|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 14:58:43 GMT -4
The sunlight reflected off of the moon's surface in front of the astronaut and lit his front side. Simple as that. The program fed you a piece of incorrect information and you swallowed it without thinking. . OK, so if I placed a large mirror on the ground in front of me, it would illuminate my frontal aspect if someone then took a photograph whereby the sun was directly behind me? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 14:21:42 GMT -4
I work with deadlines on big projects all the time and they always seem to come down to the final days That's called "Parkinson's Law"- work expands to fill the time available for its completion. But I expect you know that anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 14:18:50 GMT -4
[Nope. We've seen where you've quoted Sibrel directly. We've seen where you've made claims that are identical with his. We've also accepted your claim that you've gotten your views from other places, and asked you how you came to find and believe them, but you haven't told us. Once again, please forgive me if I do not answer everybody on every point. There is only one of me and there are soooo many of you! The first thing was a programme I watched on British TV. I can't remember what channel, or what it was called, and at the time, although I had heard of a hoax theory, I had simply dismissed this as paranoid conspiracy theory. Well, they started off by pointing out the anomolies in the photos. They pointed out that a rear-lit figure would be in silhouette, and not brightly lit as they were. They showed the pool of light in which the sad charade was artificially illuminated. They pointed out where it ended, and where the centre was. They showed an aerial photograph obtained by a Russian spy satellite which was taken a few dozen miles north of Las Vegas, and compared it with a photo of "the moon" taken from moon orbit. Blimey! It's the exact same place! Then they showed footage from two Apollo missions, hundreds of miles apart. Well, whaddyaknow? Every single rock was in the exact same place. Every background hill was in the same place. It was the same place. Then they showed another bit of footage, where every rock was in the same place, but the backdrop had been changed. Then they showed footage of the astronauts moving around, sped up by a factor of two, which makes it perfectly obvious where they are. At this point, the "Tom & Jerry style donkey's ears" appeared from the top of my head and I realised I had been suckered all along. I was wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it. And at this time, i had never even heard of Bart Sibrel. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 12:58:59 GMT -4
Very well, but why don't you believe it happened? That's what we're most interested in.
There are just so many, many reasons. Some I have given to you. You may disagree with my views, and that is your opinion. Mostly though, because I am not the only person to see something, you simply say "Oh, you got that idea from so-and-so" I am sure you will do that whatever I say, but let me respectfully ask you another question- it is the sheer weight of circumstantial evidence that will finally shatter the Great Moon Lie. President Kennedy announced- rather foolishly- that the USA would send a man to the moon and bring him back by the end of the decade. He did this in May 1961. Within nine years, we had landed on the moon. Within eleven years, six spacecraft had been sent to the moon. Technologically, by 1987, we had moved on by a quantum leap. When NASA were asked if they could send a man "back" to the moon, they said that if they were fully-funded they might be able to do it by 2010. Twenty-three years. Well, why would that be then? Why so much longer. I'll tell you. Because we never went there in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 10:54:28 GMT -4
Your belief is incorrect, . No. That is your opinion only. It is not a statement of fact. Let me try to demonstrate what I mean by looking at things from a slightly different angle. Does God exist? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 7:37:54 GMT -4
While your comments here have in some cases directly mirrored Sibrel’s, these threads have had a cordial tone. Well, I would hope so. Debating differences in a frank and adult manner is what I enjoy, not flaming, or trolling, or slanging matches, but I would have to say that everybody here has been unfailingly polite and patient with me too. Long may it continue. I will have to look into the methods used by Sibrel to gain interviews with astronauts before I can comment on that, as I am sure you will understand. Any urls relating to this will be welcome, although, as I have stated before, Sibrel is only one source among very many. What is Aulis' reason for their stance on the Moon Hoax? The same as Sibrel? And what about Keysing? I gather he is fairly knowledgeable in the field of rocketry. Are they all simply snake-oil salesmen? I will repeat- I don't believe it happened, and that within a very short time-frame, it will be admitted that it didn't. That is my honest and genuine belief, and I have no financial or other vested interest in it. If you manage to prove to me that I am wrong, I will accept that I am wrong. Nobody here has done that yet. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 5:02:59 GMT -4
Would you describe that as a neutral page, or one in which the author has already decided his or her views? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 4:27:00 GMT -4
just like a drug dealer selling crack to children. Oh, please! |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 3, 2005 4:25:42 GMT -4
He isn't my major anti-Apollo source Please don't think I don't see what you're doing here. You're very good at it, but I will keep on asking you what Sibrel's track record of dishonesty does to his credibility in your opinion. Nothing, of course, compels you to answer, but I will keep asking. Good at what? I have found repeated statements here about Sibrel's dishonesty, but despite searching, the only vague reference to this is that he once referred to someone as a NASA employee, when he was in fact a NASA contractor. If you could point me in the direction of further details, I will gladly check them out. As for lying to lure an astronaut into an interview, isn't this what all investigative journalists do? Not that I approve of that, I don't. But those in the UK will recognise it as straightforward "Roger Cook" stuff. Finally, he is only one person out of many who do not believe in this ridiculous charade, and not a major or even a substantial source to me. But then I think I've said that already. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 17:23:21 GMT -4
So do you think that Sibrel believes that the Apollo missions did go to the moon but is pretending to think that they did not?
Or do you think he believes in what he says but is mistaken?
Or what?
And apart from the fact that he holds an opposing view to most of you, is there any reason for the general level of personal opprobrium?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 17:11:40 GMT -4
Therefore, it's appropriate to ask you about the personal integrity, or lack of it, in your major anti-Apollo source. He isn't my major anti-Apollo source. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 16:32:02 GMT -4
[Because web site owners who accept* these ads have no control of what shows up. The ads are just picked out of a database (made up of whoever pays Google ads or other ad service) and inserted based on keywords in the text. It has nothing to do with the web site owners' interest in any particular site. Let me make this clear: random advertising appearing on a web page does not imply endorsement by the owner of a web page! You are absolutely right. I held an opinion which was wrong, it was explained to me why I was wrong, I accept the truth of it and so I came around to a different viewpoint. Not for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 16:00:41 GMT -4
Ahhh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up (and for providing the site)
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 15:17:21 GMT -4
That question is not a "personal" diversion. It goes directly to the credibility of your primary source, whom you have quoted directly and approvingly. Someone who charges money to show you publicly available footage he claims is "exclusive" - and he only shows you short, selective snippets of it. Do you find this source credible? But as I have told you, I had stopped believing in the Great Moon Lie before I had ever heard of Bart Sibrel, and I have never even seen the footage to which you refer. And if he is such a liar, fraud and charlatan, why does the administration of this website accept his dollars to advertise www.moonmovie.com in the banner advertising of every single page here? If we put a man on the moon.......... |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 2, 2005 8:49:54 GMT -4
Just so it's clear: I do apologize for getting your name wrong, Margamatix. It's not a matter of observation but rather memory (lack of) and haste (lots of). Yeah, I knew that. It was wrong of me to pick you up on it and I apologise. |
|
