revisiting Apollo

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...


What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know
nothing(sic).

This is the second time I've seen you misuse this, so I am taking this
opportunity to enlighten you. (sic) is used to indicate that a quoted
passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has
been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...


What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know
nothing(sic).

This is the second time I've seen you misuse this, so I am taking this
opportunity to enlighten you. (sic) is used to indicate that a quoted
passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has
been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

"Yoda" wrote in message
news

I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all. You
guys got all hot and huffy over it, and figured on how superior you all
are to little ol me. All you proved in all of this exorcise is that you
are all slaves to the ego.

To misquote Mark Twain, Everyone's superior... only on different subjects.
Perhaps someday you'll find a subject in which you are superior.Equivocating
maybe? You are really not very good as a k00k. You might try for spelling.
There's almost always a "right" answer in spelling.

"Yoda" wrote in message
news |
| I didnt change horses at all. Whats the matter, don't like being had?

I wasn't "had". I've reported on Karel's work on my web site for some time.

| Don't like being insulted when all you can do is insult others?

Where have I insulted you? I've been trying to talk to you about your
claims. You seem more interested in riding roughshod over everyone, whether
they're nice to you or not.

| So? You are saying that Hollywood movies aren't attempting for
| accuracy? Thats bull**** and you know it.

Actually I know for a fact that it isn't false. Have you ever worked in
Hollywood? Have you worked in the motion picture or theater industry? I
have. Sacrifices to accuracy are made all the time -- habitually -- in
order to avoid confusing an audience or to convey something that's just hard
to convey any other way. Show business is *all* about giving people what
they think they expect, not what actually is the case.

If you want to show lovers in the starlight, you have to photograph the
lovers against black with relatively bright light and insert false stars
later in the darkroom. That's how it's done, because our film can't do
both.

Do you really intend to argue that *fictional* programs such as 2001 or Star
Trek or Star Wars are meant to be taken literally and depict actual space
dynamics?

| The only joke here has been you attempting to foist
| it off as a real program showing real evidence.
|
| I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all.

False.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
| hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon. And to top it all off,
| Stanley Kubrick is the man responsible for the moon landing hoaxed
| pictures.

And then you continue in the same article:

| Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
| fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC. It featured interviews with many
| of the people involved in the hoax, and the reasons for the hoax.

You most certainly *did* claim that your "documentary" was real proof that
the Apollo photography was faked. If you wish to concede that claim, by all
means do so. But to say you never made it is to deny reality.

| It is a real documentary

No. It is a fictional program made in the style of a documentary. It
specifically disavows that it is reporting real fact or reaching supportable
conclusions.

| ...the fact that the CBC or any other news network would spend
| money and the time to put out disinformation or
| misinformation proves that there is a cover up.

How so?

Are the Christopher Guest mockumentaries also propaganda belying a sinister
motive or cover-up? Considerable money and time were spent on the them too.

| | There is still alot of discrepancies regarding the Moon landings.
|
| Such as?
|
| Need we go there? I have better things to do than be subjected to more
| insults?

I have yet to insult you, despite having been insulted and called several
names by you. Ignore the others, if you wish, but I'm not interested in
insults, either to receive them or to dish them out.

It's easy to call someone dimwitted and brainwashed, as you have called me.
But it's quite a bit more difficult to demonstrate that someone is dimwitted
and brainwashed. You say there is evidence that proves your point and
thereby shows us to be dimwitted. But you won't present it.

Fine, but you can't later claim that we are the ones who are refusing
discussion. I'm specifically inviting you to present your evidence, and I'm
representing to you that it will be discussed on its merit without insults,
as I have hitherto done. By refusing that, you establish that you're the
one not interested in the evidence.

| Hardly. But I do know more than your average dumbass out there.

Then present your evidence. If you're right, you should be able to prove
your point.

| Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you
conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way
intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It is
a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported by
evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your credibility.
You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it.
Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from belief.

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

"Yoda" wrote in message
news |
| I didnt change horses at all. Whats the matter, don't like being had?

I wasn't "had". I've reported on Karel's work on my web site for some time.

| Don't like being insulted when all you can do is insult others?

