Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

His claim of no evidence would make Randi and Phillip Klass(less) proud.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in news:JY6Xc.22578$UTP.10140

So be default, the American press and NASA is claiming to be the only
country capable of going to the Moon, and Russians are thus inept and
utterly incapable all this time since the 60's? I don't buy into that
line of reasoning because it leads to all sorts of false and ridiculous
conclusions.


It doesn't matter what you "buy into," it only matters what you can prove.


Round and round the merry go round we go, where we stop, nobody knows....




Meanwhile what justified the billions of dollars spent in
going to the Moon in the first place? No one has yet answered it other
than to say that it was politics? Absurd.


It is not up to us to provide accountability for NASA.


I am talking scientific papers which justify the billions spent. You
are talking politics.


Please contact your
congressman and ask how he or she justifies the billions of dollars. You
could, of course, call President Kennedy, but that would involve John
Edwards or Sylvia Browne, and there are many who would not accept that as
credible evidence.

It is not up to those showing evidence that the moon landings were
hoaxed, it is up to those claiming they weren't to provide evidence.




The Hubble team claimed they couldn't take pictures of the Moon's
surface when asked for proof of the lunar landing sites. Then they
released one single image of the moon which makes a radio shack
telescope seem powerful. They do this despite making claims that it
could photograph a fly in Tokyo if it were in New York.


Please cite a source for that claim. It is incorrect.


Your confusion noted.


The curvature of
the Earth would prevent such a photgraph from being taken.

I'll remember this argument next time someone tells me that you are a
sound and reasonable person.


Nonetheless,
Hubble's relatively small primary mirror cannot resolve the lunar landing
sites, and (as they clearly proved) takes lousy picutures of the moon.

Doesn't matter, still doesn't account for why the recent mapping mission
which does resolve even the smallest rocks found no evidence of any
lunar landing sites.

Nor do you explain why the exact same lunar landing site is shown for
two entirely different moon missions, which were supposedly miles apart.

You know you claim to want to dialogue, and you claim to not ever insult
me, but the facts speak differently. I'll remember this and treat you
with nothing but disdain from now on deciever.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Fredrick Garvin wrote in
news

Man this guy keeps getting more pathetic each and every day!

(Sarcasm mode on)

I'd like to thank the parents and teachers of the world for doing such a
great job with the children.

(Sarcasm mode off)


In all likelyhood a solid "C" student with a bad case of acne. g

Note: This is the opinion of this author (although I suspect it is shared
by many) and is unsubstantiated by evidence.

Another usenet sociopath backtracks on his own statements made in
entirely different posts.

Algomeysa2 wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...

Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say there
was no Moon landings? After all they are just 'stupid' people according
to you guys and so do what most people do with stupid people, ignore


But I never called you stupid. I only said that was 1 of 3 possibilities
(2. Crazy 3. Intentionally trolling and playing games, and as I said, that's
the most probable, since you'd have to be really stupid or really crazy to
truly believe this stuff).

I respond not because you matter, but because it's misinformation you post
and somebody reading it might actually be convinced by your nonsense, if
only by its repetition.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

Paul the resident idiot of alt.astronomy now wants things to go back to
respectful dialogue.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in


Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say
there was no Moon landings? After all they are just 'stupid' people
according to you guys and so do what most people do with stupid
people, ignore them. I don't fly into a tiffy when an idiot tells me I
am stupid. I laugh at best, and at worst just ignore them. The fact
that the Moon mission hoax people get a response from BA or NASA only
proves that you guys suffer from the exact same accusation as your
last paragraph suggests.


Would you like me to provide examples of postings where you indeed flew
into a "tiffy" and responded with personal insults and profanity? I can
give you many.

The point is that the people spreading these falshoods have managed to
sucker people like you into believing, or at least giving credence to
somehthing that is just plain false. Believe it or not, some people
actually think that is wrong.

OG wrote:

"Algomeysa2" wrote in message
news:VN7Xc.3849$Y%

I respond not because you matter, but because it's misinformation you

post

and somebody reading it might actually be convinced by your nonsense,

if

only by its repetition.



Any chance that friends of alt.astronomy allow ourselves just one
response _in total_ to each Mad Scientist post and then ignore them.

He has stated that he has no interest in what is known in science; so we
should defer from giving him the response he craves.


No it would be better if you sociopaths ignored my posts altogether.
This I prefer, but to no avail. Each and everytime someone says ignore
me, I hope they would. Each and everytime someone says I am on the
killfile, I smile and think, good riddance moron.



With luck we could get -
One post from him (evidence lite as usual)
One response including a simple rebuttal (including references if
possible)
One response from him asserting sociopathic tendencies.

and then the thread stops.

This would benefit all of us who have 'plonked' him, because we would
only see the middle post.

Well, that's my dream.

Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
|
| Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say there
| was no Moon landings?

1. It's a lie.

2. It's bad science.

3. It's bad reasoning.

So its a bunch of kooks and quacks. Ignore them. Why get so upset?

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
|
| I am talking scientific papers which justify the billions spent.

Why would scientific papers directly justify the expense? Public
expenditure *is* a political question.

