On Feb 27, 10:42 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 26, 10:22 pm, "Tonico" wrote:

Second and last time, Koobee, that I ask you: if you prefer not to
answer and dodge I sure will understand:

I am sorry. I get so many hate mails everyday due to my strong ethics
that I cannot possibly be able to answer them all. Please understand
that.

what will YOU call "a
convincing proof of man's landing (mooning?) on the moon" to?

I don't. Please allow me to elaborate.

What, in
your eyes, is a valid, beyond-reasonable-doubt, proof that Armstrong
and Aldrin did ACTUALLY walk on the moon on july 1969?

When they have claimed that they did, the burden is on them to prove
so. I merely have to analyze their reports to conclude if they are
full of sh*t or not.

You keep on
telling us about the several "suspicious" stuff there is surrounding
the whole thing, but you haven't yet told us what you'd call
"convincing proof" to .

That is correct. In scenarios like these, proofs are meaningless.

************************************************** ******
Uuuh?? I wouldn't say "proofs" are meaningless in ANY scenenarios at
all, but I find it hard to believe that you claim that about something
YOU are doubting and asking proof for! It is YOU who's asking for
"proof" of something that happened, apparently, some 38 years ago, and
you say "proofs" here are meaningless?
Then your goal is merely to shout "doubt, conspiracy, lies!!!", and
when somebody points at some good pieces of good proof, you just say
"bah, that's meaningless!"?
This looks to me like utter intellectual dishonestity...
************************************************** ********

However, I do want the detailed accounts to be totally accountable
although I may forgive one or two. Is that too much to ask? This is
how police detective work discern if a suspect is lying or not.

Another poster already told you about pics, witnesses, TV images, moon
rocks, reflectors and etc., and you dismissed all this as "cheap
stuff", so again: what will be VALID in your eyes?

Again, I expect most of the detailed accounts to be thoroughly
accountable. Liars would leave a trail as slimy as a snail would.
Did you watch the documentary where the guy interviewed all the
astronauts? The one that claimed he slept through the Van Allen Belts
is just funny as hell. We all know he was lying. I wish I could
share the video with you. However, the old link I had is no longer
available. Maybe someone can provide the one where Buzz punched the
same reporter.

************************************************** ****************
"We ALL know he was lying"? No, I don't...is it impossible to sleep
why crossing through the van Allen belt? Or why "we all know" that he
was lying?
And again back to one of my main questions in my first message to you,
which remained unanswered (and I forgot to include it in my second
message): in your message I first answered to, there were the
following lines:

Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?
This point is irrefutable so far.

(The first line is apparently from The_man, the second one is from
you, Koobee)

And my question was: what makes the claim "men have orbited the Earth"
irrefutable in your mind? Why do you, apparently, think this really
happened once, and still is happening in our days, but "man landed on
the moon" didn't?
I mean: one claim is as verifiable and certain FOR YOU (and for most
of us, normal, simple mortals) as the other one....or it is not? And
if it is not, why?
And going on further on this: do you believe there existed this guy
called Napoleon? What about Hitler: do you think he ever existed? And
what about Einstein, the 100 years war, the crusades or the
independence war (of any country of your choice)? Why do you believe
some historical characters, wars, feats, etc. did actually exist, but
some other (people walking on the moon, say) didn't? Or you find
doubtable EVERYTHING at all that you didn't experience directly,
whatever this means?
Regards
Tonio
************************************************** *****************

Regards
Tonio

Well, best regards to you, too.
Yours truly, Koobee Wublee

On Feb 26, 2:21 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"JanPB" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 1:07 pm, "Don Stockbauer"
wrote:
(Version 2)

"That's one small step for a man, one Giant Bunny hop for......

Which reminds me: what is then the standard response from the Moon
hoaxers to the question: "Who then put the laser reflector on Moon's
surface in the area of the landings (claimed to have never occurred) -
the one used every day for lunar ranging?"

--
Jan Bielawski

Beats me. They never heard of Apollo 8, man's first trip to the Moon
and back. What's the big deal about landing when you've seen the far side?
The British Harrier was first in vertical thrust after the flying bedstead.

The first Flying Bedstead was the British Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig which flew in 1953 at Hucknall aerodrome, Nottinghamshire, England -- Wackypedia
I remember it from Pathe News at the cinema.

The second aircraft known as the Flying Bedstead was the LLRV (Lunar Landing Research Vehicle) developed by the United States in the 1960s as part of the Apollo program. -- Wackypedia

Apollo 9 was Earth orbit docking manoeuvres, Apollo 10 was "Snoopy"
and "Charlie Brown". It was all tested before 11 was tried.
All it took was balls, there are plenty of those round.
Given the chance, I'd have gone. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
The hoax brigade are a bunch of spineless ignorant cowards.

