PDA

View Full Version : on the Moon Man



tofu
2005-Nov-12, 03:22 PM
As I write this, Moon Man has just stated (over in the conspiracy theory forum) that he is drunk. He then asked where the "alleged vacuum" around the moon ends and asked why space ships don't create sonic booms.

With this, it became crystal clear to me that he was a troll. Everybody, even 5 year old children, know that there is no air in space. The only reason for a person to suggest otherwise is to troll. Toseek correctly identified him as such and banned him, and I really regret that I didn't accept toseek's judgment. I feel a little bit guilty about it.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 03:25 PM
I invite the Moon Man to list his credentials here. He claimed to be a lawyer. I'm tired of dancing around, and want him to put his money where his mouth is.

I do not believe that he is a lawyer. However, that has nothing to do with me calling him out. Moon Man: Please list your practice (if you have one), what college you graduated from, and also list out the law that you supposedly "set". Also, in regards to that groundbreaking case, please list the judge presiding and the lawyer you competed against, as well as what that particular case was about.

WaxRubiks
2005-Nov-12, 03:44 PM
some people can think better when they are drunk.

edit- if they are onto something anyway

Moon Man
2005-Nov-12, 03:51 PM
I invite the Moon Man to list his credentials here. He claimed to be a lawyer. I'm tired of dancing around, and want him to put his money where his mouth is.

I do not believe that he is a lawyer. However, that has nothing to do with me calling him out. Moon Man: Please list your practice (if you have one), what college you graduated from, and also list out the law that you supposedly "set". Also, in regards to that groundbreaking case, please list the judge presiding and the lawyer you competed against, as well as what that particular case was about.
I'm not listing anything because you demand it. The landmark case was a jurisdictional question answered by the Surpreme Court of Canada. I did not orally present the case I only provided the successful argument. I also never claimed to be a barred lawyer, you all came up with that. I do legal work though and have been called the lunchbox lawyer by my boss, meaning I carry a lunch to to work and do legal work on the side. I have never lost a case I've taken on. You don't have to be a lawyer in Canada to represent people, you can act as agent or even represent yourself. You cannot however recover costs if you do so.

I challenge all of you posting in the moon thread to list your credentials in the moon thread. Please also list how many times you've been to space..?

If you have a labour, trademark or Internet law question then feel free to post it. I also do appeal work and can give other general law questions an answer. I am in Canada and do not know if American law is different so my answers will apply to the way a case would be ruled on in Canada. I do not do criminal law so don't ask a criminal law question. I also will not spend much time investigating and answering your questions unless they are extremely intersting.

jojo180
2005-Nov-12, 03:58 PM
I think he has accomplished what he set out to do and that was to get people angry and irritated even to the point of creating a new forum dedicated to him

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 05:10 PM
...a new forum dedicated to him

A new thread, I think is what you meant ;)


I also will not spend much time investigating and answering your questions.

Which pretty much describes the majority of all that you have done. You make a ton of questions, but ignore the majority asked of you.


I challenge all of you posting in the moon thread to list your credentials in the moon thread. Please also list how many times you've been to space..?

Well, personally, I'm a college student at Del Mar. I'm a Freshman, and just starting out with Liberal Arts. I never pretended to be an expert, I just call out bullcrap when I see it.

How many times have you been to space? From the sounds of it, you sound like you're good at claiming what is and isn't when it comes to space, which seems to fly in the face of actual experts...

Moon Man
2005-Nov-12, 06:34 PM
A new thread, I think is what you meant ;)



Which pretty much describes the majority of all that you have done. You make a ton of questions, but ignore the majority asked of you.



Well, personally, I'm a college student at Del Mar. I'm a Freshman, and just starting out with Liberal Arts. I never pretended to be an expert, I just call out bullcrap when I see it.

How many times have you been to space? From the sounds of it, you sound like you're good at claiming what is and isn't when it comes to space, which seems to fly in the face of actual experts...
Good luck with your schooling and subsequent career. There are way too many people asking questions in the moon thread that I can't keep up.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-12, 06:48 PM
I find it amusing to watch. When you titled the thread, "I will prove that the moon landings didn't happen", or however you titled it, you drew every scientist and expert in like a pack of logical pirahnas to strip dry a corpse of illogic.

It was amusing to watch. I think that the majority of it came from the title.

Moon Man
2005-Nov-12, 07:00 PM
I knew it would draw a crowd. I didn't know people would get so upset by words on a screen. I will still post my clips of the immediate responses from the moon men to Houston, and again, the clips came from NASA's site. This alone convinces me it was a hoax. I'm going to let that thread chill out for a while though.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-12, 07:03 PM
You want my qualifications? I am a biomedical engineering PhD student. I have 3 semesters of physics for physics students, 1 semester of mechanics of solids, 2 semesters of circuit theory, 1 semester of materials science, 1 semester of transport theory (includes fluid, solid, and thermal transport), 1 semester of optics, 4 semester of computer programming (C++, Fortan, LabView, and Matlab), 1 semester of signal processing, 3 semester of college calculus, 1 semester of differential equations, 2 semester of college-level chemistry, 2 semester of organic chemistry, 2 semester of biochemistry and molecular biology, 1 semester of basic engineering business (intro to engineering 1), 1 semester of introductory economics, and 2 semester of intermediate economics, among many other things.

Moon Man
2005-Nov-12, 07:07 PM
And you can't follow simple instructions. I requested you post it in the moon thread and not here. Just kidding you! There are many smart people in the moon thread evidenced by their responses. You're one of them. Good luck with your career Black cat!

paulie jay
2005-Nov-13, 12:11 AM
I'm not listing anything because you demand it. The landmark case was a jurisdictional question answered by the Surpreme Court of Canada. I did not orally present the case I only provided the successful argument. I also never claimed to be a barred lawyer, you all came up with that. I do legal work though and have been called the lunchbox lawyer by my boss, meaning I carry a lunch to to work and do legal work on the side. I


So how do you explain this post?
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=598325&postcount=104


A good lawyer, like me.

Musashi
2005-Nov-13, 12:38 AM
Ever seen Total Recall? I keep expecting a Benny-like confession.

Quaid: "What happened to number 5?"

Benny: "[Crap] man, you got me, I ain't even married!"

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-13, 03:43 AM
Musashi: *laughs!* That's a good one.

However, with his track record, I doubt Moon Man could possibly admit his lies.

Candy
2005-Nov-13, 06:49 AM
You want my qualifications? I am a biomedical engineering PhD student. I have 3 semesters of physics for physics students, 1 semester of mechanics of solids, 2 semesters of circuit theory, 1 semester of materials science, 1 semester of transport theory (includes fluid, solid, and thermal transport), 1 semester of optics, 4 semester of computer programming (C++, Fortan, LabView, and Matlab), 1 semester of signal processing, 3 semester of college calculus, 1 semester of differential equations, 2 semester of college-level chemistry, 2 semester of organic chemistry, 2 semester of biochemistry and molecular biology, 1 semester of basic engineering business (intro to engineering 1), 1 semester of introductory economics, and 2 semester of intermediate economics, among many other things.
But how many times have you been to the Moon? :p

Hugh Jass
2005-Nov-13, 10:31 AM
Look some of his arguments, have made me re-vist my claim that he is just 16 and having fun. Though much of his language and debating skills speak of a 14 year old, the time frame for his posting and the sheer time involved makes me think he must be a college student. An undeclared Junior College student, but ~18-20. I think Ontario latitudinally, but my gut just says no to Canada, Michigan maybe. If MM actually ends up being a MSU student and being one of the guys behind the lion vs CMFL guys he immediatly gains my respect, unless he's they guy that is on the side of the CMFL.

Let's take a look at the reasoning of a child when it comes to making irrational claims, and the desire to be believed. First you want people to think your smart. Oh I'm a rocket scientist, oh but I might be talking to rocket scientists, hmmm what would make me be smart, but I wouldn't need to prove it because I might be sure I'm not speaking to someone who could call me on it? Got it I'll be a lawyer most people think they're smart! Now how do I get people riled up right away? I'll make some outrages claims and then call them 'retards' when they deny my claims. Doh! i'm not allowed to call them 'retards' now what do I do? I know I'll just say "it's impossible" no matter what facts they throw at me. Ok, now how do I keep them around and arguing. Well really all I have to do is go onto the BA website pull a few quotes about the moon hoax off of the debunking pages, throw those out there and give them something to refute. Plus I'll continue to say the facts they initially came here to read are coming in the next several days/weeks/MONTHS?!?!? Months are you kidding me?!?! If this keeps up for Months without a lifetime ban, I"m switching my position and getting on MM side, 'cause if manages that he's pretty cool in my book.

I just hope he's keeping statistics on this and it is somekind of project on message boards, or a bet about getting nerds all excitable, and not just for his joy alone... 'cause that would be sad.

Seriously though I haven't looked up the definition of a troll but... isn't MM pretty close to a text book case?

Maksutov
2005-Nov-13, 12:42 PM
Hey, if John Lennon could write a song about his young child Sean (Beautiful Boy), then it appears I should be able to do likewise, in a slightly different vein, re the subject of this thread:



Good Enough for Me (The Moon Man Song)

Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology.
Don't know much about science stuff,
Astrophysics looks pretty tough.
But I do believe Apollo's a hoax,
And unlike the rest of you clueless folks,
That belief's good enough for me.

Don't know much about geology,
Don't know much heat transfer theory.
Don't know astronautics, that's a fact.
Don't know when my computer's been hacked.
But I know that one and one is three,
And if with that NASA doesn't agree,
Then they faked the Moon landings, you see.

Now I do claim to be a real lawyer,
Though I'm not actually.
Oh, I'd much rather be your sawyer, baby,
It's a lumberjack's life for me.

Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology.
Don't know much about science stuff,
Astrophysics looks pretty tough.
But I do believe Apollo's a hoax,
And unlike the rest of you clueless folks,
That belief's good enough for me.

------ lead guitar ------

But everything is a conspiracy,
And if with that NASA doesn't agree,
Then they faked the Moon landings, you see.


(to the melody of (What A) Wonderful World (Cooke/Alpert/Adler), as sung by Herman's Hermits)

N C More
2005-Nov-13, 02:55 PM
Bravo Mak! "Weird Al" would approve!

http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/musik/b020.gif

01101001
2005-Nov-13, 06:48 PM
Banned (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=601113&post=601113).

Gillianren
2005-Nov-13, 10:52 PM
Admit it, Mak--the hardest part of that was rhyming "lawyer," wasn't it?

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-14, 12:23 AM
> Admit it, Mak--the hardest part of that was rhyming "lawyer,"
> wasn't it?

The chance of my ever getting to screwer
is really in the sewer.

Oh, dear, I must be in some kind of altered mental state from
lack of food. I need to spend less time reading posts and more
time supporting my basic physiological requirements.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

hhEb09'1
2005-Nov-14, 12:41 AM
So how do you explain this post?
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=598325&postcount=104


A good lawyer, like me.To be fair, there are two ways to interpret that post. He could have meant "A good lawyer, like I am a good lawyer" or he could have meant "A good lawyer always gets the opponent to commit, as do I." Possibly, the first meaning would have had no commas around "like me"

Gillianren
2005-Nov-14, 01:00 AM
It's my considered experience that, when a comma error will lead to misinterpretation, it will be made. However, it did strike me based on any number of comments that he intended to come across as a lawyer and only abandoned that when it became obvious that it was easy to check.

montebianco
2005-Nov-14, 01:34 AM
To be fair, there are two ways to interpret that post. He could have meant "A good lawyer, like I am a good lawyer" or he could have meant "A good lawyer always gets the opponent to commit, as do I." Possibly, the first meaning would have had no commas around "like me"

I had this thought also. But, if he is a Canadian lawyer, a Japanese banker, or an Egyptian tailor doesn't matter much, what matters is whether he has good arguments supported by evidence.

