[Mesuge]

Haha, what a dog & pony show par excellence shown in this very thread..

Guys, seriously with these demonstrated talents why don't you just dispatch your CVs directly to Langley, why bother with discussing peak oil with the possibility just pocketing nice check from them and enjoying the last days of the world on the beach, hah..

Ludi, your video link forwards to a "documentary" which is widely known and described as follows "Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary.." It's a joke movie on purpose, silly major european production/msm hit piece attempt on some otherwise genuine questions (not surrounding Stanley Kubrick rumors). Nobody endorsed it or takes it seriously..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_ ... ocumentary)

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'N')obody endorsed it or takes it seriously..

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'I')n conclusion, Mr. scientist, when the large chunks on the timeline of a particular experiment are not verifiable in independent fashion, the results are deemed questionable, that's science 101.

[Mesuge]

ludi> I'm not SeaGypsy's spoke person but if you are referring to the link bellow, that's just some search result on google/youtube - not even permalink to that particular mocumentary. So gain, as expected yet another sloppy research and reasoning on your "far side of the court" ..
http://peakoil.com/post991833.html#p991833

dorlo> glad to help you with apparent signs of recurrent case of short-span memmory failure, it's still all about your unsubstantiated "100%" claim that the Apollo mission has been tracked all the way by independent 3rd parties. And as you can see directly from the horses mouth at Jodrell Bank, it was not.. From the simple viewpoint of independent verification and scientific objectivity it matters a lot.

Now, you can start rehashed tangetial tirades, or how it suddenly doesn't matter at all. Wise man pause, reflect, admitt error or failure, only kids keep arguing "lalala" style..

[rangerone314]

Maybe aliens faked the Apollo 11 landing, killed JFK and used metal-disintegrating high energy plasma to destroy the WTC.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'l')udi> I'm not SeaGypsy's spoke person but if you are referring to the link bellow, that's just some search result on google/youtube - not even permalink to that particular mocumentary. So gain, as expected yet another sloppy research and reasoning on your "far side of the court" ..

[SeaGypsy]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... a+nazi+ufo

This 6 part doco has pretty much every bit of contrary evidence.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'h')ttp://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nasa+nazi+ufo

This 6 part doco has pretty much every bit of contrary evidence.

[SeaGypsy]

Oops I just realized the link takes you to different pages depending on location.
Here is a specific vid link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQDZbFM62M

[Mesuge]

It seems best to stick with the basics, no need for bombastic grand-schemes and theories, it's not necessary to invoke illuminati type of talk, or even repeat the well known historical fact that the heavy lifting in terms of brainpower for U.S. spaceprogramme was made by relocated nazi war criminals community.

The simple to the point evidence is usually the best one, what seals the case are the out takes in which the Apollo crew is faking port views as to suggest "deep space" view during transit to the Moon, while their are in fact using transparencies (and other cheap hacks) to mask the lit up planet earth in normal orbit. It's actualy hillarious to be seen, the out of proportions earth features are like sourced from comedy central cartoon.. http://www.livevideo.com/video/196B7B81 ... art-1.aspx

And with the Buzz Aldrin's reaction when confronted with this material, along the lines, "..we were just passangers, ask NASA..", there is no point in blaming the astronauts either. Yes it's true some of them gradually went into deep psychological problems and hiding, some like Buzz are able to cope with it just fine, almost with /sportsman's/ type attitute, cheating yes, but done in the name of national or humanity /higher purpose/ and it was likely a lot of fun along the way..

The simple fact is, people directly never visited the surface of the Moon.

[SFDukie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'O')ops I just realized the link takes you to different pages depending on location.
Here is a specific vid link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQDZbFM62M

[Mesuge]

SFDukie> if you take the time to read at least the second half of this thread, you will find the 3rd party verifications are mostly partial at best or invalid claims. Let me repeat, there was no continuous independent verification of the Apollo mission. Soviets didn't have the hardware to track it, the only working global deep space dish network working 24hrs was NASA's property, it makes no sense to enumerate their individual installations, which they owned and manned down in Australia as some kind of independent verification.

As to the moon rocks, I don't know, one peculiar aspect is that the recent european craft which blasted a crater into the moon's surface found largely different soil composition there, and no it wasn't only different territory/soil composition issue. Besides, NASA with von Braun personally on board made a moon-meteorite hunting trip to polar regions few years before the missions. Is it a "100% claim" for my argument, as many Mr. scientists overhere like to say about theirs. Definately not, waving with 100% arguments is for kiddies..

[SFDukie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mesuge', 'N')othing else than sidestepping-show again? What is your problem with not understanding my point from the start? I'm talking about "continuous" verification, the Jodrell Bank Observatory (Luna impact story) is well known, Jodrell by definition is not a global deep space array network as NASA ran back then as the only entity in the world. To the contrary, Jodrell is a single spot on the face of the earth (UK), albeit with some directional "degree of freedom" movement. So, this is not continuous verification capable dish installation and for such a physics virtuoso as you proudly claim to be in every single/other post, shouldn't be hard to figure out they WERE NOT in direct sight for continuous communications with the multi-day Apollo mission. The earth rotates/moon rises at least last time I checked it was true for 1969 as well..

