🚀 go-pugleaf

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:XI8X8.32648$Hj3.98137@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> Recent TV program claims it was a hoax, but this is apparently refuted at
> http://www.badastronomy.com
> ==============================================

In the long run what measurable difference does it make to your situation
if it was a hoax or real?


If it was a hoax then you would expect to see ..., you would not
expect to see..
If it was not a hoax then you would expect to see ..., you would not
expect to see..
(fill in the blanks)
How would hoaxers benefit?
How do those who assert it was a hoax benefit?

The main thing against all conspiracies is there is always, eventually,
a leak, a paper trail , tourists want to visit or someone tries to replicate
the results. Just look at the large corporations, billion dollar black holes
with no results have a habit of swallowing all around them within a few
years.

It made no sense to send men to the moon at that time,
it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.
It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.


http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html

As the conspiracy theorists pack up their digital videos in their
velcro bags check their email and call HQ on the mobile phone
they can be sure there is no evidence supporting a moon landing.

No, its all real, I have seen the movies on it and what you see on the
movies is all real, they wouldn't make a movie like that if it was false ,
now, would they ??

"Terry Russell" <trochilus@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d2d2739$0$823$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:XI8X8.32648$Hj3.98137@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> > Recent TV program claims it was a hoax, but this is apparently refuted
at
> > http://www.badastronomy.com
> > ==============================================
>
> In the long run what measurable difference does it make to your situation
> if it was a hoax or real?
>
>
> If it was a hoax then you would expect to see ..., you would not
> expect to see..
> If it was not a hoax then you would expect to see ..., you would not
> expect to see..
> (fill in the blanks)
> How would hoaxers benefit?
> How do those who assert it was a hoax benefit?
>
> The main thing against all conspiracies is there is always, eventually,
> a leak, a paper trail , tourists want to visit or someone tries to
replicate
> the results. Just look at the large corporations, billion dollar black
holes
> with no results have a habit of swallowing all around them within a few
> years.
>
> It made no sense to send men to the moon at that time,
> it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.
> It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.
>
>
> http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/spinoff.html
>
> As the conspiracy theorists pack up their digital videos in their
> velcro bags check their email and call HQ on the mobile phone
> they can be sure there is no evidence supporting a moon landing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<XI8X8.32648$Hj3.98137@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
> Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> Recent TV program claims it was a hoax, but this is apparently refuted at
> http://www.badastronomy.com
> ==============================================

I've heard that Idaho is a hoax. There are people who say there is a
state called Idaho, even people who claim to have been there, but who
says they're not all in on the conspiracy? Shipments of potatoes are
marked "Idaho potatoes" and cars are driven around with Idaho plates
that say "Famous Potatoes", but I'm told that's all just to perpetuate
this fraud.

There are two ways of proving whether or not the moon-landing was a hoax or
not: (1) Immediately open up Area 51 (in Nevada desert) to public
inspection - this is where the hoax scenes allegedly were made; and/or (2)
wait until the Japanese send a rocket to the moon in two years time, to take
close-up photographs - of relics of past moon missions.  As to movies, I
have just viewed "Capricorn One" (1978), which is so well produced, you'd
swear it was a documentary.
Incidentally, did Lee Harvey Oswald (the alleged assassin), act alone, or
act at all, re JFK?  How fast can you operate a bolt-action rifle?
==============================
George W. Frost wrote in message ...
>No, its all real, I have seen the movies on it and what you see on the
>movies is all real, they wouldn't make a movie like that if it was false ,
>now, would they ??

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
<donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:

Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
I am sure sci.logic.

Mark Addinall.

According to an independant Government forensic scientist, a man who was
shot in the head with a bolt action rifle, died about 5 seconds after being
hit in the head of brain damage and massive blood loss, yet the police
forensic scientist, said that after being hit in the head with the first
round, the man was also shot in the head with two more rounds from this bolt
action rifle and then claimed that the man had acted alone, therefore he
committed suicide.


"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:GYmX8.33189$Hj3.99709@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> There are two ways of proving whether or not the moon-landing was a hoax
or
> not: (1) Immediately open up Area 51 (in Nevada desert) to public
> inspection - this is where the hoax scenes allegedly were made; and/or (2)
> wait until the Japanese send a rocket to the moon in two years time, to
take
> close-up photographs - of relics of past moon missions.  As to movies, I
> have just viewed "Capricorn One" (1978), which is so well produced, you'd
> swear it was a documentary.
> Incidentally, did Lee Harvey Oswald (the alleged assassin), act alone, or
> act at all, re JFK?  How fast can you operate a bolt-action rifle?
> ==============================
> George W. Frost wrote in message ...
> >No, its all real, I have seen the movies on it and what you see on the
> >movies is all real, they wouldn't make a movie like that if it was false
,
> >now, would they ??
>
>
>

You must be kidding.  Running the optic down list of postings, reveals all
sorts of political and other items which are way-off target - much moreso
than mine. Oz movie, "The Dish" assumes (?) that the moon landing was real,
let's check with the radio-astronomers involved - not that I really think
the hoax idea has much credence, but some of the objections do need
answering, not just casual dismissal.
====================================
Mark Addinall wrote in message <3d2e238b.258899542@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
><donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
>I am sure sci.logic.
>
>Mark Addinall.
>
>

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:66GX8.33744$Hj3.101256@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> You must be kidding.  Running the optic down list of postings, reveals all
> sorts of political and other items which are way-off target - much moreso
> than mine. Oz movie, "The Dish" assumes (?) that the moon landing was
real,
> let's check with the radio-astronomers involved - not that I really think
> the hoax idea has much credence, but some of the objections do need
> answering, not just casual dismissal.

Write a book, collect $100M, send a photoprobe to the sites, then they will
say you faked it.
The conspiracy industry will just move on.

From JFK to Cydonia there is always another permutation  to sell just one
more book or magazine. Usually it comes down to defining what some
people WANT to believe, then validating that belief.

if you WANT the moon to be reachable, then via science you may be able
to make it so. I WANT there to be aliens somewhere,and it would be nice
if they were here already. Am I so far from the alien abductees?

Test for benefit and coherence.