Nowhere Man
2005-Nov-14, 01:55 AM
I think Ontario latitudinally, but my gut just says no to Canada, Michigan maybe. If MM actually ends up being a MSU student and being one of the guys behind the lion vs CMFL guys he immediatly gains my respect, unless he's they guy that is on the side of the CMFL. He's from somewhere where they spell "labor" with a u, so that's is definitely not the US. Even Yoopers don't spell it like that. One of the British Commonwealth countries: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, most likely. I haven't looked at his posting times to determine if he's western or eastern hemisphere, but I seem to recall that in his big thread, he was mostly active during North American daytime, so I'd say Canada.

Fred

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-14, 02:39 AM
From near Sudbury, according to him, putting him in the same timezone as me in Toronto. His first time he claimed he was drunk was at 8:30 am according to the board time, which is an hour ahead of me....a bit odd, no?

I noticed at some other point he said he has never been called to the bar....although still claimed to be a lawyer

BTW I spell it labour, not labor. Through, not thru; neighbour, humour, colour, and probably many others. (The "word" thru really bugs me, just smacks of lazyness/fast food mentality to me)

L8R

Pete

Gillianren
2005-Nov-14, 02:41 AM
"Thru" isn't a word, even in America. Neither is "alot" or "alright."

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-14, 02:43 AM
How about drivethru, thruway, etc...?

Pete

Gillianren
2005-Nov-14, 03:19 AM
How about drivethru, thruway, etc...?

They're wrong.

Now, in time, the language may shift so that "thru" is correct, gods hold back the day. And to non-etymologists, I'm sure the spelling makes more sense. However, just because language shifts doesn't mean that words aren't wrong at the point in a language's evolution in which you're using them.

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-14, 03:47 AM
Gillian, most of my students are ESL and the spelling/grammar of these students is really bad, even after getting full credit in advanced grade 11 english.....it's frustrating but then I only know highschool french, and I'm sure I'm just as bad!

Are those types of words considered slang then? (like "peeps" LOL!)

Pete

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-14, 05:13 AM
However, just because language shifts doesn't mean that words aren't wrong at the point in a language's evolution in which you're using them.

Eh, I disagree. Languages evolve, and new words take hold to give a foothold on new and upcoming trends.

However, I will agree that coming up with new spellings for words is rather stretching it, and I will die before I use the word "u" outside of reference, so I agree with you to a point.

Irregardless, languages do shift.

(Note: I can sense Gillian twitching as she reads the first word of the last sentence I wrote)

Taks
2005-Nov-14, 05:14 AM
yeah, i was going to mention... irregardless is colloquial for sure. :)

taks

montebianco
2005-Nov-14, 05:16 AM
Gillian, most of my students are ESL and the spelling/grammar of these students is really bad,

Many of the ESL people with whom I deal are also quite hard to understand, but then many others speak/write in English better than many of the natives...

montebianco
2005-Nov-14, 05:17 AM
Irregardless, languages do shift.

That's just cruel :)

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-14, 06:17 AM
To be fair, there are two ways to interpret that post. He could have meant "A good lawyer, like I am a good lawyer" or he could have meant "A good lawyer always gets the opponent to commit, as do I." Possibly, the first meaning would have had no commas around "like me"


It's my considered experience that, when a comma error will lead to misinterpretation, it will be made. However, it did strike me based on any number of comments that he intended to come across as a lawyer and only abandoned that when it became obvious that it was easy to check.

I think I have the complete list of relevant lawyer-related quotes from Moon Man:

"A good lawyer, like me, always gets the hostil expert witnesses to commit to there position before he tears them apart..."
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=598325&postcount=104 , Nov. 10, 2005, 05:23 PM

"I've never lost a case I've handled. I've also changed laws in Ontario and in Canada."
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=599036&postcount=408 , Nov. 11, 2005, 03:13 AM

"Yes, you're the 'dude' from T.O.

"By the way, you're emplyed in Ontario so the case I won affects you so I guess I already represented you, and you won!

"You're welcome!"
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=599080&postcount=440 , Nov. 11 2005, 03:41 AM

"By the way, I do civil law not criminal, terefore I have never had to question witnesses."
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=599925&postcount=790 , Nov. 11, 2005, 10:45 PM

"I have handled several cases and have never orally examined anyone. It was always by written submission. I have done many appeal cases and again I never orally questioned anyone. I don't care what you people believe. You believe you landed on the moon. I bet you believe in God, too."
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600245&postcount=845 , Nov. 12 2005, 08:36 AM

"I'm not listing anything because you demand it. The landmark case was a jurisdictional question answered by the Surpreme Court of Canada. I did not orally present the case I only provided the successful argument. I also never claimed to be a barred lawyer, you all came up with that. I do legal work though and have been called the lunchbox lawyer by my boss, meaning I carry a lunch to to work and do legal work on the side. I have never lost a case I've taken on. You don't have to be a lawyer in Canada to represent people, you can act as agent or even represent yourself. You cannot however recover costs if you do so.

[...]

"If you have a labour, trademark or Internet law question then feel free to post it. I also do appeal work and can give other general law questions an answer. I am in Canada and do not know if American law is different so my answers will apply to the way a case would be ruled on in Canada. I do not do criminal law so don't ask a criminal law question. I also will not spend much time investigating and answering your questions unless they are extremely intersting."
Moon Man, http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600452&postcount=4 , Nov. 12 2005, 03:51 PM

I also found this concerning the practice of law in Ontario, Canada (http://ctbpub.city.thunder-bay.on.ca/ctbappl/nonlinecorprpts.nsf/d72272df4a5c0cfd85256afd000c9b6b/71c17e09a4ab772685256ef9004d75e0?OpenDocument):

The Law Society has rules and regulations regarding the types of proceedings that paralegals, law students and articling students are permitted to handle. Any of them can act as agent in small claims court, motions court or provide assistance to persons accused of an offence for which the penalty upon conviction does not include jail time. None of them are permitted to handle a trial in the higher courts. There are rules for all of the proceedings “in between”.

Is Moon Man a paralegal of some kind?

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-14, 10:50 AM
It seems quite clear that Moon Man's intent from the beginning
was to collect statements from people here and then show that
those statements were wrong. He was never really given a
chance to do that, which seems rather unjust.

It's also clear that his method of showing that a statement is
wrong is simply to quote it and say, "See? Nonsense!" because
to him, it is obviously nonsense.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

paulie jay
2005-Nov-14, 11:16 AM
To be fair, there are two ways to interpret that post. He could have meant "A good lawyer, like I am a good lawyer" or he could have meant "A good lawyer always gets the opponent to commit, as do I." Possibly, the first meaning would have had no commas around "like me"
He was more than happy for us to believe that he was a lawyer - when he was challenged he responded with "I have changed laws in Canada and Ontario". Aside from the two obvious errors in his reply (1. Ontario is in Canada, and 2. he's not a legislator) he in no way discouraged the notion that he was a lawyer. He only started to back away from his claim when the ridicule he received for his lack of legal knowledge finally bit in to his common sense.

Like many of the people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet, he simply made it all up. I think that he probably knows somebody (an older brother's girlfriend perhaps) who works in a very junior position in a legal firm, and has simply taken what he's heard and applied it to himself.

And just like those who hide deep in the depths of conspiracy website message boards he was more than happy to fire off the challenge of paying for a lie detector test with any astronaut who has been to the moon. It's all well and easy to sprout these challenges from a conspiracy message board where you know that the likelihood of an astronaut actually seeing it an responding to it are next to nil. But on this occasion he got lucky when he was furnished with the contact details of Ken Mattingly - and nearly tripped over himself in his hurry to back-pedal.

paulie jay
2005-Nov-14, 11:31 AM
It seems quite clear that Moon Man's intent from the beginning was to collect statements from people here and then show that
those statements were wrong. He was never really given a chance to do that, which seems rather unjust.

snip
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
I would counter this by saying that he should have waited until he had a coherent theory to present before wading in with a grand claim to prove that the landings were fake.

And really Jeff, how does one reach a conclusion about something before they have any data to work with? Asking endless questions and expecting others to do the hard work is just plain rude and lazy.

eg. I will prove that gravity doesn't exist.

Here is how I will prove it -

What is the rate of gravity? How can gravity work in space when there's no mass there? Scientists say that all objects fall at the same rate, I don't think so - that is just not believable. I believe you can turn gravity off at will- I'm not the expert, you tell me how to do it. What is the measure of gravity in a bowling ball when it's spun to the left on a Tuesday afternoon. This is crucial to understanding why I'm right. Where can I find a gravity suitcase?


and so on



and so on

Jakenorrish
2005-Nov-14, 11:33 AM
It seems quite clear that Moon Man's intent from the beginning
was to collect statements from people here and then show that
those statements were wrong. He was never really given a
chance to do that, which seems rather unjust.

It's also clear that his method of showing that a statement is
wrong is simply to quote it and say, "See? Nonsense!" because
to him, it is obviously nonsense.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Jeff, he was given ample chance to prove a number of statements wrong and was unable to do so in a single case. The thread was without a doubt the most popular to date, and yet Moon Man was unable to take the simplest scientific fact on board. In fact the only attempts he made to respond to anyone were to follow a statement with further questions about facts which he didn't understand.

I have a theory about him not in fact being a lawyer or a school child, but a very lonely man with nothing better to do but try and grab attention. He didn't come across to me as a child, but a rather sad individual with little grasp of reality.

You can be sure that he'll now be active on a conspiricy theory forum somewhere, trying to prove that the moon landings were real, utilising all of our statements from the past week....

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-14, 02:40 PM
It seems quite clear that Moon Man's intent from the beginning
was to collect statements from people here and then show that
those statements were wrong. He was never really given a chance
to do that, which seems rather unjust.
I would counter this by saying that he should have waited until
he had a coherent theory to present before wading in with a grand
claim to prove that the landings were fake.
I'm suggesting that he had a plan, and that he was proceeding
to carry out the plan as he promised in his first post. His
plan was to ask questions and get answers from the people here,
and then show that those answers were wrong. That isn't much
of a plan, but it isn't fundamentally flawed, in and of itself.


And really Jeff, how does one reach a conclusion about something
before they have any data to work with?
You know that the Phoebus astronauts never landed on the Sun.
It was all a NESA hoax. So you know that if you ask me and
other NESA supporters questions about the so-called Phoebus
flights to the Sun, we will mess up and make all kinds of
contradictory assertions, showing that we are either lying or
dupes. I mean, really, just the assertion that we landed men
on the Sun is blatantly false right on its face. It is going
to be ridiculously easy for you to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that NESA never landed even one person on the Sun.


Asking endless questions and expecting others to do the
hard work is just plain rude and lazy.
Is it rude and lazy of a prosecutor to question suspects in
order to get them to make incriminating statements? He wasn't
asking anyone to do any work. I'm fairly sure he didn't ask
anyone to support their assertions with evidence, or to prove
anything. He was asking questions so that he would get
incriminating statements. All he wanted was assertions, not
evidence supporting those assertions.

He had a plan that he wanted to carry out. You expected him
to carry out a different plan, more to your liking.

Unfortunately for him, he's a lousy prosecutor; he wasn't the
slightest bit familiar with the technical details of his case
and wasn't capable of learning them; he wasn't the slightest
bit familiar with the rules of proceedure and evidence of this
jurisdiction (BAUT); all his witnesses were hostile; the
accused included the court; and (need it be said?) the accused
were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

mickal555
2005-Nov-14, 02:46 PM
Look some of his arguments, have made me re-vist my claim that he is just 16 and having fun. Though much of his language and debating skills speak of a 14 year old, the time frame for his posting and the sheer time involved makes me think he must be a college student. An undeclared Junior College student, but ~18-20. I think Ontario latitudinally, but my gut just says no to Canada, Michigan maybe. If MM actually ends up being a MSU student and being one of the guys behind the lion vs CMFL guys he immediatly gains my respect, unless he's they guy that is on the side of the CMFL.

