Dear Hope,
I have been following this forum for some time but have never registered to post as I feel I would rarely have the opportunity to reply to messages addressed to me.
However, you have driven me to it!
You frequently allude to other approaches to understanding reality apart from science. A recent example had been on the Alpha topic thread. You have said (sorry for the poor quality quoting as I don't yet know how to do it properly:
- "They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part."
"Science works, to a large extent. Few, if any, Christians would disagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality"[/i][/u][/b]
Several posters have asked you to provide some details as to how we might know about this alternative approach but without answer.
Please, please please could you do so as I can't stand the suspense anymore. Just some basic outline as to go about discerning things that are likely true from things that are likely false.
Ta
Science is the probably the greatest illusion that man has ever invented. Things work because they tell us they work.
Gravity for instance.... We see the affect of gravity but no one understands why it is here and not on every planet in our solar system.
The fact remains that Science has got to establish itself as the ONLY truth and be proved beyond doubt independently of man in all fields and theory otherwise what is there that is truly true when it comes to all things in existence.
Where does the soul go after death? Why does a living thing exist with a soul/mind at all.
Science does not have the answer because God removed the true ingredient for life. He himself is the real force for all life which exists. It cannot be duplicated or found outside that already created or using what is created.
Scientist cannot create a man from soil and give him life.
This a ruse and I believe you obviously are here because you know someone already posting. Or maybe a past poster elsewhere. But you need to establish evidence for science for life before you expect anyone else to do so.
First clue why man or science will never create life from anything but the life that exists...
King James Bible
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Science cannot do what God did. It cannot take a handful of soil, make a human being and breath life into it.
That ends the matter as far as science is concerned. Sicence is man made and limited to man made ideas. Most which is like the emperors clothes a theory which they believe because they do not want to appear stupid. When in fact it shows them to be be what they try so hard not to be.
Man cannot find the answer to life because that source is completely....GOD.
Science is the probably the greatest illusion that man has ever invented. Things work because they tell us they work.No gravity on other planets.
Gravity for instance.... We see the affect of gravity but no one understands why it is here and not on every planet in our solar system
Blimey - it's only just March and already we have a clear winner for the 2016 "Most mistakes crammed into one post" prize. Should we just award it now?
Not all planets have gravity eh? Really?
Is gravity pulling us down or space pushing us down?
Full explanation of Einsteins theory of relativity....
Does the movements of planets and the Sun and Moon affect these things?
Mock all you like but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...
Wait... doesn't that happen in films where people float off into space because their is nothing to tie them down.
I guess sometimes we have to see the bigger picture. No one can really prove anything about theory can they?
Atmosphere does not = oxygen. The Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and only 20% oxygen.
Mock all you like but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...
Mock all you like but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...
Wait... doesn't that happen in films where people float off into space because their is nothing to tie them down.
Is gravity pulling us down or space pushing us down?
Full explanation of Einsteins theory of relativity....
Does the movements of planets and the Sun and Moon affect these things?
Mock all you like but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...
Wait... doesn't that happen in films where people float off into space because their is nothing to tie them down.
I guess sometimes we have to see the bigger picture. No one can really prove anything about theory can they?
..unless you had a spacesuit to hand? ;)
If the Earth had no air, you would still not float off, though of course you would die.
..unless you had a spacesuit to hand? ;)
Isn't gravity something to do with mass distorting time and space; not a type of magnetic attraction?
ippy,
Yes - which is why everything that has mass also has a gravitational field, however tiny.
True, but you would not last long.
....you would if you had a very good supply of oxygen to continually replenish your suit with! :D
Air rather than oxygen, as oxygen is of course poisonous.So we are agreed then, a spacesuit and a supply of breathable gaseous life sustaining non poisonous air, then we are good to go?
Is gravity pulling us down or space pushing us down?In terms of general relativity, the Earth is pushing us up and that is what we feel.
but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...The Moon's gravity is vey light. Heavy things like rocks, astronauts and LEMs stay stuck to it because of that. In GR terms, the Moon crates enough curvature of space-time to stop these things from flying away because of the centrifugal effect.
You make it easy so though.You need a space suit for the infinite void between methodological and ontological naturalism.
Without suits the lunar astronauts would have died of course, the lack of a breathable atmosphere and the temperature would have killed them.
Sassy,
Of course - after all the moon is well-known isn't it for all those pebbles and rocks just floating off it...
...oh no, wait - it isn't. Heavy suits or not, if not gravity what do you think it is that's acting on the astronauts to keep them on the surface? Glue? Tiny strings held in place by invisible pixies? What?
Sassy - everything with mass has a gravitational field - from the stars and planets to the pen in front of you. Can I suggest that you try a basic primer in physics before posting this kind of nonsense again?
Did you not notice the pictures from the walks on the moon that the rocks had prop numbers on....LOL.
I suggest you wait till the evidence is in.
It is God who keeps everything in it's place as it will be God who allows them to be shaken.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
How will the sun be darkened…
… and the moon not give her light?
You know nothing but guess everything. What you have is what you are told....
Mock all you like but the moon has no oxygen and without the suits and the heavy gear they would have floated off...
Sassy,
No I didn’t, for the perfectly good reason that there were no prop numbers to notice.
It is in. That’s why for example we can put satellites into orbit around other planets – something that could not happen if they did not have gravitational fields of their own.
That is an expression of your personal belief, yes.
The Sun will be “darkened” in the same way that every other star is darkened – when the core runs out of hydrogen fuel, it will contract under the weight of gravity. When the core contracts it will heat up, causing the upper layers to expand. The radius of the star will increase and it will become a red giant. Later, the core will become hot enough to cause the helium to fuse into carbon. When the helium runs out the core will expand and cool, and the upper layers will expand and eject material that will collect around the dying star to form a planetary nebula. Finally, the core will cool into a white dwarf and then eventually into a black dwarf.
Given your elementary mistakes of fact so far I seem to know considerably more than you do, and I don’t need to be told that jumping out of a tenth storey window will cause me to hit the deck shortly afterwards.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions, however bonkers; you are not though entitled to your own facts.
Ostrich... Wrong... it a well documented fact.
When the scientist who are top in their field now tell you it was not possible for them to have gone to moon and landed on it, walked on it, then you ignore them.
Truth is, if they are right then nearly everything about time and space comes under question.
Ostrich... Wrong... it a well documented fact.Then show the documents which back up this fact if you can.
When the scientist who are top in their field now tell you it was not possible for them to have gone to moon and landed on it, walked on it, then you ignore them.
There are no elementary mistakes... Because the proof has been shown by the professional and expert scientist who at one time believed as you do that the moon landings took place. How the experts in physics and stuff have proved that had they gone to the moon when they said. They would have been bombarded with deadly rays of radiation from the atmosphere. But the truth is selective. You have no reason to believe what you were told because there isn't evidence just the word of scientist. When the scientist who are top in their field now tell you it was not possible for them to have gone to moon and landed on it, walked on it, then you ignore them.
Truth is, if they are right then nearly everything about time and space comes under question.
I am not going to speak for young Sass, however they might be right Sebastian.
I am not going to speak for young Sass, however they might be right Sebastian.I would need convincing evidence and I haven't seen any yet, have you?
There is a great deal of evidence that man went to the moon and most, if not all, of the evidence which suggestes we didn't has been debunkedHope asserts otherwise, although curiously, despite my asking him, he hasn't presented any of this alleged evidence or the names of those who claim to have it.
I would need convincing evidence and I haven't seen any yet, have you?