Where have I insulted you? I've been trying to talk to you about your
claims. You seem more interested in riding roughshod over everyone, whether
they're nice to you or not.

| So? You are saying that Hollywood movies aren't attempting for
| accuracy? Thats bull**** and you know it.

Actually I know for a fact that it isn't false. Have you ever worked in
Hollywood? Have you worked in the motion picture or theater industry? I
have. Sacrifices to accuracy are made all the time -- habitually -- in
order to avoid confusing an audience or to convey something that's just hard
to convey any other way. Show business is *all* about giving people what
they think they expect, not what actually is the case.

If you want to show lovers in the starlight, you have to photograph the
lovers against black with relatively bright light and insert false stars
later in the darkroom. That's how it's done, because our film can't do
both.

Do you really intend to argue that *fictional* programs such as 2001 or Star
Trek or Star Wars are meant to be taken literally and depict actual space
dynamics?

| The only joke here has been you attempting to foist
| it off as a real program showing real evidence.
|
| I never attempted anything of the sort, I quoted it that is all.

False.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
|
| The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
| hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon. And to top it all off,
| Stanley Kubrick is the man responsible for the moon landing hoaxed
| pictures.

And then you continue in the same article:

| Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
| fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC. It featured interviews with many
| of the people involved in the hoax, and the reasons for the hoax.

You most certainly *did* claim that your "documentary" was real proof that
the Apollo photography was faked. If you wish to concede that claim, by all
means do so. But to say you never made it is to deny reality.

| It is a real documentary

No. It is a fictional program made in the style of a documentary. It
specifically disavows that it is reporting real fact or reaching supportable
conclusions.

| ...the fact that the CBC or any other news network would spend
| money and the time to put out disinformation or
| misinformation proves that there is a cover up.

How so?

Are the Christopher Guest mockumentaries also propaganda belying a sinister
motive or cover-up? Considerable money and time were spent on the them too.

| | There is still alot of discrepancies regarding the Moon landings.
|
| Such as?
|
| Need we go there? I have better things to do than be subjected to more
| insults?

I have yet to insult you, despite having been insulted and called several
names by you. Ignore the others, if you wish, but I'm not interested in
insults, either to receive them or to dish them out.

It's easy to call someone dimwitted and brainwashed, as you have called me.
But it's quite a bit more difficult to demonstrate that someone is dimwitted
and brainwashed. You say there is evidence that proves your point and
thereby shows us to be dimwitted. But you won't present it.

Fine, but you can't later claim that we are the ones who are refusing
discussion. I'm specifically inviting you to present your evidence, and I'm
representing to you that it will be discussed on its merit without insults,
as I have hitherto done. By refusing that, you establish that you're the
one not interested in the evidence.

| Hardly. But I do know more than your average dumbass out there.

Then present your evidence. If you're right, you should be able to prove
your point.

| Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you
conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way
intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It is
a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported by
evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your credibility.
You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it.
Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from belief.

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

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Yoda" wrote in message

| Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you
conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way
intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It
is
a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported
by
evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your
credibility.
You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it.
Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from
belief.

Actually he stated as much:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:08:42 GMT, Yoda
wrote:

All it proves is that the mass media likes to brainwash people and
shouldn't be believed in anything they say period.

I haven't changed my opinion concerning the fluttering flag, nor the
footprint, nor others. The people stole the idea of a moon hoax and
made a video of it as if it were real investigative work. How nice of
them at CBC to promote such viscious lies in the name of laughter.

I am glad they are and those with them are having a good laugh, only
shows how insane our world has become. And I hope the the true Gods are
watching.

"Jay Windley" wrote in message
...

"Yoda" wrote in message

| Yeah ok, I thought it was real (sic), now you can feel superior.

It is not a matter of feeling superior. It is simply a matter of you
conceding a point that you realize now was in error. That's the way
intelligent discussion happens. Debate is not merely chest-beating. It
is
a process by which ideas are discarded when they are no longer supported
by
evidence. Transparent attempts at saving face do not help your
credibility.
You will find it much more advantageous to admit error when you make it.
Otherwise people will get the idea that facts do not deter you from
belief.

