"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Except you're not a Christian and no one really believes you are.
So why the act JC?

The only thing that really matters is that Jesus Christ knows that I am a Christian ... and I am satisfied that He does!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

The only thing that matters is that Jesus Christ knows that I am a Christian ... and I am satisfied that He does!!!

So you say, but it's clear that you're a troll clinging onto this persona for some insane reason.
So please stop pretending.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Wendy Wright is a very articulate, capable and intelligent woman ... who pointed out a few 'home truths' to the good Professor.

"Home truths"? Watching Wright's ignoramus-level exposition, I'm reminded of what happened when a moon hoaxer delivered a few similar "home truths" to Buzz Aldrin one day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

What appalling suppression of the truth, I'm sure you'll agree!

J C

robindch wrote: »

"Home truths"? Watching Wright's ignoramus-level exposition, I'm reminded of what happened when a moon hoaxer delivered a few similar "home truths" to Buzz Aldrin one day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

What appalling suppression of the truth, I'm sure you'll agree!

... so are you advocating a 'whack in the jaw' as the way to settle all arguments ??

Buzz and Neil were my heroes when they landed on the Moon in 1969 ... but now I'm not so sure that they ever did!!!!
If 'moon-flight' had progressed as rapidly as 'earth flight' we should have regular Ryanair flights to the Moon today!!!!
The fact that it is over 40 years since the first Moon landing and nobody has returned there since the early 70's certainly adds to the suspicion that it was all a hoax ... designed to fulfill Kennedy's famous promise ... and give America 'the First man on the Moon' ... when Russia already had 'the First man in Space'.
The first powered flght took place in 1903 ... and the plane was made in a bicycle shop, yet by 1943, modern jet planes had been invented and regular scheduled commercial passenger flights were established between all of the major cities on earth ... and there was extensive military use of aircraft.

The first man on the moon was supposedly put there by a well established aeronautics industry in 1969 ... and not only do we not have regular flights to the Moon today ... nobody has gone back at all ... from any country ... since the early 70's!!!!
We are certainly entitled to a very good reason why this hasn't happened.
I would like to have celebrated the 40th Anniversary by visiting the first moon landing site with Michael O'Leary!!!!:eek:

smokingman

J C wrote: »

... so are you advocating a whack in the jaw as the way to settle all arguments ??

The pornographer's back.....hi troll, troll ya doin?

J C

smokingman wrote: »

The pornographer's back.....hi troll, troll ya doin?

... you can add judgementalism and moralising ... to lying about me to your CV on this thread!!!:(

magicbastarder

J C wrote: »

Buzz and Neil were my heros when they landed on the Moon in 1969 ... but now I'm not so sure that they ever did!!!!

oh my.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh my.

Do you believe everything that you are told ... or do you look for supporting evidence???

magicbastarder

that's a loaded question in this thread!

and quite meaningless, too.

J C

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a loaded question in this thread!

It's an important one nonetheless!!!
Please note that I'm not saying that the moon landings were a hoax ... I'm just looking for answers to valid questions in relation to them.

magicbastarder

95% of what i know about science, i've been told. 95% of what you know about religion, you've been told - that was the basis for my comment.

the reason we have not been back to the moon was because no-one has come up with a compelling reason to, certainly not one which will convince the purse string holders. beating the russkies was a valid reason in the 60s, not any more.

i vaguely remember reading that the CIA have a rule of thumb that the chances of a secret becoming public are proportional to the square of the number of people who know it.
the moon landings (hoax or not) involved thousands upon thousands of people who would be in a position to cry foul, but none have, that i am aware. and i'm also not aware of any great 'they're being killed off' conspiracy theory.

smokingman

J C wrote: »

... you can add judgementalism and moralising ... to lying ... on your CV!!!:(

We both know that's not the case Johnny, ain't that right....Johnny

sponsoredwalk

He's trolling for a new argument, he's now moving onto the moon landings,
see how he mentioned Kennedy in that response? That's a sign that he
wants to troll on about the Kennedy assasination as well in the near future.



(Needed someone to counteract both Wendy Wright & the trolling together :pac:)

5uspect

J C wrote: »

Do you believe everything that you are told ... or do you look for supporting evidence???

Well no one believes a word you say.

King Mob

So when you can't troll on one subject any more you try a new totally irrelevant one?

Kinda weak sauce there JC.

smokingman

So, Johnny, tell me this...seeing as the porn mag you ran was called "Sin", did you have pics of Noah getting it on with his hoard of animals? I must see if I can find some more info on what you did in there. :-D

robindch

J C wrote: »

We are certainly entitled to a very good reason why this hasn't happened.

There certainly are plenty of excellent reasons why man hasn't returned to the moon, but I think you will be unable to understand the two most basic reasons. Which are:

Hint 1: superpower politics
Hint 2: cost

BTW, I was in Russia a few years back chatting with a friend of mine who used to work in the Russian space industry and I explained that there was a nasty little cottage industry in the USA controlled by the same kind of disgraceful, uneducated, dishonest and paranoid idiots that control the creationist movement, which is dedicated to the view that the USA never got to the moon.

He literally wept with laughter and when he was able to speak again a few minutes later, asked if everybody in the USA was that stupid, so I explained that it was only between five and ten percent of the population. His response is unprintable, even in Cyrillic.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

BTW, I was in Russia a few years back chatting with a friend of mine who used to work in the Russian space industry and I explained that there was a nasty little cottage industry in the USA controlled by the same kind of disgraceful, uneducated, dishonest and paranoid idiots that control the creationist movement, which is dedicated to the view that the USA never got to the moon.