Who benefits from SETI? Who benefits from SCIFI?

When  the Parkes dish operators "lost" the space craft,
they could have been looking for something that wasn't there in the first
place ??
If the moon landing was a hoax, then the space flights could have been also.

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:66GX8.33744$Hj3.101256@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> You must be kidding.  Running the optic down list of postings, reveals all
> sorts of political and other items which are way-off target - much moreso
> than mine. Oz movie, "The Dish" assumes (?) that the moon landing was
real,
> let's check with the radio-astronomers involved - not that I really think
> the hoax idea has much credence, but some of the objections do need
> answering, not just casual dismissal.
> ====================================
> Mark Addinall wrote in message
<3d2e238b.258899542@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
> ><donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
> >I am sure sci.logic.
> >
> >Mark Addinall.
> >
> >
>
>

Don H wrote:
> 
> You must be kidding.  

No he is not.

Try some other venue for crackpots.



> Running the optic down list of postings, reveals all
> sorts of political and other items which are way-off target - much moreso
> than mine. Oz movie, "The Dish" assumes (?) that the moon landing was real,
> let's check with the radio-astronomers involved - not that I really think
> the hoax idea has much credence, but some of the objections do need
> answering, not just casual dismissal.
> ====================================
> Mark Addinall wrote in message <3d2e238b.258899542@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
> ><donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
> >I am sure sci.logic.
> >
> >Mark Addinall.
> >
> >

My original posting is relevant (in my view) because it raises questions
about "the rules of evidence".  How do we prove that something occurred, or
something exists?  There are many people who believe in "God" because some
"inner voice" tells them so - but how do they prove it to anyone else?  The
movie "Contact" (1997) does this re science, when Dr.Ellie Arroway (Jodie
Foster) goes into outer space (so she thinks) has an experience there, but
then can't prove it to anyone else.  Hence the need for commonality and
externality in evidence; at least if we try to convince other people.  I
don't go along with any hoax theory, if sufficient people have empirical
evidence to the contrary.  Yet many scientific theories of the past were
respectable at the time (phlogiston; Piltdown skull; Lamarckism), and have
since been discarded.  Only recently has theory about origin of birds been
revised - they are now thought to be descendants of dinosaurs.  Ever rehd
"Worlds in Collision"?, quite convincing, except that the theory explaining
the "facts" involved is even more incredible than the "facts" so explained.
==============================
Mark Addinall wrote in message <3d2e238b.258899542@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:56:53 +1000, "Don H"
><donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>Take it to another group.  It is off topic for aus.science, and
>I am sure sci.logic.
>
>Mark Addinall.
>
>

"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> writes:
>Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?

Yes, it was a hoax.  They actually landed women on the moon, because
of women's superior robustness, and then dubbed their voices and hired
the reputed lunarnauts as fake body doubles for the women.

Thats actually why they wore spacesuits, while on the moon, with
helmets you couldn't see inside of.  They didn't want you to see
who was inside.

In article <3d2d2739$0$823$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> "Terry Russell" <trochilus@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>It made no sense to send men to the moon at that time,

Except to get there before the Russians did (which they DEFINITELY tried
to do, and massively failed at) ... which is also why Apollo
was cut short with no followups.

>it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.

... except to bring back clear and decisive evidence that resolved
once and for all the question of where the moon came from and ... by
way of its answer ... what sets the Earth uniquely apart from the other
known terrestial planets and other possible terrestial planets.

It resolved in clear and decisive fashion the question of the origin
of the craters on the moon -- along with the disturbing implications
this has for the Earth.

The movie 2001 was, much more than anyone realises, art imitating life
(with an ironic twist).

Both answers corroborated everything Schumacher (sp?) had been saying from
day 1 ... and the final nail on the coffin of his opponents was nailed
shut when the comet struck Jupiter.  Everything he said about the
crater in the Southwest of the US was dead on.

I mean, can you get any further to being the exact opposite of the truth?!
The moon mission brought back the biggest find in the entire history
of the field of geology and marked the dawn of planetary geology.

From then on because of that event and because of what was found on the
moon, we knew the truth.  Even more when the smoking gun to the slaughter
of the dinosaurs was found in the Yucatan.

>It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.

... which, I guess, is why China is now pursuing their own moon mission
and why numerous companies are starting up with the goal of pursuing
future activity on the moon.

>As the conspiracy theorists pack up their digital videos in their
>velcro bags check their email and call HQ on the mobile phone
>they can be sure there is no evidence supporting a moon landing.

... except the evidence of the actual equipment STILL BEING THERE
along with the footprints.

The evidence is PERMANENT.  No weather will ever erase the first
footprints set on the moon.

"Don H" wrote:
>Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
>Recent TV program claims it was a hoax

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.

Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.

Plainly, the directors & producers of nasa's "men
to the moon" movies went to great lengths to make
certain that anyone who watches their movies, and
scrutinizes their photographs, also considers the
intense radiation of the Van Allen belt and up to
TWO- MILLION MILE-PER-HOUR RADIOACTIVE SOLAR WIND
beyond the safety of the Van Allen belt, they made
sure anyone can see the whole thing was a big fake.
I'm reminded of the song "might as well be walking
on the Sun"--i.e. the radiation would've fried 'em!

Be sure to bookmark & study these fact-filled links.
The evidence proves irrefutably that NASA are liars,
and not very good liars at that. They are found out: 

  http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
  http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm
  http://www.grade-a.com/moon/ 
  http://www.apollohoax.com/
  http://www.moonmovie.com/
  http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm 
  http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/
  http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
  http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
  http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html 
  http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
  http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html 
  http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
  http://geocities.com/bradguth/moon-02.htm

 ***********************************************
 NASA NEVER sent men to the Moon. "They couldn't
 make it so they faked it". That's what they did.
 ***********************************************

 *Min's Scientific Tarot & Star Charts Homepage:
  http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=95f8e368393c65e458c801ab44abc281@dizum.com


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPUBeIJljD7YrHM/nEQKFMwCgmRTw+52GqlrYe3jsySOLwD/fMmQAnA2A
lylRxeSw81xUXC/CSfwDynAb
=UbMQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Better a moon hoax that a usenet abuser.
Watch it with the spam volume, Miss Min,
or you'll have to look for ten new remailers.

