|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 27, 2005 13:07:48 GMT -4
Considering his lack of attention, his inability to understand, his continual repeating of himself without advancing the discussion and providing proper counter-arguments, his refusal to answer questions, his lack of logic, and his overall behaviour here, I feel I should more directly ask him a question I alluded to in the "Rocks" thread, and which he, as usual, didn't answer. Margamatix, are you a drunk? Oh dear. The short answer is that I neither drink nor smoke. I think this is a case where, as Spinoza so rightly stated .... "When Peter tells us about Paul, he tells us more about Peter than he does about Paul" Does that answer your question? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 22, 2005 9:52:51 GMT -4
He often posts just to claim that people are using ad hominem attack . Often? Dishonesty does not help to bolster your case. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 16:36:53 GMT -4
Which photograph is that, and what suggests that it is falsified? There is a picture in Shepard's book that is a composite and I'm pretty sure it was even labelled as such.. It was in Shepherd's book, but was not presented as a composite. It was presented as a true record. Incidentally, Shepherd laughed because he sliced the ball. It is of course impossible to slice a ball in a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 16:26:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 15:52:50 GMT -4
Ground texture would make a difference, distance from the camera would not. If Count Zero's photograph is unmodified, this would be more consistant with the lighting I would expect to see. However, NASA is not above falsification of photographs, as the Alan Shepherd golf photograph demonstrates.
If by "Show me, if you can, any direct evidence of an artificial light source", you mean "show me a photograph with a lighting gantry clearly visible, rather than just the light from it" then I cannot do that, nor would you reasonably expect me to. But then you are unable to accept that an astronaut is being suspended on a wire, simply because the wire itself is not visible, although the effects of its pulling clearly are.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 15:12:31 GMT -4
But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack?My first post in this thread is a lengthy, dispassionate, complete explanation of the phenomenon. You have ignored it completely. Do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from imagining ad hominem attacks? [ Yes, thank you Jay. I was not addressing you with that posting, and I can assure you that I have not ignored your posting but have read it carefully. Count Zero has produced a better image, for which I am thankful. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 14:49:40 GMT -4
. He held the camera crooked, and nearly cut-off the top of Aldrin's head. He was holding the camera? I thought they were chest-mounted? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 14:44:06 GMT -4
Here is a link to the uncropped, first-generation scan at the Project Apollo Image Gallery. The smoothed dust from the engine exhaust is very clear. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 13:53:30 GMT -4
 margamatix;You`re interpretation as to what has been taking place in your threads is as invalid and ill argued as the unsupported and laughable hoax theories you believe in.You`ve not argued a single point but repeated opinions in a childlike manner.You may have removed you last signature but you`re plainly still in dreamland. ;D But do you actually have anything to say on the subject under discussion apart from making an ad hominem attack? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 12:10:47 GMT -4
In other words, give us a good reason why ignoring you wouldn't be just as effective as talking to you. Feel free to ignore me- nobody forces you to do anything else. In the first thread I ever posted, I pointed out that a human being would be able to step further and jump higher on the moon than he would on Earth. Other users then posted a stream of nonsense purporting to explain why this would not be so. I tried to explain it again, then again, and then I simply gave up- what else can I do? I then posted a link to a video showing an astronaut being jerked upwards on a wire. Again, users tried one evasion after the next, citing poor compression (irrelevant) and then lack of sound- as if this would make any difference whatsoever to the visual aspect of this blatantly and poorly hoaxed footage. So I gave up. What else can I do? No doubt I will give up on this too- Buzz Aldrin is clearly standing in artificial light on a relatively flat surface which would not produce the variation in lighting which you suggest, but for whatever reason you refuse to see it. I am asking legitimate questions here, and I am doing so politely and reasonably. If you don't like what I post, then I respectfully suggest that you simply ignore it. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 11:25:02 GMT -4
So what you are saying is that we should start a thread on one subject, and should not discuss any other aspect of the moon landings until we have unanimous agreement on that subject one way or another?
Get real.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 20, 2005 9:41:15 GMT -4
I wonder if somebody could explain to me why the foreground of this photograph is brightly lit whereas the background is in complete darkness?  A spokesman for Hasselblad, who made the camera, stated that it appeared that Buzz Aldrin was standing in a spotlight. Is this so? If not, why is there such a difference on the level of light between the foreground and background? Surely if the moon was lit solely by the sun, the lighting levels would be constant across the moon's surface? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 14, 2005 14:59:46 GMT -4
Well, let's all hope that Apollo didn't happen, as I'm sure you would all be as nauseated as I would if America's first mission to the moon was masterminded by a Nazi war criminal responsible for the mass slaughter of civilians, who should have been hanged at Nuremburg......
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 14, 2005 12:35:53 GMT -4
Was not the Saturn V used to put satilites into space? If so then the fact that they worked is proof enough that the Saturn V does. Besides, if the Russians got their people into space without a rocket that huge, why can't the US? . "Space" in this context means 400 miles away, not 248,000 miles away. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 14, 2005 12:26:12 GMT -4
If you would care to click on the banner ad entitled "Moon Landing Hoax" ( www.moonmovie.com )at the top of the page, you will see that the intro has changed. Whereas it did show footage of many of NASA's launch-pad failures, it now features a young lady who will explain to you, using Nazi war criminal turned NASA scientist Wernher von Braun's own calculations, why the Saturn V rocket would have needed to weigh 800,000 tons and been taller than the Empire State Building in NY in order to have reached the moon. The Saturn V rocket weighed 3000 tons I will stress again, that this is Wernher von Braun's calculation, not Bart Sibrel's. We heve never been to the moon, or anywhere near it. |
|