Nope. Neither am I convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the moon landings did take place. Why do people care so much either way??? Does it impact on our lives?
I am neither convinced nor unconvinced. It would be nice to be convinced, more interesting I think.What type of evidence would convince you?
Yes I have seen the images. I remember watching the moon landing on TV when it supposedly happened too.
To have physically witnessed it.
Is that true for everything?
Is that true for everything?
No. It is just one thing that would convince me the moon landing happened - and is not going to occur now! However I think it could have happened, I just concede the possibility that it might not. It doesn't bother me either way and I wouldn't even have thought of it had it not been mentioned on here.What would convince you now?
it seems bizarre to doubt such an event(s); it's not something on a scale that hoaxers could pull off, the expenditure was vast, manpower involved huge, and all done in full public view of the entire world on live TV. It would probably be easier to go to the Moon than repeatedly stage a hoax on such a vast scale and get away with it. I think doubters need to look inwards, because their doubts should be telling them something disturbing about themselves.
That is absolutely brilliant Jeremy. I will go off to bed in a bit and be chuckling all the way (was feeling a bit morose), also copied it to forward to my son who will appreciate it. Thanks very much!Agreed! I'd never heard of them before.
Agreed! I'd never heard of them before.
It really isn't Sassy.
But they don't say that.
Why?
I've watched them and they don't amount to much.
I've watched them and they don't amount to much. Why do you believe all the unsubstantiated claims in the first video for example? A voice over stating things with no reason to believe them. One obvious point to note is that no one interviewed actually mentions the Moon landings - so they could have been talking about anything. Despite the clever cutting together it is unconvincing.
You suggested top scientists say the moon landings are impossible - are those the best you can come up with to support that claim?
It's incredible what some people will believe, isn't it?
Telegraph Article: Remember when Stanley Kubrick 'faked the moon landings'?
http://tinyurl.com/z5wz9l6
I guess the fact they could go to the moon in 1969 but not in 2016 kinda tells it like it is.
You are cherry pickers when it comes to science.
The radiation is another give away... How many died from the affect?
The suits they had then would not have kept them safe and they would have died from the affect very soon after.
Oh! Don't forget that it is your scientist who claimed it to be fake...
There was the political will to go to the moon then but not now - we are now focusing on sending probes further afield. This tells us nothing about whether man went to the Moon or not.
Nonsense.
The levels of radiation exposure that the astronauts experienced during the Apollo missions were recorded and were well below the annual limit set for people who work with radioactive materials. The levels were far from being fatal levels so it would have been a major surprise if anyone had died as a result.
Can it be that you do not know the reason for the space exploration was due to?
They believe our sun will eventually die
... and we need to find a replacement for the earth. Hence exploration of which the moon was part of that advancement for knowledge to save life in the millions of years ahead.
I believe the fact remains they cannot afford to go to the moon now is what they are saying.
Didn't know rocket fuel so expensive... ;)
Not nonsense at all... but then again you appear to know very little about the then, now.
Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.
Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation.
The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.
Citation required. Bearing in mind though that there were undoubtedly many scientists outwith NASA who knew about radiation levels in space I doubt that NASA would get away with claiming that astronauts went to the Moon and back if scientists outwith their control could have claimed they'd have been dead from radiation.
They didn't though, and from Apollo 11 both Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins are still alive and kicking.
The modern day scientist say the moon landing impossible because of the high level of radiation.
Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.Why don't you try to learn something rather than spout conspiracy theorist drivel.
None necessary, you only have to study to see the excuses made like arrangements allowing for least exposure etc.
The fact is the scientist today say the materials worn by the space crew and the vessel itself would not have protected the astronauts from the effects of the radiation.
The astronauts would have all been affected from the effects of the radiation.
Unless of course you have evidence to prove the Scientist incorrect there is none required. The fact is as science has grown and more knowledge been assessed. The modern day scientist say the moon landing impossible because of the high level of radiation.
The fact they are still alive lays weight to the evidence they never went at all...
Because the space ship and clothes could not protect them from the levels of radiation.
Which scientists say this please. Citations needed - as requested.I doubt Sassy actually knows.
Again... you are not relating to the scientific knowledge by physicists of how high the levels of radiation would be and how fatal those levels actually are according to them. So the fact is according to scientist anyone traveling to moon in 1969 would have received fatal doses of radiation. The suits they wore and the spaceship would not have given them protection against such high levels of radiation. They would have died soon after returning to earth.
What about astronauts on the space station? Tim Peake?The big issue is the intense radiation zones, such as the Van Allen belt. The space station is below those so an astronaut traveling to and from and living in the space station never encounter those particularly high levels of radiation.
What's protecting him?
Here is something from nasa on it
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/radiation.pdf
References please.
My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.
Why don't you try to learn something rather than spout conspiracy theorist drivel.
You might want to start here:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
In this article the author carefully assesses theoretical radiation levels (which are likely to be of little consequence during the rapid transit through the Van Allen belt during a lunar mission, within the command module with its extensive shielding. He also helpfully gives the actual readings for all the Apollo missions - guess what - they actually measured it for the astronauts.
He also debunks the notion that Van Allen himself claimed a lunar mission would be lethal - he didn't. He suggested the radiation received by satellites that spent two years continually bombarded by the radiation and without shielding would be lethal. That isn't the same thing whatsoever.
If they were a con, it wouldn't be able to be kept under wraps and only in the mind of conspiracy theorists!
Watch this:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lltT1wPZDkc
Today, well a few years ago, there was a mission to photograph the moon's surface. Guess what detail was picked up?
Today, I would have no problem believing they landed on the moon.
It isn't really kept under wraps, floo, there is plenty of evidence for and against.
Today, well a few years ago, there was a mission to photograph the moon's surface. Guess what detail was picked up?Yep, you need to get out more.
Apollo 11
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/14
Apollo 11 flip-book.
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/1
Drag the yellow button on the slide above the photograph to see a time-lapse where it can clearly be seen with shadows depending on the angle of the sun when the photographs were taken.
Do the same for the rest of the missions.
Apollo 12
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/2
Apollo 14
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/3
Apollo 15
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/4
Apollo 16
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/5
Apollo 17
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/6
Any opinion on those?
Today, well a few years ago, there was a mission to photograph the moon's surface. Guess what detail was picked up?
Apollo 11
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/14
Apollo 11 flip-book.
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/1
Drag the yellow button on the slide above the photograph to see a time-lapse where it can clearly be seen with shadows depending on the angle of the sun when the photographs were taken.
Do the same for the rest of the missions.
Apollo 12
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/2
Apollo 14
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/3
Apollo 15
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/4
Apollo 16
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/5
Apollo 17
http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/view_site/6
Any opinion on those?
I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it. It's quite possible the moon landings were faked. We don't know for sure but having some scepticism doesn't make a person a loony conspiracy theorist (not that anyone has used those words except me).
The first lunar model and suits had no protecting against the Van Allen belt.
The truth is that it would NOT KILL INSTANTLY but the overall affect means they would die some time after returning.
The problem is that there are many physicist today who believe that man never went to the moon and all equally qualified as those at Nasa.
Again we have to decided on evidence as a whole. How did the moon rocks come to have numbers on them?
How did Neil Armstrongs boots leave a different footprint to the boot he actually wore?
Today, I would have no problem believing they landed on the moon. But in 1969 I do not believe they could have done.
Nor do I believe they had the protection necessary to do it safely.
What is clear they somehow lost precious footage and pictures including the moon rock in the 80's. Who puts material like that in a place it can be wiped or stolen?