CeeBee

I wont even waste my time with this. You are so out of touch with what
really happened. You will believe anything they tell you.

1/ The Flag was in a wire frame to give it wind like movement. There is not
wind on the moon, so without the wire frame, it would lay limp.

2/ There is not atmosphere on the moon, so no air, hence no sound.

3/ The engines on the Lander did not produce any smoke.
You know it is possible to have an engine that does not produce smoke. My
car doesn't smoke. What about a jet Airplane, or even the space shuttle.
They don't produce smoke, so obviously they must be fakes.

Oh, and do you even know what the Van Allen belt is. In space flight, it
takes about 2 minutes to pass through it. Quick enough to pass through it
safely. Are you telling me that since the "fake" moon landing that the Van
Allen belt disappeared and it is now safe.

I could keep on going, but I really couldn't be bothered.


"xganon" <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:b98cf42e767c9fa27c66099eb83bb028@xganon.com...
> "Don H" wrote:
> >Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> >Recent TV program claims it was a hoax
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
> in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.
>
> Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
> buggies & actors running along in their deflated
> monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
> conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
> silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
> laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
> against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
>
> Plainly, the directors & producers of nasa's "men
> to the moon" movies went to great lengths to make
> certain that anyone who watches their movies, and
> scrutinizes their photographs, also considers the
> intense radiation of the Van Allen belt and up to
> TWO- MILLION MILE-PER-HOUR RADIOACTIVE SOLAR WIND
> beyond the safety of the Van Allen belt, they made
> sure anyone can see the whole thing was a big fake.
> I'm reminded of the song "might as well be walking
> on the Sun"--i.e. the radiation would've fried 'em!
>
> Be sure to bookmark & study these fact-filled links.
> The evidence proves irrefutably that NASA are liars,
> and not very good liars at that. They are found out:
>
>   http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
>   http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm
>   http://www.grade-a.com/moon/
>   http://www.apollohoax.com/
>   http://www.moonmovie.com/
>   http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm
>   http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/
>   http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
>   http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
>   http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
>   http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
>   http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
>   http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
>   http://geocities.com/bradguth/moon-02.htm
>
>  ***********************************************
>  NASA NEVER sent men to the Moon. "They couldn't
>  make it so they faked it". That's what they did.
>  ***********************************************
>
>  *Min's Scientific Tarot & Star Charts Homepage:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=95f8e368393c65e458c801ab44abc281@dizum.
com
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBPUBeIJljD7YrHM/nEQKFMwCgmRTw+52GqlrYe3jsySOLwD/fMmQAnA2A
> lylRxeSw81xUXC/CSfwDynAb
> =UbMQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:33:10 -0500, xganon <remailer@xganon.com>
wrote:


>
> ***********************************************
> NASA NEVER sent men to the Moon. "They couldn't
> make it so they faked it". That's what they did.
> ***********************************************
>

"They couldn't study it so they're idiots"

No link you provided has any facts. They have assertions. None of
those assertions, however, stand up to science or logic. In fact, it
would be far easier to go to the moon than it would be to fake it in a
way that created all the alleged anomolies hoax-believers say there
are.

"xganon" <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:b98cf42e767c9fa27c66099eb83bb028@xganon.com...
> "Don H" wrote:
> >Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> >Recent TV program claims it was a hoax
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
> in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.
>
> Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
> buggies & actors running along in their deflated
> monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
> conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
> silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
> laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
> against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
>
> Plainly, the directors & producers of nasa's "men
> to the moon" movies went to great lengths to make
> certain that anyone who watches their movies, and
> scrutinizes their photographs, also considers the
> intense radiation of the Van Allen belt and up to
> TWO- MILLION MILE-PER-HOUR RADIOACTIVE SOLAR WIND
> beyond the safety of the Van Allen belt, they made
> sure anyone can see the whole thing was a big fake.
> I'm reminded of the song "might as well be walking
> on the Sun"--i.e. the radiation would've fried 'em!
>
> Be sure to bookmark & study these fact-filled links.
> The evidence proves irrefutably that NASA are liars,
> and not very good liars at that. They are found out:
>
I'll just run through them and tell you the first stupid thing I find
in each so that I don't have to bother with rest of it.

>
>  http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

"Images and video, of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM),
allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo
Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust."

From the surface of the moon? By whom? Moon people?

From the CSM many miles up in the sky, how would you photograph
exhaust directly and visibly exhaust *under* the LM?

(I've seen someone point out since I first wrote this that you wouldn't see
the exhaust anyway, because the brightness you see once the exhaust has left
the confines of an exhaust pipe down here on earth is the result of
continuing combustion in the atmosphere. That, of course, doesn't happen in
the vacuum of space.)


>  http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

"The classic still photograph of Buzz Aldrin standing alone was
apparently taken from a surprisingly high position (abt. 2 feet higher
than chest height) when such pictures should have been taken from a
camera fixed to a bracket on the chest (see graph).
The photographer reflected in the gold visor is neither standing on an
object/rock to give him extra height, nor is he holding the camera at
eye-level."

This this photo would have been impossible on Earth as well. Which
means something is wrong with the analysis either way.

"David Groves has determined that the terrain does not undulate more
than a few inches where Aldrin is standing,...."

How could he make such a fine determination if he doesn't believe the
only evidence available that provides the degree of precision
necessary to ascertain such a thing?

>  http://www.grade-a.com/moon/

"Trying to understand how the moon aquired a ten-foot layer of top
soil without wind, rain or water to erode the volcanic-crystaline
surface, I spoke to a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Boston."

That's why the hypothesis exists that the moon once had one or more of
these things. Also, if there was volcanic activity--you familiar with
volcanoes? You're aware of all the, well, *DUST* that they deposit all
over everything? Remember Mount St. Helens? Oh, and meteors--you
think maybe they pulverize rock just a little bit?

>  http://www.apollohoax.com/

"Well, to tell you the truth, I see footage all the time where there
is only a 0.5 second delay on a two way broadcast to the moon and
back."

