|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 10:36:59 GMT -4
Obviously, all those people are in on the hoax.  . It's not a case of being "in on the hoax". I am sure they genuinely believe in what they are saying, just as those who persecuted "witches" in Salem did in the late 1600s. The Salem witchcraft hysteria is probably the closest thing in history to moon-landing-belief hysteria, but in the end, the truth outed, and it will about the Apollo moon-faking too. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 9, 2005 14:11:00 GMT -4
a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see... the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. Margamatix, you compel me to wonder, do you actually think about such statements before making them? You seem to have edited something out of my quote- why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 14:54:52 GMT -4
the regulars have done an exemplary job of demolishing Margamatix's shaky case already. But hats off to him for sticking around, although he does seem determined to be offended and insulted - (and gets even twitchier when everyone refuses to call him 'delusional' or a loony.) I am not determined to be offended or insulted, and have not been treated in the way you describe by anybody on this forum. Without exception, people have been kind, patient and courteous, and have spent a lot of time putting the case for the moon landings. I still don't believe it happened, but I believe I have found the right place to discuss that belief and decent people to discuss it with. So, with the permission of the Administrator I shall continue to air that belief. Finally, can i just join the others in welcoming you to the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 11:42:37 GMT -4
Not quite the same, is it? Can I firstly direct you to this quote, by turbonium and taken from his thread? Incidentally, there, rather than here, might be the place for further discussion... "But, according to Dr. David Darling, as I also quoted earlier, the VLT is capable of "giving a picture as sharp as if it had come from a single telescope 200 m across. If there were cars on the Moon, the Very Large Telescope would be able to read their number plates." Now, I might not be the world's leading expert on telescopes, but even I could tell you that a telescope capable of reading a car number plate would be able to see the lunar rover, which is 10 feet long, and the Stars and Stripes, which is 4 feet long. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 10:51:37 GMT -4
I see from another thread (VLT) and from other information I have read, that such a thing is already under development so somebody must consider it a realistically practical proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 7, 2005 10:32:41 GMT -4
Blimey, for someone with nothing to say, I do go on, don't I? Well, at least we can agree on something. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 18:57:18 GMT -4
You are an American Indian?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 16:10:08 GMT -4
So what clinching piece of evidence convinced you it had been hoaxed? No single thing. I suppose I had never thought about it seriously before. I read a neutral, one-page article somewhere- maybe Focus magazine?- and I started thinking about it. Once you actually think about things, it doesn't take very long to realise how absurd the whole thing is. The Moon is 600 times further away than anywhere we had been before or have been since. The Moon is in an environment which ranges between -150 degrees celsius and +250 degrees celsius with one sixth of earth gravity and in a total vacuum. We sent two human beings there using a Moon Lander which appears to have been built from cobwebs and static. And we did all this at a time when you couldn't get a car to start on a damp morning. I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:41:28 GMT -4
Did you miss Bob's post above .? No, I have replied to it but please give me a chance. He only posted it 13 minutes ago. Look, I am on my own here and cannot reply to everybody, straight away, on every point, particularly as I may have to check out links you have supplied in the meantime. I will just add that I spent about an hour today on BobB's "Rocket & Space Technology" website, and although I only got the chance to look through about a sixth of it, I will be back, and I do try to check out every reference given to me. It didn't happen, and time will prove me right. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:30:14 GMT -4
Well I'm here because I thought that the Apollo Hoax forum might be a suitable forum to discuss my belief that the Moon landings were a hoax.
As I have said before, you should have made it clearer that disbelievers in the Moon Lie were not welcome here (although I have to say that I have not generally been made to feel unwelcome)
I have spent 33 of the past 36 years believing that we *did* land on the moon, and only 3 believing that we didn't. So you can hardly say I have a fixed agenda.
You are surprised that I have stayed. Well, I have a thick skin, although I am sure that many others have been intimidated by the collective forum response- as Turbonium referred to yesterday.
But this is called the "Apollo Hoax forum" so you can't really object to my finding my way here.
And, most of all, this is the internet, and I am entitled to air my views on the internet, and I believe in the democracy of the internet.
When we look back, in 50 years time, our conclusion will be that it was the internet that finally killed the Great Apollo Lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 14:51:21 GMT -4
I do examine all the evidence you show me and I am grateful to everyone for the time taken in replying.
Everything I say on here is "opinion only". I do not pretend to have proven my case- it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as we all know.
But I am not "trolling". I am not simply here to aggravate people. I believe we did not land on the Moon. The most I have been offered here is proof that we could have landed on the Moon. And I don't even accept that.
Common sense dictates that it would be easier to build a telescope capable of examining the surface of the Moon than it would be to send a manned craft there. Human beings are the most fragile and delicate machines imaginable, capable of survival in only the tiniest window of environment.
I know that Hubble cannot clearly see the Moon, but this is simply because it was designed to view objects which are much further away than the moon. Had it been differently designed, it could have.
Thanks to everybody for the answers by the way- In another place, I am debating with a MD and he tells me that I am wrong "because I have seen the remains on the Moon through a telescope"
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 12:47:03 GMT -4
First you say it's "easy" to build a telescope to resolve Apollo landing artifacts. No I don't. Again you have deliberately falsified something I said because the falsified version appears to make my case weaker. I said it would be eas ier to build a telescope capable of viewing objects on the moon than it would be to transport two human beings there and bring them back again. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 6:33:51 GMT -4
Right. So it would be easier to send two people to the surface of the Moon in 1969 than to build a telescope that could see the surface of the Moon in 2005?
ROFL!
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 4:33:21 GMT -4
The next leap forward will be the development of a telescope which would clearly show any remains from any moon landing, but no-one seems to be in a hurry to develop one, despite the apparent ease of doing such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 16:11:25 GMT -4
... their belief in the moon hoax or any other conspiracy theory. . The moon landing is the conspiracy theory. |
|