I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it. It's quite possible the moon landings were faked. We don't know for sure but having some scepticism doesn't make a person a loony conspiracy theorist (not that anyone has used those words except me).
The truth is that it would NOT KILL INSTANTLY but the overall affect means they would die some time after returning.
The problem is that there are many physicist today who believe that man never went to the moon and all equally qualified as those at Nasa.
I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it.Why do I need to consider the alternative to something that is absolutely cast iron guaranteed truth?
It's quite possible the moon landings were faked.
I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it. It's quite possible the moon landings were faked. We don't know for sure but having some scepticism doesn't make a person a loony conspiracy theorist (not that anyone has used those words except me).
Brownie,
Yes it does, and here's why:
First, the moon landings were a fantastically complicated enterprise involving tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of personnel, both in NASA and in the myriad contractors from whom they bought components specified and made for the task. In strict epistomological terms it's not impossible that every single one of them kept schtumm in the ensuing decades, but it's so vanishingly unlikely as to be not worth bothering with.
But Grissom was also an outspoken critic of the program. Among his last words before he died, when there was a communications failure with the capsule just prior to the fire, were: “How are we going to get to the moon when we can’t communicate between two buildings?”
Moments later, the capsule burst into flames with the astronauts sealed inside. They were consumed by the fire with no chance to escape. His widow Betty and his son Scott both still maintain that the astronauts were killed deliberately by sabotage – and that their many questions have never been adequately answered.
Second, those who cry "fake" have had their arguments systematically dismantled many times. There is no evidence that contradicts the fact of the landings (I'm using "evidence" in the real sense here, rather than in Hope's "if it confirms my biases then its evidence" sense by the way). Every bit of the "if there's no wind on the moon how come the flag stuck out?" -type stupidities that Sassy and others have attempted have been thoroughly rebutted.
Third, I would remind you that this is the same Sassy who assured us that only some planets have gravity so you're dealing here with someone whose grip on reality is - to put it charitably - tenuous, and entirely assertion-based.
The good news though is that it's kept Bacofoil in business for years, what with all those tinfoil hats they need to stop aliens reading their minds while they type away in their dressing gowns.
Well they either went or they didn't go so I suppose that must make it an evens chance no ?
Also I read on the internet that the British Royal family are shape shifting lizards from outer space; well either they are or they aren't so I guess we'd better keep an open mind on that one too.
So it isn't impossible. The Astronauts who trained for the first moon landing who were not selected all died in mysterious circumstances.
One or two may have accidents but not the whole of those who trained except those who went to the moon.
When this had happened previously to the moon landing mission:-
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/31/24-why-did-so-many-apollo-astronots-die-mysterious-deaths-in-just-three-years-time/
Then Challenger explodes after take off with a teacher on board who won the chance to go into space.
January 1986.
Personnel, who were concealed withing buildings and whom would not know if something filtered in to the studio.
So it isn't impossible. The Astronauts who trained for the first moon landing who were not selected all died in mysterious circumstances. One or two may have accidents but not the whole of those who trained except those who went to the moon.
When this had happened previously to the moon landing mission:-
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/31/24-why-did-so-many-apollo-astronots-die-mysterious-deaths-in-just-three-years-time/
Who would have thought it safe to speak out? So all this exposed in 4 years business is not good enough.
Apparently those who could really have exposed it, were murdered it would appear before they could tell anyone.
Given all those deaths and the fact one astronaut said just before he death..."
Then Challenger explodes after take off with a teacher on board who won the chance to go into space.
January 1986.
It is weird how people died mysterious deaths but was a good chance to stop members of the public going up.
WRONG: the arguments have not been dismantled. The examination of the moon rocks would have shown whether from earth now or a different planet but they disappeared suddenly. Even the Russians themselves do not really believe they made it to the moon. The experts who deny it happened are physicists and experts in their particular fields. Plus the Russian Scientist.
Within four years people were already denying the landing on the moon. It did come out.
Oh, so you think that I, Sassy am somehow by 'say so' a force against the landing on the moon. Such a childish and even worrying thought from you.
My belief is based on a few things including Scientist (those with the know how) you and I do not have.
There are other reasons and you have to work them out for yourself.
If man travels for 6 weeks away from the earth what would he really be able to see from that distant?
This was a time when we could not sent images any other way than by camera.
It is quite ironic that while the Moon landings are falsifiable: there are either man-made artifacts on the Moon or there are not (and it seems that there are) - the likes of Sass contest this via various convoluted conspiracy theories whilst, at the same time, claiming as true the unfalsifiable supernatural claims of some ancient middle-eastern religious anecdotes.
Very odd!
“How are we going to get to the moon if we can’t talk between two buildings?” Ed Grissom, Apollo 1
The issue of mysterious and untimely deaths also plagues the moon shots. Were whistleblowers silenced? The January 1967 death of Gus Grissom, along with Ed White and Roger Chaffee in the Apollo 1 fire, is a possibility. One of the more prominent debunkers of the “we-never-went-to-the-moon” crowd has published his “disgust” that Bill Kaysing would suggest that Gus Grissom was murdered in order to silence him.
Who else makes such a “disgusting” claim? Grissom’s wife and son do. They both believe that the Apollo 1 fire was no accident, and that the truth is being covered up. They have evidence that such a notion might be true, and Grissom’s son Scott is calling for an official investigation into the matter as of 2002. Grissom was critical of NASA, hanging a lemon on a NASA simulator before he died.
People associated with the Apollo 1 simulation on the day of the fire remarked on the strange atmosphere that prevailed. Grissom told his wife that if somebody died in an “accident,” it would likely be him, and not because he was accident prone. Straight-talking Grissom apparently made the NASA brass uneasy with his observations. During the Apollo 1 simulation, just before he died, the communications with the Command Module completely broke down, and Grissom said in exasperation, “How are we going to get to the moon if we can’t talk between two buildings?”
Lola Morrow was the astronauts’ secretary. On the show Moon Shot she can be heard describing the atmosphere on the morning of the fire. She described the mood of Grissom, White and Chaffee as one she had never seen before. Before each flight and major event, the astronauts were eager to get to it. Not that day. They obviously did not want to do the simulation.
Clark MacDonald, an engineer working for McDonnell-Douglas, was hired by NASA to investigate the fire. He now has admitted that more than thirty years earlier, NASA destroyed the evidence he gathered, as well as the report he produced, for “public relations” reasons. MacDonald determined that an electrical short started the fire when the battery power was switched on. Grissom’s son Scott was granted access to the Apollo 1 craft, where he gathered evidence that he says pointed to sabotage, and that there has been a cover-up of it. (Source)
ANALYSIS: NASA’s First Disaster Happened on the Launch Pad
The younger Grissom had his suspicions in the 1960s but wasn’t able to prove foul play until the 1990s when he was granted access to the charred Apollo 1 capsule. Rooting around the instrumentation, he found a “fabricated metal plate” behind a switch on one of the instrument panels that controlled the source of the capsule’s electrical power. Its placement behind that switch, he said, was clearly an act of sabotage. It ensured that when any crew member toggled that switch there would be a spark. That spark would have been enough to start the fire that killed the crew.
A McDonnell-Douglas engineer, Clark Mac Donald, backed Scott Grissom’s story. In his own accident investigation he identified an electrical short brought on my a changeover to battery power as the reason for the fire. But NASA destroyed his report, he said, in an attempt to stem public criticism of the space program.