Let's take a look at the reasoning of a child when it comes to making irrational claims, and the desire to be believed. First you want people to think your smart. Oh I'm a rocket scientist, oh but I might be talking to rocket scientists, hmmm what would make me be smart, but I wouldn't need to prove it because I might be sure I'm not speaking to someone who could call me on it? Got it I'll be a lawyer most people think they're smart! Now how do I get people riled up right away? I'll make some outrages claims and then call them 'retards' when they deny my claims. Doh! i'm not allowed to call them 'retards' now what do I do? I know I'll just say "it's impossible" no matter what facts they throw at me. Ok, now how do I keep them around and arguing. Well really all I have to do is go onto the BA website pull a few quotes about the moon hoax off of the debunking pages, throw those out there and give them something to refute. Plus I'll continue to say the facts they initially came here to read are coming in the next several days/weeks/MONTHS?!?!? Months are you kidding me?!?! If this keeps up for Months without a lifetime ban, I"m switching my position and getting on MM side, 'cause if manages that he's pretty cool in my book.

I just hope he's keeping statistics on this and it is somekind of project on message boards, or a bet about getting nerds all excitable, and not just for his joy alone... 'cause that would be sad.

Seriously though I haven't looked up the definition of a troll but... isn't MM pretty close to a text book case?

Hey man, :mad:
Don't diss kids

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-14, 04:47 PM
For me, the most unexpected development during the long thread was tofu's attempt (page 27 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34711&page=27)) to actually satisfy Moon Man's desire to have an Apollo astronaut polygraphed at his expense. The opportunity came, he got excited, then became unsatisfied with the provided post office box, demanding that he be provided with Mattingly's phone number.

I see nothing wrong with a post office box in this case. (See page 36 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34711&page=36) for a particularly unfortunate comment by Moon Man.)

hhEb09'1
2005-Nov-14, 05:00 PM
He was more than happy for us to believe that he was a lawyer - when he was challenged he responded with "I have changed laws in Canada and Ontario". Aside from the two obvious errors in his reply (1. Ontario is in Canada, and 2. he's not a legislator) he in no way discouraged the notion that he was a lawyer. He only started to back away from his claim when the ridicule he received for his lack of legal knowledge finally bit in to his common sense.I'm not going to argue whether he was happy to have us believe that or not, that's hidden within him, but those aren't necessarily errors, though. Probably, Ontario has a different set of laws than Canada does (I'd imagine it would be like the difference between state laws and federal laws in the USA), and a private citizen can get a law changed (or take responsibility for it) as much as a legislator can--after all, it is the legislature that changes laws, not the individual legislator. I grant you, he probably is not the legislature. :)

But a good lawyer would not allow a misconception to continue--there's too much of a danger of backlash when the audience figures it out. IMO, his statement should have been, "I am not a lawyer or a legislator, but I can take credit for getting laws changed in Ontario and Canada."

montebianco
2005-Nov-14, 05:04 PM
Hey man, :mad:
Don't diss kids

You are wise beyond your years, Mickal.

(You know me as Khrushchev's Other Shoe)

-Nick

LurchGS
2005-Nov-14, 09:54 PM
I think spelling is not taught properly in this country. It's been my experience that spelling, along with grammar, are among the least understood classes. Looking at professional papers, resumes, you name it, I see all manner of glaring errors.

I don't excuse myself from this, either. It wasn't until I was in my late 20s that I got a handle on spelling and grammar - and I'd attended some good schools (by reputation)

----------

I are a inglish teecher (not)

tofu
2005-Nov-14, 10:06 PM
What is the measure of gravity in a bowling ball when it's spun to the left on a Tuesday afternoon.

Northern hemisphere or Southern hemisphere?

Tensor
2005-Nov-14, 10:14 PM
Originally Posted by paulie jay
What is the measure of gravity in a bowling ball when it's spun to the left on a Tuesday afternoon.


Northern hemisphere or Southern hemisphere?

It also depends on whether the bowling ball is African or European. ;)

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-14, 10:17 PM
It also depends on whether the bowling ball is African or European ;)

Only if you want to swallow it.

Swift
2005-Nov-14, 10:19 PM
It also depends on whether the bowling ball is African or European. ;)

"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."
"This new learning amazes me!."

Samara
2005-Nov-14, 10:26 PM
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."
"This new learning amazes me!."

*prepares to fart in HBs' general direction*

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-14, 10:27 PM
Only if you want to swallow it.


How do you know so much about swallows?

L8R

Pete

Tensor
2005-Nov-14, 10:29 PM
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."
"This new learning amazes me!."


Only if you want to swallow it

Come on, you guys have been around here long enough to know a thread like this had to have some Monty Python quotes. :razz:

Gillianren
2005-Nov-14, 10:38 PM
Re: the grammar thing--

"Thru" may be considered slang. I received a PM informing me that certain dictionaries call it an "alternate spelling." "Alot" does not appear in that dictionary, nor should it. (Not a word; not slang. Just wrong.)

If boundaries are not set, and this is true of science as well as language, there is no efficient communication of ideas. Remember how difficult it was to convince Moon Man there was no temperature 6' above the Moon's surface? (Okay, how impossible.) That's because he didn't understand the language of science. Granted, it wouldn't take much to make my eight-year-old daughter understand that particular concept, but that's not the point.

Swift
2005-Nov-14, 10:43 PM
How do you know so much about swallows?

Well, you have to know these things when you're JayUtah. :shifty:

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 03:25 AM
For me, the most unexpected development during the long thread
was tofu's attempt (page 27) to actually satisfy Moon Man's
desire to have an Apollo astronaut polygraphed at his expense.
The opportunity came, he got excited, then became unsatisfied
with the provided post office box, demanding that he be provided
with Mattingly's phone number.

I see nothing wrong with a post office box in this case.
(See page 36 for a particularly unfortunate comment by Moon Man.)
I just read page 36 and couldn't find an obvious comment that
you would be referring to.

Alan, I have something you want. Send $250 to this post office
box, and you will get it a few days later. I won't tell you who
the post office box belongs to or how I know that you will get
what you want. Just trust me.

Ken Mattingly has a right to his privacy, a right to charge for
his time and effort, and a right to collect such a fee before
spending that time. Moon Man has a right to know who he is
sending $250 to, and a right to know that he will get what he
is paying for, before he pays it.

I would be pretty exaspirated if I were in Moon Man's position.
If he can afford the $250, he may yet work out a deal, but it
would certainly be easier for him if he knew for sure who the
post office box belongs to and why he was asked to send $250
to it without being given any further details.

BTW, I met and talked with Ken Mattingly shortly after his
flight in 1972.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 03:31 AM
I'm fairly sure he didn't ask anyone to support their
assertions with evidence, or to prove anything.
Okay: He did at least ask for proof that the post office box
number he was given did indeed belong to Ken Mattingly.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Taks
2005-Nov-15, 03:44 AM
? the guy referred to the "supposed" vaccum around the moon... what more do we need? :)

taks

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 04:39 AM
People here have seriously misinterpreted what Moon Man said
about changing the law:



Lawyers legislate in Canada?
No, winning arguments do. One jurisdictional case I won set a
north American precedence.
His claim appears to be that he was representing someone in a
civil suit (not as an attorney but as some kind of paralegal),
and the judge ruled that the complaint had been brought to the
wrong court-- the wrong jurisdiction. The ruling was later
used as a precedent in a case in a different jurisdiction.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 04:55 AM
he was given ample chance to prove a number of statements wrong
and was unable to do so in a single case.
He said:


In the coming days, weeks and months I will post the
evidence that once and for all exposes the Great Lunar Lie.
He was kicked out after only three days. Under the pressure of
a far more rapid influx of statements, comments, and questions
than expected, he was unable to begin his presentation within
that time.

He also said:


I want to spend a few days reading here before I start to see
what has been discussed.
He certainly never had the opportunity to do that. Though I
agree that if he wanted to scope the place out in peace before
starting to asking his questions, he obviously should have held
off on his announcement.


Moon Man was unable to take the simplest scientific fact on board.
So? He wasn't here to learn anything, he was here to prove the
Moon landings were hoaxed.

A lawyer doesn't go into a trial to learn-- he does it to make
his case.


In fact the only attempts he made to respond to anyone were to
follow a statement with further questions about facts which he
didn't understand.
I'm quite sure that was his plan. He wasn't here to answer
questions, he was here to prove the Moon landings were hoaxed.
But he was kicked out before he could begin to do that.


I have a theory about him not in fact being a lawyer or a school
child, but a very lonely man with nothing better to do but try
and grab attention. He didn't come across to me as a child, but
a rather sad individual with little grasp of reality.
It was clear from his writing style that he was at least in his
mid-20's. (Terms like "peeps" have been around for ages. He
could have acquired it when he was a kid or picked it up on the
Internet when he was older. That isn't exactly hard to do.)

He made it clear that he is not an attorney, but some kind of
paralegal.

He appeared to be of about average intelligence and average
knowledge.

I think one thing that has confused people here is that he
seems to know little about a subject he feels passionate about.
He knows that human trips to the Moon were a hoax, and wants
to expose that hoax, but apparently knows almost nothing about
Space.

Most of his questions can be attributed to his plan to elicit
statements for use against us, but I did get the impression
that his ignorance is probably genuine. He really doesn't
understand that a temperature is a temperature of some thing.
He may share that ignorance with half the adult population.
From his point of view, someone who thinks that you have to
specify a thing for the temperature is off his nut. On the
other hand, I think it possible that he was trying to elicit
a specific response which I haven't guessed, and that his
apparent ignorance on the point was entirely feigned.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

paulie jay
2005-Nov-15, 05:09 AM
I'm suggesting that he had a plan, and that he was proceeding
to carry out the plan as he promised in his first post. His
plan was to ask questions and get answers from the people here,
and then show that those answers were wrong. That isn't much
of a plan, but it isn't fundamentally flawed, in and of itself.
I agree that it wasn't much of a plan :)



You know that the Phoebus astronauts never landed on the Sun.It was all a NESA hoax. So you know that if you ask me and
other NESA supporters questions about the so-called Phoebus
flights to the Sun, we will mess up and make all kinds of
contradictory assertions, showing that we are either lying or
dupes. I mean, really, just the assertion that we landed men
on the Sun is blatantly false right on its face. It is going
to be ridiculously easy for you to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that NESA never landed even one person on the Sun.
I see your point but I still don't believe that he was going to come up with any rebuttals - only more questions.



Is it rude and lazy of a prosecutor to question suspects in
order to get them to make incriminating statements? He wasn't
asking anyone to do any work. I'm fairly sure he didn't ask
anyone to support their assertions with evidence, or to prove
anything. He was asking questions so that he would get
incriminating statements. All he wanted was assertions, not
evidence supporting those assertions.


emphasis mine
Well, that is just plain wrong Jeff. He continually asked for information and calculations. He had no intention of doing any of this himself. When he was challenged about not working things out for himself he would whine that he's not an expert and that we should explain things for him. Then he would instanly reject the explanations. Read the thread again Jeff - it is rife with this kind of thing.


He had a plan that he wanted to carry out. You expected him
to carry out a different plan, more to your liking. All I wanted to hear was his much promised new evidence.


Unfortunately for him, he's a lousy prosecutor; he wasn't the slightest bit familiar with the technical details of his case
and wasn't capable of learning them; he wasn't the slightest
bit familiar with the rules of proceedure and evidence of this
jurisdiction (BAUT); all his witnesses were hostile; the
accused included the court; and (need it be said?) the accused
were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
What rot - no case goes before a court before the evidence is collected and an argument devised. Or a charge/ complaint for that matter.
Can we please stomp on this fiction that Moon Man is a lawyer? Continually referring to him using "legal" analagies only only dignifies his lies.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-15, 06:25 AM
Nobody has pointed out that Rosa Parks won a national precedent setting case back in the 1950s.. and she was certainly not a lawyer.

Jeff, I've gone through this thread twice, now, and for the most part I have to agree with Pauli. No competent attorny goes before the bench without already knowing the answers to every question he's going to ask of his witnesses.
Furthermore, just because he's 'done only civil law' doesn't automatically preclude witnesses, as he indicates. According to my corporate laywer, there are frequently more witnesses than in comon criminal trials. In fact, I would assume that if his case had significant bearing on extant law, a fair number of witnesses Would have been called.

