revisiting Apollo

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


Jaxtraw wrote:

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


Paul Lawler wrote:


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


Don't any of you guys think for yourselves or are you all sycophants?


Sycophants to WHOM, pray tell?

To what you consider to be the big arse you must kiss so that you can be
admited into the big arse club of the neo-scientific stone age cavemen.



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. In fact nothing was televised from the moon missions to
any
home in the entire world. What people watched was made in a studio.

I'm sorry... please point me to the government documents and/or

offiicials


who "openly admitted" the moon pictures were hoaxed. Names please,
not
"unnamed" or "highly placed" sources.

Againn go to the CBC and ask them. Is that so hard?



I daresay none of us have a copy of this documentary to hand, so could
you
just be a good chap and tell us what you think it said?

By the by, I'm pretty certain that if the US govt. had officially
admitted
to faking the Apollo programme,

When did I say the Apollo programme itself was hoaxed? Please quote me
on that please do.


it would have been front page news in every
country in the world, so even here in Ukay I'm surprised I missed it.

Ian



Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?

Um, HAOX?

Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?

PICTIRES? Gee. this is fun.

Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?


Well, I got HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES. In which of these HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES does
the government of the USA make an official announcement that NASA faked the
moon shots, or parts thereof?

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.

http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com

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

Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?

Um, HAOX?

Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?

PICTIRES? Gee. this is fun.

Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?


Well, I got HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES. In which of these HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES
does
the government of the USA make an official announcement that NASA faked
the
moon shots, or parts thereof?

Ian,

You have to read between the letters. g

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

Again for those who need it spelled out for them.....take an H, take an
A, take an O, take an X, put them together,....what does that spell?

Um, HAOX?

Hoax right? Now take a V, take an I, take a D, take an E, and take an
O, and put them together ok? What does that spell? Video...right. Now
take a P, take an I, take a C, take a T, take an I, take an R, take an
E, take an S, and put that together...what does that spell?

PICTIRES? Gee. this is fun.

Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet,
or do you still need it spelled out for you?


Well, I got HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES. In which of these HAOX VIDEO PICTIRES
does
the government of the USA make an official announcement that NASA faked
the
moon shots, or parts thereof?

Ian,

You have to read between the letters. g

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:38:38 +0100, Tim Auton
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:38:37 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
wrote:

No. The claim that "Man Went To The Moon" is not a scientific claim;
it's an
historical claim. Historians can only decide the validity of an
historical
assertion; for instance "Edward VIII abdicated the British throne"

You have confused a `claim' with an historical fact. As a witness to
both events, there is absolutely no doubt as to the facts.

Herein lies the problem. There are different standard of proof for
historical and scientific facts, which was Jaxtraw's point. For a
scientific fact to be considered a fact it must be repeatable, this is
not possible with historical facts, which must be decided on the
weight of evidence at the time.

Edward VIII 's abdication was broadcast around the world in his own
voice (opinion-somewhat shaky). He gave up his thrown for `the woman I
love'. As a matter of fact I was a witness to the event and you can
be as well by just playing the recording of the broadcast. You don't
have to take anybody's word.

You have to take somebody's word that it's actually a recording of the
Abdication speech. You have to take somebody's word that that was actually
Edward VIII in front of the microphone speaking...

A scientific experiment must be repeated several time to become a
fact, and even then it is subject to revision as new information or
experimental evidence emerges.

I very much doubt you were a first-hand witness to both events, unless
you happen to be a previously unknown royal and have your own radio
telescope. Certainly reading about something in a range of newspapers
and seeing and/or hearing about it in a range of other media is a good
indication of something having actually happened, but the fact remains
you are relying on second hand sources and cannot repeat the
experiment yourself.

The abdication? The radiobroadcast of the King's statement read by
himself. Not a recording.

As far as you can ascertain...

A case in point: It has only recently become common knowledge that the
Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved my a mutual agreement to remove
missiles from locations close to the other party's country: The USSR
agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba in return for the USA removing
its missiles from Turkey. The USA's concession was kept pretty much
secret, which deeply coloured the historical view of that event till
recently.

