
Click to expand...

It seems to be a common CT phenomenon; they latch onto some small piece of evidence and think if they can somehow prove its faked, or could be faked that the whole mainstream account will unravel. They never seem to understand that even if they could prove their once small piece was fake, or fakeable the rest of the evidence is untouched. So yes even if FF88 could prove it was possible to create a perfect lunar soil simulant that behaved just like in the Apollo footage that wouldn't prove it had been used to fake the footage, and it wouldn't do anything to the mass of video, telemetry, and lunar rock samples that support the reality of Apollo.
 
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)
 
Hans said:
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)
Click to expand...

I have faced onslaughts of history truthers that deny lots of facts that happened barely 30 years befor Apollo...to loons, facts and evidence do not seem to matter alas.
 
Hans said:
I did have a sad thought; say in 40 years when all the Apollo experts are sadly gone - will the hoax loons range supreme with no one upto date on the then arcane technology of the Apollo program - or is the documentation strong enough? (I suspect it is)
Click to expand...


I think that Pearl Harbor CTs are instructive. Even though everyone involved at all but the lowest levels is gone, there's still plenty of documentation to refute hoax claims.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.
Click to expand...

IF it got deleted before it was b ecause it was off topic. What don't you understand about that?

Besides you got your first sentence wrong. It should read:

FatFreddy88 said:
Now that this thread isn't moderated, I can dump some more spam on here and ignore the many replies. Let's see.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
He had the attitude that he was winning but he was in fact losing. People can read it and decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

You've ignored the FACT that they HAVE decided for themselves. Without fail they have agreed you're full of it.
 
I read it too. You did indeed get your butt handed to you and I can't see how you can imagine otherwise. On the very narrow point of whether transporting sand would noticeably abrade it, they said no. But on the subject of making sand do what you want - a fine, dry powder which holds a sharp impression yet raises no dust clouds - they clearly told you you were dreaming.
 
Mr. 88, why do you keep returning to the same points- the jacket and the lack of dust when you been told over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the same answers?

If it's any help, YES, that jacket looks totally FAKE! I can see the wires, even!

YES, that IS dust-free sand! In fact, you can even see "TONKA" on the LEV, at certain angles.

Problem solved? Yes?

Go outside for a walk. It's probably nice out.

You're welcome.
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, and they've never lived it down even after publishing a correction.
Click to expand...

That might be because it was too little too late? http://astronauticsnow.com/history/goddard/index.html

A Correction. On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," and editorial-page feature of the The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows:

"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.
Click to expand...

Looks completely inadequate to me. So why not publish their regrets in the 1920's? Surely they had some people on the staff that graduated from high school? They could have done it in the 1950's after sputnik went up also. It seems they only regret being caught in an embarrassing lie. Nothing about how they attempted to ruin Goddard's reputation with their most likely deliberate distortions of the truth. I guess someone at the paper had an ax to grind.

Here is more of the actual content that appeared in the Times.
http://astronauticsnow.com/blazingthetrail/gruntman_btt_pages/gruntman_blazingthetrail_p_117.pdf

The Times goes on to insult Goddard some more in another paragraph, but no mention of that in their apology. If they published something so blatantly false today, would they be open to a libel suit?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
mercatormac said:
Based on past form, I would expect a new user espousing views suspiciously similar to p1000 to turn up sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

I can not say more without being a bad person, but you were to visit the Conspiracy section at the BAUT.......
 
Torombolo said:
I've been reading Moon Base Clavius on and off for some years now. Found it through good Dr. Phil's site.

Now that the main show is done I feel I'm safe in asking a little question. I remember reading a claim in the lines of "Jet engines don't work in space." as evidence of hoax. Now I can't find it anywhere. I'm almost sure it was in Stundies late last year but for the life of me, I can't find it anymore.