Personally, I'm disappointed that he was banned (I miss the opportunity to shove the facts down his throat) but he certainly - in my view - seemed to justify it.

----------

If we didn't land on the moon, where did all this cheese come from?

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 06:46 AM
Is it rude and lazy of a prosecutor to question suspects in
order to get them to make incriminating statements? He wasn't
asking anyone to do any work. I'm fairly sure he didn't ask
anyone to support their assertions with evidence, or to prove
anything. He was asking questions so that he would get
incriminating statements. All he wanted was assertions, not
evidence supporting those assertions.
emphasis mine
Well, that is just plain wrong Jeff. He continually asked for
information and calculations.
He continually asked for assertions, including numbers, but I'm
not sure he asked for any calculations.


He had no intention of doing any of this himself.
Well of course not. That would have been completely pointless.
He wasn't trying to find out his own opinions about the Moon
flights-- he was trying to find out our opinions.


When he was challenged about not working things out for himself
he would whine that he's not an expert and that we should explain
things for him. Then he would instanly reject the explanations.
He never once whined. I've read hundreds of thousands of posts,
and I have never seen or heard anyone whine. If you post a link
to a .wav file of someone whining, it will be a first for me.

He simply explained that he wanted statements from us. That
is all he wanted: Statements from us.

I agree that he immediately said he found the statements he
was given unbelievable. I think that may have been intended
to elicit more detailed statements. If that was not his
purpose, it seems to have been very poor form for him to make
such comments immediately, rather than waiting until he started
to make his case.



He had a plan that he wanted to carry out. You expected him
to carry out a different plan, more to your liking.
All I wanted to hear was his much promised new evidence.
Didn't you see him gathering that evidence in the thread?
I did.



Unfortunately for him, he's a lousy prosecutor; he wasn't the
slightest bit familiar with the technical details of his case
and wasn't capable of learning them; he wasn't the slightest
bit familiar with the rules of proceedure and evidence of this
jurisdiction (BAUT); all his witnesses were hostile; the
accused included the court; and (need it be said?) the accused
were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
What rot - no case goes before a court before the evidence is
collected and an argument devised.
Right! That's why he had not yet started to make a case.
You expected him to start making a case the same day he started
collecting evidence! Sheesh!


Or a charge/ complaint for that matter.
Isn't the charge/complaint rather obvious? Basically it would
be that the Moon landings were a hoax. He might have developed
a more precise or detailed charge/complaint than that, but he
was kicked out before he had a chance to do it.


Can we please stomp on this fiction that Moon Man is a lawyer?
I should hope so. He said that he isn't a lawyer. Evidently
he is a lawyer-wannabe, though, and he was attempting to use
legal techniques he is familiar with to expose the Moon hoax.


Continually referring to him using "legal" analogies
only only dignifies his lies.
What lies?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Gillianren
2005-Nov-15, 06:58 AM
Right! That's why he had not yet started to make a case.
You expected him to start making a case the same day he started
collecting evidence! Sheesh!

He informed us in Post 1 that he already had the evidence he needed to prove the Apollo missions were a hoax. He didn't imply it; he stated it flat out. However, he was continually confused about some pretty important details. (Like just about everything.)

Look, we may have all taken it a little personally, but I don't think the error's all one-sided, here. Note, for example, the repeated use of the term "astro-not" after he'd been asked to spell it correctly. Note the "I'm calling you retards but not" attitude. The thing is, you seem to have this impression that, to extend the legal analogy (sorry, Lonewulf), he'd just taken the case. However, by opening the thread--and in such an arrogant manner--he was, in fact, starting opening arguments. All the evidence should be collected before you start making your case. He was not coming in with the attitude of appealing for evidence; he was trying to make the defense (for we surely were the defence in that thread) collect all his evidence for him, and when the evidence didn't go his way--when would it, in such a situation?--he essentially accused of us being, depending on how you look at it, either liars or misled.

Yeah, I think that banning was pretty well justified.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-15, 07:12 AM
Moon man was violating the board rules. He was warned repeatedly to stop. He was even temporarily banned. He did not change his ways. There are plenty of ways to collect information that would have been more effective but not gotten him banned. If he refuses to follow the rules, I have no sympathy for him. All the information he wanted us to give him he could have gotten himself. All the information we gave him he dismissed out of hand. He asked new questions before responding to the previous answers, and as a result got bogged down. That is his fault, not ours. If he wanted to collect information for his position, he could have done so on the internet easily. Or he could have asked for answers in a different topic. But he was not just asking questions that he thought might give answers that support his position, he was asking questions and then dismissing the answers with no evidence when they disagreed with his position, or simply ignoring them completely. That is not a valid argument technique. Lets look at a court case where he is a lawyers using the technique:

Moon Man: Where were you at 3:00 pm?
Witness: I was at the mall
Moon Man: I don't believe you.
Witness: Why?
Moon Man: It is impossible!
Witness: Why? Cashiers at 10 different stores saw me and testified to that fact. You have seen me on security camera footage from several different cameras. My car has a parking ticket from the mall. I have receipts paid for with my credit card, with the receipts signed by me. My signatures have been confirmed by the FBI crime lab. I have the products I bought there. How could you possibly not believe me?
Moon Man: Anybody with common sense can see it is impossible.
Witness: On what grounds? Why is it impossible?
Moon Man: It just seems impossible to me!
Witness: Ugh. Can you give me any logical reason why it is impossible?
Moon Man: Why, it is so obvious? There is no way you could have been at the mall.
Witness: Why?
Moon Man: It seems impossible to me!
(repeat 10 times)
Witness: Why?
Moon Man: It seems impossible to me!
Judge: Please change your line of questioning or you will be held in contempt of court.
Moon Man: Aright, sorry...
Moon Man: As I have shown, it is impossible for you to have been at the mall and thus you are guilty!
Witness: What, you didn't show that! All you did was say it was impossible. You never gave any reason why it is impossible.
Judge: The witness is right, please tell us why it is impossible or change your line of questioning. If you do not do one of these two things, you will be removed from the court room and not allowed to return.
Moon Man: Are you guys retarded? Anybody can see it was impossible. I don't actually know anything about your trip to the mall, and I have never seen your evidence before, and I cannot disprove your evidence, but it doesn't matter because it is obvious it is impossible you went to the mall.
Witness: Why?
Moon Man: It is impossible!
(repeat 30 times)
Moon Man: It is impossible!
Witness: Why?
Judge: That's it, bailiff please remove Moon Man from the court room.

I don't see that convincing a jury, and I doubt anyone would claim Moon Man wasn't given a chance to present his case.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-15, 07:42 AM
Nobody has pointed out that Rosa Parks won a national precedent
setting case back in the 1950s.. and she was certainly not a lawyer.
She was represented by lawyers and their assistants, though,
and they helped to win the case.


Jeff, I've gone through this thread twice, now, and for the most
part I have to agree with Pauli. No competent attorny goes before
the bench without already knowing the answers to every question
he's going to ask of his witnesses.
First, I make no claim that Moon Man is competent.

Second, since BAUT is not a court of law, it may be difficult
for you to discern what phase of the legal process was taking
place. It is called "discovery". When the facts of the case
are discovered.


Furthermore, just because he's 'done only civil law' doesn't
automatically preclude witnesses, as he indicates. According to
my corporate laywer, there are frequently more witnesses than
in comon criminal trials. In fact, I would assume that if his
case had significant bearing on extant law, a fair number of
witnesses Would have been called.
Sure. What he said was that he had never questioned witnesses
orally, as in a courtroom. He said that he had only taken
written testimony, as he was doing here.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 08:15 AM
(sorry, Lonewulf)

Huh? Wha? *Perks up*

Look, Jeff Root, I don't get why you're trying to defend Moon Man.

Whether he was "gathering evidence" or not, he was at the very least, dishonest, and at worst, a total abject liar. Note the "I'm calling you retards but I'm not" bit.

Also, he did come in belligerently claiming to have new information, and he claimed he could prove the moon landings were faked.

This is not a court of law. This is a scientific board. If you make a claim, you must back it up. He made a big claim, and didn't even back it up a single whit. I might also add, I did not see where he retracted anything he said. He just went on.

Even if he was supposedly "gathering evidence", then what about those posts where he claimed something was impossible? Like how it's impossible to have no temperature in a certain point in the vacuum of space?

Ugh, I'm really not going to go on any more about this. You're defending the undefendable. You're taking on the case where the thief was caught with the stolen items in his hands, 1 foot away from the winow he broke to steal from the house.

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-15, 03:24 PM
He might have developed
a more precise or detailed charge/complaint than that, but he
was kicked out before he had a chance to do it.

I don't understand how you could possibily believe that. The time to be "precise" was before he came on this board and stated that he had proof that the Moon landings were hoaxed. He should have at least been aware of what his ideas "were" before making such a statement.

I must agree with Lonewulf...You're defending the undefendable.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:27 PM
Everyone agrees with me. I'm awesome like that.

Except when they don't agree with me. Then they're wrong.

Hah.

Lianachan
2005-Nov-15, 03:37 PM
Like how it's impossible to have no temperature in a certain point in the vacuum of space?

Ah......but what's the temperature of a thermometer in a certain point in the vacuum of space?

:whistle:

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 03:40 PM
Ah......but what's the temperature of a thermometer in a certain point in the vacuum of space?

Dang it. You just made me want to put out a Giant Mercury Thermomenter out in front of the sun and watch the explosion and gooby mercury.

Alan G. Archer
2005-Nov-15, 03:48 PM
I just read page 36 and couldn't find an obvious comment that
you would be referring to.

I think this comment is rather unforturnate:

Asking me to send money to some post office makes him sound like a con artist, and if he never went to the moon then I guess that's what he still is.


Alan, I have something you want. Send $250 to this post office
box, and you will get it a few days later. I won't tell you who
the post office box belongs to or how I know that you will get
what you want. Just trust me.

Trust involves an element of risk, but that's life.


Ken Mattingly has a right to his privacy, a right to charge for
his time and effort, and a right to collect such a fee before
spending that time. Moon Man has a right to know who he is
sending $250 to, and a right to know that he will get what he
is paying for, before he pays it.

Moon Man has been encouraged to write a letter to Mattingly with the provided post office box address. I would think that Mattingly could work with his attorney, if he has one, to respond to Moon Man's request. That would protect Mattingly's privacy and give Moon Man a degree of assurance that he is not being defrauded. Since Moon Man is a "lunchbox lawyer," according to his boss, he should be able to easily detect any trickery.


I would be pretty exaspirated if I were in Moon Man's position.
If he can afford the $250, he may yet work out a deal, but it
would certainly be easier for him if he knew for sure who the
post office box belongs to and why he was asked to send $250
to it without being given any further details.

If Moon Man really is a lawyer, I would have thought he would have asked tofu for the address or phone number of Mattingly's attorney. But no, he asked for Mattingly's phone number, which is not reasonable given the circumstances.


BTW, I met and talked with Ken Mattingly shortly after his
flight in 1972.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Coolio!

NEOWatcher
2005-Nov-15, 06:14 PM
Ah......but what's the temperature of a thermometer in a certain point in the vacuum of space?

:whistle:
Dang it. You just made me want to put out a Giant Mercury Thermomenter out in front of the sun and watch the explosion and gooby mercury.

Giant Thermometer containing the substance mercury or a Giant thermometer to measure the planet Mercury? ;)

Seriously;
I don't believe MM was what he either appeared to be or said he was. I just enjoyed the conversation, because it was at a level that I could actually have some input. (actually at a level a "caveman" can have input as the comercial says :shhh: )
It was a fun (although futile) exercise.

agingjb
2005-Nov-15, 06:41 PM
A quote from MM on Apollohoax:

"When I was a kid I was right into Apollo, like all of you. I had a 3 or 4 foot high Apollo rocket model, did any of you happen to have one..? I have scrap books of news articles on the missions. My mother kept them after I left home and she gave them to me a few ago, which was very exciting to read again."

