Men on the Moon

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

Syke-
I took a look again at this study you referred me to at the link above. One problem with it is that it begins with the premise that there are moon rocks from manned missions being examined.

Fair enough except that their findings match those found from non-manned lunar missions and regardless are not of a composition found anywhere on earth.

How do you explain these two facts??

So prior to the study beginning they already concluded they had rocks from the moon.
Also the study was funded by NASA which would want the "right" conclusion.

Hardly seeing as the scope of the paper was never to prove that they were from the moon, you are applying your own agendas to this paper, which casts suspect light on your objectivity.

I recall when I heard the Amazing Randi speak at NASA Gooddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland many years ago. He was relating how his stooges easily fooled the scientists at Stanford doing research on telekinesis. Randi said one reason they were easy to fool was that they already believed that the subjects they were studying "had" telekinetic powers. In other words he warned scientists to take care to avoid "finding" what they are looking for.

So? What has this to do with the paper above. They weren't looking to prove anything that I can see. Can you show me where in the paper it indicates they were?

A better test would be to place a collection of rocks for study including "moon rocks," and rocks simulated to appear to be moon rocks, and other assorted rocks before scientists for examination. Let them sort them out and conclude on their own if any samples are "out of this world." But to start by examining "moon rocks" with a NASA funded grand, will hardly fail to conclude that they are looking at rocks from "the moon." The wrong conclusion could end any further grant $$ from NASA or the U.S. government.

And a fradulent conclusion would see them having their doctorates revoked (or for PhD students, expulsion) and all previous work investigated. Their careerd would be ruined.

Not convinced, its happened already to a physicist who was caught publishing fraudulent results. He was fired from Bell labs (industry, so they had something to gain from his work) and the University he studied at revoked his PhD.

This is not to say the researchers are liars or part of some grand conspiracy. They just want to do their jobs and keep their jobs and not make waves as I have done here.
-Turley

Nope, if anyone was caught or suspected of falsifying data their career would suffer more than anything else.

There is no point having a cushty job and grant if noone else will touch your work.

What you seem to have missed is that fact independent international scientists have verified the work (see the previous publications I referenced).

Again, you offer nothing except subterfuge and deflammation to your argument.

Do you actually have any facts or evidence at all?

pork99

Turley wrote:

If you are federally funded you are not independent you are federally controlled.

Not knowing that the Amercan press is the voice of the American government is a severe handicap. Consumers are not uninformed they are misinformed. The only difference between the American press and the press in North Korea is a bigger budget and a better quality illusion.

And in what way is the US press federally funded?

I can help you tell the difference between the press and media in the US and in North Korea. Mass mainstream news media in the US may be dominated by pro-Republican corporate interests but there are many alternative news sources. In North Korea there is one and only one news source, that permitted by and run directly by the North Korean state. The North Korean equivalent of Michael Moore has long ago been carted off to a concentration camp to be tortured to death as a guinea-pig for chemical and biological weapons.

As regards men on the moon I think Turley is almost delusional - he has made up his mind to believe it didn't happen. It's more like an argument about faith - arguing about the existence existence of God with a religious fundamentalist. Turley you lost the argument about half way down page 2

Turley

syke wrote:

Hardly seeing as the scope of the paper was never to prove that they were from the moon, you are applying your own agendas to this paper, which casts suspect light on your objectivity.

I agree that the scope of the paper was never to prove that the rocks were from manned travel to the moon. But you introduced this study and other studies as "proof" of manned missions to the moon when you wrote,

syke wrote:

"...here is another:

lunar and planetary science XXXIV 2003 (link)

So again I ask, would you care to comment on the fact that the rocks collected by the manned lunar mission were shown not to be of earth origin?"

syke wrote:

And a fradulent conclusion would see them having their doctorates revoked (or for PhD students, expulsion) and all previous work investigated. Their careerd would be ruined.

Not convinced, its happened already to a physicist who was caught publishing fraudulent results. He was fired from Bell labs (industry, so they had something to gain from his work) and the University he studied at revoked his PhD.

Yes. It is true that some people suffer for falsifying reports.

syke wrote:

Nope, if anyone was caught or suspected of falsifying data their career would suffer more than anything else.

This is not always true.

