It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 47
29
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
Agentsmith
I have been posting my links and photos of I think they were faked.


Well I can't see any problem with the photo's and JRA couldn't - so I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anyone else can or can't.



The moon rocks May be just like the evidence of Colin Powel. They didn't find weapons, which mostly means the CIA mocked up the evidence.


Colin Powell's evidence were some rather exotically interprated images (much like a lot of the Hoax Believer's 'evidence' relating to the Moon Landings ironically), the Moon rocks are physical evidence that have been analysed by professionals. There is more than a subtle difference there and still no evidence that they are not as advertised.

Human civilisation has grown by developing theories and acting on evidence, even sometimes making common assumptions.
As no-one has ever contradicted the reports of the Rock's origins, there is no proof or viable suggestion to say that they are not as described. I may as well start a theory that they came from Pluto and were brought back by our secret Goa'uld Death Glider because there is no proof that statement is false other than the evidence that dictates they came from the Moon.. Of course if you don't believe that you have to be open to my theory. In fact, it's my Death Glider and I got the rocks... I'm also 200 years old - you've got an open mind havn't you?

[edit on 4-12-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
www.smaug.org.uk...

quote:"NTHS: Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?

BK: I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth.""

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
quote:"Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?
They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was traveling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Keysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Keysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!

Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence? "



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Oh dear oh dear, he's your basis for your beliefs? It didn't occur to you that he sells books for a start and makes money from people following his ideas.

I tihnk I switched off on the first Link when my eyes fell on the typical schoolboy 'Astro-NOT' reference. Material designed to tickle the fancy of the young, vulnerable and susceptable indeed.
They manufactured the rocks in a lab? Why? How?
If that was true then Geologists would be making them (how do you simulate making something billions of years old by the way?) and Geologists would be able to tell the difference - hence there would be no point in doing it.

Here's some info on your hero, read it all - it's a hoot:


Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Those are his academic credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne not as an engineer, but as a cataloger of their technical publications.

Further, Rocketdyne manufactured only the main engines for the spacecraft, not the electronics, computers, or structures. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, before they started work on the Apollo project.
www.clavius.org...


This guy's opinon is pretty good imo:


The moon rocks were made on Earth. Bill had an (unnamed) expert Geologist examine the rocks. He was convinced they were made on Earth. Just quite he managed this without the smallest sample of said rocks is anyone's guess. Maybe his expert doesn't bother with such details?
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

The Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth some rocks from the moon. We know for certain that they came from the moon. 100% certain. They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldn't have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and virtually no water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made.

So how do we know they didn't just fall as asteroids? NASA certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world. We can rule asteroids out, however, as they all have the scorching and oxidation inevitable from their fiery entry to Earth through the atmosphere. The Apollo moon rocks, of course, show none of this.

But don't take my word for it. Geologist Callum MacAlister emailed me about this;

Moon rocks are certainly non-terrestrial basalt in origin, and do not match in composition any other extraterrestrial rocks (i.e. meteorites). I could go on at great and boring length about QAPF diagrams, intergrown feldspars, oxygen-depleted micas and the like. But I won't.

So, my point? I KNOW man went to the moon. There's no other way moon rocks could have come here. If they had fallen as meteorites, the atmosphere would have oxidized them in a most obvious way. These rocks are genuine, and have spent, oh, the last 5 billion years or so in an oxygen-poor, radiation-bombarded environment (fusion trails...ask me later)

So there we have it. And you don't have to just trust Callum here. Hundreds of other geologists have examined these rocks. None of them have any doubt as to their origin. Unless some kind passing aliens dropped them off for us, they must have come from the moon and arrived unscathed within the Apollo spacecrafts.

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...


All Kaysing could have tried to prove at best, would be that the Saturn V didn't work - but it clearly did. As it says they didn't even work on Apollo at the time. I used to work for an MOD contractor with technical drawings and publications..
Do I know all our national secrets? No.
Do I know everything about the equipment I dealt with even? No.
Does Kaysing know what he's talking about? No.

He is the father of ideas like 'Why are there no stars in the Apollo photos', that should tell you something about the (lack of) intelligence the guy possesses.

Why don't you check out NASA's page on moon rocks here, you can even contact them to acquire some to analyse yourself, maybe your University buddy can help you as they will provide them to Educational institutions.

curator.jsc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 4-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
But geologists at Seattle are geologists (so this draws us back to uncertainty of science?!)

