#11
|
|||
|
|||
Don't any of you guys think for yourselves or are you all sycophants?
Paul Lawler wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... 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. Again hardly a scientific "picture", no doubt. Ian 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. Go to CBC's website and search for Moon Series Documentary, because I am not about to quote every single source that was quoted in the documentary. To tell you the truth, the fact that moon pictures were hoaxed by NASA is no shock to me. But that being said, it doesnt follow that there was no moon landing. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... 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 snip bilge So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing a moon landing, Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get your story strait. but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong, and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood special effects? 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. Hmm, now there's a convincing hypothesis. Yes indeedy. Ian Talking to yourself I see. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Don't any of you guys think for yourselves or are you all sycophants? Sycophants to WHOM, pray tell? 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. Go to CBC's website and search for Moon Series Documentary, because I am not about to quote every single source that was quoted in the documentary. Sorry... but this is not acceptable. The rule is "He who asserts must prove," not just say, "the proof is out there, go find it for yourself." You claimed "the US Government openly admitted..." That's a far cry from some disgruntled former govenment employee trotted out for a k00k documentary who provided uncorraborated heresay testimony. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lawler wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.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? Go to CBC's website and search for Moon Series Documentary, because I am not about to quote every single source that was quoted in the documentary. Sorry... but this is not acceptable. The rule is "He who asserts must prove," not just say, "the proof is out there, go find it for yourself." You claimed "the US Government openly admitted..." I claimed something no different than what was aired in the CBC documentary for all to see. Too bad Americans are so brainwashed to believe anything their government tells them. Canadians all live in igloos too, but I ain't about to go around trying to disprove it to every dumb ass American raised on Mickey Mouse cartoon propaganda. Oh the sacred cow of the moon hoax pictures sheesh! Clearly there are many photos that are real. Clearly many are hoaxed. All one has to do is look at the evidence that is all over the internet. Clearly X-Rays, Gamma Rays, and Cosmic radiation will fry any film you take in outerspace without first protecting it somehow from the radiation, if its even possible. That's a far cry from some disgruntled former govenment employee trotted out for a k00k documentary who provided uncorraborated heresay testimony. Big Bang baloney documentaries really ought to be in the Kook classification. If the peer review monkies really knew how much their so called science was in the stone age, they wouldn't be so darned arrogant. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... 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 snip bilge So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing a moon landing, Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get your story strait. Well, I'm trying to get yours strait (sic) to be honest. Are you saying that they actually went to the moon, but showed fake videos? but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong, and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood special effects? Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even their technicians and artists place stars in the background. Yes, because these are *simulations* and they want them to look nice, and people expect stars in space. 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. Yes, but can you do that in broad daylight? Can you take pictures of the stars if the landscape around you is floodlit to daylight levels? Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Ian |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Yoda" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com... Paul Lawler wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.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, 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com... Jaxtraw wrote: "Yoda" wrote in message .net.cable.rogers.com... 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 snip bilge So to summarise, your belief is that NASA spent billions of dollars hoaxing a moon landing, Can you read English? I said the videos shown on TV were hoaxed. Get your story strait. Well, I'm trying to get yours strait (sic) to be honest. Are you saying that they actually went to the moon, but showed fake videos? Yes. That is all the documentary said. That the immediate televised landing was hoaxed. It ddidn't say the landing itself was hoaxed and indeed you would have to be pretty out to lunch to believe that. but were so inept that they got all the basic science wrong, and that you can prove this because things look different in hollywood special effects? Sigh....NASA releases videos promoting new satellite technology and even their technicians and artists place stars in the background. Yes, because these are *simulations* and they want them to look nice, and people expect stars in space. Duh....but you forget that NASA also likes to maintain accuracy or as realistic as possible. That is the markings of a good artist that works for the space industry no doubt. Besides you missed my point, many images from JPL and NASA show stars in the background. My point was they missed blackening them out like they normally do. 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. Yes, but can you do that in broad daylight? Can you take pictures of the stars if the landscape around you is floodlit to daylight levels? Would you give me a break? You're telling me that the ISS or moon missions were never out of the daylight? You are even kookier than I thought possible. Do you know what "dynamic range" is? Depends on your optics no doubt. Ian |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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? Pictures..right....now we are getting somewhere. Do you understand yet, or do you still need it spelled out for you? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:24:00 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
wrote: You still haven't got my original point have you? It's not an issue for science. It's an issue for history. That was my point. Ian All sciences have a history that is relevant, unless you prefer to think that this or that scientist just got this idea one day. Sorry about the Kennedy brothers, I'm not a Kennedy fan. RFK was shot by Sirhan in the kitchen of an LA hotel as he was leaving a primary rally. Not in lobby. JFK was assassinated in his limo at Dealy Plaza in Dallas by, a gunman in Texas Schoolbook Depository Bldg, Lee Harvey Oswald an activist who supported communist causes such as handing out pro-Castro leaflets on streets in New Orleans. He immigrated to Russia after leaving marine corp, got married, returned to US. Opinion: a chronic ne'er do well like Ted Kennedy. To complete a historical trilogy, M.L. King was assassinated on the balcony outside his second story room at a Memphis motel. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. 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 Tim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
Apollo | Buzz alDredge | Misc | 5 | July 28th 04 10:05 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | darla | Astronomy Misc | 15 | July 25th 04 02:57 PM |