Weidner on NASA

[Ove]

Is this all you've got? Are you seriously trying to claim that a FICTIONAL film is evidence of a moon hoax? I don't know which is the biggest joke, the film or your posts.

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

[BertL]

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

What disclosure? The disclosure that you have no clue what you are talking about? Because trust me, that's not a big revelation to most people here.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

So that IS all you've got. No facts, no evidence, just nonsense. You do more damage to the pro-hoax case with your constant stream of poorly thought out drivel than any of the rest of us could achieve with the facts and figures that prove you wrong.

What do you think any neutral is going to think reading what you post? Ove is claiming that a comedy film is proof of the moon landings being a hoax... he must be right or this Ove is so clueless he can't tell the difference between fiction and reality?

Although I'm not sure you actually care what others think, to be honest I just think you like to argue. turbonium is constantly, inaccurate, plain wrong and/or illogical in his posts. He does at least have conviction on his side. I'm not convinced that is the case with you.

[MID]

If Kubrick faked the Moon landing footage they would have been much slower and more melodramatic.

He probably would've required a sound track for melodrama. Ligeti, perhaps?

Actually, he would've had no idea how to portray actual movement in a 180 lb. suit in a 1/6 g vacuum.

His portrayal, if it occurred which of course it did not), would've been in accordance with his experience, which was that he came up with for the 1/6 g scenes he did in 2001.

They weren't exactly accurate from a technical standpoint. How could they have been? No one had actually seen the surface of the Moon and no one had any experience actually walking or working on its surface.

...until Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did so in July, 1969, while Kubrick was quite busy writing the screenplay and attempting to get his movie about Napoleon made (no joy on that one, though...)

[MID]

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

I guess you've got enough challeges to respond to. Including mine.

You failed to answer questions I put to you.

Come back if you're ready to learn something.

[Ove]

You know as well as I do, that all means available are being used to stop the disclosure.

What do you think any neutral is going to think reading what you post? Ove is claiming that a comedy film is proof of the moon landings being a hoax... he must be right or this Ove is so clueless he can't tell the difference between fiction and reality?

Why do you think Buzz and Lois Aldrin participated in that "making fun of the moon hoax movie" ? Why do you think so much effort is being used to ridicule the hoax claims ?

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ove

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Why do you think Buzz and Lois Aldrin participated in that "making fun of the moon hoax movie" ? Why do you think so much effort is being used to ridicule the hoax claims ?

Because they are ridiculous claims. It is far harder to ridicule sane claims.

Why are you putting so much effort into trying to convince people that a piece of self admitted fiction is evidence. Is it because there are no facts to back you up?

[Ove]

No, it's because a lot of people believe the moon landing was a hoax, which makes Buzz Aldrin uncomfortable.

[frenat]

No, IN MY OPINION, it's because a lot of people believe the moon landing was a hoax, which makes Buzz Aldrin uncomfortable.

You forgot to add that the above was only your opinion. Fixed it for you.

[frenat]

Why do you think Buzz and Lois Aldrin participated in that "making fun of the moon hoax movie" ?

Because it was fun? Because they are as tired of the ignorant hoax claims as we are?

Why do you think so much effort is being used to ridicule the hoax claims ?

Because it takes little effort to spew out a hoax claim, especially as they so seldom involve any critical thinking or science. To refute those claims natually takes more energy and effort. Why ridicule? Again, because it is fun. Because if the hoax claimers aren't going to put any seriousness in their claims (stars in photographs, waving flag) why should everbody else?

[MID]

Why do you think Buzz and Lois Aldrin participated in that "making fun of the moon hoax movie" ?

I don't know about any such movie.

Is that question pertinent to your understanding?

I could say I wouldn't put it past Buzz to do nearly anything, including making fun of the Moon hoax and the idiots who promoted the idea.

What everyone else said is valid, I'd say.

Why do you think so much effort is being used to ridicule the hoax claims ?

I don't see that much energy being put into ridiculing that which ridicules itself.

Alot of effort is put into educating people who are gullible enough to actually believe in that sort of idiocy, and the boobs who put it out there.

But alot more effort is put out by HBs trying to maintain that which is untenable and un-maintainable.

Like you, for instance.

You keep trying where you haven't a prayer, and you also seem to be trying very hard to get yourself in grief with the staff. It's wasted energy, and for all of it, you don't yet seemed to have learned a thing.

Edited May 20, 2011 by MID

[MID]

No, it's because a lot of people believe the moon landing was a hoax, which makes Buzz Aldrin uncomfortable.

I think the only thing that would make Buzz uncomfortable would be to not be in the public eye.