I can't argue about things I don't have deep knowledge in, but can't the scars or oxidation on the surface be removed (i.e the surface of the rocks), so the asteroids collected on Earth are brought and their surface is removed where the oxidation and stuf occured?)



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It's not that simple to alter the rocks - a geologist would pick up on it, for a start they are not subject to weathering, so any attempts to erode the surface would bring about an immediate suspicion. Surely it must occur to you that Keysing might be lying?

When someone does not give a name and countless others contest the alleged person's alleged word one normally would deduce that someone is lying, and trying to sell books.
If I just wanted to 'prove' I was right without any concern for truth then I would make up some evidence. I would tell you I was someone I'm not, would pretend I have lots of contacts in the field of Geology and tell you that lots of people I personally know have checked and can verify it. And some people would believe that, in fact most of the people this concerns would believe that because they have demonstrated this ability from the sheer fact they will believe "An anonymous geologist I know looked at them and said they are fake".
No detailed reports, no breakdown of the analysis that brought about this conclusion and no name to do a check on and verify this opinion. Doesn't that smell fishy to you?

Anyone can say that - only unlike the official story they offer no proof or ability to verify the results. You criticise me for believing information that is backed up with proof and the ability to self-verify - yet you basically admitted to believing some guy who doesn't know what he is talking about selling a book. I'm sorry I get funny with you because it's not you I'm angry with, it's the morons like him that have you lot suckling off them and buying (literally a lot of the time) every word. They take advantage of people for self-gratification and it's disgusting.

All of the 'big' names in Hoax believing all sell DVDs and Books, they don't want people getting their stuff freely. If they genuinely were interested in the truth getting out, then they would do what most people here do and discuss and publish their findings for free. Just between you and me, I tremendously admire wecomeinpeace, bsbray and labtop for instance - I hardly ever agree with them and I would never admit it, but they put in LOTS of time and work for NO FINANCIAL GAIN in their 9/11 investigations. They don't make any money or attempt to from it and their only interests are in getting the truth out (or what they perceive as the truth).
These Moon hoax people are after ONE thing... your $$$$$$ and that's about it. The fashion in which they present information is designed to appeal to the young and the vulnerable.

Bottom line is, if you so easily disbelieve the offical word - even though it has tons of evidence to back it up - then why do you so easily believe the word of some nutjob with a chip on their shoulder that is proven to exaggerate the truth at best?

You say you have contacts at your University, use them and get a sample to have analysed yourself if you feel that strongly about it.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

No detailed reports, no breakdown of the analysis that brought about this conclusion and no name to do a check on and verify this opinion. Doesn't that smell fishy to you?

I'll try to search for the original interview where Keysing called the interview to call the geologist up and ask him about the moon rocks.

www.moonmovie.com of Bart Sibrel. In the FAQs , he says he spent half a million dollars to produce the film

evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?

A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.

Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me.
(The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)



About the moon rocks being eroded, what if a touch-up job of smoothing them again was done? I mean men who orbited the Earth should have big brains to think with




[edit on 4-12-2005 by Wind]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
It's not the sort of thing you can falsify like that, and as for Bart Sibrel he's the laughing stock of the scientific world. The guys a pure joke, if these sort of people are your idols you really need to take a step back and think again. I find it intensely amusing that you think thousands of professionals are liers and AMAZINGLY good ones at that, yet swallow the garbage that spews from these people's mouths. All of their arguments can be and have been debunked and they have been proven to not have the vaguest understanding of the basic principles at work.

These people arn't here to help you, me or anyone other than themselves, and it's increasingly sad to see people following them around and swallowing their crap.

Why don't you do as I suggest and try and get hold of some samples for analysis? You seem to be evading the opportunity.

You might want to explain how the Lunar rocks were dated as older than any rocks found on Earth too:

www.gate.net...



Over 99% of the rocks returned from the moon were found to be
at least 90% older than the rocks found on Earth, ranging from
3.6 billion to 5.3 billion years old. The area where the lunar
rocks were chosen was thought to be one of the youngest on the
moon. The oldest rocks found on Earth are only 3.7 billion
years old, leading some scientists to conclude that our moon
may have been formed eons before our sun was born.

Another, even more perplexing puzzle is the discovery that the
lunar soil is older by at least a billion years than the rocks
which rest upon it. This seems completely unexplainable since
soil has always been understood to be the residue of eroded or
decomposed rocks. Analysis of the soil revealed that it is not
rock residue and, therefore, has its origins somewhere else.
www.cyber-north.com...


news.bbc.co.uk...

