revisiting Apollo

Yoda wrote:

The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain.
It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
put on the facts.

The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon.
[snip]
Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.

I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

Did you watch the video? Probably not.


My friends are laughing there asses off at what you just said because
they know me very well cause they listen to me all the time, and they
know that I keep watch for propaganda more than any other person they
know. So please your American ignorance is showing through....perhaps
you should lay off the Disney movies for a while.

Tim Auton wrote:

Yoda wrote:

The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain.
It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
put on the facts.

The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon.

[snip]

Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.


I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.


Tim

Did you watch the video? Probably not.


My friends are laughing there asses off at what you just said because
they know me very well cause they listen to me all the time, and they
know that I keep watch for propaganda more than any other person they
know. So please your American ignorance is showing through....perhaps
you should lay off the Disney movies for a while.

Tim Auton wrote:

Yoda wrote:

The `scientific proof of the first moon walk' is one that all can
share in the very detailed records and televised pictures that remain.
It was a fact, just as Pearl Harbor was a fact regardless of the spin
put on the facts.

The US government openly admitted recently that the moon pictures were
hoaxed on the direct order of President Nixon.

[snip]

Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.


I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.


Tim

In article BkDKc.1058410$Ar.541753
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...


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

Oh dear!! I suggest you get your coat.

And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.

Go to your local art supplies shop. Ask for moulding sand. Better still,
try flour. Not exactly the same results but not exactly the same
substances either.



The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.

Are you suggesting that the Americans, trying to create hoax video's in
a studio, deliberately created a wind to make it look more patriotic?
That the Russians wouldn't say "Hold on a moment"? Or are you just
ignorant of the principles behind inertia and momentum. Hint: The flag
stops "fluttering" shortly after being left alone.

As for your earlier examples of photographic expertise, the less said,
the better.

You may be right about the hoaxing. There was certainly incentive for
it. However, you will never be able to convince anyone of this with the
"evidence" you have put forward. You have only convinced people of your
scientific naivety.

--
Alan LeHun

In article BkDKc.1058410$Ar.541753
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...


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

Oh dear!! I suggest you get your coat.

And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.

Go to your local art supplies shop. Ask for moulding sand. Better still,
try flour. Not exactly the same results but not exactly the same
substances either.



The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.

Are you suggesting that the Americans, trying to create hoax video's in
a studio, deliberately created a wind to make it look more patriotic?
That the Russians wouldn't say "Hold on a moment"? Or are you just
ignorant of the principles behind inertia and momentum. Hint: The flag
stops "fluttering" shortly after being left alone.

As for your earlier examples of photographic expertise, the less said,
the better.

You may be right about the hoaxing. There was certainly incentive for
it. However, you will never be able to convince anyone of this with the
"evidence" you have put forward. You have only convinced people of your
scientific naivety.

--
Alan LeHun

Tim Auton (American Dumbass) wrote:

Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.


I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.
You fail to understand English or Canadian TV, especially the Passionate
Eye program. What they are saying is what you just proved, in that
anything can be taken out of context and twisted to suit one's own
diabolical purposes, propaganda is usally always lies and half truths,
never the truth. In such the documentary proves that the American
public and the world, were duped by the Hoaxed footage.

See the documentary for yourself and then say something. Otherwise
remain an ignorant American with pathetic commentary on Canadian
programming. I'll bet the documentary is not being received very well by
those who argued incessently that there was no hoax.

Unless ofcourse you really believe that the Moon has wind, which
considering how you analysed the first page of a documentary on the moon
hoax pictures, I wouldn't be shocked if you did believe that there is
not only mud there but an atmosphere to boot.




Tim

Tim Auton (American Dumbass) wrote:

Anyhow the Moon Hoax pictures and video documentary which proves this is
fact was shown on CBC and made by CBC.


I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

You failed. The purpose of the documentary is not to make revelations
about the moon landings, but to demonstrate why fools like you
shouldn't blindly believe everything you see on TeeVee.
You fail to understand English or Canadian TV, especially the Passionate
Eye program. What they are saying is what you just proved, in that
anything can be taken out of context and twisted to suit one's own
diabolical purposes, propaganda is usally always lies and half truths,
never the truth. In such the documentary proves that the American
public and the world, were duped by the Hoaxed footage.

