conspiracy realist, I'm not trying to mod you or anything, but a friendly warning:

You've been asked questions. The rules of this forum state that you must answer them. The mods will take action if you persist. I've seen it done before. Blood everywhere. :LOL:

Also, could you supply those quotes, with references please?

__________________
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

Are you aware of current chracteristics of the space radiation enviroment and how it changes, and the fact that Apollo was during a solar maximum? What do you know about the two belts of the magnetoshere, for instance? Which is more of a danger, the lower belt or the higher one? What was Apollo's path through them?
Off topic perhaps, but have you heard how the quietness of the Sun is resulting in a previously unseen level of cosmic radiation in space?
My question basically is do you think you know a tenth of what I do, and what does it mean if you don't?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I didn't quote anyone. I asked you if you had heard what they had to say.

I have several people asking me questions, I cannot respond to them all instantaneously. That is an unrealistic requirement. No one has answered any of my questions, not really.

I would caution you against assuming that what you believe is fact. You quite apparently don't know much about spaceflight technology. And some of what you do believe you know about space radiation is flawed. The Russians sent organisms around the moon and back during their Zond missions. The organisms survived (except one case where the pressurized compartment was breached and everything decompressed).

If anything, the radiation is evidence for their travel to the moon. Many of the Apollo astronauts have early radiation-related illnesses.

They're called the Van Allen belts. I would expect someone who thinks they know ten times as much (or if not, at least knowing what we post means) would know what they're called.

Edit:

pzkpfw: My apologies.
conspiracy realist, you can request the thread be temporarily locked while you build up your responses.

I didn't say you quoted them. You said they said something about it. I asked you for the quotes and the reference. That is twice you have tried to put words in my mouth.

__________________
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

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I ahve been required to answer post #15 and post #185. Where are these numbers located on the post? In other words I dont know what questions or posts you are refering to.

Top-right of the post, left of the [report] button. The numbers have actually changed since many of the posts here were extracted from another thread. As such #185 is no longer #185.

CR, I asked for your evidence against the Apollo missions (not words, but actual numbers), and I asked for the quotes from Grissom and Von Braun, with references. Those were direct questions.

__________________
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

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

No. The proof for the achievement of landing on the Moon has been provided. It is that evidence that the conspiracy theorists frantically try to explain away. They propose alternate means by which that evidence arose. That is an affirmative rebuttal and it accepts a burden of proof. That is true even in a court of law: one of the several occasions when the defense has the burden of proof.

You're saying all the Apollo evidence was faked. You have the burden to prove that's how the evidence arrived at us.

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

In other words a double standard of engagement, where 'mainstream' isn't required to prove it's agruements?
I think I am gaining a clearer picture of what I can expect.
I believe there is a post above that violated your tos as well, maybe you can bring it to the attention of the person who posted it that personal attacks are not allowed. He emplied I was stupid because I did not name the van allen radiation belts in my description.

I don't have a report button or a post number in the top right corner of any post.
Is it because of my browser settings?

Never mind, I have it under control now.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Sure, I don't mind saying it a third time.
The mainstream argument has already been proven. It's your turn.

I wish not to "emply" anything. It's just a red flag when someone claims to know a lot about a particular topic, but doesn't know the terminology. It tends to cry out "I failed to research."

Edit: I am not making personal attacks against you. I have nothing against you, and certainly no motivation to make such an attack.

Are you aware of current chracteristics of the space radiation enviroment and how it changes, and the fact that Apollo was during a solar maximum?

False. Apollo occurred during the decline of the solar cycle.

What do you know about the two belts of the magnetoshere, for instance?

A great deal. You might also be interested in knowing that the man who discovered them and devoted his life to studying them specifically called the hoax theories nonsense.

What was Apollo's path through them?

Who says you have to go through them?

Off topic perhaps, but have you heard how the quietness of the Sun is resulting in a previously unseen level of cosmic radiation in space?

Yes, every astrophysics student learns that periods of solar quiescence are accompanied by an increase in GCR. And they know why. Do you know why? If so, please demonstrate your understanding.

My question basically is do you think you know a tenth of what I do, and what does it mean if you don't?

I undoubtedly know more, and everyone who has been expertly trained in the science of cislunar radiation agrees that the Apollo missions were real.

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

In other words a double standard of engagement, where 'mainstream' isn't required to prove it's agruements?

No. If you attempt an affirmative rebuttal, you must shoulder a burden of proof. That's what it means to rebut affirmatively.

Further, in questions of authenticity versus fakery, the burden of proof is always upon fakery. One cannot prove authenticity, only the failure to show how something was faked.

If you claim the evidence of the Apollo missions was faked, you have the burden of proof.

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

Ok, these seem to be the questions everyone wants me to answer. I would think by now the answer would be self evident without my having to say so.
The answer to the first question is yes, I do.
The answer to the second question is it depends on what you mean by prove. As you know it is very diffiuclt to prove a negative. I think I pointed that out. I believe I can prove many parts of the body of evidence are fake, yes.

That's what we're asking you to do.

This statement, My question basically is do you think you know a tenth of what I do, and what does it mean if you don't? suggests that you believe you are better informed that those who disagree with you, and that your superior knowledge makes your conclusion more valid. That makes your level of knowledge a premise to you argument. You are claiming expertise, therefore it is an appropriate rebuttal to question your expertise. When you fail to display basic knowledge of the subject, we can consider an premise of expertise refuted.

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

No, you can't. And because you can't, you won't.

You can't prove that you went to Pittsburgh in 1977, either.
And because you can't prove it, you won't prove it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

__________________
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

Proving that evidence was faked is not proving a negative.

Please see my site linked below. I will expect you to be familiar with the published rebuttals to the common hoax claims.

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

Heh heh. Welcome...err...back to the BAUT, "Conspiracy Realist." May this stay be long and productive.

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

Yes, but that is misleading. During the decline but during the solar max. Let's not be intellctually dishonest, Jay. I stated a fact and you incorrectly said it was false. That Apollo did not occur at the precise peak of the solar max does not mean "false"!

What do you know about the two belts of the magnetoshere, for instance?
Well, your moderator said I can discuss the political aspects of the situtation so i will leave that bait in the water.

What was Apollo's path through them?
So you don't? Describe the tragectory.

Off topic perhaps, but have you heard how the quietness of the Sun is resulting in a previously unseen level of cosmic radiation in space?
Well, it is directly related to the magnetopause of the Sun, that is the magnetic field of the Sun shrinks in intenisty and dimension during times of extended quietness

My question basically is do you think you know a tenth of what I do, and what does it mean if you don't?
I seriously doubt that you do Jay. But I will give you a chance to prove it.

When you do that, let me know.

Based on what evidence and what is the significance of those isotopes? If you don't accept the Apollo evidence, I'm curious what evidence you're referring to. Also, you do realize that the Earth is also covered in radioactive isotopes, and always has been?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This post should be removed because it violates the tos of the forum. It is off topic and accusatory, and serves no useful purpose in this discussion other than to instigate a similar response