As a motive for murder by sabotage, Scott Grissom said NASA wanted to prevent his father being the first man on the moon. He said the agency never got over the embarrassment of losing the Liberty Bell 7 capsule and didn’t want the same astronaut commanding a mission as historic as the first moon landing. It’s a story that’s been floating around for a while, but it’s a hard one to swallow.
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/03/31/24-why-did-so-many-apollo-astronots-die-mysterious-deaths-in-just-three-years-time/
What do they think about the laser signals bounced back from retroreflectors on the lunar surfce then? It's actually a bloke up a tree somewhere with a flashlight?
In your opinion.
You do realise what this site is, don't you?
"Plane Not A Planet - The First Ever Flat Earth Website .... Helping to end 500 years of One Massive Lie."https://aplanetruth.info/
Do you think the Earth is flat too?
Are you walking up hill all the time. Do you never have to around mountains.
Thick and then there is really thick.
Do you feel you really are educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Folly and folly again...Ridiculous.
Are you walking up hill all the time. Do you never have to around mountains.
Thick and then there is really thick.
Do you feel you really are educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Folly and folly again...Ridiculous.
Are you walking up hill all the time. Do you never have to around mountains.
Thick and then there is really thick.
Do you feel you really are educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Folly and folly again...Ridiculous.
Is bluster and insult all you can manage?Nothing insulting and no bluster.
Was that a 'yes' - do you think the Earth is flat (as the site you linked to proposes)?
Quote from: Some Kind of Stranger on Today at 01:01:25 PM
You do realise what this site is, don't you?
"Plane Not A Planet - The First Ever Flat Earth Website .... Helping to end 500 years of One Massive Lie."
https://aplanetruth.info/
Do you think the Earth is flat too?
Are you walking up hill all the time. Do you never have to around mountains.
Thick and then there is really thick.
Do you feel you really are educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Folly and folly again...Ridiculous.
Sassy,
I have seen him on TV, and I could educate him about evolution!
Floo you obviously studied the subject of the moon landings in great detail to have reached your conclusions. I did the same at one time and have forgotten a lot of it now but came to no conclusion. The difference between me and you, and me and Sass, is that I don't feel particularly strongly about it. It seems irrelevant in the scheme of things. However I don't know whether the moon landings were real or fake, neither do you. So what? Life goes on.
Nothing insulting and no bluster.
We were talking about the moon landing.
As for the earth being flat we all know the surface of the earth is NOT IN ALL PLACES. Don't we...
Thick and then really thick being that they thought it flat so could sail off the end in a ship.
Did you think that personally reflected on you? Guess you read what you want to read...
And it is folly and ridiculous for you to actually believe you are educated enough to comment about a man better educated than you and whom you have NEVER actually HEARD speak or read his publications.
So there you go. You were just to prejudicial and closed minded to actually read the post as it was intended.
As I said if you feel you are really educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Nothing insulting and no bluster.
We were talking about the moon landing.
As for the earth being flat we all know the surface of the earth is NOT IN ALL PLACES. Don't we...
Thick and then really thick being that they thought it flat so could sail off the end in a ship.
As I said if you feel you are really educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
I'll direct you again to #229 and again challenge to go through the "argument" from "Dr" McMurtry and my response, in detail, and show me my mistakes and how "Dr" McMurtry is not being stupid, dishonest or both.
Again, I'll not hold my breath, because all you seem capable of of is ranting, bluster, and insult.
Qualifications don't always ensure a person knows what they are talking about, like 'scientists' who believe the creation story to be factual!
Well write to him. Let us know how you get on. Because he uses the scientists own findings against them.
Proving them to be incorrect and show why they are incorrect. So I am all for you correcting him.
Just one thing... I don't believe you can. But hey! If you believe you can I want to see it. :)
Nothing insulting and no bluster.
We were talking about the moon landing.
Nothing insulting and no bluster.
We were talking about the moon landing.
Nothing insulting and no bluster.
We were talking about the moon landing.
Are you walking up hill all the time. Do you never have to around mountains.
Thick and then there is really thick.
Do you feel you really are educated enough to make comments about those who have qualifications you do not?
Folly and folly again...Ridiculous.
It suits her agenda, so yes IMO!
Are you really so credulous that you will accept a source - such as this - as evidence that the moon landings never took place?
You guys keep talking of evidence and proof all the time. But how exactly will you prove to an adamant, skeptical and disbelieving person that the moon landing actually happened?
Everyone knows it happened. It was a major event witnessed by all around the world, billions of dollars were spent, photographs and videos were taken, astronauts are available to share their experiences. And yet, you will not be able to prove without any doubt to a stubborn and skeptical person that it actually happened. :D
I think she means it, floo, and feels that we have all been deceived. Maybe not 'we' because I'm not sure about it, neither do I care. However there are those who feel quite strongly that a deception of that magnitude - if it was the case - must be exposed because it is an insult to everyone, and sets a precedent for far more serious things. We can't argue with the sentiment even if we don't agree with that particular conspiracy theory.
There's nothing wrong with arguing the truth of the moon landings anyway, plenty do, not just on forums. There is plenty of food for thought.
I think she means it, floo, and feels that we have all been deceived. Maybe not 'we' because I'm not sure about it, neither do I care. However there are those who feel quite strongly that a deception of that magnitude - if it was the case - must be exposed because it is an insult to everyone, and sets a precedent for far more serious things. We can't argue with the sentiment even if we don't agree with that particular conspiracy theory.
There's nothing wrong with arguing the truth of the moon landings anyway, plenty do, not just on forums. There is plenty of food for thought.
There is nothing called 'evidence' per se. Its a matter of perception and how much we are willing, and capable, of making the connection between certain observations and certain unseen phenomena.
Some people can keep denying something that is obvious to most others and there is nothing anyone can do about it. :D
Yes Sriram, I've noticed.
Pretty sure he has, as have many of us here.
No ....you haven't!
Sriram of course is making a point about those who are skeptical about NDEs indicating survival of consciousness after death and the like.
You think?
Sriram of course is making a point about those who are skeptical about NDEs indicating survival of consciousness after death and the like.
I said 'of course'.
Moon Landings, totally fiction, show me one photo of an astronut shaking the hand of a Clanger, you can't!! case closed. :P
Wow, never thought of that! Much more sane, reasoned and considered than all the arguments I've seen before.
Perhaps I should reconsider... :-\
Dear Fellow Tinfoil Hat Wearers,
Moon Landings, totally fiction, show me one photo of an astronut shaking the hand of a Clanger, you can't!! case closed. :P
Gonnagle.
Dear Fellow Tinfoil Hat Wearers,The Clangers don't live on the Moon
Moon Landings, totally fiction, show me one photo of an astronut shaking the hand of a Clanger, you can't!! case closed. :P
Gonnagle.
The Clangers don't live on the MoonHumans don't live there either!
Sass
Sebastian Toe and others have pointed out that "A Planet Truth" is a website devoted to proclaiming that Earth is not a sphere but flat. A brief glance through some of the items it contains include the assertion that gravity does not exist, that dinosaurs never existed and that Diana was pregnant with her lover's "half Arab" baby. It opposes vaccination and promotes astrology.
I think that you have deluded yourself into believing that it is a serious website, a website of record, a website of veracity. It isn't.
It is a blog.
It is a private website which does nothing more than provide a platform for its author's obsessions. And in addition, the identity of the author is not disclosed. You have no idea who he or she (or them) is (or are). The blog's material (on the basis of a brief perusal) comes from rumour, from innuendo, from statements by aggrieved individuals and, when referenced, from other equally dubious sources. There is considerable reliance on the supernatural and the occult. It is not evidence-based.
