Convincing Arguments for a Moon Hoax? Sleuths?

Mad Scientist wrote in news39Xc.25379$UTP.13641
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:

What threads would those be? Provide evidence. And you may as well
call me a liar, when you have already proven that you lie and deceive.

Okay... you're a liar. Happy now?

Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
|
| I said you were ignorant when you accused me of changing my emails...

You didn't specify *why* you were calling me ignorant, so I guessed. You've
called me so many names I can't really be expected to keep track of every
precise instance.

Surely you must know that by changing your e-mail address, you prevent
people from effectively killfiling you. If you really want people to
killfile you and ignore them, why do you make it so difficult for them to do
it?

For one thing I already explained that. Must it be explained again?

And in answer to someone else who asked, I already know there was a Moon
landing. I have never once in my life stated that there was no moon
landing. Otherwise the title of this thread would not have said,
'argument' and 'sleuths'....get it? I worked in marketing almost my
whole life, and I know the power and effect words (and names have on
people) and I use that in all my posts. Gets attention, and opens the
subject matter up to debate. Who cares if I personally believe this or
that about it? I mean really.

Paul Lawler wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in news39Xc.25379$UTP.13641
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:


What threads would those be? Provide evidence. And you may as well
call me a liar, when you have already proven that you lie and deceive.


Okay... you're a liar. Happy now?

Oh and while your at it giving other possible explanations for how the
stones, and mummy came to be at the top of mountain peaks - please
explain how the Nazca lines came to be laid out across valleys, and
mountains' and don't forget to explain why massive faults exist between
them, and how come some of the lines run right to the edge of immense
cliff facing. My explanation accounts for the entire mystery across the
Andes, and which suggests that the Nazca lines were originally laid
out on a perfectly flat plain, but when the massive upheavals took
place, the whole area was heaved up, unevenly...which is why now the
ancient monuments are scattered 'half way up mountains', while some
remains are found on the higher peaks of mountains - like the mummy with
no corresponding structures present. It also accounts in one full
sweep, why many large blocks of stone are found all over the place. It
also accounts for why remains of the Tiahuanco city is found 2000 feet
below, and underwater in the lake known as Titicaca.

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
|
| For one thing I already explained that. Must it be explained again?

No, but you have to reconcile your wishes. On the one hand you say you
don't want to have to enter the information consistently. On the other hand
you say you encourage people to killfile you. The information you decline
to enter consistently is the information required in order to killfile you.
In order for killfiles to work, you have to use the same e-mail address from
each post. If you simply make up a fictitious e-mail address every time,
you defeat the killfile.

Some newsreaders, but not all, allow you to filter on more sophisticated
criteria. But the baseline standard is, and has been for 15 years, the
e-mail address. So if you expect others to killfile you, you must give a
consistent e-mail address. It's that simple.

| I worked in marketing almost my whole life

That would explain your strong aversion to reality.

| Gets attention, and opens the subject matter up to debate.

What about this particular matter (the alleged moon hoax) merits debate?
The answers to your questions are simple and have been available for years
in many cases and for *decades* in other cases? Those answers are
essentially variations on the same theme: the Apollo evidence is measured
up against imaginary standards and expectations which themselves are never
explained, and when they fail to pass muster, they're dismissed as fake.

I really do have a hard time convincing our own marketing types of this, but
there *are* some questions that have objectively determinable,
right-and-wrong answers. Marketing wants to see everything as flexible and
negotiable, subject to interpretation and opinion. There are some topics --
and this is one of them -- in which the questions simply are not open to
interpretation. The statement is either right or it's wrong, and there are
objective methods of determining that. No amount of spin or sugar-coating
changes many of the basic facts of science.

| Who cares if I personally believe this or that about it?

It doesn't matter what you believe. But here it matters what you'll stand
up and defend. Maybe it's your goal just to broach subjects for discussion,
but if you look around yourself you'll find that no one is championing your
causes. But YOU are. That makes you the proponent, whether you think you
are or not.

If you just want to bring up stuff, then bring up stuff and then sit back.
But you can't actively champion a cause -- whether or not you believe in
it -- and then try to argue that you're disinterested. When you
participate, you take sides. You can't take sides without being a
proponent. So either adopt the role fully or reject it fully.