Ladies and gentlemen currently infesting sci.physics, I invite you
to witness a miracle; Androcles and I agree all the way down to the
ground on something. When I was a kid watching the Mercury and Gemini
missions on B&W TV I could see where it was headed and Apollo was my
near-vindication. I then figured that by this time I'd be retiring as
say a mining engineer on Mars, but NOOOOOOO!, we had to kill the space
program. **** NASA. **** Congress. **** all of you "We need to spend
that money sheltering the homeless" idiots. And most specifically,
enthusiastically and personally, **** YOU SCHOENFELD AND ALL THOSE WHO
SMELL LIKE YOU!


Mark L. Fergerson

Cough SPIT

OH how I wish you were here

--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_.../Kaleidoscope/

Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/

On Feb 27, 10:59 pm, "Tonico" wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:42 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Uuuh?? I wouldn't say "proofs" are meaningless in ANY scenenarios at
all, but I find it hard to believe that you claim that about something

What did I claim?

YOU are doubting and asking proof for!

No, I am not asking for proofs.

It is YOU who's asking for
"proof" of something that happened, apparently, some 38 years ago, and
you say "proofs" here are meaningless?

Again, I did not ask for proofs, but it would be nice. It is rather
too late to ask for proofs anymore.

Then your goal is merely to shout "doubt, conspiracy, lies!!!", and
when somebody points at some good pieces of good proof, you just say
"bah, that's meaningless!"?

No, my goal is not to shout "doubt, conspiracy, lies".

This looks to me like utter intellectual dishonestity...

My position is to analyze what they have claimed and decide on if the
claims are valid or not.

Again, I expect most of the detailed accounts to be thoroughly
accountable. Liars would leave a trail as slimy as a snail would.
Did you watch the documentary where the guy interviewed all the
astronauts? The one that claimed he slept through the Van Allen Belts
is just funny as hell. We all know he was lying. I wish I could
share the video with you. However, the old link I had is no longer
available. Maybe someone can provide the one where Buzz punched the
same reporter.

"We ALL know he was lying"? No, I don't...

Again, if you are commenting on something you have not read your
comments are worthless and sinister. Have you seen the video I
mentioned?

is it impossible to sleep
why crossing through the van Allen belt?

I don't know. Have you slept through the Van Allen Belts?

Or why "we all know" that he was lying?

Have you seen the video?

And again back to one of my main questions in my first message to you,
which remained unanswered (and I forgot to include it in my second
message): in your message I first answered to, there were the
following lines:

Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?

This point is irrefutable so far.

I cannot refute that one, yes. shrug

(The first line is apparently from The_man, the second one is from
you, Koobee)

And my question was: what makes the claim "men have orbited the Earth"
irrefutable in your mind?

Because I cannot find anything contrary to it. shrug

Why do you, apparently, think this really
happened once, and still is happening in our days, but "man landed on
the moon" didn't?

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that are contradictory to
this claim. shrug

I mean: one claim is as verifiable and certain FOR YOU (and for most
of us, normal, simple mortals) as the other one....or it is not?

Which one is verifiable?

And if it is not, why?

I don't understand your logic.

And going on further on this: do you believe there existed this guy
called Napoleon?

Again, it is not a matter of belief. shrug

What about Hitler: do you think he ever existed?

I cannot refute his existence. shrug

And what about Einstein,

Same. shrug

the 100 years war

Which 100 years war? You need to be more specific. shrug

the crusades

Which crusade? You need to be more specific.

or the independence war (of any country of your choice)?

Every event in history is independent of each other. shrug What do
you not know this?

Why do you believe
some historical characters, wars, feats, etc. did actually exist, but
some other (people walking on the moon, say) didn't?

Again, because each event in history is independent of each other. It
is case by case. shrug What do you think all events in history are
related?

Or you find
doubtable EVERYTHING at all that you didn't experience directly,
whatever this means?

Yes, whatever you mean.

Do you believe in tooth fairies? If yes, OK. If not, why not?
Please be specific.

On Feb 27, 10:31 pm, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
[snip junk]


Or why "we all know" that he was lying?

Have you seen the video?

Try something for me.

The next time you get called for jury duty, explain that you would be
a good juror because you are capable of detecting guilt merely by
looking into the eyes of the defendant.

[snip remaining junk]

On 28 feb, 09:31, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:59 pm, "Tonico" wrote:

On Feb 27, 10:42 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
Uuuh?? I wouldn't say "proofs" are meaningless in ANY scenenarios at
all, but I find it hard to believe that you claim that about something

What did I claim?

YOU are doubting and asking proof for!

No, I am not asking for proofs.

It is YOU who's asking for
"proof" of something that happened, apparently, some 38 years ago, and
you say "proofs" here are meaningless?