Here is evidence of what has happened when someone did not falsify a report. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodrigues said, "The result is being dictated by a lot higher authority than I think people really understand or appreciate, and certainly more than I ever appreciated. This whole notion of doing an honest investigation, you know, its laughable. I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go. I knew the result before the investigation began. That's why I left. I don't do investigations like that - do investigations to justify results...Again I left for a very good reason, the results were dictated and I don't do that kind of work.

AND for being an honest investigator Mr. Rodriguez was threatened and he said, "The FBI threatened me and told me to back off and back down...I was communicated with again and told to be careful where I tread...I can tell you this it has not only to do with my career and my reputation, um, they've also had to do with my personal health and my family."

So Mr. Rodriguez resigned and returned to his previous position in Sacramento, California and his successor, Brett Kavanaugh, filed the fraudulent report and was rewarded with a job at the White House as assistant to the President and has now been appointed to be a judge on the 2nd highest court in the USA.

So, falsifying data can actually help your career in the logic-free zone of the U.S.A. and I haven't heard any independent, international, anyone crying foul about the future judge Brett Kavanaugh submitting a fraudulent report concealing a murder.

So fake research can hurt or help a career, it all depends. The public is made to believe fake research hurts a career, but the truth is not always what the public believes, and that might includle men on the moon.

Turley

pork99 wrote:

And in what way is the US press federally funded?

Good question.

pork99 wrote:

I can help you tell the difference between the press and media in the US and in North Korea. Mass mainstream news media in the US may be dominated by pro-Republican corporate interests but there are many alternative news sources. In North Korea there is one and only one news source, that permitted by and run directly by the North Korean state. The North Korean equivalent of Michael Moore has long ago been carted off to a concentration camp to be tortured to death as a guinea-pig for chemical and biological weapons.

And you know this because you form your opinion based on the information you get from???
I rather think the North Koreans wish they had the budget to fund the illusion of a false critic like Moore. He looks soooo good. A real critic of Bush would reveal that Bush has appointed Brett Kavanaugh, with his criminal past, to serve on the federal bench. No lefty, including Moore, will touch that scandal. It would expose the fake left/right opposition. A fake critic like Moore perpetuates the same BIG LIES as Bush, like 19 men (part of a vast international conspiracy) attacked the US on September 11, 2001. Bush and Moore, the Righties and the Lefties, always support the state of Israel, James Forrestal jumped out a window, Oswald killed JFK with a magic bullet, Vince Foster killed himself, etc. The U.S. has the appearance of opposition and illusion of democracy. It is North Korea produced by Hollywood with a much bigger budget. You have to admit it looks good, and the people like a good show. They even fly to the moon! Michael Moore would never disagree.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

Em ... not sure if you're joking here but many governmental scandals have been reported ad nauseum. Why did they fail to suppress the Lewinsky story (the top man had to come out and humiliate himself on telly - how come he couldn't suppress this in the manner you suggest?) or Watergate (it was only two reporters stirring the bowl)!! Why couldn't Blair manipulate the British media to stop them forcing the resignations of some of his key people? Why did Bush's choice for Homeland Security Secretary Bernard Kerik, have to pull out because of possible conflict of interest, embarrassing the white house in the process? Surely such things can be easily managed by people with such overwhelming power over the entire sociopolitical system? Of course, they don't because they can't, even when they would like to.

Wow.
First, I understand your view. I once would have made the same argument. The difference between us is that I know something that you do not know. They actually can and do conceal whatever they want. But why, as you rightly ask, do we know about Lewinsky, Watergate, Blair, and Kerik? The answer is that these minor scandals "prove" to the public that "the truth can't be hidden from them." It is a confidence game to gain the public trust in the press. And you have confidence that no really serious scandals could ever be hidden from you. It works!

Myksyk wrote:

BTW, if the reality behind various scandalous incidents has never been revealed and I can't know about them ... then how can you know about them? They either have or haven't been leaked. Or is this more of your "I'm sure, I just don't have any evidence" type of argument.

You can know about various scandalous incidents that have not been officially revealed. You need only look for yourself. I never said you can't know the truth.

You ask how can I know. I looked. I questioned what I was told and I researched and I found that the truth was being hidden. My first, reaction was, doubt, disbelief, it contradicted my world view. I checked and rechecked. I wondered, how could this be? But "how" and "why" are not questions at hand. The first question is, "Is it so?"