Bull. I *watched* it that day. The delays were clear, and that's why
the reporters were so quick to explain them to everybody.

As someone pointed out, there is of course *no* gap between a communication
from the moon and the response from the people sitting where the recording
is being done. There certainly was a gap before the lunar explorers
responded to ground control.

>  http://www.moonmovie.com/

"The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability
during the height of the cold war."

What strategic capability do you imagine would have been implied by
our reaching the moon? (We already had satellites. What advantage would be
had by putting weapons the moon, farther away than our satellites?)

>  http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm

"A Brief Description of the Krishna Conscious Understanding"

'Nuff said.

OK, I lied--here's something else: "For instance, lets assume that we
did go to the moon, and that we have sent probes all over the solar
system. Than what is so great about the Space Shuttle?"

Umm...this is no secret. What was great about the space shuttle was
that we had a *reusable* space vehicle for the first time, which could
make a normal landing at the end of a trip instead of crashing into
the ocean. This has nothing to do with whether we had reached the
moon before.

>  http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

"It is now common knowledge throughout the world that the Apollo Moon
landings were faked by NASA back in the 60's"

A lot of people may believe it was a hoax, but it is not "common
knowledge". That in itself is a ridiculous thing to say, which shows
the writer to be prone to wild assertions.

Well, I've got to go now, but I think I've established your propensity
for offering "evidence" that is less than completely sound. Bye.

>  http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
>  http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
>  http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
>  http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
>  http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
>  http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
>   http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
>   http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
>   http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
>   http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
>   http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
>   http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
>   http://geocities.com/bradguth/moon-02.htm

Just which population subsets are most susceptible to the 'moon hoax' hoax?
Aside from Hare Krishna, and some extremist mullahs, I've heard that Louis
Farrakhan's 'Nation of Islam' preaches that the landings were faked -- but
I've never been able to confirm this. Are there any polls or demographic
studies of the population distribution in the US and elsewhere of this
disbelief?

Jim Oberg
www.jamesoberg.com

Just look for any area where they only use 1/2 of one of two brain cells they
have.


--
The Babylon project was our last best hope for peace, it failed.
But in the year of the Shadow War it became our last best hope
for Victory. They year is 2260, the place is Babylon 5


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Akumaizer Cattery
http://akumaizer.united.net.kg
Global Japanese Bobtail Club
http://cathobbyist.com/gjbtc/
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord

"James Oberg" <jamesoberg@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OcZ%8.124627$88.2003832@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> Just which population subsets are most susceptible to the 'moon hoax' hoax?
> Aside from Hare Krishna, and some extremist mullahs, I've heard that Louis
> Farrakhan's 'Nation of Islam' preaches that the landings were faked -- but
> I've never been able to confirm this. Are there any polls or demographic
> studies of the population distribution in the US and elsewhere of this
> disbelief?
>
> Jim Oberg
> www.jamesoberg.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

xganon <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message news:<b98cf42e767c9fa27c66099eb83bb028@xganon.com>...

>  ***********************************************
>  NASA NEVER sent men to the Moon. "They couldn't
>  make it so they faked it". That's what they did.
>  ***********************************************

That�s nothing but a load of old bollocks!!!
NASA did send men to the moon! There�s absolutely nothing to be done about it!
This indubitable fact is doubted only by morons!
You can find definite rebuttals of the alleged "moon hoax" at the following links:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

regards
PH

"Mark" <whopkins@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:ahmvn0$qes$1@uwm.edu...
> In article <3d2d2739$0$823$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> "Terry Russell"
<trochilus@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> >It made no sense to send men to the moon at that time,
>
> Except to get there before the Russians did (which they DEFINITELY tried
> to do, and massively failed at) ... which is also why Apollo
> was cut short with no followups.

Repeat.
It made no sense to send MEN to the moon at that time,
it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.
It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.


> >it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.
>
> ... except to bring back clear and decisive evidence that resolved
> once and for all the question of where the moon came from and ... by
> way of its answer ... what sets the Earth uniquely apart from the other
> known terrestial planets and other possible terrestial planets.
>
> >It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.
>
> ... which, I guess, is why China is now pursuing their own moon mission
> and why numerous companies are starting up with the goal of pursuing
> future activity on the moon.

It made no sense to send MEN to the moon at that time,
it was and is dangerous , expensive and of no scientific purpose.
It was a public relations exercise, so all the above hold no weight.


> >As the conspiracy theorists pack up their digital videos in their
> >velcro bags check their email and call HQ on the mobile phone
> >they can be sure there is no evidence supporting a moon landing.
>
> ... except the evidence of the actual equipment STILL BEING THERE
> along with the footprints.

 SIgh. Evidence of products resulting from the program. Evidence that
 has a direct effect on their lives whereas evidence on the moon is
mostly unverifiable and most of the actual  lunar related scientific results
have
 had little or no impact on our lives.

Whether the landings were a hoax or not makes bugger-all difference,
we still have velcro.

>
> The evidence is PERMANENT.  No weather will ever erase the first
> footprints set on the moon.

Most of the footprints are mostly erased by now, the ascent stage
engine plume probably got most of them.

Evidence of hardware? The hoaxers would have they were soft
landed by unmanned craft. ( to do that they would have to
at least conceed that it was technically possible , first step )

As for whatever footprints remain, who is to say the lander didn't carry
a mechanical pogo-stick with boots? Once finished all contradicitng
evidence gathered into a mole canister which then screwed itself
deep into the crust? Or sent to the location designated for
ascent-stage/evidence-eraser impact?

build yourself a laser.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/99/lunarlaser.html.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=lunar+laser+range
http://www.apolloexplorer.co.uk/photo/html/as12/10075425.htm

Maybe those laser rnagefinders have been quietly welding lunar dust
to create 'evidence' all these years?