Again, I did not ask for proofs, but it would be nice. It is rather
too late to ask for proofs anymore.

Then your goal is merely to shout "doubt, conspiracy, lies!!!", and
when somebody points at some good pieces of good proof, you just say
"bah, that's meaningless!"?

No, my goal is not to shout "doubt, conspiracy, lies".

This looks to me like utter intellectual dishonestity...

My position is to analyze what they have claimed and decide on if the
claims are valid or not.

Again, I expect most of the detailed accounts to be thoroughly
accountable. Liars would leave a trail as slimy as a snail would.
Did you watch the documentary where the guy interviewed all the
astronauts? The one that claimed he slept through the Van Allen Belts
is just funny as hell. We all know he was lying. I wish I could
share the video with you. However, the old link I had is no longer
available. Maybe someone can provide the one where Buzz punched the
same reporter.

"We ALL know he was lying"? No, I don't...

Again, if you are commenting on something you have not read your
comments are worthless and sinister. Have you seen the video I
mentioned?

is it impossible to sleep
why crossing through the van Allen belt?

I don't know. Have you slept through the Van Allen Belts?

Or why "we all know" that he was lying?

Have you seen the video?

And again back to one of my main questions in my first message to you,
which remained unanswered (and I forgot to include it in my second
message): in your message I first answered to, there were the
following lines:

Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?

This point is irrefutable so far.

I cannot refute that one, yes. shrug

(The first line is apparently from The_man, the second one is from
you, Koobee)

And my question was: what makes the claim "men have orbited the Earth"
irrefutable in your mind?

Because I cannot find anything contrary to it. shrug

Why do you, apparently, think this really
happened once, and still is happening in our days, but "man landed on
the moon" didn't?

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that are contradictory to
this claim. shrug

I mean: one claim is as verifiable and certain FOR YOU (and for most
of us, normal, simple mortals) as the other one....or it is not?

Which one is verifiable?

And if it is not, why?

I don't understand your logic.

And going on further on this: do you believe there existed this guy
called Napoleon?

Again, it is not a matter of belief. shrug

What about Hitler: do you think he ever existed?

I cannot refute his existence. shrug

And what about Einstein,

Same. shrug

the 100 years war

Which 100 years war? You need to be more specific. shrug

the crusades

Which crusade? You need to be more specific.

or the independence war (of any country of your choice)?

Every event in history is independent of each other. shrug What do
you not know this?

Why do you believe
some historical characters, wars, feats, etc. did actually exist, but
some other (people walking on the moon, say) didn't?

Again, because each event in history is independent of each other. It
is case by case. shrug What do you think all events in history are
related?

Or you find
doubtable EVERYTHING at all that you didn't experience directly,
whatever this means?

Yes, whatever you mean.

Do you believe in tooth fairies? If yes, OK. If not, why not?
Please be specific.
****************************************
You wrote above that you don't understand "my" logic, so then either:
(1) you didn't care to read carefully my post, or (2) your command of
english is a little weak, or (3) what you call logic is not what I
call logic.
Anyway, it seems to me the reason you cast doubt on the moon landings
is because some reason you can't point at specifically; "reasons" like
"suspicious looks of interviewed people" or stuff like that, otherwise
I can't see why you'd rather dodge specific remarks I did about your
position: you said about a video that "we all know he (who??) was
lying", and I said: "No, I don't"...and instead of making your point
clear you ask me whether I saw the video or not...!! No, I didn't see
that video. I don't even know what video is that at all. What I'd want
is YOU to explain to me why you claim that "we all know he was lying":
was it something he, whoever this "he" is, said? Or was it that he was
shy and didn't look up straight at the camera...what?
And again, when I ask you about why you think some historic did happen
and some others don't, you simply say "that (Einstein's existence, the
crusades, etc.) I can't refute", and I ask you now directly: can you
REFUTE that there were moon landings and men walked on the moon? If
you CAN NOT then, according to yourself, this would an "irrefutable
fact", and if you can then I ask: how? What are your proofs?
Perhaps you meant to say only that some things surrounding the moon
landings look suspicious to you, and it may be that some of those
things would look suspicious to me as well, but that would NOT lead me
to cast doubt about the fact itself...yet.
Anyway, you wrote : "However, I do want the detailed accounts to be
totally accountable although I may forgive one or two. Is that too
much to ask? This is how police detective work discern if a suspect
is lying or not"
Ok, what accounts are you talking about? Which ones are still NOT
totally accountable for and WHY?
The Van Allen Belt radiation thing seems to be unfounded, though I'm
not a physicist (I'm a mathematician). I quote "Proponents of the
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax allegations have argued that space travel to
the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or
incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. James Van Allen himself,
now deceased (August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice,
Apollo astronauts who traveled to the moon spent very little time in
the belts and would have received a harmless dose [6]. Nevertheless
NASA said that they deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar
transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the
equator to minimize the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon
would probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their
lifetimes."
You may also want to check http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Van%20Allen%20belts.htm
Regards
Tonio

sal wrote:

Yeah. It's late in history to revise it. (Did you know that you can
actually redevelop silver halide film?)

