|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 13, 2009 22:06:36 GMT -4
Yes ladies and gentlemen... we've all been fooled by that elusive, underground group of Jewish Nazis! Well who would suspect Jews of being Nazis (or Nazis of being Jews)? Its the perfect cover story (especially if the "person" promoting it happens to be a holocaust denier as well). |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 14, 2009 1:20:14 GMT -4
I read that, by Nazi law, only two people were legally not-Jewish who might have had Jewish blood--Jesus and Hitler. (And Hitler was only a maybe, since the actual identity of his grandfather is uncertain.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Apr 14, 2009 15:22:26 GMT -4
1: "Yes ladies and gentlemen... we've all been fooled by that elusive, underground group of Jewish Nazis! I've put in an official complaint to Illuminati Central Admin: Disinfo Agent Weinstein gets paid way more than me, and all he does is airbrush out the embarrassing bits of the pictures. He doesn't even do that properly, because he often knocks out parts of the bloody reseau marks! I have to dispose of all the assassination clients. All those conscience-stricken guys from Grumman and North American and Rocketdyne and MSFC and NASA and Perkin-Elmer and so on need rubbing out, and guess who has to do all the donkey work. Just because the Fourth Reich Fuhrer is Solly Abraham, Weinstein has a ball. If you aren't Jewish, you haven't a hope in the Nazi Party. What with me being 6-4, blond haired and blue eyed, I might as well have "LOSER" written on my face.  |
|
|
|
Post by mtpascoe on Jul 20, 2009 13:48:04 GMT -4
Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities. Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax. Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist. ------------------------------ Do you have any to add? I agree with you. Let me state my position first, then I'll get to why I think the argument about the Soviets taking a pay off is wrong. I see nothing wrong with believing in any kind of conspiracy. The government lies to us all of the time. However, I do believe the landing was real. Of course it could have been faked. You can make any sort of argument and make it sound plausible. But, there is one evidence that I think proves that we did indeed land on the moon. The Soviets. Do you really think the Soviets would have been part of the conspiracy? Remember, that was 1969, the height of the Cold War. They wanted to get there before us and did actually. We just beat them to landing a human on the surface. They have since sent rockets to the moon, but since we got their first, they were not interested in landing on it. Being that they have been there since, they could easily prove that we didn’t land there. And they would have loved to prove that too. Nothing would have given them much pleasure than to do that. But, we did and that’s all I need to know. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 20, 2009 14:53:13 GMT -4
Remember, that was 1969, the height of the Cold War. Unfortunately there seems to be many in the post-Cold War generation that either don't understand what it was like or doubt it even happen. Believing in the moon landing hoax and being a Cold War history revisionist sometimes goes hand in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by friptronic on Jul 23, 2009 14:27:15 GMT -4
I'm new to the site, but I wanted to say a happy hello to all. For the record... I AM a believer that we went to the moon. Not once, but six successful missions to the moon and back. Man has walked on the moon. I couldn't care less how Bart Sibrel and those of his ilk care to spin their so-called "facts". The point is that pure science has refuted every one of the arguments that they've presented to the contrary.
I would also like to say that I am very impressed with what I have been reading in this forum. It seems to contain a collection of some very bright, intellectual and logical people.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 23, 2009 14:40:26 GMT -4
Welcome, friptronic You might want to make a post in the Introduction Thread where it is more likely to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 23, 2009 14:41:49 GMT -4
welcome to our (usually) "happy place", friptronic...pull up a chair.
The story of Apollo is so much more interesting than the hoax could ever be...danger, drama, suspense, sorrow, and overwhelming joy. And hundreds of thousands of workers in so many skills...it just doesn't get any better than that.
Welcome aboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by mowbrax on Jul 27, 2009 8:54:19 GMT -4
To Bob B:
Just thought to expand one of our points, namely:
"Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities.
Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax.
Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist."
There would possibly be further ramifications of the Soviets position. Having "accepted" the bribe, there would be nothing to stop them proclaiming "it's a Hoax", by first providing their evidence, and making it a double whammy by showing that they had been paid a bribe to keep quiet about it. What could the USA do? Demand their bribe back? This would be the ultimate proof that they tried to cover it up!
