revisiting Apollo

You must the biggest moron I ever met. You said I refused to provide
evidence. When I pointed out to you that the evidence is in the
documentary, you continue to spout "no evidence'. You sound like the
church when they refused to even look through Galileo's telescope you
know that?

Again watch the documentary and then make your stupid ass comments.

Paul Lawler wrote:

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

Holy ****..watch the damn video and then make your dumb arse comments ok.


The fact that you worship **** does not exempt you from your burden to
provide (credible) evidence for your claims. And no, holding up as evidence
a vido that you know we do not have access to does NOT constitute credible
evidence.

Yoda, I believe the documentary you saw was a fake. I believe this for
two reasons:

1) The CBC website says it was a fake, it even calls it a
"mockumentary".

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

2) I have seen no other evidence which supports the view that the
landings were real but the footage was faked by Kubrick et al.

In order to convince anyone that what you say is true you must
explain:

1) Why the CBC website says the documentary is a fake.

2) Why there is no other evidence for this version of events.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

I already explained this. You state that it is a mockumentary. Well in
that case...it is only mocking those who say there was no hoaxed footage.

Tim Auton wrote:

Yoda, I believe the documentary you saw was a fake. I believe this for
two reasons:

1) The CBC website says it was a fake, it even calls it a
"mockumentary".

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

2) I have seen no other evidence which supports the view that the
landings were real but the footage was faked by Kubrick et al.

In order to convince anyone that what you say is true you must
explain:

1) Why the CBC website says the documentary is a fake.

2) Why there is no other evidence for this version of events.


Tim

"Yoda" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
I already answered this to someone else. That is it isnt it? Sun
glare..sun glare...**** man if sun glare blocked out the stars...there
would be no such thing as astronomy during moon lit nights - period!

And there isn't... try taking a picture of the moon and stars during a
moonlit night at a shutter speed fast enough to avoid overexposing the moon.
Guess what? No stars. But please... don't take my word for it. Try it for
yourself.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
You must the biggest moron I ever met. You said I refused to provide
evidence. When I pointed out to you that the evidence is in the
documentary, you continue to spout "no evidence'. You sound like the
church when they refused to even look through Galileo's telescope you
know that?

Again watch the documentary and then make your stupid ass comments.

Considering we have never met, that's another unsubstantiated claim on your
part, isn't it? Clearly unless you provide the documentary I cannot watch
it, now can I, so your continued admonition to "look it up yourself" carries
no more weight now than it did the first 10 times you made it.

Tim Auton tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:
Yoda wrote:
[snip]
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."

I've been digging on the web a bit more. It seems the best search
results can be found by searching for '"William Karel" moon' (without
the 's but with the "s). William Karel is the documentary
(mockumentary!) maker behind this hoax.

My French is a little rusty, but I could pretty much follow this
interview with Karel about the film (at least I presume this was the
same film, certainly the same subject matter and filmmaker and the
interview is on the film producers' website). It's called Operation
Lune here, but I presume it was also translated to English and renamed
"Dark Side of the Moon".

http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/histoire-s...el/385476.html

Given the weight of evidence available on the net from diverse sources
claiming this film is a hoax and the complete lack of any other
evidence supporting its point of view, I would suggest the case is
closed. This was a hoax and Yoda has been well and truly hoaxed. I
know we all suspected that from the start, but it's nice to have some
evidence.

Now, Yoda, do you have any more evidence for me to refute? This crazy
theory was rather amusing to explore. Karel may have failed in his
attempt to educate you to be more critical in your viewing, but at
least he gave the rest of us a good laugh at your expense.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

Yoda wrote:
Tim Auton wrote:

Yoda, I believe the documentary you saw was a fake. I believe this for
two reasons:

1) The CBC website says it was a fake, it even calls it a
"mockumentary".

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

2) I have seen no other evidence which supports the view that the
landings were real but the footage was faked by Kubrick et al.

I already explained this. You state that it is a mockumentary. Well in
that case...it is only mocking those who say there was no hoaxed footage.

All you explanations come back to this documentary, which is a hoax.
Provide other evidence or admit you were hoaxed.


Tim
--
My last .sig was rubbish too.

The picture taken of the earth from the moon so to speak has always been
the only earth shot ever widely published. Save for a few by Voyager.
So I guess with all those billions of dollars we peasants only get to
see one picture of the earth, and guess what..the universe is empty.