Quotes from MM on this board:

"How high above the surface of the moon does this alleged vacuum start..?"

"Is there a sonic boom when they allegedly entered the vacuum..? If not, why wasn't there..?"

"And you misunderstood my question. How high up from the surface of the moon does the vacuum extend..? 500 feet..? one mile..? what..?"

I find it difficult to see how anyone taking any interest in space flight could be unaware that space, and the vicinity of the moon, is pretty much hard vacuum.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-15, 06:44 PM
To be honest, just a year ago, I thought that moon actually had an atmosphere -- a small one, sure, and I would have agreed that it was weak. Of course, if someone knowledgable told me otherwise, I probably would've believed them, so that's where Moon Man and I are polar opposites.

Also, just recently have I really been learning about things involving thermal dynamics and the effects of vacuum. Ignorance is easily an excuse; It was the arrogance that was not.

(Nothing beats actual research, though -- just believing someone tends to lead the way into problems)

agingjb
2005-Nov-15, 07:11 PM
I've been trying find exact data on the tenuous lunar atmosphere - like its pressure in femtobars or some even more minuscule unit.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-15, 07:15 PM
I've been trying find exact data on the tenuous lunar atmosphere - like its pressure in femtobars or some even more minuscule unit.
How about mol/km^3 ? ;)

Swift
2005-Nov-15, 07:48 PM
<snip>I just enjoyed the conversation, because it was at a level that I could actually have some input. (actually at a level a "caveman" can have input as the comercial says :shhh: )
It was a fun (although futile) exercise.
I can just see the cavemen from that insurance commercial getting up at this point and stomping away from their keyboards. :D

Grey
2005-Nov-15, 07:51 PM
I've been trying find exact data on the tenuous lunar atmosphere - like its pressure in femtobars or some even more minuscule unit.You got it just about right. A quick google search suggests that the lunar atmospheric pressure is on the order of a femtobar at night, rising to be on the order of a hundred femtobars during the day. At the high end, I think that works out to around a tenth of a mole per km^3, so that's not a bad choice of units, either. The nicest source I found was here (http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/DegradeLunarVacuum.html), where they're pointing out the a lunar base would actually measurably affect this, but other sources seemed to corroborate the raw numbers.

WHarris
2005-Nov-15, 09:14 PM
He certainly never had the opportunity to do that. Though I
agree that if he wanted to scope the place out in peace before
starting to asking his questions, he obviously should have held
off on his announcement.


307 posts, and you claim he never had the opportunity?!

Musashi
2005-Nov-15, 09:21 PM
I think it would be much more correct to say he never took the opportunity.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-15, 09:38 PM
I've been trying find exact data on the tenuous lunar atmosphere - like its pressure in femtobars or some even more minuscule unit.

From here:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html


Diurnal temperature range: >100 K to <400 K (roughly -250 F to +250 F)
Total mass of atmosphere: ~25,000 kg
Surface pressure (night): 3 x 10-15 bar (2 x 10-12 torr)
Abundance at surface: 2 x 105 particles/cm3
From here:

http://www.xefer.com/2005/06/moon


The atmosphere is so thin, that if it were compressed to the same temperature and density as the earth’s, it would fit into a 210 foot cube.

The lunar missions increased the mass of the lunar atmosphere by 30%, which was enough to impact the sensitivity of some of the experiments. After several weeks the atmophere returned to normal having been swept clean by the solar wind that keeps it in relative stasis.

It is too thin to be treated as a gas. It can't carry useful heat, and makes for a very good vacuum. But there are some molecules there.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-15, 09:51 PM
This is not a court of law. This is a scientific board. If you make a claim, you must back it up. He made a big claim, and didn't even back it up a single whit. I might also add, I did not see where he retracted anything he said. He just went on.


You beat me to it. Aside from the board rules and his attitude, it was clear he had no idea how a technical discussion was supposed to work. He kept talking "debate" as if this was a philosophical discussion instead of one based on science. He didn't understand that we agreed because of the physics, not because of "brainwashing." He was putting out assertions and expecting us to do research for him. We were expecting him to make an argument and back it up with something, which he flatly refused to do. I don't care what he wanted out of it. If somebody asks nonconfrontational questions, shows an interest in learning, and is willing to do some work themselves, I'll help them if I can. If somebody says "I say so - now prove beyond any doubt I'm wrong!" and flatly refuses to accept any facts, there isn't any point in the discussion.

agingjb
2005-Nov-15, 10:05 PM
Thanks, Van Rijn and Grey, for the information. I know it's strictly off topic, but it's these insights and links I come here for.

tofu
2005-Nov-16, 12:55 AM
Some choice quotes for anyone who's looking for a good laugh. When you read these, keep in mind that this guy is a respected lawyer:

11/15/2005 4:47pm
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1132054157&page=2

This may sound silly but I don't think it is. On a bright clear sunny summer day on earth I don't remember seeing a shadow of myself everyday. I never really looked to make sure but I don't recall seeing one. This argument just came to me since I joined BA.

Do you believe we always see a shadow on earth even on a brightest summer day..?

11/15/2005 5:02pm
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1132054157&page=3

The moon is in deep space. When it's sunny on the moon is it sunny (light out) in deep space, say 100 miles in space above the moon..?

For clarity, for example, when it's sunny out on earth it's also sunny out 50 miles in the sky above the earth.

11/15/2005 5:41pm
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1132054157&page=3

Outer space is a vacuum. Earth is not. The vacuum begins just beyond our atmosphere. What is our atmosphere made of that prevents the vacuum from penetrating it..?

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-16, 02:18 AM
out of curiosity -- what DOES protect us from a vacuum? Gravity?

tofu
2005-Nov-16, 03:04 AM
out of curiosity -- what DOES protect us from a vacuum? Gravity?

Air is held close to the earth for the same reason that rocks and dirt is held to the earth. It's not all that different. It's just stuff. It's just atoms. Atoms clump together due to gravitational forces.

Don't think of the vacuum of space as a giant sucking thing, because then you'll wrongly think, "why doesn't it suck the atmosphere away?" Instead, just understand that there's normally nothing, and that nothing is a vacuum. where there's something, it tends to clump together under its own gravity. then you have "not vacuum"

Also note that there isn't a point where the atmosphere just stops. It gets thinner and thiner as you go higher and higher. That's why your ears pop when you drive a car over a mountain. That's why you'd need an oxygen tank if you climbed Everest. Eventually, the atmosphere gets so thin that it's just not there anymore.

Point of fact, the international space station isn't really in space, to use the common definition of space. It's just way up high where there's hardly atmosphere. It's thin up there, but it still exists, and still gives a little bit of drag to the IIS. If we abandoned the station (because we all died of bird flu), eventually that little bit of drag would cause it to reenter and burn up.

That's by design.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-16, 03:25 AM
That's why you'd need an oxygen tank if you climbed Everest.
Not if you did it slowly enough [/pointless nitpicking]

jojo180
2005-Nov-16, 03:40 AM
Now a silly question, if a vacuum is a space with no mater or atoms then space cannot be a true vacuum as it has planets galaxies ect in its area

jojo180
2005-Nov-16, 03:53 AM
Now another silly question, if the universe is a vacuum what contains the vacuum, it must be the opposite of vacuum surely

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-16, 04:05 AM
A vacuum is not a thing, it is the absence of anything. Similarly, cold it is not a thing, it is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. They are not things in and of themselves, they are simply nothing, and they can only be viewed in the presence of that which they are not. So there need not be anything to contain a vacuum, as a vacuum is not a thing that needs to be contained. All one must do is prevent anything from existing at that place, and it will be a vacuum. Remember, the space between atoms here on Earth is a vacuum, as are the spaces between the nucleus and the electrons. You are mostly vacuum.

paulie jay
2005-Nov-16, 05:45 AM
He continually asked for assertions, including numbers, but I'm
not sure he asked for any calculations.


Well of course not. That would have been completely pointless.
He wasn't trying to find out his own opinions about the Moon
flights-- he was trying to find out our opinions.


He never once whined. I've read hundreds of thousands of posts,
and I have never seen or heard anyone whine. If you post a link
to a .wav file of someone whining, it will be a first for me.

He simply explained that he wanted statements from us. That
is all he wanted: Statements from us.

I agree that he immediately said he found the statements he
was given unbelievable. I think that may have been intended
to elicit more detailed statements. If that was not his
purpose, it seems to have been very poor form for him to make
such comments immediately, rather than waiting until he started
to make his case.


Didn't you see him gathering that evidence in the thread?
I did.


Right! That's why he had not yet started to make a case.
You expected him to start making a case the same day he started
collecting evidence! Sheesh!


Isn't the charge/complaint rather obvious? Basically it would
be that the Moon landings were a hoax. He might have developed
a more precise or detailed charge/complaint than that, but he
was kicked out before he had a chance to do it.


I should hope so. He said that he isn't a lawyer. Evidently
he is a lawyer-wannabe, though, and he was attempting to use
legal techniques he is familiar with to expose the Moon hoax.


What lies?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Jeff, I've got no real argument with you. If you read the thread you will see where I caught him out lying.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 10:04 AM
He informed us in Post 1 that he already had the evidence he
needed to prove the Apollo missions were a hoax. He didn't
imply it; he stated it flat out.
Not that I can see. Here's the text of his first post:


I Will Prove The Moon Landing Were Hoaxed

Hello everyone. My name is Moon Man. Feel free to welcome me to
this site.

I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did
any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I
will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great
Lunar Lie.
He said he would post the evidence. He did not say that he
had the evidence in hand.


Look, we may have all taken it a little personally, but I don't
think the error's all one-sided, here.
Nor do I, fer heaven's sake! But there were several errors.

The biggest error, I think, is that Moon Man's intentions were
misunderstood, despite the fact that he declared them-- though
not in detail-- in the title of the thread and the body of his
initial, brief post. The reactions to his behavior were largely
inappropriate because people expected him to do something other
than what he said he was going to do.

As a result, you became frustrated and angry, and vented it
on him. Of course, you might have done that anyway, since he
was belittling things important to you.


The thing is, you seem to have this impression that, to extend
the legal analogy (sorry, Lonewulf), he'd just taken the case.
However, by opening the thread--and in such an arrogant manner--
he was, in fact, starting opening arguments. All the evidence
should be collected before you start making your case.
You fundamentally misunderstand what Moon Man was doing.

He was collecting the evidence for his case. He said:


I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did
any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I
will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great
Lunar Lie.
Before he could post the evidence, he had to collect it. That's
part of why it would take days, weeks, and months. The evidence
would consist of statements from posters. He wasn't interested
in statements from third parties, because they are not present
to defend their statements. He wanted statements from us,
because we are here to defend our statements. He wanted clear,
unambiguous statements. The more extreme, the better for his
case. He had a pretty good idea what kind of answers he would
get to specific questions. He knew what he wanted, and provoked
us when answers weren't as extreme as he thought he could get.

Tactics a lawyer uses with hostile witnesses.


He was not coming in with the attitude of appealing for
evidence;
Of course not. We were the opposing side. In an actual court,
each side can be required to submit evidence requested by the
other side (with a lot of restrictions). Since this is not a
court, we could not be legally compelled to submit evidence, so
he used other means.


he was trying to make the defense (for we surely were the
defence in that thread) collect all his evidence for him,
No no no no no. He didn't want us to collect any evidence.
He wanted us to make depositions, expressing our own beliefs.
Statements from third parties were not useful for his purpose.
Those would be hearsay and not admissible.


and when the evidence didn't go his way--when would it, in such
a situation?--
Actually, I think he probably got some pretty good evidence,
though I can't evaluate it the same way he would.


he essentially accused of us being, depending on how you look at
it, either liars or misled.
A terribly tacky tactic. Not at all professional. It may have
worked to some extent. Of course, since no man has ever gone to
the Moon, and we say some have, obviously we are either liars
or misled, so I don't get your point.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

agingjb
2005-Nov-16, 10:26 AM
I admit to finding it difficult to attribute any good motive to someone who uses the phrase "the Great Lunar Lie" given the implications of that phrase, the defamation of the Apollo astronauts and others.