As to whether Apollo produced enough science, in the form of papers, then
consult the literature. It is extremely difficult to find any journal
discussing geology, space science, engineering, or similar fields from the
1960s and 1970s that does *not* have a plethora of Apollo-related science in
it.

| It is not up to those showing evidence that the moon landings were
| hoaxed ... [to provide evidence]

Hogwash. You are the claimant. You have the burden of proof.

| it is up to those claiming they weren't to provide evidence.

We have. It is that very evidence that you're trying to explain away with
vague, handwaving arguments.

| Doesn't matter, still doesn't account for why the recent mapping mission
| which does resolve even the smallest rocks found no evidence of any
| lunar landing sites.

If you're speaking of Clementine, then it is *not* true that Clementine can
resolve "even the smallest rocks".

| Nor do you explain why the exact same lunar landing site is shown for
| two entirely different moon missions, which were supposedly miles apart.

Your evidence does not substantiate this. You show me two clips and *claim*
they were from different missions. You have the burden of proof to show
that they are from different missions, since that is the point on which your
claim rests. There are well-established indexes for such material, making
it possible for you to give ground elapsed time (GET) references for each of
those clips. That would substantiate that they were from different
missions.

It is both possible and incumbent upon you to substantiate your claim.

If the footage indeed came from the same mission, then the same distant
background would not be suspicious.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
|
| No it would be better if you sociopaths ignored my posts altogether.
| This I prefer, but to no avail.

Hogwash. You change your e-mail address specifically to defeat killfiles.
When I proposed to killfile you myself, you said that such an action would
be sociopathic.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
|
|
| Jay Windley wrote:
|
| "Mad Scientist" wrote in message
| . cable.rogers.com...
| |
| | Let me ask you this, what bothers you guys so much that people say
there
| | was no Moon landings?
|
| 1. It's a lie.
|
| 2. It's bad science.
|
| 3. It's bad reasoning.
|
| So its a bunch of kooks and quacks. Ignore them. Why get so upset?

Because belief in lies, bad science, and bad reasoning contribute to an
overall less able society than one in which lies, pseudoscience, and
irrationality are discouraged. Would you like to be judged by a jury whose
critical thinking skills are so poor that they'll believe any lie told about
you?

I find it particularly amusing that you try to require a justification from
those trying only to set the record straight. I think it is more incumbent
upon you to justify why lies, lies masquerading as science, and
irrationality ought to be tolerated.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
|
| No it would be better if you sociopaths ignored my posts altogether.
| This I prefer, but to no avail.

Hogwash. You change your e-mail address specifically to defeat killfiles.
When I proposed to killfile you myself, you said that such an action would
be sociopathic.

Please ignore my posts. I like it better that way, don't have to waste
time responding to the ignorant. I change my emails because I get tired
of using the same information in them. As in alice in wonderland,
through the looking glass....I might change it again...but to suggest
its some ploy to get through to the quacks (who believe everything the
government tells them) is patently ridiculous. I couldn't care less
what you guys believe or do not believe, I don't care if you believe in
Santa Claus. Get a life. Ignore my posts, so I won't have to listen to
you guys continue to spout the same tired and worn out arguments and
nonsense about the Big Bang, and 'no evidence for this' and 'no evidence
for that'.

Do you see me jumping all over people's posts whom I don't agree with?
NO, flat out no; why? Because I don't care what people have to say about
what I already know to be untrue, and especially the more far out it is,
the less I care. What makes me care is when people want to know - than
I care. But those who 'claim' to want to know - these are sociopathic
people like Randi and Phillip Klass...and a whole lot of people on
alt.astronomy. These I don't care about because they lie and are
deceptive and play nothing but games. To them I say, you want to
know..go look it up for yourself. But nooooooooooo...they have to
continue to harass me as if what I say means anything to them. That is
sociopathic. You don't like it - go look up what sociopathic means- ask
a doctor about the characteristics of what makes people sociopathic and
when you see it describing the people of Bad Astronomy, or alt.astronomy
and almost the entire Usenet bunch....don't blame me for using the term.

I have said this before but no one ';believes' it; yet they believe I
said 'God agrees with me' from a serious point of view. What a joke.
They like to take everything out of context, and prejudge everything
which is spoken regardless of how much is left out in writing something.
Regardless of how limited this forum really is. That demonstrates truly
sociopathic understanding in all the human race. But these same people
have no problem 'filling in the blanks' when it suits their hatred, but
never when it might give credibility to those they insult. I have whole
threads, entire threads crumble into insults...whre the actual thread
isnt even discussed anymore or never was. I have seen entire threads
where the subject matter is only in the first post and the rest is
nothing but insults for the person posting it. This is psychotic on the
part of these disruptors and deceivers. If we didn't know any better,
one could easily say that there is a deliberate conspiracy afoot to
denounce anything on Usenet which is not mainstream and 'smacks of new
age' or 'smells of religion'. After all I don't ever see the same one's
insulting all the time, insult each other. They leave each other alone
to insult at whim. And no one, NO ONE, ever calls them on it. No one
ever says , HEY leave that person alone you damn prick. No one
harassment is clearly endorsed by these same people and is proven on
almost every serious newsgroup. So you can take whatever cockamamie
**** you believe about me and shove it right up your......

Get over it. Get used to it. Get with the program. Get a life.