I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but what the heck...
John Revill (jrevill@optushome.com.au) wrote:
: I wont even waste my time with this. You are so out of touch with what
: really happened. You will believe anything they tell you.
: 
: 1/ The Flag was in a wire frame to give it wind like movement. There is not
: wind on the moon, so without the wire frame, it would lay limp.
The motion on the flag can be simulated on earth.  Build a frame
like the one in the flag and it too will move like the one on the
film. The physics behind how it moves is commonly called the multiple
pendulum problem.  If you get a bunch of 15cm (6 in) pieces of wire.
Arange them in a flag shaped frame about 45cm x 60cm while allowing
them move freely and you get very close to the motion seen on the
film.  Now go look at a flag that is flaping in the wind.  They
move differently.

: 2/ There is not atmosphere on the moon, so no air, hence no sound.
If you look at the dust from the back of the rover, you see there is
no wind or air dispersing the dust.  So they could have filmed it
on earth with fast film but they would need a vacumm chamber bigger
than any on earth to film that trick.

: 3/ The engines on the Lander did not produce any smoke.
: You know it is possible to have an engine that does not produce smoke. My
: car doesn't smoke. What about a jet Airplane, or even the space shuttle.
: They don't produce smoke, so obviously they must be fakes.
Smoke is a result of the chemistry of the flame and the air.  No air,
no smoke.  

: Oh, and do you even know what the Van Allen belt is. In space flight, it
: takes about 2 minutes to pass through it. Quick enough to pass through it
: safely. Are you telling me that since the "fake" moon landing that the Van
: Allen belt disappeared and it is now safe.
The Allen belt disapears every time the poles reverse.  That may happen
ever 10 to 20 thousnad years.  People seemed to have lived through that
last time.

The harder things to explain are the crosshairs on some photos.
Its not something I can explain but I've seen it before and it
is related to where the cross hairs are located vs where the camera
is focussed.

Many people also seem to buy into the background all looking the same.
With out any air, you wouldn't get the hazyness that you get on earth
when you take a pictuer of a distant moutanin.  Some of the small hills
in the background were quite large and very far away.

: I could keep on going, but I really couldn't be bothered.
Do you know how many millions of people now belive this crud?
I think our schools are doing a very bad job in teaching science
these days.

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

: 
: "xganon" <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message
: > That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
: > in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.
: >
: > Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
: > buggies & actors running along in their deflated
: > monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
: > conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
: > silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
: > laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
: > against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
...

I've seen a Gallup one which stated around 6% of the US population believe it
to be faked.  It appears that it now requires some type of premium membership
with Gallup when I tried to access it so I'm using memory and the summary of it
on badastronomy.  The badastronomy web site states that this result is very
close to a Time/CNN poll taken a few years before but doesn't like to that one.

As for the distribution I haven't seen any on it but I'd expect it to be rather
even.  People who have something against the US government would probably be
more susceptable although they'd have to be susceptible to other conspiracy
theoies in the first place as well.  You'd probably find people who believe the
moon landings were hoaxed also believe in such crap as ufos being alien
spacecraft, astrology, hollow earth, parapsycology, natural medicine, et al
(direct all flames to /dev/null if you believe any of those).

They also stated that it's not unusual for around 6% of any sample to answer
yes to anything asked of them.  This would show it to be a belief that isn't
widespread.

James Oberg wrote:

> Just which population subsets are most susceptible to the 'moon hoax' hoax?
> Aside from Hare Krishna, and some extremist mullahs, I've heard that Louis
> Farrakhan's 'Nation of Islam' preaches that the landings were faked -- but
> I've never been able to confirm this. Are there any polls or demographic
> studies of the population distribution in the US and elsewhere of this
> disbelief?
>
> Jim Oberg
> www.jamesoberg.com

There is a nother poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
people believe in UFOs and aliens........

"J D Leister" <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DAF7F0A.3D3E6A4C@senet.com.au...
> There is a nother poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
> people believe in UFOs and aliens........

There is a poll that shows that 95% of  people could find a poll stating
whatever they want it to. :-)

The Raven

The Raven wrote:

> "J D Leister" <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3DAF7F0A.3D3E6A4C@senet.com.au...
> > There is a nother poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
> > people believe in UFOs and aliens........
>
> There is a poll that shows that 95% of  people could find a poll stating
> whatever they want it to. :-)
>
> The Raven



This is true

Sadly there is widespread belief in aliens visiting earth.  Belief in
aliens isn't a problem since there are likely to be some but belief that
they come here is a problem.

Widespread belief in UFOs isn't bad.  We've all seen one because by
definition a UFO is something which appears in the air that you can't
indentify (I've had to fudge the flying part of it to allow venus to be
a UFO for those who don't know about it).  It's belief that UFOs are
alien spacecraft that is the problem.

J D Leister wrote:

> There is another poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
> people believe in UFOs and aliens........

This is quite a good issue. All the polls I've seen only ask
Americans, I am interested in what the other 6 Billion people think. I
have never been to the Moon but I have been to America and many of my
relatives are Americans, and they are so blinded by patriotism that
they would be the last ones to figure it out: 'My country right or
wrong".
 Often I'm told that I must believe because the Russians believe but
I've never actually talked to a Russian who believes, only Americans
imposing their ideas on others. Hare Krisnas are Hindus, their reasons
for not believing come from the Vedic texts, do all Hindus think it's
impossible to go to the Moon? What about Moslems, I've heard anecdotes
about Mullahs in Afghanistan claiming the Moon was sacred and US
soldiers responding that the Astronauts shit on the Moon! Just like
the Americans worship their sacred Moon rocks, Muslims worship a black
rock that came from Heaven! That's what they have in their temple in
Mecca and they bow down to it 5 times a day, they can even kiss it-
dont kiss your Moon rocks or you'll contaminate them! They certainly
have a better chance of going to Heaven than any of you Americans have
of ever going to the Moon! I've even read that they worship  the 'Moon
God', which supposedly was the cult based in Mecca before Mohammed
came along. Did the people who destroyed the WTC believe in the Man on
the Moon?
 Then there's Red China, I've read rumours that they denied it 30
years ago? This year they announced they were going to the Moon and
then suddenly they changed their tune and said they were only sending
unmanned robots. I've heard they teach people in Cuba that it was all
fake -is this true? Does it matter, what difference does what people
are taught in school- how great an effect does that have on their
likelyhood to believe.
 True believers often claim that people who believe are all rational,
well if you are irrational you can believe whatever you want,
obviously you can have irrational stupid and ignorant people on both
sides of an issue. After the Aldrin-Sibrel fight a debunking website
recieved deaththreats from people who were so stupid they couldn't
even tell which side of the issue he was on! Imagine recieving death
threats from your own supporters- if that doesn't make you think then
what will?