When we also hear "I don't know zippo about space", surely we have to ask what is going on.

Why would anyone displaying, and admitting, ignorance and misconceptions about the topic set out to destroy the reputations of heroic men?

I'm baffled; I fear that if I were not baffled, I would be angry.

Lianachan
2005-Nov-16, 10:37 AM
Jeff, I'm not sure why you're using this legal analogy. Is it just because of MM's claims of being involved in legal circles, in a vague and unspecified way?

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 11:06 AM
He might have developed a more precise or detailed
charge/complaint than that, but he was kicked out before
he had a chance to do it.
I don't understand how you could possibily believe that.
The time to be "precise" was before he came on this board and
stated that he had proof that the Moon landings were hoaxed.
He should have at least been aware of what his ideas "were"
before making such a statement.
He did not say that he had proof. He said that he would prove
the Moon landings were hoaxed, and that he would post the
evidence in the coming days, weeks and months.

I think he had a good idea of the topics he wanted to explore.
And I think he was doing a fairly effective-- though clumsy and
unnecessarily abusive-- job of getting the statements he wanted.

He said that he was surprised by the huge number of replies and
questions he got, and that all of his time was taken up replying
to them, so he did not have time to begin making his case.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 11:13 AM
If you read the thread you will see where I caught him out lying.
Okay. Could you give me an idea what page I'd find it on, and
what you, he, or someone else said so that I can be sure I've
found the right thing? Thanks.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Fram
2005-Nov-16, 11:17 AM
Sorry Jeff, but you are wrong in your benevolent interpretation of his OP.


Originally Posted by Moon Man
I Will Prove The Moon Landing Were Hoaxed

Hello everyone. My name is Moon Man. Feel free to welcome me to
this site.

I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did
any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I
will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great
Lunar Lie.

"I will prove". "I will post the evidence". No doubt here, no "trying to". He has certainty. How can he have certainty that he will have evidence and that he will be able to prove it if he hasn't got the evidence yet? Saying "in the coming days, weeks and months" just shows that he thinks he will need time to show it all (as it is presumably a lot) and defend it from our scrutiny.
He is talking to the jury here, to use the legal example, not gathering evidence. He will need time to make his exposition and answer the questions from the defendants, but he no longer needs to look for the evidence or the witnesses.

These bold statements were then completely contradicted by his behaviour the next few days, and riddled with insults, innuendo, and a terrible lack of knowledge. Reinterpreting this OP to show that he just came here looking for evidence is showing more goodwill than I think he deserves.

Jakenorrish
2005-Nov-16, 11:27 AM
Well, whatever he was playing at, he aroused all of our passions about this subject, certainly made me sharpen my knowledge of the subject up a bit, and that can only be a good thing.

I think Jeff's defence of his intentions is a little misplaced. He surely believed that the moon landings were fake, and I think he didn't realise that he was going to be posting to people who are actually very VERY knowledgable about the subject before he made his first post. Lets be honest, he walked into a bit of a brick wall, and was sent packing with his tail between his legs.

My hope is that even though he will still have his CT in his head, next time, he will do his research before making such a preposterous opening post.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 11:44 AM
I admit to finding it difficult to attribute any good motive
to someone who uses the phrase "the Great Lunar Lie" given
the implications of that phrase, the defamation of the Apollo
astronauts and others.
His good motive is that he is trying to defend the truth, as
he sees it. Billions of people have been horribly deceived
for decades. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent creating
and sustaining this terrible lie. What kind of jerk would be
against exposing it? Are you one of the hoaxers? One of the
bad people who created the lie? It sure sounds like it.


When we also hear "I don't know zippo about space", surely we
have to ask what is going on.
He believes it was a hoax. Billions of people believe that
Jesus died for our sins, and that if we believe in Jesus, we
will have eternal life. They haven't all read the Bible.
They don't all know God's Will. But they believe nevertheless.

Belief does not necessarily depend on knowledge.

Different people have different requirements for distinguishing
fantasy from reality. If you are going to deal with people who
are oriented more toward religion, the occult, and the paranormal
than toward observation, measurement, and testing of alternative
hypotheses, then you need to try to understand how they think.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Candy
2005-Nov-16, 11:59 AM
I understand what you are saying, Jeff Root. I agree with you.
YOU should have been interpreting Moon Man's arguments for him, before he even posted them.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-16, 12:17 PM
His good motive is that he is trying to defend the truth, as
he sees it. Billions of people have been horribly deceived
for decades. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent creating
and sustaining this terrible lie. What kind of jerk would be
against exposing it? Are you one of the hoaxers? One of the
bad people who created the lie? It sure sounds like it.


He believes it was a hoax. Billions of people believe that
Jesus died for our sins, and that if we believe in Jesus, we
will have eternal life. They haven't all read the Bible.
They don't all know God's Will. But they believe nevertheless.

Belief does not necessarily depend on knowledge.

Different people have different requirements for distinguishing
fantasy from reality. If you are going to deal with people who
are oriented more toward religion, the occult, and the paranormal
than toward observation, measurement, and testing of alternative
hypotheses, then you need to try to understand how they think.

-- Jeff, in MinneapolisYou OK, Jeff? This is worrisome.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-16, 12:24 PM
His good motive is that he is trying to defend the truth, as
he sees it.

Oh, nonsense. He insulted people and used terms designed to annoy, he was told the rules of the board and broke them. He was given explanations and his response was "unbelievable!" He made no attempt to educate himself.

Give it a rest, Jeff. You're talking to yourself.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 12:35 PM
"I will prove". "I will post the evidence". No doubt here, no
"trying to". He has certainty. How can he have certainty that
he will have evidence and that he will be able to prove it if
he hasn't got the evidence yet?
Because he believes.

What do you believe?

Do you believe that Earth orbits the Sun? Moon Man believes
that the whole Apollo program was a deceit, with every bit as
much certainty as you have that Earth orbits the Sun.



He is talking to the jury here, to use the legal example, not
gathering evidence. He will need time to make his exposition
and answer the questions from the defendants, but he no longer
needs to look for the evidence or the witnesses.
But clearly, he was in fact gathering evidence. He was asking
questions and getting answers just as he would in the legal
depositions he referred to. Why do you think he mentioned them?
He was telling us what he was doing.


These bold statements were then completely contradicted by his
behaviour the next few days, and riddled with insults, innuendo,
and a terrible lack of knowledge.
It certainly looked unprofessional and abrasive.

On the other hand, consider what the US military and CIA is
doing to people in Iraq. Last week I listened to a long
description of a man essentially being tortured to his death.
His head was covered with a hood, and his ribs had been broken,
so it was hard for him to breathe, and he died without the
people torturing him realizing it until a couple of marines
were called in to help lift him up into a more uncomfortable
position. I think that happened about two years ago.

Which is worse? Moon Man, or the USA?
Which has purer motives?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-16, 12:45 PM
Jeff, I don't know what your problem is, but I would strongly suggest you remove that bit of political flame bait from your last post. I don't care what your opinion of the US is, but it isn't appropriate for this forum, and certainly has no relevance to your argument ... such as it is.

And, by the way: No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you're not changing any minds here. Enough already.

Jason Thompson
2005-Nov-16, 12:56 PM
On the other hand, consider what the US military and CIA is
doing to people in Iraq. Last week I listened to a long
description of a man essentially being tortured to his death.
His head was covered with a hood, and his ribs had been broken,
so it was hard for him to breathe, and he died without the
people torturing him realizing it until a couple of marines
were called in to help lift him up into a more uncomfortable
position. I think that happened about two years ago.

Apalling, but irrelevant. What does the action of individuals (not the entire country) in Iraq have to do with what goes on here? Moon Man broke the rules, plain and simple.

The fact is that the Apollo missions are not a matter of belief. Either they happened or they did not, and the vast majority of evidence indicates that they did. Unfortunately for Moon Man and many others, it is necessary to be educated in a wide variety of scientific fields to be able to porperly assess that evidence. If Moon Man does not understand thermodynamics he cannot pass judgement on the effects of temperature on the men and equipment. If he does not understand the nature of space he cannot judge how people and equipment will react in it. If he does not understand the physics of rocket propulsion he cannot judge the performance of the various vehicles. If he does not know what equipment was included in the LM he cannot judge its ability to perform the tasks required. To admit knowing nothing relevant in any scientific field and then state categorically that he can expose a lie that requires such understanding is contradictory. If he wanted to research and learn so he could draw a conclusion about whether Apollo was faked or not by gathering information from people here he should have said so. He didn't. He stated his conclusion, then admitted he neither possessed nor understood the evidence required to support that conclusion. Not only that, but when confronted with a detailed series of explanations about areas of science which seem counterintuitive to the layman but which have been thoroughly studied and documented he simply dismissed them as unbelievable and insulted the people that were trying to teach him.

His behaviour can only lead to the conclusion that he was trying to stir up trouble here. If he was not then his approach was utterly wrong.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 01:17 PM
I think he didn't realise that he was going to be posting to
people who are actually very VERY knowledgable about the subject
before he made his first post.
He realized. He said he was looking forward to dealing with
experts. He said he wanted to contact Neil Armstrong, and
jumped at the possibility of contacting Ken Mattingly. We
were giving him pretty much what he wanted.


Lets be honest, he walked into a bit of a brick wall, and was
sent packing with his tail between his legs.
The brick wall was simply being locked out of the forum.
Before that, he seemed to be doing fairly well. If you
think he had "his tail between his legs", you think wrong.
He was simply locked out. I haven't read any of what he's
posting now, wherever that is, but I would bet he feels
rather smug that he stood up to a whole forum of experts,
and it was the forum that gave up first. And second.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 01:26 PM
You OK, Jeff? This is worrisome.
Thanks for your concern!

Can you be more specific as to why it is worrisome?

(Aside from the facts that I'm spending too much time on this
and am repeating myself when people seem not to get a point.)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

mid
2005-Nov-16, 01:46 PM
"I will post the evidence"

Not "I will expose the holes in your evidence", but "I will post the evidence". This person had NO evidence to bring to the table, and merely hoped that through a complex series of legal arguments he could somehow demonstrate that when speaking to an entire forum of people with wildly differing levels of expertise in many areas that we might not keep our facts straight.

In a legal trial this might work, because we would all be under subpoena to be there. This is not the case here.

gwiz
2005-Nov-16, 01:46 PM
He ...
jumped at the possibility of contacting Ken Mattingly.
Hardly, he went into full back-pedal mode when he was given the address.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 01:50 PM
Jeff, I'm not sure why you're using this legal analogy. Is it
just because of MM's claims of being involved in legal circles,
in a vague and unspecified way?
It isn't an analogy, really. Moon Man was attempting to use
legal techniques to prove that the Moon landings were hoaxed.
He practically said as much. Obviously he was using techniques
he is familiar with and which seemed appropriate to the task.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Nov-16, 01:57 PM
Obviously he was using techniques
he is familiar with and which seemed appropriate to the task.
Well, obviously he should have educated himself
before he jumped in at the deep end.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 02:10 PM
He ... jumped at the possibility of contacting Ken Mattingly.
Hardly, he went into full back-pedal mode when he was given
the address.
It's possible I missed some posts in that part of the thread,
but what I read was that he asked some rather heated questions
when he was told to send $250 to an anonymous post office box.
Nomatter what you may think, Moon Man isn't that stupid.

He may be willing to pay $250 if it really means access to
Mattingly. He has the address, so he may indeed write and
try to arrange a deal.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Fram
2005-Nov-16, 02:13 PM
The brick wall was simply being locked out of the forum.
Before that, he seemed to be doing fairly well. If you
think he had "his tail between his legs", you think wrong.
He was simply locked out. I haven't read any of what he's
posting now, wherever that is, but I would bet he feels
rather smug that he stood up to a whole forum of experts,
and it was the forum that gave up first. And second.