Are significant crimes like murder, which is far more serious than Bernard Kerik, Monica Lewinsky, or a Watergate burglary, hidden from the pubic? Could evidence of murder of a White House official be hidden by John Kerry and others? The answer is yes. But don't take my word for it.

Here are the words of the lead investigator, assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez, in charge of the death investigation,
"I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, the New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and it risks – this matter is so sealed tight and, um, the reporters are all genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, the report– the ed– reporters are genuinely interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they've got a story and they're ready to go, the editors – and they – I've gotten calls back, I've gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what the hell's wrong, why can't, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn't think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.

"They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again, I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with Labaton, or six hours with Labaton, and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there's a lot more, um, ah – I know, I know the New York Times has – knows, and just won't ah, ah, I know that they won't do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me back. Reporters that I've spent a lot of time with called me back and said the editors won't allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had, ah, a certain take on all of this. And there's been story lines from the get-go." (source: tape recorded phone conversations between Reed Irvine and Miquel Rodriguez)

Myksyk wrote:

Your perspective on it however encourages a level of exaggerated paranoia and cynicism - without justification.

Do you think the assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez, is encouraging a level of exaggerated paranoia and cynicism - without justification?
And if you do not know what Mr. Rodriguez was telling the press maybe you need to look into at what has been suppressed from public view.

News suppression does happen. So I have come to wonder, if they can lie and conceal murders, what else can they lie about? moon landings? maybe.
I am rightly skeptical.

BTW, if there is suppression of news, who would tell you? Not the NY Times. How would you first come to know of news suppression, if the news is suppressed?

Turley

People do not know of a significant historic figure, Patrick Knowlton. What happened to Knowlton in broad daylight, before witnesses, on the streets of Washington, remains effectively a secret. Even after three federal judges ruled in his favor and against the U.S. government in 1997, that court ruling also remains effectively a secret. If something is not reported, it "did not happen."

What does the poem by Sophocles, Chorus from Ajax, and broken glass on a bed and carpet have to do with the son of an Irishman, America's first Secretary of Defense, James V. Forrestal? If something is not reported, it "did not happen."

When it was widely reported that dead, non-existent, non-citizens, were elected in the U.S., then dead people "won election" to the Senate and House in 2000 and 2002. Reality has become whatever we are told. Or has it?

If we do not know what is going on here on earth, how can we know what goes on 239,000 miles away on the moon?

Men walking on the moon was widely reported, therefore "it did happen."
I am skeptical.

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

I agree that the scope of the paper was never to prove that the rocks were from manned travel to the moon. But you introduced this study and other studies as "proof" of manned missions to the moon when you wrote,

No, I asked you to disprove the findings.

The studies presented don't prove we went to the moon because they are not trying to. They offer evidence that we have been ther ethough, evidence that you have been unable to counter except to call those involved liars. So basically what you're saying is you cannot explain the existance of Apollo 11/12 rock samples that have been analysed, are not of earth origin and match other known samples from the moon.

This is not always true.

Here is evidence of what has happened when someone did not falsify a report. Assistant U.S. Attorney Miquel Rodrigues said, "The result is being dictated by a lot higher authority than I think people really understand or appreciate, and certainly more than I ever appreciated. This whole notion of doing an honest investigation, you know, its laughable. I knew what the result was going to be, because I was told what the result was going to be from the get-go. I knew the result before the investigation began. That's why I left. I don't do investigations like that - do investigations to justify results...Again I left for a very good reason, the results were dictated and I don't do that kind of work.

AND for being an honest investigator Mr. Rodriguez was threatened and he said, "The FBI threatened me and told me to back off and back down...I was communicated with again and told to be careful where I tread...I can tell you this it has not only to do with my career and my reputation, um, they've also had to do with my personal health and my family."

So Mr. Rodriguez resigned and returned to his previous position in Sacramento, California and his successor, Brett Kavanaugh, filed the fraudulent report and was rewarded with a job at the White House as assistant to the President and has now been appointed to be a judge on the 2nd highest court in the USA.

So, falsifying data can actually help your career in the logic-free zone of the U.S.A. and I haven't heard any independent, international, anyone crying foul about the future judge Brett Kavanaugh submitting a fraudulent report concealing a murder.

