Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

reply to post by Illustronic


I will consider your post as irrational rant. My creativity is not on the test. My creativity is in the ability to ask questions no one seems to be bothered to ask.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I don't think we are talking about him capitalizing on his achievement. We are talking about his favor to the humanity. That's totally two different animals. People are begging to hear his detailed story.

I've already given you a source you can go to in order to hear his story. Do you even know what an authorized biography is? Answer this question, have you read First Man, yes or no? If yes, why did you not find that satisfactory, if no, why are you pretending that his story isn't already in print?

reply to post by ngchunter


Authorized biography means that the author did not even write it him/her self. Someone else wrote it and the "author" nodded "well, it is about correct". Is this not true?

reply to post by ngchunter


And you ask me to find all the excitement of the human moon landing story in there?

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Authorized biography means that the author did not even write it him/her self.

Wrong. Authorized biography means the author was given direct access to the subject, usually involving interviews for the book and primary sources that otherwise they would not have access to. Last time I'm going to ask you, have you read First Man or not? If not then you have absolutely no business dismissing it out of hand and are clearly just here to troll.

reply to post by ngchunter


Did Armstrong himself write his authorized biography or someone else wrote it? Answer this simple question.

Excitement is a very personal experience, you can not expect the third person would know all the emotional drama went through the person of the subject in the book.

OP: I agree with you, completely. I believe the moon landing was a hoax...

President Clinton in his 2004 autobiography, My Life, records a peculiar revelation in regard to this widely held belief. He states on page 156: Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time. So, Clinton has recorded for his readers that one month after the Apollo 11 Eagle had been seen on television, sitting on the surface of the moon, an Arkansas acquaintance had expressed his complete disbelief in the claim. Then, his experiences in Washington made him "wonder" whether this acquaintance was correct. Now, exactly what is a former two-term United States President doing wondering about the authenticity of the greatest technological accomplishment in the history of mankind – an event that had marked the legacy of his own boyhood hero, JFK? Obviously, he had seen something as President that now gives him reason to believe that the moon landings could have been falsified. If a former U.S. President is wondering about the authenticity of the claim, does it not make sense that we should wonder too? Given that he served as President, one can imagine why he would not want to come right out and blow the whistle by unequivocally stating his true beliefs. However, he did indeed cryptically allude to what can only be understood as the existence of a calculated mass deception, through the use of American television. Think about this. Oddly enough, he only mentions the eight years he spent in Washington as having changed his mind about the old carpenter’s disbelief. Why not the four years of television after his presidency had ended, or why not the many years before he went to Washington in early 1993? Think about that for a moment. Obviously this could only mean one thing - with presidential privilege, Bill Clinton had been given access to exclusive information about some form of mass deception. Can it therefore be said with any certainty, that when it comes to the television coverage of the Apollo missions, what appeared to be true may not have been true at all?

The Moon Landings Fact or Fiction by Marcus Allen

Part 1 of 12:

reply to post by Ninth Wave


Utter nonsense.

You buying in to the same, ridiculous crap "argument" by the same con artist hoax pushers??

Hardly a sign of critical thinking, nor of attempt to understand the science...

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Authorized biography means that the author did not even write it him/her self.

Wrong. Authorized biography means the author was given direct access to the subject, usually involving interviews for the book and primary sources that otherwise they would not have access to. Last time I'm going to ask you, have you read First Man or not? If not then you have absolutely no business dismissing it out of hand and are clearly just here to troll.

www.publishingdictionary.com...

Why is everybody wrong??))))

reply to post by Ninth Wave


The problem is that none of these blind "believers" are bothered to look at those videos. They'd rather enjoy yelling and ranting.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ninth Wave

 

Utter nonsense.

You buying in to the same, ridiculous crap "argument" by the same con artist hoax pushers??

Hardly a sign of critical thinking, nor of attempt to understand the science...

That's right I'm not a scientist. But have you seen the video I posted?
Debunk the video, mate!

reply to post by notsoperfect


You're inability is attaining an education in an institute of higher learning, instead of on internet conspiracy sites. Asking questions isn't intellect, its a lack of gumption to figure things out yourself. 2-year olds ask questions. You present zero sources to analyze therefore you have hollow exchanges. You're simply placing doubt on subjects you are not educated enough in to know if data presented to you is valid or not.

reply to post by Ninth Wave


Try putting it in your own words and where your understanding of the subject expires.

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Did Armstrong himself write his authorized biography or someone else wrote it? Answer this simple question.

Your question is irrelevant and I'll take it as an admission that you have not read the book. It's unfortunate that you're not here because you genuinely want to hear what Armstrong has to say about his life and experiences on both of his missions in space. I'm not terribly surprised though. I would advise anyone who reads your posts and honestly wants to hear Armstrong's experiences to read First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong. It's an excellent book and gives direct insight to Armstrong's perspective in his spaceflight experiences.

reply to post by Ninth Wave


"Marcus Allen" is a fool, sorry.

He is attempting (in that video series, it is apparently form over a decade ago, or thereabouts??) to use the "Hoax Belief" for personal profit.....which, is the goal of many others, who play on the gullibility and ignorance of the masses....

since I don't care to wade through 11 more videos, for a total of 110 minutes (or so), I can already guess, based on his teaser of the Nat Geo cover photo, what crackpot claims he will make, regarding that photo, in trying to claim it as "fake".

That one (along with several others) is used as a stock-in-trade *whipping boy* for almost every "Apollo Hoax Pusher" out there....

Oh, and his incredible ignorance, in equating the deceptions of the USSR, and their tendency to HIDE their failures?? That is Mr. Allen's FAILURE, because it has no bearing on the very, very open and public NASA, and the huge difference in the way media were invited, and reported on progress, every step of the way.....

reply to post by Ninth Wave

The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time

He wasn't talking about the Moon landing, he was talking about the power of the media to create beliefs that might not be based on reality. That is what Clinton meant. He did not say he believed the Moon landing was a hoax.

Originally posted by Karbofos
Why is everybody wrong??))))

Why are you trying to contradict me?

In an authorized biography, the author typically holds interviews with the subject of the book, the subject's family members and friends, co-workers, etc. The author is privy to information only attainable from the subject of the book.

blog.writersdigest.com...
Armstrong gave 50 hours worth of interviews and access to primary source material for his authorized biography, it wasn't as simple as just "giving permission."

What's truly sad about this poor excuse for a thread is that there are two or three hoax proponents who know less about the various hoax theories than the people they are trying to argue with. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting really frustrated at the complete lack of effort being put into this thread. Manmental was the only one who posed a question requiring any research whatsoever, and I'm pretty sure they didn't provide a photo number or link to the LSJ because they knew I would enjoy tracking it down myself... the most challenging thing to come up on this thread so far.

Asking questions isn't intellect, its a lack of gumption to figure things out yourself

reply to post by Illustronic


Are you serious about this statement of yours? No wonder you really did not learn anything.

How can you know anything without questioning? All the problems at the end of the chapters of the Jackson's book's are questions. I mean Jackson's Electrodynamics, in case you wonder.

Do you know how a trival question ended up discovering the law of gravitation by Newton?

The simple stupid question of his was 'Why did the apple just fall?".

You must be really stupid not to know this simple act of questioning leading to the major discovery not only in science but also all of the human knowledge..

tzu tzu..

reply to post by notsoperfect

You must be really stupid not to know this simple act of questioning leading to the major discovery not only in science but also all of the human knowledge..

Incorrect; human knowledge come from attempting to answer the question, not by simply repeating it.