But lots of people do believe in a fantasy Moon landing hoax. Yourself included.

Let me repeat what I said to you...yesterday.

I guess you've got enough challeges to respond to. Including mine.

You failed to answer questions I put to you.

Come back if you're ready to learn something.

Please do so...

[MID]

Gort really did create another Moon hoax thread didn't he?

[Philthy]

Gort really did create another Moon hoax thread didn't he?

Gort is well known for starting threads, and then abandoning them, he has several over on the David Icke forums. Other ruses are to type a wall of text with no spaces between sentences, and the lack of ever using the "Enter" key. I have no clue why he thinks this is "cool," or even acceptable, but, he does, what he does.

Phil

Edited May 21, 2011 by Philthy

[Obviousman]

Gort really did create another Moon hoax thread didn't he?

See my post #2 on this thread.

[MID]

Copy all, fellas!

[gort.]

Gort is well known for starting threads, and then abandoning them, he has several over on the David Icke forums. Other ruses are to type a wall of text with no spaces between sentences, and the lack of ever using the "Enter" key. I have no clue why he thinks this is "cool," or even acceptable, but, he does, what he does.

Phil

Gee,quite the detective there Phil.As you well know,I don't take the bait for the games played with the regulars on that forum,nor will I do so here.Not that it matters,but I will set the record straight for you.I find the zeal of true Believers far more interesting than the whole hoax debate on diverse forums.I had an interest in it years ago,and only recently read over the moon threads on the internet.I joined up at Icke's forum to join in on the megathread,and after it was ranted I started a thread laying out the parameters of discourse,hoping it would be civil and for those that wanted to go round and round in circles debating,they were welcome to do so,but I stated clearly I was interested in the larger picture and wanted to prompt discussion in other aspects of the Space Race without the constant hassle of flamebaiters.It went smoothly for a couple of months until it was derailed and merged into the megathread so I started another one.Again it was derailed and merged.So I spent time going over many forums and saw the same pattern,and found it very interesting how insecure Believers are when it comes to being challenged in their fixed beliefs.I liked how Turbo here was handling the attacks from the gang over here,and wanted to see if it were possible to join in the fray,minus the little snide and condescending behavior that is rampant at the other forum.I bring this up only because you mentioned another forum.Of course,the Believers got ruffled quickly,and saw no need to participate in those that use circular logic and emotionally driven rants to express their views.And even denial when their views are shown to be wrong.I started several threads over at Icke's to see if one would be immune from the few vile and rabid Believers over thee.Nope.Tey were all moved,merged,and submerged in a most expedient fashion.Yet,the moon poll threads and moon threads that weren't bringing up serious issues remain in any category they were placed in.Here I see the mods condescending behavior in chiding Turbo at every turn instead of discussing and debating matters,and a ringleader that is idolized.Wall of text being cool?No,as I told you on the other forum I do it intentionally to dissuade the zealous Believers in going into multiquoting overdrive and spinning off on tangents,and personal attacks.Simple as that.Whether one believes in the Apollo Lunar Landings or not,it is painfully clear that the most ardent Believers lack the most basic crtical thinking faculites,and parrot the official version of history,and deny any and all contradictions and anomalies.

[aquatus1]

**Back on Topic.**

[Obviousman]

Whether one believes in the Apollo Lunar Landings or not,it is painfully clear that the most ardent Believers lack the most basic crtical thinking faculites,and parrot the official version of history,and deny any and all contradictions and anomalies.

Pot, pot - this is kettle. You are black. Over.

What you have said is absolute nonsense. The majority of we "Apollogists" point out the logical flaws, provide references and scientific backing for our claims, etc.

You have done none of that - all you have done is to parrot other conspiracists. You, Ove, Raj and Turbo have shown numerous examples of confirmation bias, false dilemma, begging the question and numerous others, not forgetting the biggest: the burden of proof.

To claim otherwise is hypocritical beyond belief.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Obviousman

[aquatus1]

**Either we get back to discussing the OP, which is about a webcast, not about whether the Apollo Landings were hoaxed, or the thread gets closed. Again, feel free to comment on the webcast. Do not derail this into a general discussion about Apollo.**

[mrbusdriver]

ok, here's what I've seen so far

You can skip the first 16 minutes...it's just irrelevant chit chat, setting up the CT "mood". "The Shining" being about his travails working for NASA etc...

He expresses incredulity about landing and taking off from "someplace you've never been". It's not like we hadn't put unmanned landers there, sent orbiters to study the environment and such. It's just science and engineering, which this guy is (rightly) assuming his audience has no familiarity with. He speaks from ignorance.