That's one of the internet era claims I'll add to my presentation, just for kicks. Main points will be the "Nine space oddities" list from David Milne article. I think these originate from Ralph Rene and should be considered classics, in this context.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it's a perennial. I've seen the "Rockets don't work in space" on several forums now. My favorite part about that claim, though, is how established it is -- the NY Times made it once, then printed a front-page retraction and apology to Goddard. Woody Woodpecker also made the claim -- as animated in the hilarious training film-within-a-film in "Destination Moon."

It was a variation of the "rockets can't work in space because there's nothing to push against" that actually got me into following the Apollo Hoax; the interesting "insight" by Interdimensional Warrior that a rocket couldn't work in space because without conduction or convection to reject heat, the heat of combustion would soon melt the rocket itself!

There's also a subtler variation that it took Jay to finally hammer through my head; the error of thinking that a rocket balances on the thrust like a pencil balanced on a finger. This usually shows up in hoax believer circles as the claim "Rockets can't land on their tails." Because balance or something (and why this isn't a problem when going up? The hoax believers can't answer that!)
 
There is some hoax evidence that's so clear that it can't be obfuscated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

... so we know Apollo was a hoax so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon. It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.

This video is about the issue in case any viewers are confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

Yes cherry picking and attempts to deceive
Quote:
But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone. This is why you get water spots when you clean your car and why your car actually gets dirty when it rains.
Click to expand...

The issue is not about whether sand can be made dust-free. The issue is about whether just moving and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Nowhere in this thread do I see anyone say that.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

I read the links and I concur that you are being selective. Do I get a badge?
Click to expand...
And in this case, the answers did not support his claim, but he selectively quoted them to make it appear they did. In fact, the one person who arguably responded to him directly called his conspiracy claim "a stupid idea".
Click to expand...
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that people should read that thread in its entirety, and take careful note of what you left out in your selective quoting.
Click to expand...
DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims
Click to expand...

Please post an actual quotation from the above thread that says that just transporting and placing sand that's already dust-free will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

These two quotes from post #7915...
1. The type of sand you need for there to be no dust clouds won't hold bootprints, which lunar soil does beautifully.
2. Several of the respondents remarked that it would be very difficult to get rid of all the smaller dust particles.
Click to expand...

...are not about that issue and do not refute the claim that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.


The guy who said this seems to have some good credentials.
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628
Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose.
Click to expand...
http://geology.about.com/bio/Andrew-Alden-453.htm

He and the people on the other thread disagree with Jay Windley and the other posters on the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

It looks to me like Jay and those other pro-Apollo posters are quite wrong on this issue. It also looks like they weren't simply mistaken, but lying as Jay said he knew what he knew from experience.
Quote:
This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you.
Click to expand...




"I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos made by the user cosmored, who is in fact the same person that created this thread:-

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:-

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence"."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you care to comment on the conclusions or the selected comments you made?
Click to expand...

Anyone who actually watches all the footage...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...and compares the movement of the corner of Collins' jacket to the movement of the jacket corners moving on earth will see that it's the same and the puffed up shoulders is not a sign of zero-G. The movement of the back of the jacket is consistent with movement in gravity.

I did read it. You ran away and barely answered a single post from him. Most of what he wrote was bang on the money and tore your arguments to pieces. His blog containing all his responses to your 5 year repetition of the same things, should be standard cut and paste to all your posts
Click to expand...

I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly. Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783

Once the viewers know that someone is deliberately trying to obfuscate anomalies, what's the point of continuing? The guy has no credibility.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
There is some hoax evidence that's so clear that it can't be obfuscated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128

... so we know Apollo was a hoax so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon. It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.
Click to expand...

All that shows is that you don't understand elasticity or damping, so the person lacking credibility would be yourself.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly. Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783
Click to expand...
But the Chinese spacewalk was not faked in a water tank.

FatFreddy88 said:
Once the viewers know that someone is deliberately trying to obfuscate anomalies, what's the point of continuing? The guy has no credibility.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally that's how we all feel about you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom