|
Posted by Ye Old One on November 21, 2007, 5:51 am
Please log in for more thread options On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:17:34 -0800 (PST), mccoy@sunset.net enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:40:37 -0800 (PST), The Translucent Amoebae
>>
>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:32:06 -0800 (PST), harry k
>> >> <t...arry K
>>
>> >> I've met several of the Apollo astronauts - it was no hoax.
>> >They were in on it... DDDUUUHHH...!!!
>
>I'm going to play hoax advocate here, just to see how Bobbie does with
>the arguments.
>
>
>
>> Must be a lot of dishonest people in the USA then.
>
>OK Bobbie, I will play the HA here, and see how you do with it. First
>off your argument is irrelevant. You're not doing so good here.
Silly little trollslob. Of course it is relevant, to pull of a hoax
like that you would need thousands of people involved in the USA and
many hundreds in other countries. There was no hoax, and the fact that
YOU think there was is very good evidence for there being no hoax.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I've listened, directly, to signals from the moon - it was no hoax.
>> >Let us assume that you had a directional antenna directed at the moon
>> >during the alleged landings, it would be quite simple for NASA to have
>> >preinstalled a reflector or signal translator on the moon to provide
>> >you with this illusion.
>>
>> Hohohoho!
>
>Laughing it off will do you no good. Work harder.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I've handled and examined samples of rocks brought back from the moon
>> >> - it was no hoax.
>> >You were handling ROCKS...!!! How could you possibly know where they
>> >came from...?
>>
>> You are aware that moon rocks are quite easy to identify?
>
>Not a good argument.
It is a very good argument. Science can, and did, make predictions
about some of the properties of the moon's regolith. Samples were
brought back both my the Apollo missions and by Russian unmanned
missions and those samples have been examined by scientists all over
the world. Do you really think they are all telling lies?
> I I were anti-hoaxer I wouldn't say this.
Was that supposed to be English?
>
>
>>
>> >Either they strongly resembled one of some zillion kinds of rocks on
>> >Earth, or You were somehow able to say with certainty that they were
>> >completely different from ALL THE POSSIBLE KINDS OF ROCKS THAT EARTHLY
>> >GEOLOGICAL PROCESSES PRODUCE...
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> >Then would be so completely ridiculous
>> >that they were artificially created to exclude all those properties
>> >that would designate them as 'Earthly'...???
>> >Basically; i would think that the telltale sign to look for would be
>> >whether the rocks have any water in them, But now we strongly suspect
>> >that there IS water on the moon, so if you handled rocks that were
>> >completely Free of Water, that would suggest that they WERE
>> >artificially produced on Earth...!!!
>>
>> Rubbish. There may be water on the moon, but only in very special
>> places.
>
>Where is this water? Arguing hypotheticals with hypotheticals. It
>seems to me that water would leave the moon as it does with comets,
>being that the sun would cause it to leave.
Silly little McClueless. Water has been detected at the poles and may
also be present deeper underground at a number of other places on the
moon.
>
>>
>> >Also: The chemical composition of the rocks may be different from
>> >common rocks on Earth, but since the theory of how the Moon came into
>> >existence, was that it broke off from the Earth; Then-- What...???
>>
>> The rocks have helped us understand a lot about the moon's formation.
>
>No they don't Bobbie.
What would you know about something scientific?
>
>
>>
>> > How
>> >can you assert that Moon Rocks are by definition completely
>> >different...???
>>
>> Because they are. For one thing they have been exposed to totally
>> different conditions for the last 4.5 billion years.
>>
>> >It's a weak argument that they HAD TO BE Moon Rocks.
>>
>> Go and look at some of the article on moon rocks that are widely
>> available.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I've met many people who worked on the Apollo project - it was no
>> >> hoax.
>> >The Thing that most people don't understand, or are unwilling to
>> >accept about a really conspiracy, is that VERY FEW People need to be
>> >in the Conspiratorial Loop, Just as nearly all the LA Police officers
>> >were doing their jobs processing evidence in the OJ Simpson Trial,
>> >Nearly all the technicians at NASA were doing their jobs during the
>> >Apollo Missions, But they were being fed False Data.
>>
>> Sometimes there is no limit to some peoples stupidity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Anyone who thinks it is a hoax is as brain dead as McClueless.
>> >People that refuse to Think are dangerous.
>>
>> >Top Five Reasons that i'm very skeptical that We Really Did Go To The
>> >Moon.
>>
>> >1)
>> >Given the Moon is covered with Craters, means that it's been hit a few
>> >zillion times with Meteors and such, which, after they hit, are
>> >essentially vaporized into very tiny bits of sandy granules, which
>> >much of that would eventually fall back to the surface of the Moon, so
>> >that we might reasonably expect the entire surface of the Moon to be
>> >covered with more than a quarter of an inch of this finely ground
>> >sand.