You don't even know what the motives of the author are - he or she or they may actually be writing a spoof blog just to see how many credulous idiots they can fool.
Are you really so credulous that you will accept a source - such as this - as evidence that the moon landings never took place?
One of my favourite films is In The Shadow of the Moon. The human story behind the lunar landings is every bit as compelling as evidence as bits of moon rock, as far as I'm concerned.
YOU MEAN THE MOON ROCKS WHICH DISAPPEARED... SO no evidence then...
YOU mean like all the fools who believe Diane forecasting how they would kill her still do not believe her death was planned?
[blah, blah, blah]
YOU MEAN THE MOON ROCKS WHICH DISAPPEARED... SO no evidence then...
Why?
As I said, if it has been done today, probably no problem with belief.
But there is absolutely no proof .........
But there is absolutely no proof except the words of others.
The clangers don't live on the moon. They live on "a small moon like planet."
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY DISAPPEARED?
OMG! You really are a sucker for conspiracy theories.
They haven't disappeared, Sassy. There is one here in the UK.
http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?image=100313
I know, don't tell me, the Natural History Museum is in on the hoax too. As well as the people busy faking recent photos from the lunar reconnaissance orbiter camera.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/featured_sites#ApolloLandingSites
::)
Sassy,
Have look at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks
It might be instructive.
One or two may have accidents but not the whole of those who trained except those who went to the moon.
WRONG: the arguments have not been dismantled. The examination of the moon rocks would have shown whether from earth now or a different planet
Not very kind to call her a ''stupid woman'', HH.She never was the sharpest tool in the box.
Hindsight is all very well. Maybe she would have survived had she worn a seat belt, we'll never know,No we won't and neither could anybody trying to assassinate her. The chain of events leading to her death had too many variables that all had to come together for a successful assassination.
but it wasn't illegal for passengers not to wear seatbelts in the back of a car
and that doesn't explain the high alcohol level in the blood - supposedly - of the experienced, professional driver.
I can't prove it though, one way or the other.
There is more 'proof' for the moon landings which doesn't stop there being plenty of evidence that the whole thing was a spectacular fake.Where "plenty" means none at all.
There is more 'proof' for the moon landings which doesn't stop there being plenty of evidence that the whole thing was a spectacular fake. I'd say the moon landings scenario was a far less sober and serious business than the death of the princess.
As I said, if it has been done today, probably no problem with belief.
But there is absolutely no proof except the words of others. Arguing about websites useless it proves nothing but shows opinions.
There is more 'proof' for the moon landings which doesn't stop there being plenty of evidence that the whole thing was a spectacular fake. I'd say the moon landings scenario was a far less sober and serious business than the death of the princess.
There is no credible evidence that they were fake and plenty that they were genuine. There will always be some people who
strongly believe such conspiracy theories and nothing that can be said will change their mind.
Not very kind to call her a ''stupid woman'', HH.
If the stupid woman had worn her seat belt she would probably still be alive today.
There was no conspiracy just a set of unfortunate circumstances.
That attention seeking woman played with fire and it consumed her, I suspect her death was just an unfortunate accident.You realise that those two statements are mutually contradictory?
That attention seeking woman played with fire and it consumed her, I suspect her death was just an unfortunate accident.
I am amazed that Charlie got away with practically no blame being attached to him for the death of his wife or for any input into said death - if he had not been shagging another man's wife, Camilla Park-and-Ride, Diana would not have been in Paris on that night, nor would she have been with the playboy son of an Egyptian crook!
Was Diana blameless in her own death - probably not, but Charlie was far less blameless.
The royals do nothing to float my boat either. But if stories I have been told have any veracity, then the marriage of Charles and Diana was close to being arranged. In marrying Camilla, he merely ended up with his original great love who had been denied him by court disfavour.
By the way, at the time she died, Diana was not his wife but his former wife. He played no part in her death.
Yes, and if he had not been obliged to marry a vapid bimbo, whose saving grace was that she was photogenic, and who, herself, sought diversion outside marriage, we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion.
I admit that I inadvertently started this diversion by mentioning that Diana's supposed pregnancy was one of the several "truths" featured in the blog which Sassy had considered authoritative. And now we are engaged in this silly argument.
Can we please get back to the cruel deception that the Americans played on the world in 1969 - or not?
Sorry, but I still believe that, had Charlie not continued an affair that he was involved in prior to his marriage all the way through his marriage the divorce would not have happened and Diana would not have been in Paris that night!
Yes, and if he had not been obliged to marry a vapid bimbo, whose saving grace was that she was photogenic, and who, herself, sought diversion outside marriage, we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion.
I admit that I inadvertently started this diversion by mentioning that Diana's supposed pregnancy was one of the several "truths" featured in the blog which Sassy had considered authoritative. And now we are engaged in this silly argument.
Can we please get back to the cruel deception that the Americans played on the world in 1969 - or not?
As to the cruel deception - the fantasy is not the moon landings but the denial that they occurred.
Watch this:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lltT1wPZDkc
The maker of the film gagged why if nothing to hide.
Oh dear. Note to myself: don't use either sarcasm or irony. Neither may be understood.
Stanley Kurbrick, on the other hand, arrived a year later than his more famous near namesake and tried to break into film directing. At first he found it enormously easy to get interviews but found it hard to get any funding for his proposed films, Wee Peter about a woman attracted to an adolescent boy, based on the book by Narbokov, and Nurse OddAttraction about the lunacy of nuclear power.
Later attempts to raise money for 'One Minute Past Eight: A Spice Odyssey' and 'A Wind-Up Caroline Lucas' also failed. Down on his luck, he was somewhat confused to be approached by someone saying they represented NARSA, asking him to direct a film about landing on the moon. Despite pouring his whole talent into this, he never understood why it didn't receive a general release but he had lots of props in the garage of the "Moon Rocks' which he gave out to his friends including Neal Amstong and Bizz Aldin.
Based on his experience, he tried touting a film about a faked Mars landing called Sagittarius Three. After his death his final project S I, about the metric system, was picked up by Sterven Spitzbergen but this too failed to attract funding.
It seems so logical when it is explained properly . . . .
The truth is manmade evidence is not evidence.
No proof they went to the moon and walked on it in 1969.
Zilch, nada, nuffink.
The truth is manmade evidence is not evidence.
The truth is manmade evidence is not evidence.Plenty proof if you care to open your eyes and look.
No proof they went to the moon and walked on it in 1969.
Zilch, nada, nuffink.
And yet you believe a god exists with zero evidence.
Why is that?
So, all the "evidence" you have presented that the landings were faked, is actually not evidence...
I guess the truth is the scientist have evidence and you choose to ignore them because you want to believe.
Big difference when you assume 'evidence' and when you make up your own.
You see the scientist produce the reasons why they believe it never happened based on the evidence then. So you use science all the time in arguments what is so different now?
That is correct... you choose what you believe.
I guess the truth is the scientist have evidence and you choose to ignore them because you want to believe.I would choose to ignore them because there are people who are first hand witnesses to he moon landings.
I would choose to ignore them because there are people who are first hand witnesses to he moon landings.
The men who actually went there.
Why don't you see what they have to say on the matter.
Some of them are even Christians. Do you think they are liars?
In some ways, their becoming religious could be said to be a reaction to the vastness of it all.
It must have been quite something to look back to the earth and realise everything of value to you was there on that small blue ball in the vastness of space.
I think it would put any issues in proportion.
