seeing moon landers

In article ,
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...
--
john R. Latala

On 2 Oct 2003 21:52:22 -0400, wrote:

In article ,
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...


I bet that with some of them, if you put them on a spaceship, shipped
them to the moon, and rubbed their nose on the lander, they'd say
"Yeah, well you only put it there yesterday, not 1969"

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

On 2 Oct 2003 21:52:22 -0400, wrote:

In article ,
Wally Anglesea™ wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...


I bet that with some of them, if you put them on a spaceship, shipped
them to the moon, and rubbed their nose on the lander, they'd say
"Yeah, well you only put it there yesterday, not 1969"

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/...ar_lander.html


Ahh very interesting. Thanks.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Hubble.htm

http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/...ar_lander.html


Ahh very interesting. Thanks.

wrote in message
...
|
| I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe
| it even then.

Of course not. Look at the mounds of evidence they dismiss already. Why
would one more tidbit tip the balance the other way?

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

wrote in message
...
|
| I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe
| it even then.

Of course not. Look at the mounds of evidence they dismiss already. Why
would one more tidbit tip the balance the other way?

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

But dont you think hypnosis is science? So what is chances of person
actually getting to moon vs. he has been hypnised/delusional to believe it
did?


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 2 Oct 2003 21:52:22 -0400, wrote:

In article ,
Wally AngleseaT wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it
even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...


I bet that with some of them, if you put them on a spaceship, shipped
them to the moon, and rubbed their nose on the lander, they'd say
"Yeah, well you only put it there yesterday, not 1969"

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

But dont you think hypnosis is science? So what is chances of person
actually getting to moon vs. he has been hypnised/delusional to believe it
did?


"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 2 Oct 2003 21:52:22 -0400, wrote:

In article ,
Wally AngleseaT wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it
even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...


I bet that with some of them, if you put them on a spaceship, shipped
them to the moon, and rubbed their nose on the lander, they'd say
"Yeah, well you only put it there yesterday, not 1969"

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:16:41 GMT, "onegod" wrote:

But dont you think hypnosis is science? So what is chances of person
actually getting to moon vs. he has been hypnised/delusional to believe it
did?

Pretty remote. The supporting evidence suggests that the Astronauts
were not hypnotised, and actually *did* go to the moon.



"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 2 Oct 2003 21:52:22 -0400, wrote:

In article ,
Wally AngleseaT wrote:

I'm always amazed that people often ask the question, perfectly
reasonably, most of the time, why we can't prove the nutters wrong
about the "fake moon landings" by just showing them the landers via
telescopes.

I wonder if people who believe in fake moon landings would believe it
even
then. I'm sure if the telescope involved any kind of a computer to do the
imaging (i.e. CCD, etc.) they'd complain that the image was being
manipulated before they saw it. That's probably true even if you let them
look through the telescope using an eyepiece ... sigh ...


I bet that with some of them, if you put them on a spaceship, shipped
them to the moon, and rubbed their nose on the lander, they'd say
"Yeah, well you only put it there yesterday, not 1969"

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."


--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."