On 18 Oct 2002 07:03:52 -0700, a wanderer, known to us only as
looter92@hotmail.com (Carl Wilting)  warmed at our fire and told this
tale:

>This is quite a good issue. All the polls I've seen only ask
>Americans, I am interested in what the other 6 Billion people think. I
>have never been to the Moon but I have been to America and many of my
>relatives are Americans, and they are so blinded by patriotism that
>they would be the last ones to figure it out: 'My country right or
>wrong".

There's also the scientific evidence.  Several hundred pounds of moon
rocks examined by facilities, public and private, all over the globe.
All of them reaching the same conclusion: these rocks were not
terrisital.

> Often I'm told that I must believe because the Russians believe but
>I've never actually talked to a Russian who believes, only Americans
>imposing their ideas on others. Hare Krisnas are Hindus, their reasons
>for not believing come from the Vedic texts, do all Hindus think it's
>impossible to go to the Moon? What about Moslems, I've heard anecdotes
>about Mullahs in Afghanistan claiming the Moon was sacred and US
>soldiers responding that the Astronauts shit on the Moon!

Have you spoken to these Mullahs?  Anyway, if they are complaining
about the astronauts crapping up there, it is obvious that they
believe that we made it.

> Just like
>the Americans worship their sacred Moon rocks, Muslims worship a black
>rock that came from Heaven!

Where did you ever hear that we "worship" moon rocks?  The suckers are
tested until they are dust.  Then we run tests on the dust.  There are
several on display at various places, but to call them sacred reveals
either an ignorance of how america treats the samples or an agenda.

> That's what they have in their temple in
>Mecca and they bow down to it 5 times a day, they can even kiss it-
>dont kiss your Moon rocks or you'll contaminate them! They certainly
>have a better chance of going to Heaven than any of you Americans have
>of ever going to the Moon!

I can show you a Moon rock with pick marks on it.  Can you show me
empirical proof of an afterlife?

> I've even read that they worship  the 'Moon
>God', which supposedly was the cult based in Mecca before Mohammed
>came along. Did the people who destroyed the WTC believe in the Man on
>the Moon?

Where did you read this?  The cult of the Moon goddess has be dead in
Arabia for over a thousand years!

> Then there's Red China, I've read rumours that they denied it 30
>years ago? This year they announced they were going to the Moon and
>then suddenly they changed their tune and said they were only sending
>unmanned robots. I've heard they teach people in Cuba that it was all
>fake -is this true? Does it matter, what difference does what people
>are taught in school- how great an effect does that have on their
>likelyhood to believe.

On July 20th, Chairman Mao sent a telegram to Richard M. Nixon
congratulating the United States on landing Apollo 11 on the Moon.
Check your sources.


-- 

Douglas E. Berry  gridlore@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/ 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
 when they do it from religious conviction."
        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

Carl Wilting wrote:

> This is quite a good issue. All the polls I've seen only ask
> Americans, I am interested in what the other 6 Billion people think.

I would be willing to say that the results would be very simliar in most
countries.

> I have never been to the Moon but I have been to America and many
> of my relatives are Americans, and they are so blinded by patriotism
> that they would be the last ones to figure it out: 'My country right or
> wrong".

Yanks are often blinded by patriotism.  Although I should note that this
whole moon hoax bullshit actually came from the US.

>  Often I'm told that I must believe because the Russians believe but
> I've never actually talked to a Russian who believes, only Americans
> imposing their ideas on others.

If the yanks didn't actually go to the moon wouldn't the Russians have
exposed them?  I mean during the time they went there the US and Russia
hated each others guts and wanted the other one gone.

Imagine the propaganda the Soviets would've got if they exposed the US for
faking a moon mission.  Why didn't they then, becuase they wouldn't be
able to make it stick.

Why couldn't they make it stick?  Because the US actually did go there.

> Hare Krisnas are Hindus, their reasons for not believing come from the
> Vedic
> texts, do all Hindus think it's impossible to go to the Moon?

There are many that think it is possible to go to the moon.

> What about Moslems, I've heard anecdotes about Mullahs in Afghanistan
> claiming the Moon was sacred and US soldiers responding that the
> Astronauts shit on the Moon!

Blah Blah Blah.

> Just like the Americans worship their sacred Moon rocks, Muslims
> worship a black rock that came from Heaven!

Worship moon rocks.  That's a new one.

> That's what they have in their temple in Mecca and they bow down to it
> 5
> times a day, they can even kiss it-dont kiss your Moon rocks or you'll
> contaminate them! They certainly have a better chance of going to
> Heaven
> than any of you Americans have of ever going to the Moon!

Actually in all likelyhood no one has much chance of going to heaven since
it most likely doesn't exist except in the minds of some crazies.

As for going to the moon.  There's a good chance that I might be able to
go there in my lifetime.

Oh and don't assume we're yanks.  It doesn't matter what country a person
is from, if they're intelligent they won't believe the moon hoax theory.

> I've even read that they worship  the 'Moon God', which supposedly was
> the
> cult based in Mecca before Mohammed came along. Did the people who
> destroyed the WTC believe in the Man on the Moon?

They believed in something that was absurd that much is certain.

>  Then there's Red China, I've read rumours that they denied it 30
> years ago?

Denied what?

> This year they announced they were going to the Moon and then
> suddenly they changed their tune and said they were only sending
> unmanned robots.

Probably because they are planning to send only unmanned robots for the
time being but that they want to send humans eventually.

> I've heard they teach people in Cuba that it was all
> fake -is this true? Does it matter, what difference does what people
> are taught in school- how great an effect does that have on their
> likelyhood to believe.

A hell of a lot actually.

Things learnt in school are generally believed for a persons life.
Particulary if they don't question it.

