|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:46:03 GMT -4
Forgive me, I'm English, what is a "peanut galley"?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 10:49:14 GMT -4
And what does Buzz Aldrin's perennial non-shame-faced and non-guilt-wracked demeanor indicate? That'll be the Buzz Aldrin whose response to suggestions that it was all a hoax was "You'll have to talk to the administration (NASA) about that. We were just passengers" then? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 6:47:28 GMT -4
Well, let's just hope that when Neil Armstrong goes to meet his Maker, he does so with a clear and untroubled conscience.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 4:59:08 GMT -4
But Steve Wright is the most guest-friendly and non-hostile interviewer you could imagine- and the most basic research by Neil Armstrong's agent would have confirmed this.
You would think NASA would have said "Look Neil, you will be the first man on the moon, and there will be massive public interest in your achivement for the rest of your life, are you up to it?"
No. The reason for his reticence is the same as the reason for his perennial shame-faced and guilt-wracked demeanour.
He has no more walked on the surface of the Moon than have I.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 14:27:21 GMT -4
In the UK, our most popular daytime radio show is a Radio 2 programme called "Steve Wright in the Afternoon"
Steve Wright is the most inoffensive DJ you could imagine. The point of the show is to play middle-of-the-road music, have friendly banter with the studio zoo, and interview guests, invariably because they have a product to promote.
He has interviewed everybody who is anybody- politicians, sportsmen, film stars- famous names from the World over. And always, in a gentle, co-operative and non-hostile way.
There are some UK members here, I'm sure they can confirm the veracity of this.
On more than one occasion, I have heard him relate the tale of how he was once due to interview Neil Armstrong.
Of course, he was very excited about this. Who wouldn't be?
A minute or two before the interview was due to start, following the months of bureaucracy needed to set up such an interview, Neil's agent approached Steve Wright with one very minor, almost insignificant condition before the interview could go ahead.........
"No questions about the Moon"
Well, naturally.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 7:29:47 GMT -4
Can you provide a checkable reference for any of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 15:00:29 GMT -4
margamatix, in my opinion your reputation can only be salvaged if you enjoy a good pint of ale. Anybody who loves a good pint can't be all bad, therefore if you do, you can't be all bad. Regardless of that whole toast and Thames thing.  It seems to me that margamatix enjoys lots and lots of "good pints"! Twinstead's attempt to draw me into that little trap was so shallow and obvious, that I didn't waste my time on it. "Tu quoque" seems to be a favoured weapon among MDs. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 7:47:09 GMT -4
Whereabouts in my posting is the word "always"?
Fabricating and falsifying others' statements in an attempt to discredit an opposing view is typical Moon Delusionalist (MD) behaviour, but don't think I'll let it go unmentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 5:21:16 GMT -4
OK, got that. I believe we went to the Moon then. You just seem to have swallowed Bart Sibrel's hogwash hook, line, and sinker without really giving it much thought, In fact, I had ceased to believe in the moon landings long before I had ever heard of Bart Sibrel. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 16:31:58 GMT -4
Hello Twinstead, see my reply to Kiwi above. Twinstead and Kiwi have arrived at their conclusions based on your actions here. Their comments are not insults; they are observations. If you want them to think differently of you, then give them a reason to. If you want respect, then start earning it. OK, got that. I believe we went to the Moon then. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 15:25:50 GMT -4
Hello Twinstead, see my reply to Kiwi above.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 14:59:24 GMT -4
What we're still waiting for is for you to explain why. If I was required to answer this is one sentence, I would say "Because in the second half of my life, I have learned that the government of the United States is prepared to lie to me" Oh, and the bit in my signature below. And the astronaut who was jerked up on a wire. Any the fully-lit shaded astronauts. And the dust. And the fact that the USA could fund an impossibly expensive space programme at the same time as funding an impossibly expensive war. And everything, basically. I didn't just come up the Thames on a piece of toast, as we say here in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 14:06:58 GMT -4
Kindly stop handwaving and start 'splainin. The only things that Margamatix has proved on this board is that he is extremely ignorant of Apollo and the space programme in general (which is not a sin -- we all were once -- though he likes to talk as if he isn't), and that he is quite incapable of explaining almost anything or providing evidence to back up his claims. And that is sad. Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators. Margamatix is no exception. Just another Oxxo, Earthorbit, Unknown, Cosmic Dave, etc. Still, excellent posts, guys. Although probably wasted on Margamatix and covering ground that has been covered many times before, I always learn new things and imagine that plenty of others are learning and enjoying themselves too. But not Margamatix. Hello Kiwi, I don't make personal attacks on internet forums, so you'll forgive me if I don't respond in kind. In fact, as Jiminy Cricket said, "If you can't say anything nice about a person, then don't say anything at all". So please allow me to compliment you on the vividness of your imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 4:00:06 GMT -4
Thanks for the link, I have read it but must say that I am inclined to agree with Sibrel's views for virtually all of it. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 3:58:40 GMT -4
Maybe this is so for the Concorde, but not for the Shuttle. I'm not sure that the Concorde wasn't far greater jump than Apollo either. A supersonic passanger plane is quite far from virtually anything else we had a the time But with all due respect, I disagree. We have been flying supersonically since the 1940's. Concorde did not go higher, faster or further than planes had travelled before, it was simply larger. This is hardly a major breakthrough in scientific know-how. The moon is 600 times further away than any other manned flight is ever claimed to have travelled. |
|