This may have recently become `knowledge' to you, but not to those of
us that witnessed those tense days. The removal of US missiles from
Turkey and some other bases was well publicized. (Opinion - we were
able to make this `deal' because missile carrying submarines were on
station ringing the USSR.) Our other bases in Turkey and Europe
remained on station as did the other military installations of the
USSR in Cuba.

Note that I don't doubt the moon landings took place, or that Edward
VIII abdicated, but I have more faith in the fact that Hooke's law
works because I have tested it under controlled conditions in a lab
(along with a number of other theories).

Apples and Oranges


I think that's the point we're making. Science and history are apples and
oranges...

Ian

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:38:38 +0100, Tim Auton
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:

vonroach wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:38:37 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
wrote:

No. The claim that "Man Went To The Moon" is not a scientific claim;
it's an
historical claim. Historians can only decide the validity of an
historical
assertion; for instance "Edward VIII abdicated the British throne"

You have confused a `claim' with an historical fact. As a witness to
both events, there is absolutely no doubt as to the facts.

Herein lies the problem. There are different standard of proof for
historical and scientific facts, which was Jaxtraw's point. For a
scientific fact to be considered a fact it must be repeatable, this is
not possible with historical facts, which must be decided on the
weight of evidence at the time.

Edward VIII 's abdication was broadcast around the world in his own
voice (opinion-somewhat shaky). He gave up his thrown for `the woman I
love'. As a matter of fact I was a witness to the event and you can
be as well by just playing the recording of the broadcast. You don't
have to take anybody's word.

You have to take somebody's word that it's actually a recording of the
Abdication speech. You have to take somebody's word that that was actually
Edward VIII in front of the microphone speaking...

A scientific experiment must be repeated several time to become a
fact, and even then it is subject to revision as new information or
experimental evidence emerges.

I very much doubt you were a first-hand witness to both events, unless
you happen to be a previously unknown royal and have your own radio
telescope. Certainly reading about something in a range of newspapers
and seeing and/or hearing about it in a range of other media is a good
indication of something having actually happened, but the fact remains
you are relying on second hand sources and cannot repeat the
experiment yourself.

The abdication? The radiobroadcast of the King's statement read by
himself. Not a recording.

As far as you can ascertain...

A case in point: It has only recently become common knowledge that the
Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved my a mutual agreement to remove
missiles from locations close to the other party's country: The USSR
agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba in return for the USA removing
its missiles from Turkey. The USA's concession was kept pretty much
secret, which deeply coloured the historical view of that event till
recently.

This may have recently become `knowledge' to you, but not to those of
us that witnessed those tense days. The removal of US missiles from
Turkey and some other bases was well publicized. (Opinion - we were
able to make this `deal' because missile carrying submarines were on
station ringing the USSR.) Our other bases in Turkey and Europe
remained on station as did the other military installations of the
USSR in Cuba.

Note that I don't doubt the moon landings took place, or that Edward
VIII abdicated, but I have more faith in the fact that Hooke's law
works because I have tested it under controlled conditions in a lab
(along with a number of other theories).

Apples and Oranges


I think that's the point we're making. Science and history are apples and
oranges...

Ian

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. 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.

And you are the person (you may, in fact be a moron, but I don't have enough
evidence to make the kind of judgements you seem to be able to make without
evidence) who doesn't seem to realize that very fine lunar dust might have
different properties from the kind of dust that "doesn't leave footprints."
In fact, I would posit that most fine dust (e.g. flour) leaves very clear
footprints.

vonroach wrote:

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.

It was the US government in the documentary who was laughing about the
muddy footprint photo that the whole world believes is true, and
ofcourse morons like yourself who think it depicts "moon dust".