>> >The apparent lack of any blast crater under the landers strikes me
>> >( and many others ) as very odd. It appears that the surface under the
>> >landers is hard rock. There isn't even a dimple.
>>
>> Ah! That old crock. You will see from photos that there certainly was
>> dust at the site.
>
>Not much Bobbie.
More than enough.
> I've seen those photos too, Bobbie.
So what - we all know how gullible you are.
> But I have to
>admit that this prohoaxer argument is something that is not the
>strongest.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >2)
>> >Plus; You would expect that at the time of the landing, a lot of this
>> >dust would be 'kicked up' and then fall back down later. In fact; it's
>> >now been revealed that a major problem with returning to the moon is
>> >all this fine abrasive dust which we fear will get into everything,
>> >mucking up our suits and machinery...
>>
>> Very true, the moon missions had a major problem with dust. After
>> Apollo 11 the lander was provided with small vacuum cleaners because
>> otherwise the dust was getting into food and even inside suits between
>> the moon walks.
>>
>> >Yet-- There is no trace of any of this dust having fallen into the
>> >landing feet of the landers... They are pristinely clean...???
>>
>> Are they?
>>
>>
>>
>> >3)
>> >It's been suggested, and shown, that if you speed up the astronauts
>> >jumping around on the Moon, their appearance seems entirely consistent
>> >with them hopping around on The Earth; Suggesting that if the landings
>> >were faked, and the moon films were simply slowed down ( shown in slow
>> >motion ).
>>
>> And yet they were being broadcast live.
>
>
>Bobbie, it does look like slow motion. Especially when they speed
>up the film and it looks like normal gravity. Plus none of the
>astronaughts is shown throwing something far away or doing flips on
>the moon.
I recall golf on the moon.
>Yes, and some footage does look like wires.
Hohohohohoho!
>
>
>>
>> >What is especially interesting, is the dust being thrown up in front
>> >of their feet and tossed off by the moon buggies tires. Why does that
>> >motion have the same "Slow Motion" appearance...?
>>
>> One sixth earth's gravity.
>
>On sixth earth's gravity actually means that everyone would be going
>faster.
Rubbish. We can now add gravity to the long list of scientific
subjects you don't understand.
>That's because less gravity to slow people down. So that's one
>false argument, Bobbie.
Do you realize exactly how heavy they were on the moon with all that
space suit and life support?
>
>
>>
>> >Their hopping around should appear slower, but not the dust flying
>> >off...
>>
>> >4)
>> >i saw a film on U-Tube the other day that compared the size of the
>> >dot, of the sun, as seen in the Earth Orbital astronauts helmet visors
>> >with the lunar astronauts.
>> >The Lunar Astronauts Sun Reflections had a completely different
>> >appearance, and enhancements of the "Sun" in lunar photographs, showed
>> >unambiguously that it was a arc lamp...!!!
>>
>> Please provide link.
>>
>>
>>
>> >5)
>> >Many of the Shadows in the Lunar photographs just don't make any sense
>> >at all.
>>
>> Yes they do - all of them.
>
>I'm not an expert on this one, but Bobbie thinks he can undo
>everything by a cute statement.
No McClueless, there is nothing to undo.
>
>
>>
>> >It could be that these were simply composite photographs made for
>> >presentation purposes, but NASA isn't saying that, which might work in
>> >their favor.
>> >Instead, they're insisting that these anomalies are explained by
>> >unusual terrain.
>>
>> Nothing really unusual about it.
>>
>> >i would very much enjoy seeing them create models of these Fortean
>> >terrains.
>>
>> One thing I can say with 100% certainty - there was no hoax.
>
>
>One thing that has bugged me is that there is nothing to show that
>gravity is actually less than the earth.
Watch the hammer/feather drop experiment.
> And the film sped up does
>look like normal earth gravity. And as I said before, the astronauts
>should have walked faster, not slower.
You may have said it before but that only means you were wrong before
- as usual.
> Slower is for underwater
>footage where the water creates drag. There is less drag in minimal
>gravity. Bobbie had that wrong.
No, McClueless gets it wrong - as he always does.
> But the problem as I see it, is
>that the Eagle blasted off from the moon, in what looked like normal
>earth gravity. That includes the dust landing back down when the
>rover went over the ground. The Eagle did not have huge fuel storage
>capacity.
What the hell are you talking about moron?
>
>I am not advocating a hoax however, just unanswered questions.
>
>JM
>
--
Bob.
| 
XML Sitemap