Take those cameras used by the city news channels. You can see them on
many buildings. I have watched the news too many times to see sunset
filmed for all to watch as they run the credits. The moon can sometimes
be clearly resolved by those very same cameras, and the sun hasn't set
yet, and so we also see the stars on occasion. Yet I have to this day
to see a live camera shot of the earth with perhaps a setting sun and
maybe even a moon shot to boot, from outside the earth. And to tell you
the truth, the stupid ass cartoons we call the "weather news" I am
getting pretty sick of. You must believe that the whole planet buys
that kind of crap, that we cant put a camera in outer space and see
stars with it.

Face it, the whole political world doesn't release half of the science
going on to the public, nor do they release images which any live videos
specialist can tell you makes cartoons fit for only stone age dummies.
The secret powers that be must think thats all we peasants really
deserve to see.

In other words the sheer lack of images released to the public smacks of
a cover up and conspiracy to decieve the public on a worldwide scale.

The other night there was a program on about the ISS and they showed so
many images of the earth...where cities and cloud formations can clearly
be seen? Why aren't these kind of images on the news especially for the
weather? ANd dont tell me the ISS doesn't have cameras all over it, I
already know that it does. Oh I get it, countries want to kill each
other, so we must keep secrets from each other, and thus our very own
public is not allowed to know.

Other images included sunset...and I looked carefully to see if there
are other stars around and about...and lo and behold I saw a few images
with my own eyes of stars captured by the Shuttle camera as it
approached the ISS. Now let me see you explain that away...like a dumb ass.

NASA to this day is silent on what stars look like from space when seen
with the naked eye? Why all those brilliant minds at NASA dont, or
wouldnt or couldnt or maybe they do realize that children would ask such
dumb questions. But I know, stars cant be seen with the naked eye from
space, and thus the earth looks as if its just sitting there, revolving
around ...er..on..er..whatever..just empty space.

Paul Lawler wrote:

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

I already answered this to someone else. That is it isnt it? Sun
glare..sun glare...**** man if sun glare blocked out the stars...there
would be no such thing as astronomy during moon lit nights - period!


And there isn't... try taking a picture of the moon and stars during a
moonlit night at a shutter speed fast enough to avoid overexposing the moon.
Guess what? No stars. But please... don't take my word for it. Try it for
yourself.

Well the naked eye sees plenty of stars, and my video camera takes
plenty of pictures with stars in them. Unfortunately my video camera is
in use on the ISS.

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.

Tim Auton wrote:

Tim Auton tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:

Yoda wrote:

[snip]

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."


I've been digging on the web a bit more. It seems the best search
results can be found by searching for '"William Karel" moon' (without
the 's but with the "s). William Karel is the documentary
(mockumentary!) maker behind this hoax.

My French is a little rusty, but I could pretty much follow this
interview with Karel about the film (at least I presume this was the
same film, certainly the same subject matter and filmmaker and the
interview is on the film producers' website). It's called Operation
Lune here, but I presume it was also translated to English and renamed
"Dark Side of the Moon".

http://www.arte-tv.com/fr/histoire-s...el/385476.html

Given the weight of evidence available on the net from diverse sources
claiming this film is a hoax and the complete lack of any other
evidence supporting its point of view, I would suggest the case is
closed. This was a hoax and Yoda has been well and truly hoaxed. I
know we all suspected that from the start, but it's nice to have some
evidence.

Now, Yoda, do you have any more evidence for me to refute? This crazy
theory was rather amusing to explore. Karel may have failed in his
attempt to educate you to be more critical in your viewing, but at
least he gave the rest of us a good laugh at your expense.


Tim

On 18 Jul 2004, vonroach astonished sci.astro by claiming:

On 18 Jul 2004 16:08:09 -0700, Gruebait
wrote:


For example
there is no 'mud' on the moon, and yet the most famous
pictures of the so-called "first footprint" clearly shows
mud.

snip more kookiness

Clearly.

Dust, moron, not mud. No water has been found on the moon.


Uh, I trust that was directed to Yoda? Along with all its other
virtues, this thread has had a lot of attributions snipped out.

Unless it was directed at my voluminous response, "Clearly.",
which was meant sarcastically. I hope that's clear.


--
gruebait
one furlong/fortnight = 0.997857143 centimeters/minute