>  True believers often claim that people who believe are all rational,
> well if you are irrational you can believe whatever you want,
> obviously you can have irrational stupid and ignorant people on both
> sides of an issue. After the Aldrin-Sibrel fight a debunking website
> recieved deaththreats from people who were so stupid they couldn't
> even tell which side of the issue he was on! Imagine recieving death
> threats from your own supporters- if that doesn't make you think then
> what will?

You have a source for this assertion?

Well, every time education suffers, the Cult of Ignorance grows larger. Even
that cosmic energy, Orgon, is making a comeback. More people get the paper
today, so they say we are better educated. Hahaha. Sorry, but I've been
around awhile, and I can attest it "taint so." I recently read, for example,
that 49% of some senior high school class could not find the U.S.A. on a
globe. I know damned well that every one of my 5th grade class in 1950 could
have done that with ease. If you acost people randomly on the street, you'll
discover that almost 10% of them don't know who the president is.

Is it any wonder that 70% people believe in UFOs and aliens? Their basic
education seems to have come from the television set.


J D Leister <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DAF7F0A.3D3E6A4C@senet.com.au...
> There is a nother poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
> people believe in UFOs and aliens........
>
>

I know first hand that it was a hoax... I have this second cousin,
anyway he had a girlfriend who's aunt's coworker's best-friend's
sister actually saw one of the astronauts (either Neil Armstrong or
Buck Rogers- Can't remember), in his space suit no less, eating some
fried Spam at a Hollywood Diner the day he was supposed to be on the
moon!

and get this, the witness died 20 years later when she choked on a
chicken bone at a funeral wake for her uncle Louie from Chicago!  I
know THEY killed her-somehow they planted that chicken bone to
eliminate one of the star witnesses of the biggest conspiracy of our
time!!

Von-

So George Bush nearly choked on a pretzel

Glenn Christensen wrote:

> Well, every time education suffers, the Cult of Ignorance grows larger.

Too true.  Sadly education is suffering.

> Even that cosmic energy, Orgon, is making a comeback.

Orgone making a comeback.  Shouldn't suprise me.

> More people get the paper today, so they say we are better educated.

Newspapers, n:
the only reason astrology isn't dead.

Of course we have the poms to blame that on.

> Is it any wonder that 70% people believe in UFOs and aliens? Their basic
> education seems to have come from the television set.

"TV's right, TV's always right" - Homer Simpson.

Ryan Healey <ryanhealey@primus.com.au> wrote in message news:<3DB38E67.BAFB5C51@primus.com.au>...
> Glenn Christensen wrote:
> 
> > Well, every time education suffers, the Cult of Ignorance grows larger.
> 
> Too true.  Sadly education is suffering.
> 
> > Even that cosmic energy, Orgon, is making a comeback.
> 
> Orgone making a comeback.  Shouldn't suprise me.
> 
> > More people get the paper today, so they say we are better educated.
> 
> Newspapers, n:
> the only reason astrology isn't dead.
> 

I think it was Jefferson who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) A person
who reads nothing but the newspapers is more ignorant than a person
who reads nothing at all.

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who
reads nothing but newspapers.  -- Thomas Jefferson
 I heartily agree- I used to believe what I read in the newspapers,
and I was afraid to walk down the street, now I only believe in Video.
I know we can't go to the Moon to see what it's really like, but we
don't need to use sophistry to find out what the rest of the world
thinks about the Hoax. Why not just ask them?? Why not respect their
right to have their own opinions? One thing we should have learned is
that Western Imperialists have no idea what the rest of the world
thinks of them. Maybe those Muslims really do believe that you have
treaded on their sacred Moon and that's why they are so pissed off??

Was it Thomas Jefferson who also said that a stopped watch is more accurate
than one which loses 1 second a week?  After all a stopped watch is exactly
correct twice a day while the other one is hardly ever correct ( you work
out the correctness frequency which must be of the order or once every 100
years!).

So it is with newspaper readers.  If you don't read them you will 'miss'
even being aware of most events that might or might not have occurred. From
personal experience I know that reported events are correct sometimes. At
least readers can be aware of proposed events that might have occurred and
know at least one version of what may and may not have happened.   They can
examine the presented evidence and, in most cases, look to other sources to
test what is being said if they so desire.  Same applies to Video which,
Carl, you seem to think is the ultimate in the presentation of 'the truth'.
Clearly you do not follow 'Media Watch' on video which demonstrates untruths
on Video! Quite a paradox for you eh?    How one could proceed with your
suggestion to ask THE REST OF THE WORLD re 'the Hoax' beats me as does the
way you have come to the conclusion that 'the Western Imperialists' have no
idea what the rest of the world thinks of them.  I would be interested how
you determined (1) who specifically are the Western Imperialists (2) How did
you determine what they all think ..did you see each on video or, not
believing newspaper data, did you personally interview 'them' all ... or
..is what you say just a complete figment of your imagination.  If the
latter is correct then I'm afraid that I, for one, in the absence of any
evidence from you whatever,   put NIL credence on your thesis.  Fail !!!
JDW




"Carl Wilting" <looter92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13198605.0210220543.88a9d69@posting.google.com...
> The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who
> reads nothing but newspapers.  -- Thomas Jefferson
>  I heartily agree- I used to believe what I read in the newspapers,
> and I was afraid to walk down the street, now I only believe in Video.
> I know we can't go to the Moon to see what it's really like, but we
> don't need to use sophistry to find out what the rest of the world
> thinks about the Hoax. Why not just ask them?? Why not respect their
> right to have their own opinions? One thing we should have learned is
> that Western Imperialists have no idea what the rest of the world
> thinks of them. Maybe those Muslims really do believe that you have
> treaded on their sacred Moon and that's why they are so pissed off??

