14134 replies to this topic

[frenat]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Thanks for your options.
However I will not be posting the link or the pic.
Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?
I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.
I resolutely stand by claim.
My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks  :-D

In other words, you won't post the link or pic because it doesn't exist.  Your credibility does remain intact because most of here already knew you were a troll.  Zero credibility can't go any further down.

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

Believe what you will . . . or must?
But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???
I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Admitting to a previous banning and current sock-puppeting?

[frenat]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions;

What dubious pics and transmissions?  Haven't seen any yet and since you refuse to back up your claim I doubt I ever will.

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

the buggy with no tyre tracks;

already well explained.  Not our fault you don't understand the explanation.

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

the fake moon rocks;

There are none.  I'd ask you to back up your claim but we all know how much credibility you have already.

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Irrelevant.

[skyeagle409]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

. . . the question DID WE LAND ON THE MOON will never be answered truly. . . . its debate come argument will never be WON.

I don't know if you knew it or not, but Mr. Reality has already said that the moon hoax folks have lost the war.

Edited by skyeagle409, 25 April 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Chrlzs]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 25 April 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Gentlemen, I have to say that I am disappointed with these posts, both in my role as a moderator and as a participant in this thread.

I apologise unreservedly.

My only excuse is that indeed, the post was intended as humour.  I shall try to refrain...

[Chrlzs]

Jackdaw, just to clarify..  You made these claims:

Jackdaw, on 15 April 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

And not with fluttering flags or fake moon rocks or touched up photos or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it?... as to how it got there or was built etc etc etc
...
And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?
i.e. differing tread pattern to the so called astronauts?

But now, you are withdrawing those claims as you have no evidence you are willing to produce here, on the grounds that the images are "flame-baiting or trolling"?  How could they be, if genuine?

[BertL]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Thanks for your options.
However I will not be posting the link or the pic.
Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?
I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.
I resolutely stand by claim.
My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks  :-D

"Hey so there's this pic that shows that the Moon landings are fake, but I'm not gonna show it. But it's definitely there and it's definitely real! I'm just not gonna post it because... something with trolling."

Logic at its finest.

[mrbusdriver]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

NAH!
I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?
Do you remember that line from the Apollo?
Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Please elaborate...(that means "provide details and evidence")

[MID]

Jackdaw, on 25 April 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

NAH!
I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?
Do you remember that line from the Apollo?
T

What "line from the Apollo"?  What does this mean?

Quote

hose who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

As the vast majority have, people will learn about APollo;  what happeened, how it happened, and they will also learn that...

1.  There are no dubious space pictures.
2. There are no dubious transmissions (save those that were obviously faked)
3. There was no "buggy" that left no tire tracks.
4. There are no fake Moon rocks...only about 800 pounds of real ones.
5. The Nixon Administration did not fund the space program.  Congress did that.  It was Nixon himself that decided to scrap the program.  And Congress of course, stopped the funding.  This most certainly had alot to do with his desiring his own space legacy, but it also had alot to do with the money he was spending on the war.   Of course, the only legacy he would get was Watergate and his resignation in disgrace and deftly escaping impeachment.


If you're here, which it seems you are in spurious fashion, then the opportunity for you to avail yourself of the resources present here, and to indulge in the real purpose of it--learning something about that which you obviously know little--is right here.


We welcome question and doubts.  They can all be addressed and answered here.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 22 April 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

There you go again pulling fantasy out of thin air with the expectation of thinking that people with common sense will believe you. I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon..

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 28 April 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

They were totally silent on the JFK conspiracy, despite being such an easy target for our 'sworn enemy' to pounce on!!

How do you explain that?

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon? The fact of the matter is, we have sent men to the moon and the moon hoax folks have failed to provide s shred of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps, the is why we have that "Magic 94."

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 April 2012 - 12:52 AM.

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 28 April 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon?

Absolutely nothing at all.

[thunkerdrone]

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:




Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings
April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

[booNyzarC]

thunkerdrone, on 28 April 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:




Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings
April 26, 2012

Jay Weidner is an author, filmmaker and hermetic scholar, considered to be a "modern-day Indiana Jones" for his ongoing worldwide quests to find clues to mankind's spiritual destiny. He returns to Red Ice to talk about his film, Kubrick's Odyssey. Jay presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. Weidner also tells how Kubrick's film, The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

Should I even bother listening to this?  The last time I listened to an interview with Weidner I had a pretty severe reaction to his idiocy...

booNyzarC, on 19 May 2011 - 12:34 AM, said:

Um...  after just 13 minutes into this I can tell that Jay Weidner is a complete nut case.  It took less time than that for me to realize actually, but I decided to pause at this point.  I'll listen to the rest of this silliness though, just because I have nothing better to do right now and can use a good laugh while I relax after a long day at work.

Edit...  Finished it...  it was worse than I originally thought.

Really?  You suggested people listen this nonsense?  If Jay were here right now, my only response would be this:

Why should I think this interview with that nut case would be any less painful to listen to than the previous one?

I'm honestly asking here.

What does he offer now that is different from the previous drivel?


Edit to add...  the prospect of listening to Weidner's interview reminds me of another Kubrick film...



I'm not joking.  It really was that bad.

Edited by booNyzarC, 28 April 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[Czero 101]

BooNy, I really wish you would stop beating around the bush and tell us how you REALLY feel about Mr. Weidner...  




Cz

[Gaden]

thunkerdrone, on 28 April 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

excellent interview of Jay Weidner yesterday from Red Ice Radio:




Jay Weidner - Hour 1 - Kubrick's Odyssey: How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings
April 26, 2012
The Shining is the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.

WTF?? In the first place, The Shining was written by Stephen King. In the second place.. WTF??  What, a haunted movie set took over Kubrick's mind and caused him to murder some actors? This is so ridiculous, it is telling me not to bother listening to the audio.