The Soviets also brought back samples with an unmanned mission - these will have been compared:

news.bbc.co.uk...

You might like reading this too, it explains in brief some of the differences:

science.nasa.gov...

If you want a good example of the tactics Sibrel employs, then this is a partial transcript from his video and the interview in question:



SIBREL: "After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. .......I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic....."

--

REPORTER: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

Analysis:


Collins' response is a followup to Armstrong's reference to solar corona photography which had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39). The reporter's question is a bit confusing since the solar corona cannot be seen from the lunar surface except when the earth eclipses the sun. Or, of course, from a spaceship positioned such that the earth is between the spaceship and the sun. Apollo 11's course provided just such an opportunity. It appears Neil Armstrong interpreted the reporter's phrase "solar corona" to refer to this data.
www.clavius.org...


So, do you still choose to believe the word of someone who manipulates things so deviously to their own end without any real regard for truth?
If you think it was an 'honest' mistake , do you still choose to believe the word of someone so stupid?

[edit on 4-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Listen up, Agent Smith.

If you've been following any of my blatherings in this forum over the last year and a half, you might recall that in 1969, I was a 25-year-old computer operator running a backup console during the Apollo program. I worked for IBM Federal Systems Division, which was the prime data contractor for the NASA then. I'd been involved, although in a somewhat peripheral way, on the space program since the tail end of Gemini.

I lived and breathed the space program, and saw -- and heard -- Armstrong's first steps on live TV. I actually met and shook hands with the man himself at a post-mission PR trip to the space program contractors. I have been in the aerospace business on and off for almost forty years and am getting ready to retire from The Boeing Company, an organization with some small contribution to aeronautics and astronautics.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

People, including Wind, are entitled to believe what they choose. Wind is wrong, of course; you know that, I know that, and just about everyone familiar with science and history knows that.

But that is not the point. There are people who need to believe certain things, whether in a particular deity, one race being inherently superior, my country is innately better than yours, Kennedy was killed by the Spaceship Guys, the Jews blew up the World Trade Center, we didn't go to the Moon -- whatever. Different people need to believe things for different reasons; few if any of those reasons are familiar to me. But I do know that you do not address needs with facts; it simply isn't going to work.

That's one of the reasons I don't even get involved in such discussions. You, of course, are free to do whatever you choose, but I have found that 5 mg of Lisinopril daily does wonders to keep my systolic and diastolic pressure down. You might want to think about that.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Emm. I have to take Remeron to keep me calm and happy every day, nurse says I need to have tests about my blood pressure too as it is too high!

What was Neil like to speak to? You might have seen my posts a month or so back about the dinner I had with Buzz Aldrin, he was a great guy! Very, very intelligent person. I hear the Neil is a bit more camera shy so does not make many public appearances so I'm always happy to hear what he is like from people who have the privelige to meet him!



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

What was Neil like to speak to? You might have seen my posts a month or so back about the dinner I had with Buzz Aldrin, he was a great guy!


I did indeed see your post, and a lucky fellow you were. However, Armstrong came to visit us in early 1971 IIRC, while he was still a NASA employee. It was one of these 'reward the contractor' visits, so all of us could see some (literally) tangible results of our work in developing and operating the systems processors, etc. Armstrong was rather subdued (which, I understand, he usually is), and he rattled off his short speech that thanked us for our contributions and it was the dedication of every single IBM employee which contributed etc etc etc. Nonetheless, he came around and shook hands with all of us. I was 26 at the time and literally in tears of joy and pride when I shook his hand.

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I know what you mean, it might sound babyish to some people but I too almost kept bursting into tears just from the awe of the whole thing. It was fantastic, for once in my life I was finding myself almost literally speechless. I'm just glad we didn't have peas for dinner! LOL It was bad enough when I was pouring him glasses of water!



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
the reason why NASA CAN'T use Hubble is do to the fact if is a deep space viewing telescope. It is set at a magnification that is far deeper than the moon. It would be too fuzzy. The moon is just too close.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
fishmaster says:


the reason why NASA CAN'T use Hubble is do to the fact if is a deep space viewing telescope. It is set at a magnification that is far deeper than the moon. It would be too fuzzy. The moon is just too close.


Not really. My guess is that, given the f/ number of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and its aperture, it could focus down to a couple of kilometers. The HST is smaller than Keck, Mt. Palomar, or many other terrestrial scopes, and they work just fine. What the HST does best, though, is to stare at objects for long periods of time, in order to collect enough light to make good pictures.