So fake research can hurt or help a career, it all depends. The public is made to believe fake research hurts a career, but the truth is not always what the public believes, and that might includle men on the moon.

[/quote]

What has this to do with science. How do you draw the conclusion that the example you gave has any parallel with research? Give ten analogies to support your comparions

These aren't scientists. This is not any sort of comparison, this is you just waffling.

Like pork said, you lost the plot ages ago, no point trying to convince yo, youre as good as a religious fanatic.

Myksyk

Like pork said, you lost the plot ages ago, no point trying to convince yo, youre as good as a religious fanatic.

I'm inclined to agree. The argument to date seems to be:

People in power can abuse that power (not a startling insight by any standards)

There are demonstrable cases of their doing so in the past

We don't know what else they may be lying about so let's suspect everything and everyone. (We accept that they may not be lying about some things, but how would we know - if we look for info it could be that it was planted there for us to think that we had found the real deal ... hmmm ...very confusing - so in the absence of having any real way of trusting information it is best to adopt a core belief that nothing can be trusted).

Even when we have no evidence its best to suspect the absolute worst.

Although they have failed to cover up cringe-inducing stories recently, they could in fact have covered it up if they wished - Their not covering them up shows that they can and do cover them up!

Therefore they probably didn't land men on the moon.

Ignore all other evidence which suggests otherwise.

Brilliant!!

I'd love to contribute more but there is very little point. We will have to agree to disagree.

sliabh

If this were Politics or Humanities someone would lock the thread now it's reached a conclusion.

Unless someone wants to accuse us all of being in on the conspiracy as well?

Turley

syke wrote:

No, I asked you to disprove the findings.

The studies presented don't prove we went to the moon because they are not trying to. They offer evidence that we have been ther ethough, evidence that you have been unable to counter except to call those involved liars. So basically what you're saying is you cannot explain the existance of Apollo 11/12 rock samples that have been analysed, are not of earth origin and match other known samples from the moon.

Dear Syke,
The study began with the premise that it was examining moon rocks from manned missions. So the NASA funded study was predisposed to conclude the samples were not of earth origin.

syke wrote:

What has this to do with science. How do you draw the conclusion that the example you gave has any parallel with research?

The relevance is that government funded research can be faked and most important the public can be kept ignorant even when evidence of fraud is available.

syke wrote:

These aren't scientists. This is not any sort of comparison, this is you just waffling.

The government "experts" lending their support for a fee, Dr. Berman, Dr. Luke, Dr. Lee, Dr. Haut, Dr. Blackburn, Dr. Beyer, Dr. Hirsch, Dr. Stahl, and Dr. Reay might disagree with your claim they, "aren't scientists."

syke wrote:

Like pork said, you lost the plot ages ago, no point trying to convince yo, youre as good as a religious fanatic.

You don't need to convince me and I don't need to convince you. For being a skeptic I am called names like "religious fanantic."

If you want to believe men walked on the moon. I don't mind.
I am skeptical. We can still be friends and disagree. Okay?
-Turley

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

People in power can abuse that power (not a startling insight by any standards)

It should be startling to learn that you only know about the least serious abuse and the most serious abuse of power is cleverly being concealed from you. But it would only be startling, if people cared about high level criminal activity being concealed from them. Most people do not care and are content with what they are told.

Myksyk wrote:

We don't know what else they may be lying about so let's suspect everything and everyone. (We accept that they may not be lying about some things, but how would we know - if we look for info it could be that it was planted there for us to think that we had found the real deal ... hmmm ...very confusing - so in the absence of having any real way of trusting information it is best to adopt a core belief that nothing can be trusted).

This is an attempt to mischaracterize what I have said. I have never said we should suspect everything or that nothing can be trusted. It would be silly to trust in nothing and suspect everything.

Myksyk wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree.

We agree at last!
Good luck,
Turley

Capt'n Midnight

Turley wrote:

My skepticism rests on the fact that the authorities frequently lie about our history, the majority of people can be ignorant, and moon travel technology is frozen in time while reel to reel tapes, phonograph records, and rotary phones, from the same era have become obsolete.