--
|
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...
|
| Oh and while your at it giving other possible explanations for how the
| stones, and mummy came to be at the top of mountain peaks

What does this have to do with a moon landing hoax? If you want to start
bringing up other claims, at least have the courtesy to do it in a new
thread.

--
|
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...


Algomeysa2 wrote:

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

SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo
16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained,
no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it?

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.

You are stupid. Live with it.

Neither is correct, since even UFO sites show that your Apollo 16 "UFO"
isn't a UFO at all.


As for the mon landings being a hoax. The big lie is this


The USA and USSR were involved in a race to demonstrate amongst other
things, superioity. Each had suffisient technology to see what the other was
doing. Along with Jodrell bank, early chinese efforts at espionage, the
French (who hate the US) etc

The US was wrapped up in an unpopular war in Vietnam.

The position of Moon hoax beleivers is this:

At the height of the cold war, the USSR and countries who would love to
embarras the USA kept their mouth shut, and became part of the huge
international conspiracy.


Everything else is juts nitpicking

Jay Windley wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
|
| For one thing I already explained that. Must it be explained again?

No, but you have to reconcile your wishes. On the one hand you say you
don't want to have to enter the information consistently. On the other hand
you say you encourage people to killfile you. The information you decline
to enter consistently is the information required in order to killfile you.
In order for killfiles to work, you have to use the same e-mail address from
each post. If you simply make up a fictitious e-mail address every time,
you defeat the killfile.

Some newsreaders, but not all, allow you to filter on more sophisticated
criteria. But the baseline standard is, and has been for 15 years, the
e-mail address. So if you expect others to killfile you, you must give a
consistent e-mail address. It's that simple.

If they don't wish to see my posts and wish to killfile me, that is not
my responsibility. If it upsets their daily routine, good, I am glad,
since they are obvious cowards and filled with nothing but hatred for
the human race anyways.



| I worked in marketing almost my whole life

That would explain your strong aversion to reality.

Whatever quack.



| Gets attention, and opens the subject matter up to debate.

What about this particular matter (the alleged moon hoax) merits debate?

Sure it does. Many good points are raised by those two websites.

The answers to your questions are simple and have been available for years
in many cases and for *decades* in other cases?


Incorrect. You should say "some statements" instead of questions, I
never asked anyone any questions save for in the thread title.


Those answers are
essentially variations on the same theme: the Apollo evidence is measured
up against imaginary standards and expectations which themselves are never
explained, and when they fail to pass muster, they're dismissed as fake.

I really do have a hard time convincing our own marketing types of this, but
there *are* some questions that have objectively determinable,
right-and-wrong answers. Marketing wants to see everything as flexible and
negotiable, subject to interpretation and opinion. There are some topics --
and this is one of them -- in which the questions simply are not open to
interpretation. The statement is either right or it's wrong, and there are
objective methods of determining that. No amount of spin or sugar-coating
changes many of the basic facts of science.


Yeah, and if I would have been in charge of the Mars data, it would have
been announced in such a way, that billions of dollars would have poured
into NASA to send a manned mission to Mars a long time ago. Too late
now, unless NASA reverses its position. Heck they could have announced
the Pyramidal forms as requiring further investigation and that would
have been enough. To hell with the face on Mars, which I never really
cared for anyway. When the face was being talked about in the press, I
was astonished that the press and the world zeroed in on that instead of
the Pyramidal forms and I couldn't help but to think that it was pure
nonsense and easily debunked. There goes the opportunity for a manned
mission to Mars.


| Who cares if I personally believe this or that about it?

It doesn't matter what you believe. But here it matters what you'll stand
up and defend. Maybe it's your goal just to broach subjects for discussion,
but if you look around yourself you'll find that no one is championing your
causes.


Who cares that no one is on my side. When Jesus died on the cross, no
one stood up and defended him either.

But YOU are. That makes you the proponent, whether you think you
are or not.

I don't care about old science and what is already known. I am
interested in pushing the envelope into the unknown, and generally as a
rule of thumb, people who do this are always attacked and denounced by
the establishment and the mainstream. Entire newsgroups seem devoted to
rehashing old news and old data as if it were "news". We may as well
take out the word 'news' from 'newsgroups'.

If I wanted information on what is already considered 'factual' I can
always go to the library and read a dictionary or an encyclopedia.