I think I'd suffer from a huge case of homesickness.
:o
If I remember rightly John Glenn became a minister of religion after his moon walk.
Be careful. Be very careful.
You are feeding Sassy with misinformation. In order for John Glenn to have walked on the Moon he would have needed very, very, very long legs. Legs about a quarter of a million miles long, in fact. Not only that, he would have to have been brought back from retirement.
John Glenn was the first US astronaut in space (although Sassy will probably tell us that no American has ever been into space). He never escaped Earth orbit, nor did he ever leave his capsule.
My most sincere apologies for my error of fact!Nah, he must have been telling porkies because Sassy says that some scientists said that the moon landings were not possible and Sassy agrees with them.
Charles Duke became a committed Christian after his Apollo 16 flight, and is active in prison ministry.
After his retirement as a Colonel in 1972, James Irwin (Apollo 15) spent the next 20 years as a "Goodwill Ambassador for the Prince of Peace", stating that "Jesus walking on the earth is more important than man walking on the moon". He frequently spoke about how his experiences in space had made God more real to him than before.
Beginning in 1973, Irwin led several expeditions to Mount Ararat, Turkey, in search of the remains of Noah's Ark. In 1982, he was injured during the descent and had to be transported down the mountain on horseback. In More Than Earthlings, Irwin wrote expressing his view that the Genesis creation narrative was real, literal history.
I knew that at least one astronaut who had walked on the moon became a minister of religion.
Air rather than oxygen, as oxygen is of course poisonous.Oxygen toxicity is only a factor at a partial pressure of about 1.3. Pure oxygen at sea level pressure isn't toxic. It is dangerous, however, as any spark could be dangerous, as Oxygen readily reacts.
Nah, he must have been telling porkies because Sassy says that some scientists said that the moon landings were not possible and Sassy agrees with them.
And if Sassy says something then it must be 100 percent, incontrovertibly accurate. So there!
Sassy, who are these scientists you keep referring to please. From what I've seen the vast majority of scientists do not think the moon landings couldn't have happened.
You mean you are denying that it is a hoax and have never studied or bothered to make a search of evidence from both sides of the argument for and against.Any credible research would inolve seeing what the people who went to the moon had to say on the matter.
Sorry! you just lost any credibility. Either do your research or refrain from making arguments you have not the knowledge to make decisions about.
If I remember rightly John Glenn became a minister of religion after his moon walk.
Has he spoke about it since?That might be difficult as he never actually went to the moon!
You mean you are denying that it is a hoax and have never studied or bothered to make a search of evidence from both sides of the argument for and against.
Sorry! you just lost any credibility. Either do your research or refrain from making arguments you have not the knowledge to make decisions about.
Sorry! you just lost any credibility.
You mean you are denying that it is a hoax and have never studied or bothered to make a search of evidence from both sides of the argument for and against.
Sorry! you just lost any credibility. Either do your research or refrain from making arguments you have not the knowledge to make decisions about.
Any credible research would inolve seeing what the people who went to the moon had to say on the matter.
Some of them Christians who after their return actually preached the Gospels and witnessed for Christ.
Would you not think it a good idea to follow that avenue of research?
Unless of course you think that they are liars?
Charles Duke became a committed Christian after his Apollo 16 flight, and is active in prison ministry.
Nah, he must have been telling porkies because Sassy says that some scientists said that the moon landings were not possible and Sassy agrees with them.
And if Sassy says something then it must be 100 percent, incontrovertibly accurate. So there!
That might be difficult as he never actually went to the moon!
Some men who did go to the moon have spoken about it often though.
Maybe you should do some research and see what they had to say?
First hand accounts/ witnesses and all that.
No that is not what I said, and just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I have no knowledge on the subject. I have looked at both sides of the 'argument' and the vast majority of scientists do not think the moon landings couldn't have happened and the evidence presented by those who do think it a hoax can be shown to be incorrect or a misunderstanding.
You keep referring to scientists saying that the moon landings are a hoax and I asked you who it was you were referring to - if you are unable to support your claim it is you who loses credibility.
Please someone make it stop.
It's not nice to see someone make such a complete and utter t.t of themselves.
WRONG! They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation... then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.
The first US satellite into space was called Explorer 1. It had a simple geiger counter on board to detect radiation in space. As it was the very first of its kind, nobody knew how many counts of radiation hits would be recorded and so didn't know how to calibrate the equipment. The leading scientist of the time expected around 10-100 counts a minute. The geiger counter was set for that. After achieving orbit, the hits were higher and went off scale. It could mean 101 hits per minute or 1,000,001. The next satellite to study it (Explorer 4) would be calibrated better. But in the meantime the press were asking tough questions and wanted answers. The higher figure was constantly quoted for the headlines and let to an impression that space was full of deadly radiation that would kill a human in a few hours. This radiation zone became known as the Van Allen Radiation Belt after the scientist who interpreted the results. Later satellites proved this not to be the case. Part of the belts did have higher counts but as any spacecraft would only be in it for short periods, it didn't matter too much.
WRONG! They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation... then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.
The main evidence has not been disputed/proved wrong that the rocket and clothing could not protect them at that time.
I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
Well that does depend doesn't it., was he susceptible to hypnotherapy?
Had you done your research that is any research you would have known it has been suggested some were killed because they were not susceptible to being hypnosis.
So these men could easily have been hypnotised to believe they did go to the moon.
Why repeat your own untrue thing...
Show me where I said anything must 100 PERCENT to incontrovertibly accurate...
If you can't say anything true then it is best you say NOTHING AT ALL.
I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
The above post proves it.
Which post? There are several of your posts above this one. Or do you mean all of them?
I guess when you are losing then you will say or do anything to protect your beliefs.
The above post proves it.
WRONG!
They tried to re-write science because the scientist proved the clothing and the spaceship could not protect them from the things they would encounter in space. Especially radiation...
....then they decided to make things up which Physicists
knew was wrong.
The main evidence has not been disputed/proved wrong that the rocket and clothing could not protect them at that time.
No credibility had been lost ...
... only mans own inability to prove that he cannot have his cake and halfpenny as well.
You still haven't disclosed which scientist this is. Nor why you would believe this one chap rather than the thousands involved in the space program.
That is not an answer just a red herring excuse because you cannot find anything which you can argue with. There are many scientist who will argue with anyone here that none are really qualified to understand the experts in their field. However, common sense tells us that they have never backed theories.
It isn't one chap. However are you arguing that one such a Einstein are wrong?
Wrong as in what they achieved is not proof that one man can be right and many wrong?
What about Marie Curie do you think giving her life for her work was worth the price for it to save many in future?
What is it you really want? You cannot face the fact what you believe about Space or anything else done by scientist could be a big con. Are you afraid to face that all is for nothing and what if, what if it is all a con? When all that is false is taken away what if God is the ONLY real thing?
Surely, you want to know the truth?
That is not an answer just a red herring excuse because you cannot find anything which you can argue with. There are many scientist who will argue with anyone here that none are really qualified to understand the experts in their field. However, common sense tells us that they have never backed theories.
It isn't one chap. However are you arguing that one such a Einstein are wrong?
Wrong as in what they achieved is not proof that one man can be right and many wrong?
What about Marie Curie do you think giving her life for her work was worth the price for it to save many in future?
What is it you really want? You cannot face the fact what you believe about Space or anything else done by scientist could be a big con. Are you afraid to face that all is for nothing and what if, what if it is all a con? When all that is false is taken away what if God is the ONLY real thing?