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive!
|
|
|
|
Post by mowbrax on Jul 27, 2009 9:18:39 GMT -4
I don't know if we've done this one yet, and I'm not going to go back through the two dozen pages to find out, but we've encountered it recently, so it's worth mentioning again. (Well, the BAUT has. But anyway.) 1. It's suspicious that Buzz Aldrin won't swear on Bart Sibrel's Bible. Clearly, that's proof that he never landed on the Moon. 2. When astronauts swear on Bart Sibrel's Bible, it doesn't really mean they landed on the Moon, because it's not really evidence one way or the other. There are at least two possible reasons fro Aldrins refusal. 1. To agree to swear for Sibrel, Aldrin would be essentially agreeing to take part in an enterprise that had some merit. Aldrin knew it was rubbish, therefore why undertake any such action? 2. Does anybody really think that, if Aldrin had sworn on the Bible, that sibrel would have said "Oh, OK, I guess you must be telling the truth. I'll just go and retract everything I've said now and let everybody know that I was wrong"? If Sibrel took this "risk", then he would have had a very good pre-meditated plan, whether Aldrin swore or not. If he did not swear, as was the case, he would (and did) claim that Aldrin could not bring himself to lie. If he did swear, you can bet your bottom dollar that he had something else up his sleeve. for example, the Bible could have been just newspaper, and so he really did not swear on the Bible. If you believe something based on an incorrect foundation, then you inhabit the realm of the imagination, and if so, it is a simple task to simply extend your imagination to cover your supposed beliefs, and there is no limit to this. Incidentally, I have just joined up here.I have just come from contributing to a rather intensive week-long forum hosted by the UK Telegraph. some interesting stuff. In case anyone wants to have a peek, you can find it here: www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=5908432 |
|
|
|
Post by mowbrax on Jul 27, 2009 9:31:38 GMT -4
Hello.. This my first post at ApolloHoax.net. It's good to be among friends (or at least people who are intelligent enough not to fall for Bart Sibrel's Dog and Pony show) The fact that Hoax Pushers (I like that!) cannot agree or are not consistent where they state the alledged hoax took place is just another example of how bogus their ideas are. Their ideas are not scientific, derived from science, or have much of a basis in science. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should like to make it clear that I wholly endorse the fact of the Lunar landings. Forgive me, but, I should just like to point out that there is a flaw in the above argument. Just because a unconnected group of people cannot agree upon a consistent story or explanation, does not necessarily demonstrate that they would necessarily *all* be wrong. If it *was* the case that the Moon landing were faked, the above scenario could also be true. Don't mean any mischief with this, it's just that we have an over whelming body of concrete, demonstrable and empirical evidence to support the Truth, and things like this, being flawed, can only give the HBs more ammunition to make their attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by mowbrax on Jul 27, 2009 9:50:22 GMT -4
Hi again.
Anybody out there know where the HBs post. I'm afraid that here, the overall input is by those who know the Truth, so posts are limited to taking about defence of the landings in a general and indirect way. I should like to lock horns with HBs themselves so I can take up their individual issue directly.
Where wold I find these people?
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 27, 2009 10:16:45 GMT -4
Hi again. Anybody out there know where the HBs post. I'm afraid that here, the overall input is by those who know the Truth, so posts are limited to taking about defence of the landings in a general and indirect way. I should like to lock horns with HBs themselves so I can take up their individual issue directly. Where wold I find these people? Thanks for your help. Generally places where they have the advantage so they can ban you when you start asking difficult questions. Occasionally HBs show up over here, though they generally don't stay around for long for various reasons (often either blowing out or simply disappearing). You might also want to check out the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum, there are a couple of HBs currently active in the Conspiracy Theories section, though its not likely that they will be for much longer (the most active of them is failing to answer questions which means that he is likely to get banned shortly unless his behaviour changes PDQ). |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2009 16:54:54 GMT -4
Hi again. Anybody out there know where the HBs post. I'm afraid that here, the overall input is by those who know the Truth, so posts are limited to taking about defence of the landings in a general and indirect way. I should like to lock horns with HBs themselves so I can take up their individual issue directly. Where wold I find these people? Thanks for your help. Try YouTube. Don't worry too much though, after about a day there, the feeling will wear off and you'll be back here to talk about them behind their backs. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 27, 2009 17:22:49 GMT -4
To Bob B: Just thought to expand one of our points, namely: "Argument #1 – The hoax was perpetrated to fool the Soviets about the USA’s technological capabilities. Argument #2 – The USA paid off the Soviets so they wouldn’t expose the hoax. Contradiction – If the Soviets knew about the hoax and accepted a payoff, then clearly they weren’t being fooled. The motive for perpetrating the hoax in the first place therefore doesn’t exist." There would possibly be further ramifications of the Soviets position. Having "accepted" the bribe, there would be nothing to stop them proclaiming "it's a Hoax", by first providing their evidence, and making it a double whammy by showing that they had been paid a bribe to keep quiet about it. What could the USA do? Demand their bribe back? This would be the ultimate proof that they tried to cover it up! Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! Do you seriously expect the average HB to know anything about logic or history? |
|