LOL (true)

Authorities lie - that is a relevation :rolleyes:
- how can you tell if a politican is lying ?
- their lips move.

ever heard of a "mature product" ?
The Boeing B52 is a 1950's bomber, apart from having more engines and having it's wing mounted at the top of the fuselage instead of at the bottom and the arrangement of the landing gear it resembles the vast majority of todays airliners. Podded engines, wing sweep, cruise speed and altitude, cylinderical body etc. etc. So for most of the history of flight, most large aircraft have been very similar to each other. Look at other aircraft from earlier decades by comparison.

As Scotty says "ye canna change the laws of physics." - This also applies to Chemistry
"Specific Impulse" is the measure of how efficient rocket fuel is. Hydrogen and Oxygen don't release more energy today then they did back in the 1950's or before. Like the commercial jet airliner the development of efficient shape and function took place relatively quickly with rockets. Most of the development since then has been tweaking..

Note: Ryanair's brand new 737's use the same fuselage cross section as the Boeing 707 from nearly 50 years ago !

And I like to point out that Russian manned flights use a modified 1950's ICBM. The space shuttle still uses magnetic core memory..

Todays bicycles would not have looked strange in the 1890's again to do with the power to weight ratio of the combined powerplant and fuel supply.

The goal for capitalistic consumer consumption is for people to believe "if it works it's obsolete" hence the fuss over recycling rather than durability.

google for "specific impulse " propellant hydrazine fluorine

GuanYin

Turley wrote:

Dear Syke,
The study began with the premise that it was examining moon rocks from manned missions. So the NASA funded study was predisposed to conclude the samples were not of earth origin.

No, because it never tried to prove that. BEsides, look at the techniques used, you're basically accusing the people of lying seeing as the whole experiment is automated.

The relevance is that government funded research can be faked and most important the public can be kept ignorant even when evidence of fraud is available.

No, that just shows your ignorance of the system, published work is peer reviewed by anonymous indpendent reviewers and believe me, they spot inconsistancies and mistakes rather quickly. So it doesn't matter who generate sthe data, if its bad, its likely not to make it to the public domaine, dispite what you would like to think.

The government "experts" lending their support for a fee, Dr. Berman, Dr. Luke, Dr. Lee, Dr. Haut, Dr. Blackburn, Dr. Beyer, Dr. Hirsch, Dr. Stahl, and Dr. Reay might disagree with your claim they, "aren't scientists."

What are they doctors in? are the researchers, can you list some of their publications for me?

You don't need to convince me and I don't need to convince you. For being a skeptic I am called names like "religious fanantic."

If you want to believe men walked on the moon. I don't mind.
I am skeptical. We can still be friends and disagree. Okay?
-Turley

No, a skeptic is somone who looks objectively and logically at something in order to debunk it. You use rhetoric, deflammation and slander. Don't insult the skeptics by claiming to be one.

Turley

syke wrote:

No, because it never tried to prove that.

Dear Syke-
We agree. I know they did not try to prove the rocks were from the moon because from the beginning they stated they were studying "rocks from the moon." I know they were not trying to prove it and that is my point.

syke wrote:

What are they doctors in? are the researchers, can you list some of their publications for me?

I am not going to list all of the qualifications. You should know the renowned Dr. Henry Lee from the O.J. Simpson case. They are all mentioned at the web site I referred you to that no one has bothered to examine. I cut and pasted the following from http://www.fbicover-up.com/fiske/investigation.html
* Dr. Charles S. Hirsch - Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York and Chairman of the Department of Forensic Medicine at New York university Medical School:
* Dr. James L. Luke - Forensic Pathology Consultant, FBI Investigative Support Unit, FBI Academy; Project Director, Department of Environmental and Toxicologic Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington D.C.; Clinical Professor of Pathology at Georgetown and George Washington Universities; (3)
* Dr. Donald T. Reay - Chief Medical Examiner for King County, Seattle, Washington since 1975; Professor of Pathology at the University of Washington;
* Dr. Charles J. Stahl - Distinguished Scientist and Armed Forces Medical Examiner, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C.

Following their review of the evidence, the Pathologist Panel issued a report summarizing their analysis and conclusions ("Pathologist Report").