(((((Surely, you want to know the truth?)))))
What a big rambling exercise in avoidance. An honest person will give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. So I guess you have no answer. And even if there were a real scientist behind this conspiracy nonsense it makes no sense to value that one opinion over and above the opinions of the thousands of engineeers, scientists, astronauts and support staff that actually worked on the Nasa space program not to mention the teams that continue to work to this day with the equipment that the astronauts set up on the Moon. You claim to be interested in truth ? Well in that case you have to be sensitive to the notion of the balance of evidence. We will never get anywhere near truth by adopting an approach that values armchair oddballs, crackpots and mavericks over and above the people actually working in the field.You never give a straightforward answer and so it has nothing to do with being dishonest or honest. Can you not see how you twist and turn things to say something you think supports your position on these matters.
Which people said that?
You never give a straightforward answer and so it has nothing to do with being dishonest or honest. Can you not see how you twist and turn things to say something you think supports your position on these matters.
It was men working on the mission who first raised the concerns.
All the rubbish about balance of evidence is futile given you cannot fathom the meaning or define the evidence in an understandable way to yourself. Nor explain it to others who are not scientist and never took part in the missions. It doesn't matter what you consider or even think to be crackpots, mavericks when the people working in the field themselves said it would not work and were killed for the privilege of voicing their opinion.
You want to believe and that is fine. But you cannot prove it happened.
Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo 8), I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.
As, I said, earlier.... read up on the matter. You should have followed the posts and read up on the matters at hand. Then you would not be answering posts about matters you have no knowledge about. :)
You are lazy...lol ;D
Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo 8), I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.Sorry Jim but you obviously didn't know that they had been hypnotised and the entire episodes were just memory implants!
Cheers, Seb. Who'd have thunk it?
Are we still banging on about the moon landings? I wrote way back when that I'd been very fortunate to have met a couple of Apollo astronauts at Christian events. Jim Irwin, Alan Shepherd and Frank Borman. Whilst I admit only two out of the three had landed on the surface (Borman commanded Apollo 8), I'd take their word that they'd planted their size tens on the cheese-free surface.
I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?
Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven.
You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?
I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?
Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?No there ain't.
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
You see there is a difference between Man and God the heavens above and heaven.
You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.This is just your usual wibble?
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?
Are we talking Aeroplane or astral plane?
No there ain't.
Your heaven is contained within the stratosphere. A truth is beyond that.
This is just your usual wibble?
You are our Satan, why should we believe anything you say?
Are we still banging on about the moon landings?Actually, I’ve found it quite instructive reading this thread for the first time. Every GCSE student doing their Maths exam next June will be able to explain why the use of the word conspiracy theory is biased.
I am neither convinced nor unconvinced. It would be nice to be convinced, more interesting I think.
What type of evidence would convince you?
No. It is just one thing that would convince me the moon landing happened - and is not going to occur now! However I think it could have happened, I just concede the possibility that it might not. It doesn't bother me either way and I wouldn't even have thought of it had it not been mentioned on here.
What would convince you now?
I don't know why people cannot at least be open minded about it. It's quite possible the moon landings were faked. We don't know for sure but having some scepticism doesn't make a person a loony conspiracy theorist (not that anyone has used those words except me).To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?
Again: Try asking that kind of question to atheists here with regard to the supernatural / God’s existence and you’ll be met with e.g. claims of shifting the burden of proof. Typical obfuscations include requests for God/supernatural to be defined. So, you’re claiming something that you can’t even define or cite an example of evidence for doesn’t exist?
But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?
You met them but you cannot tell if they were really on a mission or hypnotised.
You have no built in lie detector and even the devil can appear as an angel of light.
I agree you felt appeased and reassured they were nice men telling you the truth but how did Satan manage to fool Adam and Eve, even after God had been so good to them?
This rather smacks of desperation. So how do we know you have not been hypnotised ? How do we know you haven't been abducted by aliens and had false memories implanted ? Might explain a few things.
[/quote
Substitute 'brainwashed' hor hypnotised, Torridon.
I admit Irwin has grown somewhat unorthodox in his spiritual outlook, but when I met both him and Borman it was at a university science and spirituality seminar.
Borman was very erudite at the time (1980) being very much in touch with the shuttle programme at the time, as an active consultant for NASA.
I saw no evidence of duplicity or anything other than truth.
Sass's imagination is somewhat hyped up. Hypnotism is good, yes, but even the very best hypnotist - McKenna, imo - is very clear that to get more than one person experiencing the same hypnotic trance experience with perfect clarity and no flaws is virtually impossible.
Nice conspiracy, though.
The claim that a god exists is a positive claim requiring justification.I believe grounds are constantly provided.
Actually, I’ve found it quite instructive reading this thread for the first time. Every GCSE student doing their Maths exam next June will be able to explain why the use of the word conspiracy theory is biased.
There are some interesting observations. For example, this exchange on Page 2:
Let me repeat that last question:
What type of evidence would convince you?
Now: Try asking that question to any atheist here about e.g. the supernatural/existence of God, etc., and you will be met with all manner of obfuscations, e.g. if God exists, He should be able to convince everyone of His existence. Now, try applying that argument to the moon landings.
If the moon landings really happened, then those involved should be able to convince everyone that they did
Again, further down on the same page:
Again: Try asking that kind of question to atheists here with regard to the supernatural / God’s existence and you’ll be met with e.g. claims of shifting the burden of proof. Typical obfuscations include requests for God/supernatural to be defined. So, you’re claiming something that you can’t even define or cite an example of evidence for doesn’t exist?
But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?
Substitute 'brainwashed' hor hypnotised, Torridon.
I admit Irwin has grown somewhat unorthodox in his spiritual outlook, but when I met both him and Borman it was at a university science and spirituality seminar.
Borman was very erudite at the time (1980) being very much in touch with the shuttle programme at the time, as an active consultant for NASA.
I saw no evidence of duplicity or anything other than truth.
Sass's imagination is somewhat hyped up. Hypnotism is good, yes, but even the very best hypnotist - McKenna, imo - is very clear that to get more than one person experiencing the same hypnotic trance experience with perfect clarity and no flaws is virtually impossible.
Nice conspiracy, though.
That seems reasonable; I just don't get why Sass and others like her seem so desperate to push this hoax idea.Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it. Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.
Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it. Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.Can you elucidate on the one or two inconsistencies?
Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it.
Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.
Can you elucidate on the one or two inconsistencies?The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering. Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage. This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax. Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.
But the best thing illustrated is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that the moon landings did not happen. Where’s the You can’t prove a negative now?
The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering. Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage. This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax. Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.
The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering. Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun; this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage. This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax. Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.
These have been explained so many times. Do you really think those of us who do not find the idea that the moon landings were a hoax to be convincing don't know about these arguments?Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are. That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.
Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are. That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.
Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are. That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.site doesn't appear to me on any of your posts so far
Those claiming the Moon landings didn't happen aren't being asked to 'prove a negative'.
What they are being asked to provide is evidence of the basis for their claim that the Moon landings were deliberately faked by the actions of people who produced fictional propaganda involving the fake portrayal of astronauts, lunar landers, moon-buggies etc etc - the practical evidence of fakery.
What we are seeing, from Sass in particular, is very different in that it involves mistaken claims regarding radiation that have been rebutted in previous posts (and elsewhere), so we can ignore that: it now seems she thinks hypnotism is involved so what we need is supporting evidence of that: I wouldn't hold your breath!
Radiation has not been rebutted for the clothing and the spaceship at that time.It doesn't really matter if scientists argue over anything at all though does it?
