Simon: Why do you say that?

It's nothing. Forget it.

It's nothing. Forget it.

What did you expect telescope evidence to look like?

I'm betting that Seethruart/Piper will be colourising this image to show faces or spaceships or towers any time soon...

LOL Squirm!!! I love sarcastic humour - and that was a good one! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I love sarcastic humour

Especially since the object labelled "Santa Claus" is clearly a large object (sleigh) with several small objects (spacesuit-clad reindeer) in front of it.

The object labelled "O2 cloud" is probably an accumulation of urine dumps from the case of beer smuggled aboard, labelled "moist towlettes".

<a name="20020130e"> page 20020130e
On 2002-01-24 22:46, AstroMike wrote: To: 6:29 A.M.


http://www.moonmovie.com/usatoday.htm

Anybody care to debunk this?, because I'm too tired.
1. sure ? it equates down to who are the "CrazZies" and
2. Whom was the Geeniasses{sp} Actually Funded vs NON.
3. nevermind [ make something with nothing vs make nothing with somthing}?

I checked over the (even more authoritative) This New Ocean by Burroughs this morning, which states that there was some real resentment of the Germans in Washington because of the Nazi tie-in, and that this was a major reason why Eisenhower held back the Army effort.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Furthermore, the S-IVB was brighter that the CSLM because of its size, and many
others saw this instead of the CSLM. We observed the S-IVB and CSLM of Apollo 8 when it was
nearly 200,000 miles from the earth, but they were extremely faint, and with no sign of the SLA panels.

There is a minor mistake in the text here which I didn't see anyone comment on yet. Apollo 8 did not carry a LM so it would not have been referred to as a CSLM. Wouldn't it have just been the Apollo 8 CSM?

Nah! Must have been a hoax. Otherwise, why add the unnecesary weight of an extra letter 'L', when only 3 letters were needed in the design to land. Or something.

Well, we agree on one thing anyway. This guy has always seemed like a strawman to me, he makes comparisons and generalizations that have nothing to do with evidence of anything and seems to be in it for money. For what it's worth, I am not here for gain or notariety, I am here because I want the truth. It doesn't prove anything to compare how long it took to get the Hubble telescope in orbit and operational to Apollo, for instance, and it is irrelevant that Russia beat the US in achieving milestones.

Of course they beat the US to some milestones. What relevance does this have to the conversation at hand?

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

If you understood what I said, and have read this thread, this question requires no answer. I don't think it has anything to do with Apollo either, but the man Phil Plait is willing to debate about Apollo does. I don't think he would do so well in a debate with myself, which makes me wonder why NASA picks this man to give credibility to by answering his questions. If I write a book full of suppositions and irrelevant information, will NASA take me seriously enough to debate me publically then? I have not gone public simply because I abhor publicity. My private life is the most important component my existance. If I ever do publish my material, it will be under an assumed identity.

When has "NASA" answered any of Sibrel's questions, and how have they given him credibility?

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

Didn't you get the memo, Christopher? Half the people here are on NASA's payroll, tasked to go out into the web to promulgate the official lie.

(I'd better add a smiley, lest I Poe myself here!)

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Um... You think Phil Plait was hired by NASA to debate or debunk Bart Sibrel?

I don't think any such thing. I happen to know and can prove that Phil Plait was hired by NASA as a public relations operative to cast NASA in a positive light. That is the purpose of this forum which he administers. His so called credibility is based on his title. There is no criticism of NASA and never an admission of any wrongdoing or dishonesty,no matter how obviosu it is. I believe though cannot prove that Bart Sibrel is a strawman set up by NASA. Given Jay Windleys' refusal to debate me one on one on his own home territory, the obvious conclusion is that Sibrel is just that. What is it about me that scares you? I believe it is because you think I can wipe the floor with him. Phil obviously doesnt think that about Sibrel. So I guess we can assume I command more respect than him, and he is seen as a lesser threat.
What has NASA got to gain by debating Sibrel one on one on countless public broadcasts . given NASA's proponents evasive and sometimes outright criminal tactics engaing me, one has to wonder. All of this is documented and though I don't want to rehash it here, if I am pressed to I will.

Oh, really? So this forum is a NASA affiliate created by NASA in order to propagate its lies?

Well... You claim to be able to "prove it", so DO SO.
No, he never did.
JayUtah refused to debate you on terms you walked onto this board with that you just up and made up.