Now the further away an object is, the less apparent motion it has. Jupiter, for example, is moving much faster in relation to the Earth than the Moon is, but since it's so far away compared to the Moon, it doesn't seem to be moving as fast (this is assuming you cancel out the Earth's rotation, which the HST can do). A star is moving much faster in relation to the Earth than either Jupiter or the Moon; but it's so far away that it might as well be stationary.

The apparent motion is made more obvious by high magnification, so when the HST is used at its full magnification, it has to swing to track the Moon's lmovement (otherwise, all you'd se was a blur. The HST is not designed to do fast tracking, so it takes a lot of effort (and probably a lot of reaction mass) to swing the HST to track the Moon.

And, anyway, there isn't much to see, because (to the dismay of the conspiracy guys) the HST's aperture isn't large enough to resolve the Apollo Lander, which means no one on Earth will ever see a actual photograph of it unless we have a very powerful telescope in lunar orbit, which siimply isn't cost-effective.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Exactly, I don't get 'offended' I get annoyed with people not bothering to check before bringing up the same tired issues. A couple of weeks ago we were at a stage of discussing the accuracy and methods used to measure Gamma Rays being emitted from by Moon, caused by the bombardment of Cosmic Rays (or more accurately particles) and their potential effect on the Lunar missions.. Today we are onto the misunderstanding of the British Language and craters again.
Having to dredge through this once more, is like a University Graduate being forced to sit through Kindergarten all over again - please read the information!
We covered this basic stuff a long time ago, it gets annoying having to repeat every couple of weeks when people come diving in and don't think that maybe, just maybe, this stuff might have just been covered QUITE some time ago!!!

I don't mind helping and I did say that the answers to your questions can be found in this thread or in one of the many links I provided for you, all in one place.. So please USE THEM!
I don't want to kill your enthusiasm or curiosity, but if you are genuinely interested then be prepared to do a lot of studying!
If you still find you have questions unanswered then please feel free to ask, but please, please don't make us go through it all again, if you're prepared to read through any replies then save us all the hassle and read the previous ones to much the same questions. The answers havn't changed!

Thank You.


[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


Agent -- Excuse me, but Wind has been in and out of this discussion from the beginning and isn't just jumping in cold. In fact she may have been in this discussion before YOU were. So I have noticed this tactic being used a lot on ATS by rude people who are more interested in winning a debate at any cost than conducting a serious discussion-- wherein they accuse their "opponents" of being ignorant and/or lazy and to go read the front of the thread. Wind has been watching and putting in remarks here and there throughout this thread, and she is trying to nail down one point that you are IMO using a sleazy tactic in order to sidestep her/him.

So I say, Go for it, Wind.

(I get the impression Wind has a point to make and I think you guys should be fair enough to let Wind make it -- since it's Wind against the rest of you space junkies.)

So how about letting Wind make the point and taking Wind seriously -- if you dare!


[edit on 8-12-2005 by resistance]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I know the reasons they faked it, to beat the Russians to the Moon, because they were ahead of us in the space Race. So the American pysche wouldn't be damaged, & so the rest of the World woulld see us as the major Super Power.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- Excuse me, but Wind has been in and out of this discussion from the beginning and isn't just jumping in cold. In fact she may have been in this discussion before YOU were.


Then she'll know that what she has been saying is wrong then?



So I have noticed this tactic being used a lot on ATS by rude people who are more interested in winning a debate at any cost than conducting a serious discussion-- wherein they accuse their "opponents" of being ignorant and/or lazy and to go read the front of the thread. Wind has been watching and putting in remarks here and there throughout this thread, and she is trying to nail down one point that you are IMO using a sleazy tactic in order to sidestep her/him.


Not really, she obviously hasn't been reading as topics that have already been discussed and disproven have been brought up again for some reason.



(I get the impression Wind has a point to make and I think you guys should be fair enough to let Wind make it -- since it's Wind against the rest of you space junkies.)

So how about letting Wind make the point and taking Wind seriously -- if you dare!


Because no point has been made, and it's hard to take some of these comments seriously.

Congratulations on your promotion to Moderator by the way!


Oh, wait a minute... you havn't.....

I'm afraid that you Moon Hoax believers are in for a tough time, as all evidence proves you wrong and you are trying to argue against people with knowledge of science and space (which are key subject matters in this topic).
Unfortunately for you, your heros Keysing, Sibrel and co have fed you a lot of crap, which is all hysterically funny to anyone with any knowledge of Science or Space exploration - so I'm afraid your going to have to get used to people laughing or getting irritated with you. You've got to understand that to anyone that knows what they are talking about a lot of it sounds like something a 5 year old would come up with. We realise it's not your fault because your just repeating what you've been told to say, but you should know it's the messenger that gets shot.