Scientist have not been proved wrong. Ever heard the term..." Blind them with science."
Even the astronauts killed didn't believe they could pull it off.
I would love to still believe they walked on the moon. Believe everything was true they have taught us since 1969 but we were technically primitive even by todays standards back then.
We know the scientist would not make these claims if there was no truth in their eyes.
Men are more advanced in their knowledge in every day life now.
There were matters like the boot print from the boots worn being different when they showed the suits worn on display being received as the original.
Whatever we do believe whether it is for or against. None of us will ever have the true answers till it no longer matters. :(
Radiation has not been rebutted for the clothing and the spaceship at that time.
Scientist have not been proved wrong. Ever heard the term..." Blind them with science."
Even the astronauts killed didn't believe they could pull it off.
I would love to still believe they walked on the moon. Believe everything was true they have taught us since 1969 but we were technically primitive even by todays standards back then.
We know the scientist would not make these claims if there was no truth in their eyes.
Men are more advanced in their knowledge in every day life now.
There were matters like the boot print from the boots worn being different when they showed the suits worn on display being received as the original.
Whatever we do believe whether it is for or against. None of us will ever have the true answers till it no longer matters. :(
It doesn't really matter if scientists argue over anything at all though does it?
Space suits, radiation, footprints......etc
Doesn't matter a jot. Why? Because the astronauts were all hypnotised in such a manner as has never been seen before or since. That is hypnotised to a minute degree of accuracy whereby they can all give account so similar to that as if they had actually visited the moon.
Was it only one hypnotist that did it do you think?
And when I say all, of course I mean all except those who could not be hypnotised. They were of course murdered.!
And all for what purpose I am wondering?
The footprints match the tread of the over shoes worn by the astronauts.
The question of the radiation levels has been answered many times on here. You refer again to these 'scientists' without being specific about who you are referring to. Note that Van Allen himself has rebutted the radiation claims.
Of course none of us know for sure and we have to make a judgement on the evidence presented. The evidence that the moon landings were fake has in most cases been rebutted and seems to be based on a lack of knowledge and a feeling in the US particularly that big organisations can't be trusted. Even if all the evidence is rebutted this is not proof that man did go to the moon of course, that would be determined by the strength of the evidence that we did.
Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that the story of the landing is a hoax, there are one or two inconsistencies about it. Interestingly, I've heard it likened to the Gospels - the inconsistencies tend to point towards its truth, rather than otherwise.
Not according to official pictures of the suits and boots on show and those of the treads on the moon.
Why haven't you looked.
When you research the answer given by Nasa they will tell you the boot print was not Neil Armstrong but belonged to Buzz Aldrin. But when you see the suit of Buzz displayed you see it does not match his either. Then when you see a pair of boots they have supposedly belonging to Neil Armstrong you see a perfect match for the footprint but they don't match the original suit being preserved. They certainly do not match the suit worn.
They haven't been answered...
The scientist know the clothes they wore and spaceship could not protect them.
They also know there is no safe way to fly through the Van Allen Belt ...
...but you cannot see that scientist have reasons for their beliefs.
Radiation could not be avoided.
There were many people and the mans who report went missing when he and his family were killed are something to be weary about.
As I said you choose what you want to believe.
To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?Because the claims are rubbish.
You asked a question about why does it matter? In my opinion, one word...truth.The truth is that the Moon landings were not faked.
From my perspective, I’m open to the possibility that some were genuine, but at least one may have been faked. The film Capricorn One (based on the objections, but uses a mission to Mars) illustrates brilliantly that not that many people need to be in on any attempted cover-up.No it doesn't. In Capricorn One they tried to kill the astronauts to keep it covered up and they failed and the plot was exposed... Oh yes, and it was fiction.
The one that is often referred to is the flag - the fact that it is fluttering.It would flutter like a pendulum if an astronaut jogged it whilst putting the flag pole into the ground. On Earth, the motion quickly dissipates because the flag is moving through the air.
Another is that there is ony one source of light on the moon - the sun;This is utterly false as should be evident to you every time you look at the full Moon. I mean, you can see it right?
this would mean that all shadows should align with each other - smething that isn't the case with the video footage.That only works if the ground is completely flat.
This site gives 8 other reasons why the report *MIGHT* be a hoax. Note that I don't subscribe to the idea, but it is worth knowing the arguments.They are all debunked.
Not only 'earthlight', though. When the first pics of the dark side of the Moon cAame back in the vwery early sixties (the Russian 'Luna' probes), the evidence that some - albeit weakened 'starlight' which was discernible even with the primative equipment the probes possessed.I forgot about the Earth, I was thinking of the Moon itself.
There were many people and the mans who report went missing when he and his family were killed are something to be weary about. As I said you choose what you want to believe.
I forgot about the Earth, I was thinking of the Moon itself.
But yes, the Earth is significantly brighter than the Moon, being larger and also more reflective (all that water). So we have three sources of light on the surface of the Moon. There are also the stars, but they are so faint in comparison to the Sun that they don't really make any difference.
To be honest, this is why I’m interested in this now. Why the attempts to rubbish any claims against the landings?
You asked a question about why does it matter? In my opinion, one word...truth.
From my perspective, I’m open to the possibility that some were genuine, but at least one may have been faked. The film Capricorn One (based on the objections, but uses a mission to Mars) illustrates brilliantly that not that many people need to be in on any attempted cover-up.
It strikes me that a quick poll on this topic would reveal a fairly clear fault line with atheists denying hoax claims, whereas the few that are prepared to give such conspiracy theories airtime are religious believers of some or other stripe....or possibly, if a nasty atheist believes something then it cannot possibly be correct so there needs to be an alternate explanation. No matter how bizarre!
Why would that be ? Is there some common underlying predispositions, maybe believers have a tendency to distrust science and scientists ?
It strikes me that a quick poll on this topic would reveal a fairly clear fault line with atheists denying hoax claims, whereas the few that are prepared to give such conspiracy theories airtime are religious believers of some or other stripe.
Why would that be ? Is there some common underlying predispositions, maybe believers have a tendency to distrust science and scientists ?
Would it be fairer to claim that religionists and conspiracy theorists display the same kinds of behaviours?
A lot of the 9/11 truthers that I've encountered are atheists
Maeght, as I have pointed out, I do not subscrib to any hoax argument in this matter but it is interesting that at least one of the 10 reasons given in this website is not explained away, in the way others are. That is why I used the term 'inconsistencies', since not all the argumnts that have been put forward can be as easily explained as others.
Watched a program this morning all about the space race and the moon landings - fascinating stuff. Shame that people don't recognise the terrific achievement and sacrifices made.
I flew in a plane what is different between that space and the space higher up?I can't be the only one to have read that and thought,
Where did Jesus go to when he was seen ascending into heaven?
If Space is above the clouds where is heaven?
I can't be the only one to have read that and thought,
"Does Sassy actually believe that heaven is in space? And the reason she thinks the moon landings didn't happen is because the spaceship would have ended up in heaven before it got there?"
You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.Where is that explicitly stated in SV's post?
Where is that explicitly stated in AO'S post?AO? Surely SV?
You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.
I said the heavens above and heaven are two separate places.
NO WHERE HAVE I proclaimed what you thought. So you are the only one who thought it and even wrote it. :o
You are the only one who thinks heaven is in space.
I said the heavens above and heaven are two separate places.
NO WHERE HAVE I proclaimed what you thought. So you are the only one who thought it and even wrote it. :o
AO? Surely SV?Thanks I've corrected it.