He isn't aware that Neil, along with the other crewmwmbers, HAVE done numerous interviews and public appearances since their famous flight. Again, he hasn't done his homework and assumes his audience hasn't either.

26 minutes in, he talks about images of the Earth taken while they were on the surface. Apollo 11 took no such images, and there are only a handful of such photos from all the missions. They were on the Moon, so it's natural that the vast majority of the photos were of the surface and activities thereon.

I'm not impressed with this guy's knowledge base. He makes elementary mistakes and misinterpretations.

[mrbusdriver]

Continuing on...

They talk about the "lost" tapes. Not lost, and we still have all the footage, just not the originals which were of somewhat better quality, and were reused on later missions. No mystery here.

The Jim Oberg book issue...folks decided the debunking project wasn't worth the cost. Simple as that.

The "didn't have the technology" thing. This is actually taken from the post- Apollo-1 hearings, the investigator in question never claimed anything like "we can't get to the Moon". Ever. And it wasn't a one person car/train wreck...his family was with him.

Jesse Evenura. 2012, KDEN nonsense.

Evidence of 400 year "presence" on the Moon.

"Advanced technology", invented by Germany, developed by US. Kinda right on this one, at least for rocket science.

Footage of LM takeoff...they are incredulous about this, no remote control capability in the 60s they say.

"Photo" of Ed Mitchell and Al Shepard on the Moon during Al's golf shot. There might be a TV clip, but no photo exists. There's also a "photoshopped" rendition created for Al Shepard's book.

Pictures of large structures on the Moon. "Huge headlines" in the Washinton Post, Seattle Times, and New York Times stating this. ("you can research this yourself"...)

Who photographed Neil, descending the ladder I am assuming. The host really is playing to the CT crowd here, and the author claims it was star seeker cameras (?) which may have done it. No mention (or apparent awareness) of the MESA mounted TV camera.

The "LM thing", covered in gold "aluminum foil", with a "3000lb rover", and single thruster making a controlled landing, again with the "someplace weve never been, alien environment" stuff. Car battery powered spacesuits, the usual +/- 250F misunderstandings, the false "baking oven" analogy, deadly radiation...they do not understand anything about spaceship construction, thermodynamics, or, seemingly, physics.

Why not use Hubble to see landing sites. Or put together a "$15 million" mission that can photograph the sites (his cost numbers there).

Then the waving flag. We're about at the 56 minute point here, after this, it degenerates into all manner of conspiracy stuff, showing there isn't a CT these guys won't see as credible, if not rock solid.

An unimpressive, and completely unsubstantiated, set of claims. They don't understand any of the science, and simply argue from incredulity, presuming the readers' ignorance on such matters. I see nothing of value in the discussion, except perhaps as a starting point for a discussion of how spaceflight really works, vs what "common sense" would tell us.

[MID]

Gee,quite the detective there Phil.As you well know,I don't take the bait for the games played with the regulars on that forum,nor will I do so here.Not that it matters,but I will set the record straight for you.I find the zeal of true Believers far more interesting than the whole hoax debate on diverse forums.I had an interest in it years ago,and only recently read over the moon threads on the internet.I joined up at Icke's forum to join in on the megathread,and after it was ranted I started a thread laying out the parameters of discourse,hoping it would be civil and for those that wanted to go round and round in circles debating,they were welcome to do so,but I stated clearly I was interested in the larger picture and wanted to prompt discussion in other aspects of the Space Race without the constant hassle of flamebaiters.It went smoothly for a couple of months until it was derailed and merged into the megathread so I started another one.Again it was derailed and merged.So I spent time going over many forums and saw the same pattern,and found it very interesting how insecure Believers are when it comes to being challenged in their fixed beliefs.I liked how Turbo here was handling the attacks from the gang over here,and wanted to see if it were possible to join in the fray,minus the little snide and condescending behavior that is rampant at the other forum.I bring this up only because you mentioned another forum.Of course,the Believers got ruffled quickly,and saw no need to participate in those that use circular logic and emotionally driven rants to express their views.And even denial when their views are shown to be wrong.I started several threads over at Icke's to see if one would be immune from the few vile and rabid Believers over thee.Nope.Tey were all moved,merged,and submerged in a most expedient fashion.Yet,the moon poll threads and moon threads that weren't bringing up serious issues remain in any category they were placed in.Here I see the mods condescending behavior in chiding Turbo at every turn instead of discussing and debating matters,and a ringleader that is idolized.Wall of text being cool?No,as I told you on the other forum I do it intentionally to dissuade the zealous Believers in going into multiquoting overdrive and spinning off on tangents,and personal attacks.Simple as that.Whether one believes in the Apollo Lunar Landings or not,it is painfully clear that the most ardent Believers lack the most basic crtical thinking faculites,and parrot the official version of history,and deny any and all contradictions and anomalies.

