Several days ago I removed Petra Liverani from the moderation list, and told her she was free to come and go here as she pleased. I told her the real reason I banned her was that she was ignoring the host of the blog, not a good idea. I also told her that I knew of the pain, humiliation and anger that goes along with banning, and that it would not happen again.
I thought that I should also publicly apologize to her, as she did nothing to deserve such treatment. She was being herself. And I do apologize to her now, in front of everyone.
Let this be a warning to all of you! The host of this blog can behave badly, but usually comes around.
Piece of Mindful 
“I thought that I should also publicly apologize to her, as she did nothing to deserve such treatment.”
Well, that depends. Her trail, wall of text on another thread is evidence she deserved it, full time. Thousands of words arguing for moon landings, where she never even argued it, but claimed it to be true. You can call it whatever you like, I call it spookery. But that’s just me, you’re free to make your own conclusions. In any case, I support your decisions so far as I would’ve done the same.
LikeLike
Spookery? Well, that’s one way to look at it. What I perceived was that the host of the blog was endlessly, almost gleefully, seemingly compulsively egging Petra on in comment after comment and post after post, poking and prodding and pushing her buttons, knowing full well that she always feels compelled to respond even though she’s aware of the futility and unpopularity of her responses, and when she did exactly what he was provoking her to do, he would pounce yet again. It was quite a show. Glad it’s over.
LikeLike
ScottRC, doesn’t looko like it’s over . The endless degate continues.
LikeLike
The fact that you think I’m a spook, Minime, simply shows how little you understand me.
My case for the truth of the moon landings is arrived at by simply following my rules of critical thinking – and how I follow these two rules I make very clear:
Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
(I immersed myself in a great deal of the debunking and debunking of the debunking information – not done by POMers)
Stick to the irrefutable facts in the first instance
(I look at what I can understand for sure and when everything I can understand is in sufficient abundance and clearly favours one hypothesis over another I don’t concern myself with stuff I don’t clearly understand).
That is all I do. It’s just so simple. Do you think there’s something wrong with these rules, MiniMe?
The irrefutable facts – as far as I’m concerned – in relation to the moon landings show astronauts landed and anything that comes along that seems to contradict that hypothesis has either been explained or I feel perfectly happy to let go as an anomaly that I simply cannot explain but doesn’t matter.
These are the irrefutable facts I think mean astronauts must have landed on the moon and no anomaly can come along and say No! If you think that anomalies can come along and say No! so be it, I don’t think reality works that way. If you think rockets can’t work in space, if images of astronomical objects don’t look the right size to you – whatever – if you think they undermine the “real” hypothesis fair enough. I don’t.
Every single image presented betrays a single light source against a black sky and in many cases there is remarkable brightness in the reflected light.
Hours of audio communications betray no signs of fakery.
All images from unmanned landings are consistent with Apollo images.
Bonus fact
The first person to say we didn’t land on the moon, Bill Kaysing, was a spook. There’s your spook, MiniMe, Bill Kaysing. He’s the spook that no disbeliever of the moon landings perceived because they don’t follow the rules of critical thinking … and there’s a few others they employed in their efforts to create a boy-who-cried-wolf situation … not to mention that they get great satisfaction out of everyone getting it wrong, the believers and disbelivers alike. We all know they like to be able to affect the minds of the disbelievers too.
LikeLike
Your critical thinking skills are self-attributed, and your holding those skills not a widely shared view. I know what it is like to hold views that others do not share, and it takes stubbornness to stick by our guns. But the idea that men walked on the moon in the technically bereft era of 1969-1972, when the pocket calculator had yet to be invented, is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. You’ve offered no such thing. The transcripts of conversations between astronauts and Houston could easily be faked, done either in a basement office or LEO. That amounts to nothing.
I’ve been accused of pandering, allowing you here to stoke the fires, but truth is more to be like this: I don’t care. I am not a gatekeeper on this topic, and those who you have engaged are perfectly capable of forming their own judgments. We have several banned topics here, like flat earth and transgender and Paul is Dead, but I only did that to prevent the floodgates from opening. As I said in the blog post banning these topics, there are other venues where advocates can make their case, not here. Your topic, that the moon landings were real, is not a banned topic, and when I banned you, I felt like shit, authoritarian and heavy-handed. Mea culpa.
LikeLike
Your reading and comprehension skills are modest, to say it mildly. I’ve spent a few thousand words few weeks back at PoM, explaining rocketry can and does work. The subject was beyond your physics level and understanding, to which you openly admitted.
But I’ve also stated I don’t believe any human was sent to fly in a tin can anywhere beyond a couple hundred miles from Earth, i.e. low Earth orbit. Mostly for the radiation as the single reason preventing it, but also
technological features of the flying tin can.
Spare your words and show me some undisputed proof anybody was walking on the moon in ’69-’72. Until you do, I’ll remain highly sceptical about any manned space travel and consider any avid supporters of this particular fantasy story as a) blind believers or b) spooks.
LikeLike