|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 18:58:27 GMT -4
The site exists to debate the hoax. Debate is only possible when there is more than one point of view. Well, I'm glad to hear that. However, it does not exist to provide a venue for trolls or the excessively malcontent. Oops, now I'm worried. What do you mean by "trolls or the excessively malcontent"? Not me, surely??? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 18:29:38 GMT -4
Think this over carefully. You and turbonium aren't the only ones whov've been around... would you really want to spend a day on a bus with the likes of xoox/oxxo and unknown/piere nnn? I mean, what are you, a masochist or something?  . Yes, I have read about them. They were here when it was automatic policy for Lunar Orbit to unsubscribe anyone on the ApolloHoax forum who believed Apollo was a hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 17:41:36 GMT -4
. Some seem genuinely interested in learning something and tend to appreciate it. Others just wave it off as it distracts them from endlessly repeating unsupported claims. Well actually, apart from Turbonium, it seems that I am the only HB who ever posts here, but if you can point me in the direction of these "some" and "others" then perhaps we could all hire a big bus and go on a day out?  It didn't happen mate, and the game's nearly up for those who believe it did! |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 17:21:30 GMT -4
Have you ever been diagnosed as having learning difficulties? . No, I haven't |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:50:57 GMT -4
Not necessarily. It's not improper to expect people to have made some effort on their own behalf. Well, like what, if not by asking here? Flying to Houston and knocking on the door? What? It didn't happen Jay. I'm sorry, but there it is. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:20:42 GMT -4
Spirit, you'll generally find your questions treated thoroughly. But you'll find the attitude they are greeted with to vary somewhat with your preparation. In other words, it helps if you make at least a cursory attempt to find the answer first. .But surely, this forum is the place to find that answer? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 9:56:31 GMT -4
As mission control would know the TV camera settings required for correct exposure, it was fairly simple for them to convert that to an EV and camera settings for the astronauts. But the Apollo 11 TV footage was appallingly poor and grainy. You couldn't possibly use it to judge light settings. Did no-one think of taking a light meter? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 9:29:52 GMT -4
They could see the area on the TV camera. Oh right. So the TV camera could judge the light levels? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 9:28:49 GMT -4
Now, back to Bart. Please go and answer the question you were asked by at least three people. I have done, but this is a different thread, on a totally different subject, so please try to keep your comments "on-topic". Spirit, unless you are as thick-skinned as I am , I suggest you do not venture to express even the slightest degree of scepticism as to the authenticity of Apollo on the ApolloHoax forum.... Welcome along, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 9:24:19 GMT -4
Plus, Mission Control in Houston were telling the astronauts what light settings to use. Well, how would that work?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 9:17:12 GMT -4
Plus, you wouldn't be able to change the film or adjust the settings on a Hasselblad camera with those great big pressurised gauntlets on.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 16:14:31 GMT -4
(Edited, unaltered) It's obvious you're not a rocket scientist, but less so that you're intelligent and educted. Painfully obvious is that you insist on remaining stubbornly ignorant. Why do you keep coming back when you know everybody here thinks you're a knucklehead or a chain-yanker? There's no need to be rude or insulting, and I am baffled by your nasty attitude. I am here in good faith. No offence, but I am now going to place you in the same box as "Kiwi"- snide and offensive person, to whom I never reply. Goodbye. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 15:16:34 GMT -4
They were planning to do so but then changed their minds. . Actually, I knew that, but was using a form of English humour known as irony, which it is often said that folk in the US don't understand. I don't mean to confuse, so I won't use this form of irony again. When Joe Taxpayer objected to the plan, it was decided they wouldn't dignify the crazy claims of the conspiracy kooks with a response. But surely books make money? And if Joe Taxpayer objects to the cost of a book, what is he going to say about the cost of the 2018 moon mission? Perhaps this was just the excuse used by NASA to cancel the book when they realised that the more they held Apollo up to public scrutiny, the more ridiculous the whole scenario became? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 14:53:59 GMT -4
That's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. Way to take the high road there Margamatix I think rocketdad "got it" and even if he hadn't, I'm sure he's quite capable of speaking on his own behalf without any assistance from you. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 29, 2005 14:49:41 GMT -4
Cute! Can I use it? I'm not offended in the least, so you know. This is on-par, intellectually, with most of your posts. And it's so CUTE! . Yeah, course you can. It's not mine anyway, just one of those things which float about. And hey, look. I may not be a rocket scientist, but I am a reasonably intelligent and educated person, so if NASA have failed to convince me that the moon landings actually happened, then perhaps they are doing something wrong??? Maybe NASA should commission some kind of book? |
|