Were you reading the same thread? Where was he doing "fairly well"? He was a person who seemed to believe in every CT available (not only the moon hoax, but 9/11, the Concorde, and JFK) and coupled that to a complete lack of knowledge on the subject he tried to tackle. The only informed questions he made were straight quotes from other HB sites, and as soon as he tried to give his own opinion or interpretation, he started making the most basic errors. He was indeed simply locked out, but that was because he refused to answer to questions, he refused to do his own research, he refused to show some respect for other people (like in his use of the term astro-not, not to mention calling people retarded), ...
I would bet he feels rather smug indeed, but so what? He felt rather smug before he came to the board as well. I don't care if people prefer smugness to a willingness to learn, but I don't think that the board should refrain from banning people for that and many other reasons.
I've forgotten who made the comparison, but if he was a lawyer and this was a courtroom, he would be thrown out for contempt for the judge (insert correct legal term here, I can't be bothered). This is exactly what happened here, and doesn't show a fault in this board, but an error of attitude in Moon Man.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-16, 02:17 PM
Thanks for your concern!

Can you be more specific as to why it is worrisome?

(Aside from the facts that I'm spending too much time on this
and am repeating myself when people seem not to get a point.)

-- Jeff, in MinneapolisIt is worrisome because you appear to be trying to make some kind of martyr out of Moon Man. It is also worrisome because you have adopted the tactic of bringing beliefs into the discussion, whereas the debunking of Moon hoaxers involves nothing but objective, verifiable evidence, logic, and the scientific method.

One reason people aren't getting your point is that using belief to justify a person's claim that an actual event was hoaxed just doesn't cut it. As was pointed out to Moon Man many times, what he believed did not count for anything. Objective evidence was the only thing of substance in such a discussion.

Another reason people aren't getting your point is that it flies in the face of what Moon Man posted. The title he chose for his OP was I Will Prove The Moon Landing Were Hoaxed. This indicates a pre-existing conclusion. So what if it uses the future tense? It's still a conclusion he's already arrived at. All it does is delay the proof until sometime later. It still indicates the poster has come to the conclusion the Moon landings were faked.

This is conclusively substantiated by these subsequent statements:


I am here to prove that NASA did not land on the moon nor did any man ever orbit it. In the coming days, weeks and months I will post the evidence that once and for all exposes the Great Lunar Lie.and in response to gwiz's question


Let's hope your evidence isn't the same old stuff that's been completely discredited.
No, it isn't, Gwiz. I bring new evidence/arguments to the table. Some issues may have been discussed previously on here, I'm not sure, but I have not seen what I will discuss posted on any other bunk or debunking site. They are my own original points.If he didn't have his evidence yet, then how come he says "I bring new evidence/arguments to the table." He says this and he hasn't asked one question in the "evidence gathering" effort you claim he was here for. Sorry, Jeff, but your interpretation of his intentions doesn't hold water.

The only question then is, has the poster reached this conclusion with or without evidence? The ensuing 40 or so pages made it painfully clear that Moon Man had reached the conclusion he stated in his OP without evidence.

What was worse was, instead of "collecting evidence" as you claim, he instead just fired off questions copied from various Moon hoax sites, and then blissfully ignored all the evidence that was supplied by the incredibly patient, knowledgeable folks on the BAUT.

He wasn't making a case, he had already done so with zero evidence, and then refused to budge re his claims when the evidence provided blew his case out of the water.

Finally, it is worrisome that you would consider Moon Man a subject in which to invest such an effort at defense, especially with your invocation of beliefs as a supposed legitimate point of argument. Strong beliefs do not science make.

Jakenorrish
2005-Nov-16, 02:28 PM
Finally, it is worrisome that you would consider Moon Man a subject in which to invest such an effort at defense, especially with your invocation of beliefs as a supposed legitimate point of argument. Strong beliefs do not science make.

I for one think we've all made a lot of effort to question our own beliefs, as well as dig out long forgotten facts and to argue our points and reach the same conclusion, which is that the idea of hoaxed moon landings is wrong.

I for one am grateful to Moon Man for that despite the fact that I didn't agree with a single post he made, point he made or well anything he said at all in fact. Whatever you think about him, he had a greater impact on the Baut forum than any individual so far, and despite his ignorance, or perhaps because of it, we should all be (in some perverse way) grateful to him.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-16, 02:29 PM
He was given explanations and his response was "unbelievable!"
Yes. Apparently he found the explanations unbelievable.
I don't know why. So?


He made no attempt to educate himself.
I don't know. I can't tell from what he wrote whether he
attempted to educate himself. In any case, his announced
purpose here was to prove the Moon landings were hoaxed,
not to educate himself.



I would strongly suggest you remove that bit of political flame
bait from your last post.
I hope it isn't flame bait. I don't have a good idea of what
the bounds on things poltical are here. It was a mainstream news
report in mainstream media, so I felt that it couldn't be too far
out of line. It's a part of reality that we need to deal with,
ugly as it may be.


I don't care what your opinion of the US is,
I'll say anyhow: Very high!

Somewhat lower for the current federal administration.
Nobody's perfect, but the current guys... Ouch.


And, by the way: No matter how many times you repeat yourself,
you're not changing any minds here.
You know this for a fact?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Swift
2005-Nov-16, 02:55 PM
<snip>
If we abandoned the station (because we all died of bird flu), eventually that little bit of drag would cause it to reenter and burn up.

That's by design.
What about if we abandoned the station because of budget constraints, but we didn't all die, would it stay in orbit? :eh:
;)

Jason Thompson
2005-Nov-16, 02:56 PM
Yes. Apparently he found the explanations unbelievable.
I don't know why. So?

So? So they were correct. Whether he believed them or not made no difference to their factual nature. Once again, this is not a matter of belief this is a matter of fact. Whether he believes a vacuum has temperature is irrelevant, and won't stop the fact that temperature being defined as a property of matter and a vacuum being devoid of matter means that a vacuum simply cannot have a temperature.

But not only did he declare the explanations unbelievable, he stated outright that people who did believe them were obviously mentally retarded in some way, and then continued to draw his flawed conclusions from his own version of reality. That is what annoyed and infuriated people. If he was here to learn he needed to open his mind to the possibilities that his layperson understanding of the Universe might just need refining, updating or even discarding altogether. He didn't.

In any case, his announced
purpose here was to prove the Moon landings were hoaxed,
not to educate himself.

But he was unable to do the former without doing the latter. Without the education he could have gained from the people here who very patiently explained things about which they had considerable expertise he could not form a valid judgement, as I have already explained. Good for him if he had already concluded that the Moon landings were faked based on his own understanding. However, he freely admitted the limited understanding he possessed when it came to the details, and he was unwilling to learn from those who knew. That makes his conclusion suspect at the least, and utterly wrong at the worst.

Would you accept my judgements about the word of God if I came on here and then said I'd never read the Bible, been to church or even met a Christian?

captain swoop
2005-Nov-16, 03:05 PM
what is the point of this thread?

Candy
2005-Nov-16, 03:21 PM
This will be my second thread in less than 24 hours that I am going to unsubscribe. :(

R.A.F.
2005-Nov-16, 03:41 PM
And, by the way: No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you're not changing any minds here. Enough already.

You know this for a fact?

Why don't you start a poll thread...then we can all see if you are "changing any minds" here.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-16, 04:08 PM
Yes. Apparently he found the explanations unbelievable.
I don't know why. So?[QUOTE]

I don't believe you exist. I think that you haven't posted a single thing on this board.

If you give me evidence, I will nitpick it. If you show me pictures, I will "find them unbelievable". I will not believe a single thing you provide or show.

See if you can have a meaningful discussion with me. Then watch how annoyed you become when I'm belligerant about it.

[QUOTE] I don't know. I can't tell from what he wrote whether he
attempted to educate himself.

HE STILL THINKS THAT VACUUM CAN HAVE A TEMPERATURE! He STILL does not understand basic thermodynamics! Look at his posts in www.apollohoax.net !! Jeez!


In any case, his announced purpose here was to prove the Moon landings were hoaxed, not to educate himself.

A) He failed.
B) He went about it the wrong way.


I hope it isn't flame bait. I don't have a good idea of what
the bounds on things poltical are here. It was a mainstream news
report in mainstream media, so I felt that it couldn't be too far
out of line. It's a part of reality that we need to deal with,
ugly as it may be.

Read the rules again. Politically and religiously abrasive comments are not allowed in this forum.


I'll say anyhow: Very high!

Somewhat lower for the current federal administration.
Nobody's perfect, but the current guys... Ouch.

Okay. This is stretching it. While I may disagree with you, I have a few comments to note. For one, what happens in those prisons is NOT a result of current government, it's a result of corrupt individual soldiers. You want proof? I have a Prison Experiment you might want to see.

http://www.prisonexp.org/ Read this from beginning to end.

Also: I might not like a lot of the Bush Administration's decisions, but this is NOT A POLITICAL BOARD.

Cl1mh4224rd
2005-Nov-16, 07:47 PM
Hmm... I get the impression that Jeff doesn't believe we went to the moon. I can't see any other reason for his misguided attempt to defend Moon Man.

Moon Man wasn't trying to "gather evidence", Jeff. He quite clearly stated that he already had evidence, and that he would be presenting it. Instead he asked questions which clearly demonstrated his lack of knowledge about the subjects involved. He even outright admitted his ignorance and not once did he provide the evidence he claimed to have. Belief is not evidence...

I find it telling that he claimed to be waiting for the trolls to get bored and wander off before he started with his arguments, when many of his posts only encouraged trollish behavior. It's a common, self-fulfilling stall-tactic used by these folks.

I can only imagine your need to defend him is fueled by some... *sigh*... belief... that he actually had something valid to present, and would have, if only the "evil debunkers" had answered his inane questions and stopped harassing him...

Gillianren
2005-Nov-16, 08:12 PM
Yeah, and let's not forget that he called anyone who disagreed with him a troll. Including, as I recall, Jay.

Now, I had a lovely talk with my own lawyer yesterday. Here's what he wouldn't do (and I'm giving the benefit of a doubt that Moon Man was attempting to use legal arguments, which I don't agree with). He wouldn't deliberately antagonize his witnesses, which Moon Man manifestly did. He wouldn't go before the court (ie, make his claims public) without having a basic understanding of the rules thereof. He wouldn't try to argue my case without a clear understanding of what my case is and what knowledge he must have in order to present it properly. He wouldn't argue that I have the medical conditions I do without knowing what the symptoms of those medical conditions are.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, Jeff, he did in fact at least heavily imply, and to the eyes of, well, everyone but you flat out state, that he already had the evidence. It was only when his feeble initial points were refuted that he started asking questions--so he could understand the people who refuted his ideas.

The Apollo missions are not a matter of what you believe. In fact, they have more evidence to them than "beyond a reasonable doubt." They have such weight of evidence behind them that one must be deliberately ignoring it or remarkably ignorant of many, many fields in order to not know that. Moon Man showed himself to be both.

Van Rijn
2005-Nov-16, 09:59 PM
Yes. Apparently he found the explanations unbelievable.
I don't know why. So?


I really am having trouble believing you read the thread. The reason is that he doesn't understand basic science, and doesn't pay attention when explanations and references are provided. And I do mean basic: In a number of cases, these were things I could have answered long before leaving grade school.



He made no attempt to educate himself.

I don't know. I can't tell from what he wrote whether he
attempted to educate himself. In any case, his announced
purpose here was to prove the Moon landings were hoaxed,
not to educate himself.

He wanted others to do his research for him, and when it was provided, he didn't pay attention or change his statement one bit. Also, it is pretty hard to understand how he would prove a thing when he didn't have a clue about the subject, and had no argument beyond "I say so!"





I would strongly suggest you remove that bit of political flame
bait from your last post.
I hope it isn't flame bait. I don't have a good idea of what
the bounds on things poltical are here. It was a mainstream news
report in mainstream media, so I felt that it couldn't be too far
out of line. It's a part of reality that we need to deal with,
ugly as it may be.