Actually he stated as much:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:08:42 GMT, Yoda
wrote:

All it proves is that the mass media likes to brainwash people and
shouldn't be believed in anything they say period.

I haven't changed my opinion concerning the fluttering flag, nor the
footprint, nor others. The people stole the idea of a moon hoax and
made a video of it as if it were real investigative work. How nice of
them at CBC to promote such viscious lies in the name of laughter.

I am glad they are and those with them are having a good laugh, only
shows how insane our world has become. And I hope the the true Gods are
watching.

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| And do you see why comparing it to today's standards is wrong?
|
| No I don't see that.

Then that is why you cannot be taken seriously. If you refuse to account
for 30 years' worth of development in television technology in your opinion,
then your opinion is hardly worth paying attention to.

| But a camera with such poor quality is a joke.

Why do you insist on limiting your examination only to the elements of the
available evidence that support your point? Why are you unwilling to do
more than scratch the surface of the available evidence?

| | | Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the
lander.
| | | That glare is a laughable.
| |
| | Please identify the photo you're describing.
|
| Why do you care so much?

Because you're trying to get rhetorical mileage out of the ad hominem
arguments others are making. You come off looking better if you can spin
the discussion to look like people are beating up on you without
provocation. But if you are presented with a choice -- respond to
legitimate invitations to discussion, or respond to ad hominem attacks -- we
can see where your goals really lie. You spend lots of time trading insults
with the other posters, but when encouraged to get back to the meat of the
discussion, you refuse.

How then can you argue that the vitriol in this thread is entirely everyone
else's doing?

| Is it part of your superiority complex...that
| you need to prove to the world, how smart you are, how brilliant you
| are, how much you have it all figured out?

Um, no. It's a matter of examining evidence you say is going unanswered in
favor of jibes and insults. You lament that you're being dismissed
unfairly. I'm trying to correct that, but your behavior seems to indicate
that you *want* to be dismissed unfairly, for whatever reason.

| What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know
| nothing(sic).

Why allude to evidence if not to present it? You seem to be trying to find
a way to appear right without submitting your evidence to proper scrutiny.
We aren't irrational if we reject evidence we have asked for but not
received.

You alternate between accusing us of elitism and accusing us of being
dimwits. Is it too much to ask that you make up your mind?

| A used Hasselblad 500/EL still costs about $1,500.
|
| Whatever...you'll argue everything and anything.

You seem to be claiming to have experience in photography. If you had any,
that would be considered material to your claims that the Apollo photography
is somewhat suspicious. So the question of whether you have any experience
is relevant, and your supporting arguments merit attention. You say you've
owned an expensive camera, and apparently that is supposed to support your
argument to be an knowledgeable photographer. But I find that hard to
believe. People willing to spend that much money on a camera generally
already know how to use it.

Do you have any other arguments that would tend to establish you as a
photographer with enough expertise to support your claims?

| What I did find interesting was how emotional stupifying this
| newsgroup got over the mere suggestions of faked footage.

It was not a "mere suggestion". It was a blatant assertion of fact, as I've
reproduced above. People often respond strongly to allegations of fact that
are ill-founded. I asked you befo how many lies are too many? How much
crapola should we allow to persist before saying something about it? What
about "getting a life" requires us to ignore people who impugn our
professions, mentors, or beliefs?

Most conspiracy theorists would rather the experts "get a life" and ignore
their claims. They bank on being able to dupe the rubes and fly "under the
radar" of legitimate experts.

| You are all slaves!

I think not. People who can think and investigate for themselves tend to be
more liberated than people who blindly follow any theory that's presented so
long as it strikes the right chord. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the
historical and scientific underpinnings for my beliefs. You seem unwilling.
Which of us is likely the slave?

| Isn't it nice since you bring up the military, that science
| is used for evil, murder and mayhem rather than the betterment of
| mankind.

And off we go on another tangent.

| This implies that the moon landing missions served a military
| purpose from the get go...