Hahahaha

vonzipper <the_vonzipper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:82f2bbf6.0210192143.2077eecb@posting.google.com...
> I know first hand that it was a hoax... I have this second cousin,
> anyway he had a girlfriend who's aunt's coworker's best-friend's
> sister actually saw one of the astronauts (either Neil Armstrong or
> Buck Rogers- Can't remember), in his space suit no less, eating some
> fried Spam at a Hollywood Diner the day he was supposed to be on the
> moon!
>
> and get this, the witness died 20 years later when she choked on a
> chicken bone at a funeral wake for her uncle Louie from Chicago!  I
> know THEY killed her-somehow they planted that chicken bone to
> eliminate one of the star witnesses of the biggest conspiracy of our
> time!!
>
> Von-
>

J D Leister <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DB2464A.2A40CA76@senet.com.au...
> So George Bush nearly choked on a pretzel
>
>
>
>

I can't figure out why he doesn't choke over what COMES OUT of his mouth....

J D Leister <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DB2464A.2A40CA76@senet.com.au...
> So George Bush nearly choked on a pretzel
>
>
>
>

Nice quote, but I hope everyone understood I was talking about diplomas...

ed rhodes <edrhodes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b42fddaf.0210210319.25af3ee@posting.google.com...
> Ryan Healey <ryanhealey@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3DB38E67.BAFB5C51@primus.com.au>...
> > Glenn Christensen wrote:
> >
> > > Well, every time education suffers, the Cult of Ignorance grows
larger.
> >
> > Too true.  Sadly education is suffering.
> >
> > > Even that cosmic energy, Orgon, is making a comeback.
> >
> > Orgone making a comeback.  Shouldn't suprise me.
> >
> > > More people get the paper today, so they say we are better educated.
> >
> > Newspapers, n:
> > the only reason astrology isn't dead.
> >
>
> I think it was Jefferson who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) A person
> who reads nothing but the newspapers is more ignorant than a person
> who reads nothing at all.
>

I fully agree that everyone should be able to believe whatever sappy thing
they want. However, try to foist it off in the schools, or otherwise force
it onto the attention of others, then I will exercise my right to respond.


Carl Wilting <looter92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:13198605.0210220543.88a9d69@posting.google.com...
> The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who
> reads nothing but newspapers.  -- Thomas Jefferson
>  I heartily agree- I used to believe what I read in the newspapers,
> and I was afraid to walk down the street, now I only believe in Video.
> I know we can't go to the Moon to see what it's really like, but we
> don't need to use sophistry to find out what the rest of the world
> thinks about the Hoax. Why not just ask them?? Why not respect their
> right to have their own opinions? One thing we should have learned is
> that Western Imperialists have no idea what the rest of the world
> thinks of them. Maybe those Muslims really do believe that you have
> treaded on their sacred Moon and that's why they are so pissed off??

One has to remember that MOST newspapers of Jefferson's day, even the
respected ones, invented stories like the tabloids do today. There was a
constant competition for readers. My gripe with today's newspapers is how
they get the details wrong, from lazy or unqualified reporters.

John Wild <jwild@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3db5e379$0$18875$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Was it Thomas Jefferson who also said that a stopped watch is more
accurate
> than one which loses 1 second a week?  After all a stopped watch is
exactly
> correct twice a day while the other one is hardly ever correct ( you work
> out the correctness frequency which must be of the order or once every 100
> years!).
>
> So it is with newspaper readers.  If you don't read them you will 'miss'
> even being aware of most events that might or might not have occurred.
From
> personal experience I know that reported events are correct sometimes. At
> least readers can be aware of proposed events that might have occurred and
> know at least one version of what may and may not have happened.   They
can
> examine the presented evidence and, in most cases, look to other sources
to
> test what is being said if they so desire.  Same applies to Video which,
> Carl, you seem to think is the ultimate in the presentation of 'the
truth'.
> Clearly you do not follow 'Media Watch' on video which demonstrates
untruths
> on Video! Quite a paradox for you eh?    How one could proceed with your
> suggestion to ask THE REST OF THE WORLD re 'the Hoax' beats me as does the
> way you have come to the conclusion that 'the Western Imperialists' have
no
> idea what the rest of the world thinks of them.  I would be interested how
> you determined (1) who specifically are the Western Imperialists (2) How
did
> you determine what they all think ..did you see each on video or, not
> believing newspaper data, did you personally interview 'them' all ... or
> ..is what you say just a complete figment of your imagination.  If the
> latter is correct then I'm afraid that I, for one, in the absence of any
> evidence from you whatever,   put NIL credence on your thesis.  Fail !!!
> JDW
>
>
>
>
> "Carl Wilting" <looter92@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13198605.0210220543.88a9d69@posting.google.com...
> > The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who
> > reads nothing but newspapers.  -- Thomas Jefferson
> >  I heartily agree- I used to believe what I read in the newspapers,
> > and I was afraid to walk down the street, now I only believe in Video.
> > I know we can't go to the Moon to see what it's really like, but we
> > don't need to use sophistry to find out what the rest of the world
> > thinks about the Hoax. Why not just ask them?? Why not respect their
> > right to have their own opinions? One thing we should have learned is
> > that Western Imperialists have no idea what the rest of the world
> > thinks of them. Maybe those Muslims really do believe that you have
> > treaded on their sacred Moon and that's why they are so pissed off??
>
>
>

"Carl Wilting" <looter92@hotmail.com>

> I've heard they teach people in Cuba that it was all
> fake -is this true?

No, that is not true. Although I dislike Cuba, that is nonsence! Just some
story off the Miami Cubans to make them seem more whatever. Remember the
Elian video? These people twist the truth a lot on both sides, but no
schools in Cuba teaches this

I'm sure if they polled the percentage of believers in:

- the moon hoax;
- UFO's; and
- Apollo astronauts seeing UFO's/bases,

then plotted the combined results, they'd come up with something far more
interesting.

---

The Unofficial Yes 2003 Australian Tour site:
http://ozguitar.50megs.com/index.htm

My main web-sites:

http://homepages.tig.com.au/~avanstar
(Sydney Morning Herald: "Best Personal Site on the Web")

http://www.mp3.com.au/AlexVanStarrex/
My mp3 page (25th most popular artist - Sept. 2002)

http://www.geocities.com/~avanstar/index.html
"A Virtual Serenade: 50 Popular Songs in Real Video"

There are others...
"J D Leister" <ira-gaines@senet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3DAF7F0A.3D3E6A4C@senet.com.au...
> There is a nother poll in the USA that says up to 70% of
> people believe in UFOs and aliens........
>