|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 15:52:15 GMT -4
Yes, it does seem like it, but luckily I'm thick-skinned!
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 15:45:56 GMT -4
I enjoy this forum and like reading the messages from other members, particularly Jay, BobB, Sticks and sts60 but can I just confirm that I will not be banned from the forum simply because I do not believe in the Moon landings?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 16:45:55 GMT -4
or the careful explanation as to why the LM footpads should not have been covered in dust. . Eugene Cernan's explanation of how moon dust behaves and yours are diametrically opposed. He said it went everywhere, and got in to all moving parts. Like dust would. Anywhere. You say it would not even be found on the feet of the lunar module after it had landed, using its engine as its braking method. Well, you can just imagine the dust that that would kick up. I'm sure you understand the weight of the Lunar Module, and the physics involved. I'm sure you can understand my confusion.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 15:59:55 GMT -4
We believe in Apollo's authenticity because that's where the facts point. When you say "We", who exactly do you mean? I must say that I am finding this forum more difficult than others to judge. Most forums consist of a mix of opinions but this one seems to consist completely and entirely of those who believe in the moon landings. Most of the archived threads I have read so far seem to go roughly as follows.... Poster 1. "I believe the Apollo landings were genuine" Poster 2. "So do I" Poster 3 "Me too" Well, what kind of forum is that? I have pointed out to you that astronauts moved no further or higher than they could on Earth, that video footage clearly shows an astronaut being hoisted on a wire, that a surface which should have been covered in dust contained not one mote of it, that the Russians faked *their* space programme too (and backed this up with a quote from a NASA engineer), that despite the ease of doing so, astronauts refuse to swear an oath that they have been there. I have given you a link to an interview with Neil Armstrong which clearly shows his evasion and the interviewer's scepticism, and I have pointed out to you the utter absurdity of suggesting this could have been done anyway in a craft with less computer capacity than a pocket calculator. As we become more technologically advanced, the whole sad saga becomes more implausable, untenable and transparently bogus. Within five years, NASA will 'fess up. They have no choice if they ever wish to develop a more ambitious space programme than the Space Shuttle, which reflects the height of our technical ability at this time.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 15:28:50 GMT -4
Speaking of polls determining objective truth - margamatix, I'm pretty sure that you dislike the current U.S. administration. . No, not at all. Although I did not for one minute believe that Iraq had WMD and opposed my own country's involvement there, believing it would lead to attacks on the UK, I do not live in the USA and so do not wish to venture an opinion on their administration. Time will tell whether Mr Bush was a decent and honest president, or a thoroughly dishonest and fraudulent trickster like, for example, Richard Nixon.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 9:30:22 GMT -4
Stick to a topic and support your propositions if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise don’t be surprised if others find you less than credible. There sems little point in simply saying the same thing over and over. For example, if someone refuses to believe that an astronaut is suspended on a wire when he quite clearly is, and such is obvious to anyone, then you may as well accept that he has closed his mind to your argument and move on.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 9:25:27 GMT -4
I accept it's not a very scientific method of extracting public opinion, but it still seems a very high proportion of sceptics to me.I voted No, but then I never believed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction either despite all the evidence that they did.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:02:30 GMT -4
I've just been looking at the BBC science website (the BBC is the state broadcaster here in the UK and is generally considered reliable). The url is www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/moonvote.shtmlThe site discusses both sides of the hoax theory (although it should be noted that the BBC's position is the standard version- that we did land on the moon. The result (so far) of a poll which asked the question "Did we really land on the moon" is Yes (11,363 votes) 59.0% No (7884 votes) 41.0% There is some fascinating video footage of Neil Armstrong appearing on the BBC TV programme "The Sky At Night". (Centre of page, beneath "the experts", click "watch interview") Watch how he only gets seven words into the sentence before he realises his error and corrects himself. Watch Patrick Moore's response- the four words "because you've been there" make it obvious that he doesn't believe a word of it but is prepared to go along with it like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 15:19:30 GMT -4
But Cernan said that the dust got everywhere including folds of the spacesuit and all moving parts. So how did it get there? Either dust behaves as dust, or it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:10:23 GMT -4
The simple answer is that as there is no atmosphere or wind on the moon the dust stays where it lands unless it gets kicked up, by say, walking on it. . And you don't think that the Lunar module using its engine to brake itself as it descended to the surface would kick it up?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 8:08:21 GMT -4
Yet you continue to say that man never landed on the moon, I'd advise you to have an open mind, as a closed one will never, ever, help you. I believed for over 30 years that we did land on the moon and it is only the weight of evidence I have seen that convinced me that I was wrong. You can hardly say I have a closed mind. I will continue to look objectively at any site to which I am directed by forum members, but none I have seen so far comes within a million miles of being "proof"
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 7:49:00 GMT -4
I have looked at all of the sites I have been directed to, and I have not found one piece of evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that man has landed on the moon.
I found a website called ApolloHoax.net which has an "Apollo Hoax" forum, one board of which is called "The Hoax Theory".
On the "Hoax theory" board of the "Apollo Hoax" forum on the "Apollo Hoax.net" website, I have theorised that Apollo is a hoax.
If that's trolling, then heaven help us. It aught to be made clearer that this is a board purely for those who positively believe that the moon landings are real, and that others are unwelcome.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 6:37:54 GMT -4
Couldn't you just say what the reason is?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 5:52:35 GMT -4
The astronauts claimed that moon dust was plentiful and all-pervasive. Cernan claimed that it was so abundant that it even got into the pores of the skin "and all moving parts"
Yet in the moon photographs, there is not a single piece of dust on the feet of the Lunar Module- they are perfectly clean. Why is this?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 27, 2005 16:27:35 GMT -4
Apparently it was post-Communism "Pravda" (probably the most respected Russian newspaper) who released this information, and Aulis also contains this quote.... Pravda hurts the credibility of the story. NASA tells the same story- see the quote I provided above.
|
|