Now, what about a direct quote from email (Percy/White) with this institution,
addressed to Bob Pritchard, his answer:

"In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up to about 1000miles above
the moon's surface. [...] As we were not actively involved in tracking of these
spacecrafts, we didn't track them after they left the moon."

/and not continuosly on their way to the moon either
added comment and emphasis mine

In conclusion, Mr. scientist, when the large chunks on the timeline of a particular experiment are not verifiable in independent fashion, the results are deemed questionable, that's science 101.

[Mesuge]

SFDukie> I'm not asserting anything in this regard, above in that quote I just refuted false claims of some "100%" ers on this forum vis a vis independent verification, that Jodrell Observatory in UK tracked these missions, which they in their own words did not. I won't speculate on this subject, but since we know from the telecast record NASA very likely faked the expedition just sitting out the earth-orbit phase of the flight, it stands to reason humans didn't relay these messages back to earth. Was it just a stupid signal retranslating probe around moon's orbit, I don't know, that would be speculation at this point, since I didn't studied this particular aspect in any depth.

There is a scientific literature and experiments since mid 60s bouncing successfully laser signals off the moon's surface without any reflectors. Some suggest it could be also reflected from automatic probes which landed here.
I don't know.

You see, the point is it's all just talk, it's hard to prove any side of the argument,
unless you control the experiment in opensource fashion from A-Z. And this has not been done, I doubt it ever will be done with 3rd parties as transparent as China, hah.

Perhaps a bambillionaire's pet project - blasting his own low alt. sat over moon's surface with truly high res camera, could shed some light on it, unlikely anyway.

In case the second half of the hubbert's peak would shake up this civilization to its knees, we will probably never know. It might just survive as any other legend: "Once upon a time, those crazy people from steel woven houses, even claimed to reach the moon, crazies.."

[dorlomin]

Does anyone else come from Mesuges home planet? Can you translate this for him
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Let me say this with 100% certainty. A human manufactured object launched from the US orbited and produced a lander that landed on the moon during all of the Apollo lander missions.

[Mesuge]

Out of context quotes circus again? I think you tried it few times in the past and surprise, didn't work. Good half of this thread is about debating the independent verification issue of the missions from various angles. A debate in which you engaged repeatedly, had some minor - potentially good points, which I acknowledged. But as finally demonstrated you fought with apparently kinked ammo, that's why you dug into own hole with your Jodrell Observatory tracking claims in the first place. For any impartial observer it's clear that you lost the debate several posts ago.

Strawman from me? So, now we have accusation from a poster and his buddies, who used every silly tactics in the book, name calling, tangential sidestepping the topic, and what have you in just few recent pages to avoid addressing the facts.

I don't have to be shielded from the real world out there, inside the approved -feel good- message camp, desperately clinging to nanny-state/dominant culture produced fairytales. I'm alright with the "minority opinion" status, what's rather shocking is the demonstrated shallowness of the other side on every metrics be it facts, independent judgement and the form of discussion itself. And men of similar ilk even start and weep inside a dedicated thread why this site went downhill, hilarious..

And with these kind of kindergarten attitudes the mankind aspires to survive the dark side of hubbert's peak, hah, less chance than a snowflake in Hell, thanks for watching..

[SeaGypsy]

My list of reasons I don't believe in the moon landings:

1/ No crater, no dust on the module, no scorch marks on the surface.

2/ Dodgy photos with multiple artificial light sources.

3/ No repeats since.

4/ No photographs of the 'moon buggy' since.

5/ No dust cloud from the module at relaunch.

6/ Stilted performance of said astronauts in various press conferences.

7/ No independent oversight or verification.

8/ Obvious staging of window shots from the module.

9/ The USA does lots of dodgy stuff for propoganda purposes.

10/ No decent shots of the landing site since.

As to why am I bothering with this? Because I don't approve of Mos technique or that of his article writer. The assumption that anyone who doubts American propoganda is a nut job. The lumping up of mad ideas with those you just don't like, but which there is questionable evidence for. This argument is exactly the definition of straw man. Effectively Mos and most of the yanks here are prepared to argue black and blue that if you doubt the veracity of USG claims about the moon landings and 9/11, you are a nut job. JFK aside, although JFK is very important in this debate because his case is the 1st instance in US history of treasonous fraud by elements of the USG beaurocracy.

To this day the treason continues. Sending young soldiers to die in a war which cannot be justified. The so called reasons have been changed so many times people have forgotten why. Ask 5 Americans why the USA is in Afghanistan and likely you will get 5 different answers.

To hunt down Osama (Probably long dead anyway.)
To kill terrorists. (Were any Afghans involved in 9/11? Saudi weren't they?)
To prevent rag heads abusing women. ( Doesn't that go on almost everywhere?)
To avenge 9/11. (Again; where were the Afghans in 9/11?)
To get the oil. (What oil?)

My thinking on Afghanistan is that it's mostly about supply lines from the middle east oilfields into Chindia; to a lesser extent to send a signal to the fragmented Muslim world not to f&$% with the USA (or try to unite).

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '7')/ No independent oversight or verification.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '7')/ No independent oversight or verification.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', ' ')But I certainly don't believe these guys flew up there with a moon buggy on board then took off again with hundreds of pounds of moon rocks.