Oh, give me a break! This:


Which is worse? Moon Man, or the USA?
Which has purer motives?

is from a mainstream news report? Further, you know (or at least you should know) the forum rules on political and religious topics, and it was off topic - not related to this subject in any way.




I don't care what your opinion of the US is,

I'll say anyhow: Very high!

Somewhat lower for the current federal administration.
Nobody's perfect, but the current guys... Ouch.

And still more political flame bait. Just can't stop, can you? By the way, I really don't care what your opinion of the US is, or the administration for that matter. But if I want to see political zings of any stripe, I'll go somewhere else.



And, by the way: No matter how many times you repeat yourself,
you're not changing any minds here.

You know this for a fact?

Fine. Repeat yourself for another dozen times and see what results you get.

jojo180
2005-Nov-17, 12:11 AM
A vacuum is not a thing, it is the absence of anything. Similarly, cold it is not a thing, it is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. They are not things in and of themselves, they are simply nothing, and they can only be viewed in the presence of that which they are not. So there need not be anything to contain a vacuum, as a vacuum is not a thing that needs to be contained. All one must do is prevent anything from existing at that place, and it will be a vacuum. Remember, the space between atoms here on Earth is a vacuum, as are the spaces between the nucleus and the electrons. You are mostly vacuum.

Ok so you state a vacuum is absolute zero matter ect fair enough, now we all know that to go to the moon a ship has to use excessive thrust to get the momentum to reach the moon then using moon gravity as there is no resistance in vacuum get the kick needed to get back to earth basically a straight line A to B B to A now if the vacuum of space it empty then it would be a waste of time and effort designing engines to propel a ship in space as you need something to shove against to obtain motion so it would only be good for take off and landing so fusion propulsion and such are a waste of time and money unless there is something to shove against witch would mean that a vacuum is not empty

GDwarf
2005-Nov-17, 12:17 AM
Ok so you state a vacuum is absolute zero matter ect fair enough, now we all know that to go to the moon a ship has to use excessive thrust to get the momentum to reach the moon then using moon gravity as there is no resistance in vacuum get the kick needed to get back to earth basically a straight line A to B B to A now if the vacuum of space it empty then it would be a waste of time and effort designing engines to propel a ship in space as you need something to shove against to obtain motion so it would only be good for take off and landing so fusion propulsion and such are a waste of time and money unless there is something to shove against witch would mean that a vacuum is not empty

A common mis-conception, rockets don't work by pushing against air or any other substance, they work by forcing a substance out the back. As you push the substance out of the back of the rocket an equal and opposite re-action must occur that pushes the rocket forward, which is what gives it thrust.

Now, I may not be bang on with that, but I think I'm close, corrections are, as always, welcome.

peter eldergill
2005-Nov-17, 12:23 AM
Was that one sentence Jojo?

I'm pretty sure a solid propellant rocket dossn't require something to "push against". As far as I recall from many years ago, the rocket propellant tries to move in all directions at once but there is a hole at one end, thus creating an unbalanced force, allowing the rocket to accelerate in the direction of the unbalanced force.

This is a very simlified version and if incorrect, could someone correct me please.

Space is not a perfect vacuum, but close enough

Pete

Edit: GDwarf...you beat me to it!

Obviousman
2005-Nov-17, 03:30 AM
It's possible I missed some posts in that part of the thread,
but what I read was that he asked some rather heated questions
when he was told to send $250 to an anonymous post office box.
Nomatter what you may think, Moon Man isn't that stupid.

He may be willing to pay $250 if it really means access to
Mattingly. He has the address, so he may indeed write and
try to arrange a deal.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff, I think not.

When given the opportunity to contact Mr Mattingly, he brought up the "sending money to a stranger" arguement - and a fair one at that.

He was given the address, and told to write to Mr Mattingly to arrange for the test, etc.

Now: He did NOT say "I'll do that"; he specifically said he wanted the phone number.



Why not get me a phone # since he has it..?

Why not contact CNN and let them know we have a moon man prepared to take the test to set the record straight. Why hasn't the owner of BA jumped all over this great news so he can post the results on his site..?




Please. Who's post office number is this..?

Prove it is who you are claiming owns it..?

Most people use a house address for mail, why is he using a post office number..?




My propsal has been accepted so why should I need to write a letter now..?

Get me a phone number since the BA member has it.

Please quit making excuses.


He avoided the opportunity to arrange the test by questioning everything and then DEMANDING the phone number.

He's pulling the same stunts over at ApolloHoax. He ignores anything that could possibly weaken his case - such as it is. He ignores any evidence given to him, and refuses to try and "learn" anything that shows how some evidence provided is correct. He dodges, and changes subjects when things get too tough. It's okay for him to have an opinion as 'proof' and internet links are evidence, but the same for other people is not allowed. He asks for links, and when they are provided he claims they are NASA lies or stooges.

No evidence CAN be produced to refute his claims, because if it refutes his claims it's automatically a lie and therefore not evidence.

Jeff, you are probably a very kind soul who has hope for everyone.

Me? I'm jaded, bitter, and twisted. I know he is a troll, and nothing more.

paulie jay
2005-Nov-17, 04:21 AM
Okay. Could you give me an idea what page I'd find it on, and
what you, he, or someone else said so that I can be sure I've
found the right thing? Thanks.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Criminy, the thread is too big to wade through.

Moon Man claimed that he had brought "...new info to the table that has never been mentioned on any debunking site I've seen before..." here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600434&postcount=955

I took issue with this, and replied here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600690&postcount=1041

Moon Man then said "...The hot cold issue had nothing to do with the hoax. It was just an issue the arose and was discussed..." in spite of the fact that he claimed it as new evidence in the first post I've linked to.http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600695&postcount=1046

I picked him up on it here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600726&postcount=1067

He changed his meaning here http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=600736&postcount=1072

You can cycle through it as many times a you like - I caught him lying.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-17, 06:47 AM
Ok so you state a vacuum is absolute zero matter ect fair enough, now we all know that to go to the moon a ship has to use excessive thrust to get the momentum to reach the moon then using moon gravity as there is no resistance in vacuum get the kick needed to get back to earth basically a straight line A to B B to A now if the vacuum of space it empty then it would be a waste of time and effort designing engines to propel a ship in space as you need something to shove against to obtain motion so it would only be good for take off and landing so fusion propulsion and such are a waste of time and money unless there is something to shove against witch would mean that a vacuum is not emptyRather than point out the numerous errors in that statement, I suggest you please click on this link (http://www.exo.net/%7Epauld/physics/actionreaction/actionreaction.htm) and learn something about Newton's Third Law of Motion. It is the basis for rocketry and governs how rockets work in space (or anywhere else). Plus here is a good starting place (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html) for getting to know all Three Laws of Motion, which then lead into the principles of gravitational attraction as expressed in Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, and orbital mechanics.

jojo180
2005-Nov-17, 10:30 AM
Point taken, as you can see I do not have a clue about rocket science but I am learning ,correct me if I am wrong again ,so basically when the chemical reaction of the fuel burning it creates a force in two or more directions that makes an opposite to shove against.

Maksutov
2005-Nov-17, 10:59 AM
Point taken, as you can see I do not have a clue about rocket science but I am learning ,correct me if I am wrong again ,so basically when the chemical reaction of the fuel burning it creates a force in two or more directions that makes an opposite to shove against.You're getting there. Just two directions: back and front, 180 degrees from each other (i.e., "opposite").

In short, in terms of a liquid system, a rocket engine is a device that receives fuel and oxidizer, and, by combustion, creates expanding gases which force their way out the back (action) via the exhaust nozzle. As a result the equal and opposite force pushes the rocket engine forward (reaction).

Since the fuselage, fuel and oxidizer tanks, etc., are all mechanically attached to the engine, they go along for the ride.

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Nov-17, 11:07 AM
I invite the Moon Man to list his credentials here. He claimed to be a lawyer. I'm tired of dancing around, and want him to put his money where his mouth is.

I do not believe that he is a lawyer. However, that has nothing to do with me calling him out. Moon Man: Please list your practice (if you have one), what college you graduated from, and also list out the law that you supposedly "set". Also, in regards to that groundbreaking case, please list the judge presiding and the lawyer you competed against, as well as what that particular case was about.

I once hard a talk on a religious radio station about various religious 'truths.' The expert they had on to speak in favour of the motion was...an American law professor!

rahuldandekar
2005-Nov-17, 02:12 PM
I did participate in the Moon Hoax thread for some two-three pages, but then got tired of the ever-increasing length, hard to keep up with ;) and there not being much content in any of those pages.

I did try to explain him thermodynamics too (of the countless others who tried) but of course, in vain. I cannot believe how he could pick smal points out of my posts, use them to his advantage (that hapenned when I made a mistake about water freezing on the moon) but ignored everything else. That leads me to think he was a troll.

Those 40-odd pages of the thread were wasted on teaching MM some science which he ignored. Once some member used a grade school equation to explain to him how a shuttle would decelerate, giving all the calculations and figures. And MM said something to the effect of "I can't believe this can happen". There were the calculations in front of him!

But the thermodynamics argument continues on Apollohoax. I am reading the "Thermodynamics for Moon Man" thread. He cannot understand simple things! And he's still using the "Water freezes in space" argument although IT WAS PROVED WRONG on BAUt itself! GAH!

Many have sweared, laughed at him. As someone said "The Moon Man brings out the worst in us".

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-17, 07:48 PM
Paulie Jay,

Thanks for that info. You went to more work than I intended or
expected. I appreciate the effort and will use the links.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-17, 08:03 PM
But the thermodynamics argument continues on Apollohoax.
I am reading the "Thermodynamics for Moon Man" thread.
He cannot understand simple things! And he's still using
the "Water freezes in space" argument although IT WAS
PROVED WRONG on BAUt itself! GAH!
I have not been to that other forum, and I don't intend to try
to carry on a cross-forum discussion! But...

Water will freeze in open Space, near the Earth, if it is not
in direct sunlight. On one occasion, a urine dump from a Space
Shuttle created an icicle about two feet long and maybe two or
three inches thick. Mercury has practically no atmosphere at
all, but frost is believed to exist in shadowed craters at the
planet's north pole, according to interpretations of radar
measurements.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

paulie jay
2005-Nov-17, 10:43 PM
Paulie Jay,

Thanks for that info. You went to more work than I intended or
expected. I appreciate the effort and will use the links.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
No problem Jeff, though I must add that I don't really have an interest in debating Moon Man any further.

Jeff Root
2005-Nov-18, 09:40 PM
I must add that I don't really have an interest in debating
Moon Man any further.
I never had any interesting in debating him. The one reply I made
to him was to tell him that he misunderstood why he had to show
an ID card to prove his age. However, I was curious to see what
his line of argument would be. I don't plan to bother with going
to the forum where he is now to try to find out, though.

I'm debating with myself whether I should reply to the comments
and questions from others to me in this thread. I have replies,
but some people say in effect that I shouldn't post them.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

SG-1 Fan
2005-Nov-18, 10:24 PM
Those 40-odd pages of the thread were wasted on teaching MM some science which he ignored.

The time and effort spent may have been wasted on MM, but I for one truly appreciated and learned from all of the replies. "Thank you" to every one that shared their knowledge.

Wolverine
2005-Nov-19, 08:48 AM
Jeff Root: I will remind you that the political commentary you've offered in this thread (e.g. here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=603315&postcount=103)) is most unwelcome on this forum, and you should be aware of such by now. Do not post such things again.

Another general reminder to all: please don't idly gossip about other posters, the banned included. I realize that this thread consists of mostly other issues, but wanted to point that out nonetheless.

Moon Man was given ample opportunity to participate here under the same guidelines we're all obligated to follow. Instead, he violated the FAQ repeatedly and was banned. I would respectfully suggest members note the following from the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845):

16. Moderator Actions

If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

I wholeheartedly agree with ToSeek's decision in this case. Anyone who disagrees with this or other moderator action is encouraged to pursue the option bolded above.

Any unresolved scientific discussion from this thread can be continued on a new or existing thread. Locked.