I would consider your constant boasting to be annoying, but not frightening.

You have yet to put up any solid evidence, yet you have posted a great many times about how great you are.

Are you trying to win the debate by boasting your opponents to death?

Nothing, so they don't bother.
Provide evidence of criminal activity.

Not entirely, no. It is being used to systematically cover NASA's lies, no doubt about it.It is financed by NASA and Phil Plait is paid to represent NASA. I didn't realize this was being denied here, but if it is it stupid to do so. It's pretty obvious, and Phil Plaits employement with NASA is not a state secret. Gee whiz, boys.
I could waste my time proving fire is hot , but that would be a waste of time. That which is self evident requires little effort to prove. Why even respond this way?
The terms were based on the rules of debate. There was nothing made up, just a fair set of circumstances that allow both sides equal footing. If you see that as unfair, it is because you're used to having the advantage imposed , probably in life in general. Most of us know this, that a fair contest is feared only by the inadequate,

I would take a look over your own posts before I criticize another.

BOB

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This doesn't sound like original thinking. Which conspiracy nut did you copy this from?

Oh, and by the way, Phil is very critical of NASA, when NASA deserves it...you would have to actually read something Phil wrote to know that.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Anybody who thinks there's no criticism of NASA clearly hasn't visited the spacecraft section of this forum, that Ares I v EELV debate is viscious

I'm sorry, I shouldn't do this.....but the Ares I v. EELV is moving like molasses?

__________________
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Yes, that as well as vicious..

The demonic spirit from Twin Peaks did it?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This one had me rolling.

For not being a "state secret," CR doesn't know a whole lot about Dr. Plaits work with NASA...

This board is supposedly funded by NASA...

Now that just makes me angry!!
We need to rebel against the BA and Fraser for buying that new server with NASA's money and making us think that we have to have the google ads!!

Odd. With all the more recent threads about Bart Sibrel that he chose to resurrect this one at almost eight years old to make the straw man argument. Just an observation.

__________________
What happens on the event horizon, stays on the event horizon.

I'm with you...now where is my darn pitchfork!?

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

It's pretty obvious, and Phil Plaits employement with NASA is not a state secret. Gee whiz, boys.

Phil Plait hasn't had anything to do with this board in years. Besides, the board is the collective contribution of thousands of participants, not just something written by Plait. Are we all being paid by NASA?

I could waste my time proving fire is hot , but that would be a waste of time.

Indeed it would be. Why don't you prove your claims instead?

That which is self evident requires little effort to prove.

However your unwillingness or inability to imagine and examine ideas other than your own does not make your claims self-evident.

The terms were based on the rules of debate.

"The" rules of debate? Which would those be? Heavens, just in the field of jurisprudential litigation alone there are dozens of sets of rules worldwide for governing such debates.

Alleging that your made-up rules are universal does not make them so. Conspiracy theorists typically try to change the ground rules in order to make it impossible for them to lose. That doesn't happen here. The rules of debate that pertain to this board were clearly explained to you, and your participation here signals your acceptance of them. If you feel the rules do not let you make your case fairly, then simply go elsewhere to debate them.

There was nothing made up, just a fair set of circumstances that allow both sides equal footing.

Hogwash. The very first thing you did was try to limit what would be presented in evidence: you tried to limit your responsibility by responding only to one person. You have systematically sidestepped and ignored every single objection to your unsubstantiated claims by asserting that they are distraction.

If you see that as unfair, it is because you're used to having the advantage imposed, probably in life in general.

Nope. The burden of proof has been on the claimant's shoulders since Aristotle's day. All formal systems of examination and debate are based upon a judicious imposition of the burden of proof precisely in order to deal with insufficiency. Your "fair" method proposes to limit the opponent only to affirmative rebuttals.

If you wish, I can also offer my oft-quoted essay on the rationale behind assigning the burden of proof to claims of fakery. There is a sound logical reason for doing so.

The Apollo evidence is out there. You are alleging instead that it arose through fakery. That is an affirmative rebuttal. You bear the burden of proof for that affirmation. You are alleging that something is fraudulent. Allegations of fraudulence always carry a burden of proof because it is impossible to prove that something is genuine.

Sorry, but you simply won't get away with merely appearing to win your debate by structuring it so as to remove all responsibility from you.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Also Conspiracy Realists in Dr Plait's blog he is very critical of the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

Bart kind of debunks himself.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/