See the documentary for yourself and then say something. Otherwise
remain an ignorant American with pathetic commentary on Canadian
programming. I'll bet the documentary is not being received very well by
those who argued incessently that there was no hoax.

Unless ofcourse you really believe that the Moon has wind, which
considering how you analysed the first page of a documentary on the moon
hoax pictures, I wouldn't be shocked if you did believe that there is
not only mud there but an atmosphere to boot.




Tim

Another stupid ass American claiming to know it all about a documentary
he hasn't even seen, no doubt. Your type of analysis is better left for
people like the Jehovah Witnesses or better yet how about the
Mennonites, you know those guys in horse drawn carriages who don't
believe in the tooth fairy, or santa claus or radio's and TV's for that
matter. Go talk to them, maybe they will understand your nonsense.

Alan LeHun wrote:

In article BkDKc.1058410$Ar.541753
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...


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


Oh dear!! I suggest you get your coat.


And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.


Go to your local art supplies shop. Ask for moulding sand. Better still,
try flour. Not exactly the same results but not exactly the same
substances either.




The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.


Are you suggesting that the Americans, trying to create hoax video's in
a studio, deliberately created a wind to make it look more patriotic?
That the Russians wouldn't say "Hold on a moment"? Or are you just
ignorant of the principles behind inertia and momentum. Hint: The flag
stops "fluttering" shortly after being left alone.

As for your earlier examples of photographic expertise, the less said,
the better.

You may be right about the hoaxing. There was certainly incentive for
it. However, you will never be able to convince anyone of this with the
"evidence" you have put forward. You have only convinced people of your
scientific naivety.

Another stupid ass American claiming to know it all about a documentary
he hasn't even seen, no doubt. Your type of analysis is better left for
people like the Jehovah Witnesses or better yet how about the
Mennonites, you know those guys in horse drawn carriages who don't
believe in the tooth fairy, or santa claus or radio's and TV's for that
matter. Go talk to them, maybe they will understand your nonsense.

Alan LeHun wrote:

In article BkDKc.1058410$Ar.541753
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
says...


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


Oh dear!! I suggest you get your coat.


And what museum has samples of
this dust so that we can all view it and compare samples? Please you
have to do better than that.


Go to your local art supplies shop. Ask for moulding sand. Better still,
try flour. Not exactly the same results but not exactly the same
substances either.




The flag is clearly seen fluttering in the wind. Duh...there is no wind
on the moon because it has no atmosphere, unless you believe the
Russians who say it has developed an atmosphere of recent times.


Are you suggesting that the Americans, trying to create hoax video's in
a studio, deliberately created a wind to make it look more patriotic?
That the Russians wouldn't say "Hold on a moment"? Or are you just
ignorant of the principles behind inertia and momentum. Hint: The flag
stops "fluttering" shortly after being left alone.

As for your earlier examples of photographic expertise, the less said,
the better.

You may be right about the hoaxing. There was certainly incentive for
it. However, you will never be able to convince anyone of this with the
"evidence" you have put forward. You have only convinced people of your
scientific naivety.

Yoda wrote:
Tim Auton wrote:
[snip]
I presume you meant this documentary:

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunda...oon/about.html

"This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and
entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that
one should always view television with a critical eye."

Did you watch the video? Probably not.

My friends are laughing there asses off at what you just said because
they know me very well cause they listen to me all the time, and they
know that I keep watch for propaganda more than any other person they
know. So please your American ignorance is showing through....perhaps
you should lay off the Disney movies for a while.

I'm English, live in England and despise Disney movies. Remarkably
enough living in the UK I don't get to watch the CBC. A search of a
few on-line video distributors didn't find the program on video for me
to purchase. So no, I haven't seen it. Are you suggesting the CBC
website has been hijacked, or that what they say there is a cunning
double-bluff?

I would like to see it though. It sounds most interesting. Unethical
as it is I'd be willing to download a high-quality digital recording
of it if you can point me to one (by email if you prefer).


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.