LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[smartcooky]

It didn't take long for true colours to appear...

I'm guessing I'm not the only one who has noticed ad-hominem-laden 'ed-one-thousand-and-one' (how positively apt) hasn't conceded a single thing...

Are you suggesting that we might have the one thousand and oneth name here?

[Glom]

Who has less of a life?

The person who spends his time talking about something great or the person who spends his time complaining about the conduct of the person who spends his time talking about something great.

[Andromeda]

Oh, Edwardwb1001

I've been looking at some of your posts on YouTube.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=plcp&v=PtdcdxvNI1o
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=plcp&v=7mOxQghay9w
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7xeRXlgchdQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7xeRXlgchdQ


You also claim to have "researched" the subject for "years" but had only "feeble answers" given.  That confirms for me that you will refuse to accept factual answers because they don't fit into your worldview, because you have done so repeatedly in the past.  However, you refuse to present your arguments on YouTube either, which seems strange if you truly believe what you say.  You appear to have some sort of grudge against people who are well-educated, and I wonder why that is.

What, may I ask, are you here for, if not to troll?  For the record, we will not "disappear, never to be heard from again".  Nor are we "apprehensive", although it will be fun to find out what "NASA's little secret is" (from their website, no less!).  I have a fiver bet with another contributor here on the outcome.

On an unrelated note, I'm off to darn some socks and dig out a bingo card 

[Jason Thompson]

From the youTube links provided by Andromeda, posted by Edward:

conspiracy theorists are full of crap... but we derive much enjoyment not only from talking plenty of crap, but in watching as the crap we talk has the effect intended on believers who read such crap. It's fun to not only talk so much crap, but to be so full of crap, Blister. Especially so, when exceedingly well educated persons such as yourself continually read and respond to the crap which we spout.

Yet another believer... lured to reply by my purposefully placed comment on the 'beeping' noise. Some other bright spark also thought I was being serious when I mentioned that. I knew it would engender a response - Ha Ha!

How sad to see that you are exactly what we suspected, Edward.

One day we shall all be surprised by a hoax believer turning up who isn't obnoxious, trolling, and only interested in yanking our chains. One day...

[Kiwi]

Edwardwb1001, I must confess that I too am close to having a gutsful of your silly behaviour, and am indeed sorry that I have to say that in my first post to you.  But I've had a bad week and now have that terminal disease oldfartitis.

Sure, some members were a little harsh, but not the most regular ones.  Unfortunately for the rest of us, it seems to be a habit in parts of the US to put others down in order to make oneself feel bigger and better, and it's slowly coming here to New Zealand.  It's not our usual way.

You are whining with much ado, like a petulant child, but I remind you of the sheer silliness in your very first Apollo question (emphasis mine):

there surely would have been a certain amount of dust/soil which would have billowed up to float down and settle

Two very precise words from a person who alleges he has studied Apollo, but who used words that got completely wrong something very basic about the lunar environment.  You left us to wonder (well, me, anyway) whether you are either ignorant (which is normal for HBs in regard to Apollo) or stupid, and I thought most members were very diplomatic in querying your use of them and trying to correct you.

We ask hard questions here, and we criticise or correct each other if we are wrong.  I think I recall it already happening to others since you arrived.

It doesn't ever bother me. I like being put right.  It's called education.

So pull yourself together and act like a grown-up, or get out of the fire if the heat is too much for you. Stop whinging, stop playing games, and get on with it.

[And to put the record straight, I have hardly ever spoken to anyone like this since I joined here in March 2003, but you already appear to be a very deserving case and maybe even a jerk. I honestly hope you're not.  We have quite a nice little forum here -- make the most of it, like many of we regulars do. It's a great place for learning -- one of the best I know.]

[AtomicDog]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

[Echnaton]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

IIRC, the truck driver had a chip on his shoulder and a disdainful attitude toward anyone with education who spoke with authority.  He was not the only one, though. 

[Sus_pilot]

For what it's worth, this is one of the subtler technical mistakes in 2001.  Kubrick, et al, couldn't control the billowing when filming the models landing on the Moon.  In fact, in adding the verisimilitude of dust being displaced by exhaust, they may have not even considered how dust would move in a vacuum; IIRC, they filmed the dust moving in slow motion to make the motion scale correctly.