If people actually brought up scientifically viable and NEW arguments then it would not be so annoying. But to regularly read some dumb statements which are put forward as fact even and not a question is rather tedious. Just as tedious is reading the same stuff again and again like 'the shadows' or 'because of the cold war', *yawn*.
If people can't be bothered to read the thread, then what chance is there that they have even grazed at the wealth of information out there to try and form an educated opinon - none is the answer.
Unfortunately the majority, sorry all (as anyone that had done research would more than likely realise they had been had), watch the Fox show or read a couple of websites and think they are the new authority on the Moon Landings. It's rather arrogant to think that in 1 hour or so you are going to have the knowledge to disprove a coupleof decades worth of work, don't you think?
That's forgetting the fact that everything in the Fox Show, Sibels crap, etc are all one big joke.

So when someone comes up with something NEW to say that actually holds some water instead of leaking like a sieve then they might get a more positive response.

It's actually strangely amusing that any HBs bother coming on to discuss it half the time, as they obviously can't have that much interest in the subject as they don't usually bother reading much or any of the main material, past the HB sites. I think this is a good demonstration that motivation is not from an interest in the Moon landings but more likely an interest in undermining authority in every way possible at whatever the costs. I think this is probably the reason, most of the time, that they tend to ignore any proof that they may be wrong, as the primary mission is to spread distrust, not actually find out one way or another if they actually occured.

I also noticed that it's been exactly a month since we were last graced with your presence in this thread, Resistance, so in this time you must have found that conclusive proof that the landings were faked with all your hard research! It's not like you would amble in and make meaningless comments or anything is it?

[edit on 8-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I know the reasons they faked it, to beat the Russians to the Moon, because they were ahead of us in the space Race. So the American pysche wouldn't be damaged, & so the rest of the World woulld see us as the major Super Power.


Ya got any proof?



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I know the reasons they faked it, to beat the Russians to the Moon, because they were ahead of us in the space Race. So the American pysche wouldn't be damaged, & so the rest of the World woulld see us as the major Super Power.

Right, so the Russians were fooled, were they? Funny that - they were also watching the US effort very carefully, both sides monitoring the other, and yet somehow the Soviets had no clue that they had been beaten? And never said anything all over the next two decades??? Come off it, if it had been faked and the Sovs had found out, they would have trumpeted it to the world. There has been more than enough proof on this site to prove that the Apollo missions got to the moon and that the astronauts left their footprints there. Read the rest of the posts and get over it.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I couldn't be bothered to respond initially, but as it seems to be developing (again) if you care to go back some pages you will find a russian article, from a russian source detailing their interception and tracking of the Apollo missions. In fact I can guarantee that 99% of anything anyone brings up will have been explained in this thread or in one of the sites linked from it.

In fact a lot of the arguments will explained in any good school level education Science book. (Sorry I couldn't help adding that).



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
resistance says:


Agent -- Excuse me, but Wind has been in and out of this discussion from the beginning and isn't just jumping in cold.


You sure wouldn't know that from her responses!

If someone sees that a particular viewpoint of theirs has been challenged by several different people at several different times, that person has, as I see it, three possible responses.

First, they can say, "I disagree with your comments, and here's my reasons for disagreeing and my evidence to back up my reasons".

Second, they can ignore the comment, then bring up something that they'd brought up earlier (and which had also been challenged). This seems to be a real common approach by people who believe something but have no evidence

Third, the can stop posting or go to another thread.

I see a lot of the second option on this thread, propounded by the people ("True Believers") who believe tht the Apollo program was a hoax:

True Believer: "I believe that A"

Skeptic: "I don't, because of reason one, reason two, reason three. what do you have to say about That?"

True Believer: "I believe that B"

Skeptic: "I don't, because of reason four, reason five,and reason six. What do you have to say about That, and why aren't you responding to my comments about A??"

True Believer: "I believe that C"

Skeptic: "I don't, because of reason seven, reason eight, and reason nine. What do you have to say about That, and why aren't you responding to my comments about A and B??"

True Believer: "I believe that A"

Skeptic walks away, shaking her head.

That, resistance, is the "... sleazy tactic in order to sidestep her/him.", and it's the True Believer: that uses it!

[edit on 8-12-2005 by Off_The_Street]




top topics



 
29
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join