I'm sorry... now instead of an unamed officual we have the US government in
toto laughing about the muddy footprint photo? Again you offer ZERO evidence
of the US government either "openly admitting" or "laughing" about faked
photos. And before you say it, no, telling me to "go look it up" does NOT
constitute offering evidence.

"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
You're the moron to believe that picture which clearly shows moon mud is
dust. Dust doesnt leave footprints. 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.

And you are the person (you may, in fact be a moron, but I don't have enough
evidence to make the kind of judgements you seem to be able to make without
evidence) who doesn't seem to realize that very fine lunar dust might have
different properties from the kind of dust that "doesn't leave footprints."
In fact, I would posit that most fine dust (e.g. flour) leaves very clear
footprints.

vonroach wrote:

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.

It was the US government in the documentary who was laughing about the
muddy footprint photo that the whole world believes is true, and
ofcourse morons like yourself who think it depicts "moon dust".

I'm sorry... now instead of an unamed officual we have the US government in
toto laughing about the muddy footprint photo? Again you offer ZERO evidence
of the US government either "openly admitting" or "laughing" about faked
photos. And before you say it, no, telling me to "go look it up" does NOT
constitute offering evidence.

Tim listen, I have watched the documentary with interest along with my
wife. She is not really interested though in space stuff. The
documentary says in very specific terms without 'hints' as you put it,
that the moon footage shown to the world as real was in fact hoaxed on
order by President Nixon and his aides, through the studios operated by
Stanley Kubrick. They also specifically zero in on the fluttering flag,
the footprint, and one image of an astronaught on the moon and in the
viser what can clearly be seen is a studio lighting boom. These are the
only images they describe as part of the hoax, including one other video
which was supposedly Neil Armstrong getting off the lander to make his
now famous remark.

They didnt once say there were no moon landings, or missions. It was
all about the Nixon-Kubrick affair.

Besides it really doesn't matter either way. It was done for political
reasons, nothing more and nothing less. If you and others can't simply
see that, then you doom the rest of the world along with you to remain
buffoons.


Tim Auton wrote:

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).

Your best bet is to email the CBC and ask them (er..beg them) to re-air
it and mark it on your calender. Besides the CBC along witht he
programme Passionate Eye...has reruns all the time, so I am sure it will
be shown again.

In fact I think they already did show it again, since I tuned into it
thinking it was further developments on the original program.
Unfortunately it was the very same show. Mostly its interviews with ex
government (now well into their late 70 or 80's for that matter) people
who were directly involved or indirectly involved (as in Kubrick's
surviving wife). One of the points they make throughout the documentary
is that many of the people involved in the conspiracy are now dead, and
apparently Nixon almost ordered the "disappearance" of Kubrick because
he feared the political fallout if it ever should come forward that the
Moon landing pictures which inspired the world, are hoaxed.

Fair enough?

P.S. I never endorsed the idea that we never went to the moon. That
has never been my position, and I would never insult Astronauts in that
fashion. NASA is a great machine for a space age, but clearly many
things need to be changed for the challenges of a new space age.

FOr example: Arthur C. Clarke said and I quote, "I am beginning to think
the unthinkable," when he was shown pictures of the surface of one of
the moon's of Jupiter or was it Saturn? He said that because the
close-up showed perfect strait lines crisscrossing almost the entire
surface. It looked like artifical structures anyways. However, he
may have said that when he was shown other pictures that the world
hasn't been shown? Why, is he special?

What gives any government the right to edit out UFO's from pictures or
cover up the evidence? I believe future generations will curse the
people who kept the truth from the world, despite it being done in the
name of "national security". Heck in England people attempt to hoax
crop formations all the time, and what does that do for serious science?
Absolutely nothing! But the media loves it!