The first electronic computer was built for the military. You use a
computer. Does that imply that whatever you do with a computer serves a
military purpose?

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

"Yoda" wrote in message
. rogers.com...
|
| And do you see why comparing it to today's standards is wrong?
|
| No I don't see that.

Then that is why you cannot be taken seriously. If you refuse to account
for 30 years' worth of development in television technology in your opinion,
then your opinion is hardly worth paying attention to.

| But a camera with such poor quality is a joke.

Why do you insist on limiting your examination only to the elements of the
available evidence that support your point? Why are you unwilling to do
more than scratch the surface of the available evidence?

| | | Such as the glare showing up when Neil Armstrong gets off the
lander.
| | | That glare is a laughable.
| |
| | Please identify the photo you're describing.
|
| Why do you care so much?

Because you're trying to get rhetorical mileage out of the ad hominem
arguments others are making. You come off looking better if you can spin
the discussion to look like people are beating up on you without
provocation. But if you are presented with a choice -- respond to
legitimate invitations to discussion, or respond to ad hominem attacks -- we
can see where your goals really lie. You spend lots of time trading insults
with the other posters, but when encouraged to get back to the meat of the
discussion, you refuse.

How then can you argue that the vitriol in this thread is entirely everyone
else's doing?

| Is it part of your superiority complex...that
| you need to prove to the world, how smart you are, how brilliant you
| are, how much you have it all figured out?

Um, no. It's a matter of examining evidence you say is going unanswered in
favor of jibes and insults. You lament that you're being dismissed
unfairly. I'm trying to correct that, but your behavior seems to indicate
that you *want* to be dismissed unfairly, for whatever reason.

| What is there to discuss? You guys know everything and we know
| nothing(sic).

Why allude to evidence if not to present it? You seem to be trying to find
a way to appear right without submitting your evidence to proper scrutiny.
We aren't irrational if we reject evidence we have asked for but not
received.

You alternate between accusing us of elitism and accusing us of being
dimwits. Is it too much to ask that you make up your mind?

| A used Hasselblad 500/EL still costs about $1,500.
|
| Whatever...you'll argue everything and anything.

You seem to be claiming to have experience in photography. If you had any,
that would be considered material to your claims that the Apollo photography
is somewhat suspicious. So the question of whether you have any experience
is relevant, and your supporting arguments merit attention. You say you've
owned an expensive camera, and apparently that is supposed to support your
argument to be an knowledgeable photographer. But I find that hard to
believe. People willing to spend that much money on a camera generally
already know how to use it.

Do you have any other arguments that would tend to establish you as a
photographer with enough expertise to support your claims?

| What I did find interesting was how emotional stupifying this
| newsgroup got over the mere suggestions of faked footage.

It was not a "mere suggestion". It was a blatant assertion of fact, as I've
reproduced above. People often respond strongly to allegations of fact that
are ill-founded. I asked you befo how many lies are too many? How much
crapola should we allow to persist before saying something about it? What
about "getting a life" requires us to ignore people who impugn our
professions, mentors, or beliefs?

Most conspiracy theorists would rather the experts "get a life" and ignore
their claims. They bank on being able to dupe the rubes and fly "under the
radar" of legitimate experts.

| You are all slaves!

I think not. People who can think and investigate for themselves tend to be
more liberated than people who blindly follow any theory that's presented so
long as it strikes the right chord. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the
historical and scientific underpinnings for my beliefs. You seem unwilling.
Which of us is likely the slave?

| Isn't it nice since you bring up the military, that science
| is used for evil, murder and mayhem rather than the betterment of
| mankind.

And off we go on another tangent.

| This implies that the moon landing missions served a military
| purpose from the get go...

The first electronic computer was built for the military. You use a
computer. Does that imply that whatever you do with a computer serves a
military purpose?

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

Jeff Quinn wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:02:57 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Yoda
wrote:


You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints.


And you have wide experience of making footprints in fine material in
low-gravity vacuum environments, and can therefore authoritatively state
this.

Yeah ok, moon dust has the consistency of mud due to its low gravity and
lack of an atmosphere.

Rest of your bull**** snipped.