This Office was also assisted by Dr. Joel E. Kleinman, M.D., Ph.D., a respected psychiatrist. Dr. Kleinman is the Deputy Chief of the Clinical Brain Disorders Branch and Chief of the Neuropathology Section at the Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health, Saint Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington D.C. He is also a Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Department of Neurology, George Washington University School of Medicine. (END of excerpt from FISKE Report)

The list of publications just for the four doctors above is over 50 pages in the Appendix of the Fiske report so I will not post it here. And you wrote they "aren't scientists." I think you formed your opinion without even reading anything. You don't know anything about the falsified reports and news suppression I have referred you to, so you really are not entitled to an opinion.

syke wrote:

No, a skeptic is somone who looks objectively and logically at something in order to debunk it. You use rhetoric, deflammation and slander. Don't insult the skeptics by claiming to be one.

Are you saying I cannot be called a skeptic? People often call me a skeptic. Perhaps they are wrong.

My Webster's dictionary defines a skeptic as "a person who doubts, questions, or suspends judgement upon matters generally accepted." Men walking on the moon is generally accepted and I doubt, question and have suspended judgement upon the matter of men walking on the moon. I am inclined to question what is generally accepted.

You OTOH do not doubt, question, or suspend judgement upon what is generally accepted. Instead you doubt and question ME and I assure you that I am not generally accepted. You actually fail to meet the definition of a skeptic. But I don't mind if you want to call yourself a skeptic. It is okay with me.
-Turley

Turley

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Authorities lie - that is a relevation :rolleyes:

I don't think it is a relevation that authorities lie.

However it might be a relevation that the authorities are able to conceal the truth about serious crimes like murder successfully. If the authorities can lie about murder, then they could lie about almost anything and you would be unable to reliably know what is true from what is false. They could even lie about going to the moon.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Todays bicycles would not have looked strange in the 1890's again to do with the power to weight ratio of the combined powerplant and fuel supply.

I disagree. A 24-speed lightweight frame bicycle would look strange with a digital odometer/clock/speedometer, battery powered lights, hand brakes, modern tires & air pressure valves, night relfectors, portable pump and tire patch kit, shock absorbers in the seat and frame. Today's bicycles would be unlike anything in the 1890's. People might still sit on them and peddle them but they are much improved being, faster, more comfortable, safer, etc.

davros

First of all, this response comes way too late. I hadn't a spare minute during the week and then my internet connection blew away in the gales on Friday evening. Apologies.

syke wrote:

This discussion could go in many interesting ways, discussions on what actually happened, what information was shared, why some information wasn't shared, the inconsistencies that have arisen over the past 4 decades and most of all, why some people believe that man hasn't walked on the moon.

Sounds good.

What we get is one poster making an argumentative case without providing anything but anecdotes and opinon, all the while ignoring all the rather reasonable and solid evidence put forward by others.

It seems to me that men landing on the moon or not was somewhat incidental to his point, which was that the US government is not to be trusted. I know he didn't start the thread like that and it's my fault for not splitting the thread at the right point.

Humanaties, Politics and many other threads fuction brilliantly, cutting out the spammy posters and nurturing intelligent and reasonable debate.

Have to admit, those boards are not among the ones I routinely read. Tell you what, though, I'll follow Humanities for a while and see how it goes.

I have NEVER seen that on skeptics without some sort of intervention.

This might be a surprise, but I have never thought of this board as a forum for debate. I think it's rare enough that someone from the opposing camp dares to poke their head into the lion's den in order to utter some heresy. In the nature of our business, it's always going to be something unsupported by evidence, a blind statement of belief, reliant on one or more fallacies of argument, etc. It doesn't bother me particularly - it's good to be able to recognise these things.

Ah, but the thread drags on beyond its useful life, you say. That's true, I don't like that either. Since there is only one guy on one side of the debate, the only option I see practically is to close the thread. I'm not keen on that because if I see the likes of syke (say) still posting, I tend to assume there is still something worth saying.

What is the point in having a thread if one side takes a viewpoint where they ignore everyone elses posts and debunk all academics and scientists as unreliable resources because it suits them.

Such is life.
There is a very interesting crunching of gears when academia meets the general public. It's easy to get angry when one thinks a perfectly straightforward point is being ignored of misunderstood. But it happens constantly. I've been trying to develop the practice of not letting anything bother me, ever . Perhaps not an ideal quality in a mod but it does wonders for the stress level.

Anyway, I have taken on board what you have said and I'll solicit another opinion or two from the ISS honchos next week. And now, since all that is likely to be said on the topic of the US government's bedtime fantasy of men on the moon, this thread is closed.