Hack even your Prince Phillip is apparently a member of a UFO club. Do
you think these billionaires in power the world over don't care about
the subject? ET contact is the real story of our time, and
unfortunately when the **** hits the fan, its not going to be very good
for all the people who have been misled by lies, coverups, and outright
fabrications of propaganda.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.html
http://www.psywarrior.com/sexandprop.html
http://home.att.net/~jvbond0007/war-poster-ex.htm
http://libercratic.government.direct...culture/TV.htm



Tim

Tim listen, I have watched the documentary with interest along with my
wife. She is not really interested though in space stuff. The
documentary says in very specific terms without 'hints' as you put it,
that the moon footage shown to the world as real was in fact hoaxed on
order by President Nixon and his aides, through the studios operated by
Stanley Kubrick. They also specifically zero in on the fluttering flag,
the footprint, and one image of an astronaught on the moon and in the
viser what can clearly be seen is a studio lighting boom. These are the
only images they describe as part of the hoax, including one other video
which was supposedly Neil Armstrong getting off the lander to make his
now famous remark.

They didnt once say there were no moon landings, or missions. It was
all about the Nixon-Kubrick affair.

Besides it really doesn't matter either way. It was done for political
reasons, nothing more and nothing less. If you and others can't simply
see that, then you doom the rest of the world along with you to remain
buffoons.


Tim Auton wrote:

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).

Your best bet is to email the CBC and ask them (er..beg them) to re-air
it and mark it on your calender. Besides the CBC along witht he
programme Passionate Eye...has reruns all the time, so I am sure it will
be shown again.

In fact I think they already did show it again, since I tuned into it
thinking it was further developments on the original program.
Unfortunately it was the very same show. Mostly its interviews with ex
government (now well into their late 70 or 80's for that matter) people
who were directly involved or indirectly involved (as in Kubrick's
surviving wife). One of the points they make throughout the documentary
is that many of the people involved in the conspiracy are now dead, and
apparently Nixon almost ordered the "disappearance" of Kubrick because
he feared the political fallout if it ever should come forward that the
Moon landing pictures which inspired the world, are hoaxed.

Fair enough?

P.S. I never endorsed the idea that we never went to the moon. That
has never been my position, and I would never insult Astronauts in that
fashion. NASA is a great machine for a space age, but clearly many
things need to be changed for the challenges of a new space age.

FOr example: Arthur C. Clarke said and I quote, "I am beginning to think
the unthinkable," when he was shown pictures of the surface of one of
the moon's of Jupiter or was it Saturn? He said that because the
close-up showed perfect strait lines crisscrossing almost the entire
surface. It looked like artifical structures anyways. However, he
may have said that when he was shown other pictures that the world
hasn't been shown? Why, is he special?

What gives any government the right to edit out UFO's from pictures or
cover up the evidence? I believe future generations will curse the
people who kept the truth from the world, despite it being done in the
name of "national security". Heck in England people attempt to hoax
crop formations all the time, and what does that do for serious science?
Absolutely nothing! But the media loves it!

Hack even your Prince Phillip is apparently a member of a UFO club. Do
you think these billionaires in power the world over don't care about
the subject? ET contact is the real story of our time, and
unfortunately when the **** hits the fan, its not going to be very good
for all the people who have been misled by lies, coverups, and outright
fabrications of propaganda.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.html
http://www.psywarrior.com/sexandprop.html
http://home.att.net/~jvbond0007/war-poster-ex.htm
http://libercratic.government.direct...culture/TV.htm



Tim

Dumb ass..Its night right now, I can see stars. My camera can see them
too. ****in' moron. The Badastronomy web site was made for people like
you, dimwits and morons.

Dr_Postman wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:26:55 GMT, Yoda
wrote:



Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even
their technicians and artists place stars in the background. I can take
any camera and place it on a tripod and take pictures of stars. Your
telling me NASA sent a camera to the moon, and put it on a tripod and it
couldnt take a picture of stars? Give me a break, we aren't all as
dumbass about photography as you seem to be.



Read this, dumbass:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars





--
Dr.Postman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors of afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® member #15-51506-253.
You can email me at: TuriFake(at)hotmail.com

"Did the Venus transit occur during sunset, idiot?"
- Grant,on the GLP web board, explains to us how
sunrise happens in NY and Asia at the same time.