He literally wept with laughter and when he was able to speak again a few minutes later, asked if everybody in the USA was that stupid, so I explained that it was only between five and ten percent of the population. His response is unprintable, even in Cyrillic.

I guarantee I could have made him pee himself with the silly silly arguments I've heard.
Like my favourite: the door on the lander was too small for the astronauts to get through, therefore the moon landing was fake.

Doc_Savage

Have you read Carp Sagans "pale blue dot"? According to sagan who actually worked on the moon landing program, the only reason they were allowed to carry out.the landings was because it served as the best possible demonstration of the use of an American rocket as a carrier for a nuclear device and one that could never be bested by Russia at that time!

liamw

J C wrote: »

Buzz and Neil were my heros when they landed on the Moon in 1969 ... but now I'm not so sure that they ever did!!!!
If 'moon-flight' had progressed as rapidly as 'earth flight' we should have regular Ryanair flights to the Moon today!!!!

Your desperation is just making the troll more obvious. Quit now.

magicbastarder

King Mob wrote: »

I guarantee I could have made him pee himself with the silly silly arguments I've heard.

there's a moon landing conspiracy theorist in work. he maintains they went into earth orbit, but went no further. he reckons he's extremely well read on the topic, and said to me 'there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about the "landings" that cannot be explained by the earth-orbit hypothesis'.

'how can you explain the radio signals being beamed back to the earth being relatively stationary relative to the moon?'

'how do you mean?'

'well, if they were in earth orbit, the russians would have known, because the radio source would have zipped across the sky in minutes. instead it was close to stationary relative to the background stars'

'oh, i never thought of that'.

King Mob

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a moon landing conspiracy theorist in work. he maintains they went into earth orbit, but went no further. he reckons he's extremely well read on the topic, and said to me 'there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about the "landings" that cannot be explained by the earth-orbit hypothesis'.

'how can you explain the radio signals being beamed back to the earth being relatively stationary relative to the moon?'

'how do you mean?'

'well, if they were in earth orbit, the russians would have known, because the radio source would have zipped across the sky in minutes. instead it was close to stationary relative to the background stars'

'oh, i never thought of that'.

If he still comes out with more of the stuff ask him why it was impossible for them to go to the moon.
9 times out of 10 he'll say the radiation would have killed them.
Then you ask him exactly how much radiation they would have got and how much is a lethal dose.
Conspiracy theorists are incapable of answering this question.

Watching them try to squirm out of admitting they just swallowed it wholesale from the internet is hilarious.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

'well, if they were in earth orbit, the russians would have known, because the radio source would have zipped across the sky in minutes. instead it was close to stationary relative to the background stars'

'oh, i never thought of that'.

Two words:

Lagrange points`

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

Two words:

Lagrange points`

Which are further away and harder to get to?

robindch

Doc_Savage wrote: »

it served as the best possible demonstration of the use of an American rocket as a carrier for a nuclear device and one that could never be bested by Russia at that time!

Interestingly, the Russians generally had better basic rocket technology than the USA did at the time. The Russians had an ingenious double-ignition/fuel-preheat cycle that the US never developed, but the US had better control systems. Hence the US had a slight edge, since the Russians couldn't control the thirty engines on their N1 rockets as easily as the US controlled the five on the Saturn V. The Russians also suffered from external political interference, internal politicking and the unfortunate 1966 death of their brilliant Chief Designer.

In the early 90's the individual N1 rocket engines (which should have been destroyed in accordance with instructions from the Kremlin, but weren't -- hackers are hackers) were retrieved from their hiding place in, AFAIR, Saratov, shipped to the USA, fired up and were demonstrated to be technically superior to the US designs of thirty years later.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Which are further away and harder to get to?

In a two-body system, there's one Lagrangian between the two bodies and it's theoretically possible to park something there, though I'd imagine it wouldn't be much easier than dropping something onto the surface of the moon.

King Mob

robindch wrote: »

In a two-body system, there's one Lagrangian between the two bodies and it's theoretically possible to park something there, though I'd imagine it wouldn't be much easier than dropping something onto the surface of the moon.

You're right I was just thinking of the one off to the sides.

Doc_Savage

robindch wrote: »

........but the US had better control systems. Hence the US had a slight edge, since the Russians couldn't control the thirty engines on their N1 rockets as easily as the US controlled the five on the Saturn V........

Believe it or not in actually sitting a control engineering exam on Monday, its not one of my favourites and I know how instability can 'ground' even the smallest project. Boom boom!

pH

J C probably has some thoughts on who did 911 ...

And I bet he's just read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" too.

J C

robindch wrote: »

There certainly are plenty of excellent reasons why man hasn't returned to the moon, but I think you will be unable to understand the two most basic reasons. Which are:

Hint 1: superpower politics
Hint 2: cost.

If the cost of going to the Moon was as prohibitively expensive as you say ... or very dangerous as others have said, then why did they return to the Moon a number of times after the first landing ... and then suddenly stop altogether???

The landings could have actually happened ... and I look forward to the CNN coverage of the next landing on the Moon ... which I think is scheduled for 2020 or thereabouts by George Bush in 2004. (Since posting this comment I have found out that this has now been cancelled by President Obama - so nobody may ever land on the Moon (again???).

This isn't an evolutionist/creationst thing ... the chief NASA Rocket Scientist at the time was a Creationist!!!

However, the reactions by 'mainstream science' to moon hoax proponents do bear an uncanny resemblance to the attitude to Creationists.