Only up to a point. Specifically, you can increase the size of
silver crystals which already formed, thus increasing the density, but
anything which didn't crystallize in the initial development is gone,
dissolved away by the hypo (the "fixer").

There is a bit more to it. You can bleach out the old image, then
redevelop in a toner that binds to the exposed crystals AND stains the
local area gelatin. But we digress...

But we digress...

Heaven forbid we do that.

On Feb 27, 4:10 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:

Funny, that. I thought Canadian bills were coloured like ours,
but you are right, they have a picture of the Queen on them.
BBC news broadcaster: "It is more that 20,000 miles to the Moon".
It is more than 26,000 miles around the equator, too.


That is absurd on the face of it. I can see the Moon from my back
yard. I can't see downtown, which is a mere 2 miles away. Clearly, the
moon has to be closer than 2 miles to my back yard.

On Feb 28, 1:41 am, "Tonico" wrote:
On 28 feb, 09:31, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Do you believe in tooth fairies? If yes, OK. If not, why not?
Please be specific.

You wrote above that you don't understand "my" logic,

Did I say that?

so then either:

I was just asking you one question. Do you believe in tooth fairies?

(1) you didn't care to read carefully my post, or

I read carefully what you wrote. You are the one who is making the
wrong conclusion.

(2) your command of english is a little weak, or

Is this pot calling kettle black?

(3) what you call logic is not what I call logic.

Obviously. shrug

Anyway, it seems to me the reason you cast doubt on the moon landings
is because some reason you can't point at specifically;

Wrong.

"reasons" like
"suspicious looks of interviewed people"

No.

or stuff like that,

What else?

otherwise
I can't see why you'd rather dodge specific remarks I did about your
position:

What remarks?

you said about a video that "we all know he (who??) was
lying", and I said: "No, I don't"...and instead of making your point
clear you ask me whether I saw the video or not...!! No, I didn't see
that video. I don't even know what video is that at all. What I'd want
is YOU to explain to me why you claim that "we all know he was lying":
was it something he, whoever this "he" is, said? Or was it that he was
shy and didn't look up straight at the camera...what?

As I said, if you have not seeing the video, it would be groundless to
discuss that issue. And you have no right to argue against anyone on
that issue. I have posted the link of that video already and
questioned why it is no longer available just like the moon radiation
posts yesterday right here on this thread.

And again, when I ask you about why you think some historic did happen
and some others don't, you simply say "that (Einstein's existence, the
crusades, etc.) I can't refute", and I ask you now directly: can you
REFUTE that there were moon landings and men walked on the moon?

Yes.

If
you CAN NOT then, according to yourself, this would an "irrefutable
fact", and if you can then I ask: how? What are your proofs?

As Mr. Bielawski said, the burden of proof lies in the ones making the
claim. At this stage, all one can do is to examine the validity of
each sub-claim.

Perhaps you meant to say only that some things surrounding the moon
landings look suspicious to you, and it may be that some of those
things would look suspicious to me as well, but that would NOT lead me
to cast doubt about the fact itself...yet.

So, casting doubt about the existence of the tooth fairies does not
mean the non-existence of the tooth fairies. See! I understand your
logic perfectly.

Anyway, you wrote : "However, I do want the detailed accounts to be
totally accountable although I may forgive one or two. Is that too
much to ask? This is how police detective work discern if a suspect
is lying or not"
Ok, what accounts are you talking about? Which ones are still NOT
totally accountable for and WHY?

Have you done a web search on the ones who think the moon landings are
hoaxes?

The Van Allen Belt radiation thing seems to be unfounded, though I'm
not a physicist (I'm a mathematician). I quote "Proponents of the
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax allegations have argued that space travel to
the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or
incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. James Van Allen himself,
now deceased (August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice,
Apollo astronauts who traveled to the moon spent very little time in
the belts and would have received a harmless dose [6]. Nevertheless
NASA said that they deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar
transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the
equator to minimize the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon
would probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their
lifetimes."

NASA published the radiation received by the astronauts in the
following article.

TN D-7080 - Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation

Apollo 11 astronauts receive a total radiation of 0.18 rad. 14
receive 1.14 rads.

Does that seem reasonable to go through the Van Allen Belts and back?
The spacecraft has very minimal shielding. How about the radiation in
outer space beyond the Van Allen Belts?