And now.

You were, finally, going to address what you've been told about that film....

Or perhaps that's 'taking bait' as well???

Edited May 22, 2011 by MID

[Philthy]

Gee,quite the detective there Phil. As you well know,I don't take the bait for the games played with the regulars on that forum,nor will I do so here.

No detective work is or was required, you purposely post walls of text to what end, I've not a clue. Only you know the reason.

No one ever "baited" you, you baited yourself by claiming some unprovable, undocumented hoax theory.

The only "game playing was done by the HB's, as usual.

Not that it matters,but I will set the record straight for you.I find the zeal of true Believers far more interesting than the whole hoax debate on diverse forums.

The zeal comblatantbIgnaceigronace of wparticulararticlar HB'er is claiming. Every and all HB claims have been debunkpr ovend proven wrong for years, if not decades.

I had an interest in it years ago,and only recently read over the moon threads on the internet.I joined up at Icke's forum to join in on the megathread,and after it was ranted I started a thread laying out the parameters of discourse,hoping it would be civil and for those that wanted to go round and round in circles debating,they were welcome to do so,but I stated clearly I was interested in the larger picture and wanted to prompt discussion in other aspects of the Space Race without the constant hassle of flamebaiters.

And I remember that, I'd hoped for the same thing, but, yet again, the HB'ers derailed it by all the off topic, name calling rants they always resort too.

It went smoothly for a couple of months until it was derailed and merged into the megathread so I started another one.

I didn't like that much either, but, I nor you am a Mod there, not our call.

Again it was derailed and merged.So I spent time going over many forums and saw the same pattern,and found it very interesting how insecure Believers are when it comes to being challenged in their fixed beliefs.

As stated above, it's not that knowing the Apollo landings are fact, it's more sheer frustration that the most documented very easily provable event in history is called into question. Beyound a shadow of any doubt, man has landed on the moon.

I liked how Turbo here was handling the attacks from the gang over here,and wanted to see if it were possible to join in the fray,minus the little snide and condescending behavior that is rampant at the other forum.

While Turbo is persistent, he still hasn't shown any proof of hpr ovenims. In fact he's proven to be "fact proof."

I bring this up only because you mentioned another forum.

Yes, I did, maybe I shouldn't have, but I did. Water under the bridge.

Of course,the Believers got ruffled quickly,and saw no need to participate in those that use circular logic and emotionally driven rants to express their views.And even denial when their views are shown to be wrong.

Very true, the HB's and their unprovable claims do seem to be circular.

I started several threads over at Icke's to see if one would be immune from the few vile and rabid Believers over thee.Nope.Tey were all moved,merged,and submerged in a most expedient fashion.Yet,the moon poll threads and moon threads that weren't bringing up serious issues remain in any category they were placed in.Here I see the mods condescending behavior in chiding Turbo at every turn instead of discussing and debating matters,and a ringleader that is idolized.

Gee, why do you suppose that topics on the very same topic get merged? It must be a conspires!!

Wall of text being cool?No,as I told you on the other forum I do it intentionally to dissuade the zealous Believers in going into multiquoting overdrive and spinning off on tangents,and personal attacks.

I must have missed your wall text excuse. I, and most others don't take the time to go through it. For this I resorted to NotePad, so I could make some sort of order of the wall, and even then, it's not easy. I don't do personal attacks, I do, however call attention too, at times, to claims that just aren't real, or provable.

Simple as that.Whether one believes in the Apollo Lunar Landings or not,it is painfully clear that the most ardent Believers lack the most basic crtical thinking faculites,and parrot the official version of history,and deny any and all contradictions and anomalies.

I know, I know, the winners write the history books. In this case, the winners, NASA, actually did what they said they did. The people that point out that the Apollo landings are real, provable fact in the face of blantent igornace, and keep they're cool as much as they do, is admirable.

Not sure if my method of answering this is OK, but, here it is, with apologies.

Phil

[MID]

I find the zeal of true Believers far more interesting than the whole hoax debate on diverse forums.

You actually need to be addressing that film, which you haven't. But there's news for you:

There are people who have knowledge, and there are HBs.

People who attempt to teach about the facts aren't believers. They know something.

Now, let's get back to addressing that film.

The Moon hoax thread is elsewhere.