If you just want to bring up stuff, then bring up stuff and then sit back.
But you can't actively champion a cause -- whether or not you believe in
it -- and then try to argue that you're disinterested. When you
participate, you take sides. You can't take sides without being a
proponent. So either adopt the role fully or reject it fully.


I don't have to play by those rules. Fact is there is some unanswered
questions about the space race that need answering. You may not like
the notion, but Higher Intelligence is watching the space race very
closely and this petty little debate here, is just one part of what they
are watching. It remains to be seen how the scientific world is truly
going to behave...but according to my sources, the entire scientific
establishment is going to be the most terrified as a karmic result of
their deceptive practises passed off on all of humanity as if they
represented the 'pinnacle' of human reasoning - they don't.

I discovered fractals in 1988, well before it was announced to the world
and became widely known. I even made some crests which I wore and when
many people asked me what those crests represented (because they got a
lot of attention since they were so beautiful), I told many people -
infinity. Puzzled looks on their faces no doubt after hearing
that...but I would explain how this shape is seen everywhere in the
cosmos, from the smallest to the largest and was used by the Higher
Intelligence to create everything in the universe, including Life as we
know it. It was interesting to see the color codes I used in those
crests to be stolen and now used for mass marketing in a wide variety of
things.

Another usenet sociopath attempts to communicate with the human race
while barking like a dog.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

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


Algomeysa2 wrote:


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


SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo
16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained,
no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it?

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.


You are stupid. Live with it.

Neither is correct, since even UFO sites show that your Apollo 16 "UFO"
isn't a UFO at all.


As for the mon landings being a hoax. The big lie is this


The USA and USSR were involved in a race to demonstrate amongst other
things, superioity. Each had suffisient technology to see what the other was
doing. Along with Jodrell bank, early chinese efforts at espionage, the
French (who hate the US) etc

The US was wrapped up in an unpopular war in Vietnam.

The position of Moon hoax beleivers is this:

At the height of the cold war, the USSR and countries who would love to
embarras the USA kept their mouth shut, and became part of the huge
international conspiracy.


Everything else is juts nitpicking

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
. cable.rogers.com...
Another usenet sociopath attempts to communicate with the human race while
barking like a dog.

Yet you ignore the point.

I have 1 simple question, very simple., just answer yes or no:

1: Do you beleive that the Moon landings were a hoax? yes or no?







Wally Anglesea wrote:

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


Algomeysa2 wrote:


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


SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo
16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained,
no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it?

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.


You are stupid. Live with it.

Neither is correct, since even UFO sites show that your Apollo 16 "UFO"
isn't a UFO at all.


As for the mon landings being a hoax. The big lie is this


The USA and USSR were involved in a race to demonstrate amongst other
things, superioity. Each had suffisient technology to see what the other
was doing. Along with Jodrell bank, early chinese efforts at espionage,
the French (who hate the US) etc

The US was wrapped up in an unpopular war in Vietnam.

The position of Moon hoax beleivers is this:

At the height of the cold war, the USSR and countries who would love to
embarras the USA kept their mouth shut, and became part of the huge
international conspiracy.


Everything else is juts nitpicking

Take a hike asshole.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

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

Another usenet sociopath attempts to communicate with the human race while
barking like a dog.


Yet you ignore the point.

I have 1 simple question, very simple., just answer yes or no:

1: Do you beleive that the Moon landings were a hoax? yes or no?







Wally Anglesea wrote:


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


Algomeysa2 wrote:



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



SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT
PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!


A week or two ago, you were posting links to a supposed UFO that Apollo
16
astronauts had photographed (nevermind that it was an easily explained,
no
mystery about it item in reality).

This week you're claiming the Moon Landings were a hoax.

Both stances can't be correct, which is it?

You tell me, since you figure I am 'stupid'.


You are stupid. Live with it.

Neither is correct, since even UFO sites show that your Apollo 16 "UFO"
isn't a UFO at all.


As for the mon landings being a hoax. The big lie is this


The USA and USSR were involved in a race to demonstrate amongst other
things, superioity. Each had suffisient technology to see what the other
was doing. Along with Jodrell bank, early chinese efforts at espionage,
the French (who hate the US) etc

The US was wrapped up in an unpopular war in Vietnam.

The position of Moon hoax beleivers is this:

At the height of the cold war, the USSR and countries who would love to
embarras the USA kept their mouth shut, and became part of the huge
international conspiracy.


Everything else is juts nitpicking