That said, there is a mythos that the film was the most technically perfect one ever made about space travel.  Kubrick and company got many things right, but there were many errors, from continuity (where exactly did the flight attendant go with flight crew meals?), to physical (the space station interior footage was very good, but you can still tell people were walking up/down slope rather than reacting to their local vertical), to deliberate (the alignment of Jupiter's moons).  The problem is that many HBers reference this film as the way things "should" be.  That's my suspicion in this case.

[Chew]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION

[Glom]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION

Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.

[smartcooky]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION

Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.

WOW! I hadn't seen that before. That was some meltdown!!

He doesn't just hate Apollo believers, he hates anyone with an education.

Interesting his take on commonsense and intuition. It reminds me of a phrase from a book about space-flight that I read many years ago (can't remember the actual book title). It was to the effect that even some of the seemingly simplest decisions you have to make have to be really well considered . "...in space, acting on your intuition can get you killed"

[sts60]

Wasn't there a the poster on the old board who seemed to have it in for educated people?

It was DAKDAK on this board: TOO MUCH EDUCATION

Dakdak was great. That was some meltdown he had. Shame he had to try to delete all his posts and put an end to it.

Yes.  That was too bad because he had made some detailed pictures illustrating some of his claims.  They were completely wrong, but at least he did some work to explain what he was claiming.  That's much better than people who drop hints about their great Apollo-busting revelations, but never get around to actually making any sort of specific claim.

[ka9q]

That said, there is a mythos that the film was the most technically perfect one ever made about space travel.  Kubrick and company got many things right, but there were many errors,

Quoting one of the first humans to see the moon close up, Bill Anders, from In the Shadow of the Moon:

He'd hoped for the moon of the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, released just two months before the flight. He says there was no comparison: "The moon, when we saw it up close, was quite different from the 2001 view, which was where the moon had a lot of sharp edges. This moon was well rounded, sandblasted. It was kind of disappointing. 2001 had everything so sharp. I mean, it was still interesting, and I would have been very pleased to walk on it, to see it up close. But at a distance you looked down, it's like a rug, with every hair. The closer you look, there are just more hairs. You know, more craters - no real definition."

 

[Tanalia]

I do have many of you in a tizz.

Just people checking out the latest chew-toy.

Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious.

As the saying goes: Pot, meet Kettle.

[Edwardwb1001]

All of you see my last post No.64 (under my original question) to see how wrong you are.  Andromeda - you deserved every 'ad hominem' you received (in my opinion) and I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?  ChrLz, why did you erroneously and misleadingly state on October 11 that I haven't conceded a single thing? You failed to take note that on October 10, under my orginal question, Jason stated "Concession noted." (Post no 34.) Smartcooky immediately thereafter, quotes ChrLz, and adds that "...we might have the one thousand and oneth name here." But how can that be, when I use the identical name and number on youtube? In any event, Smartcooky should have said: "...the one thousandth and one name here." Not too 'smart' after all.

Wait a second, a member mentioned that hoax believers never correct each other.  Why then Jason, did you not correct either ChrLz or Smartcooky and inform them that I had indeed conceded a particular point? Andromeda purposefully sifted through dozens of my comments until she found two where I was specifically joking in response to a believer who continually used the word 'crap', which I never usually use - or other unsavoury language. The comment on 'the beeping noise' was also purely in fun, as the video clip pertaining thereto was humerous. Yet she misleadingly posted only these comments.  So is this what Apollohoax is all about?  No better than any hoax believer site.  As much as hoax believers try to vilify believers, the opposite is true of believers trying to depecate non-believers.

The strangest thing of all, and which none of you seem to have realised, is that you are not doing your cause any good. There are few hoax believers on this site, and it is not always because they cannot understand any of the science presented. What is the purpose of a site purporting to debunk hoax claims, but there are few comments from hoax believers? From what I have seen, this site consists mainly of believers discussing the Apollo programme amongst themselves and congratulating themselves on how wonderful it was. The pompous, haughty attitude of many members here does this site a great disservice. Hoax believers will not want to be bothered with this site or persons on it, if you continue in this manner.  As important as presenting scientific facts are here, it is important to present them in a civil fashion. I suggest that you don't disregard my comments too easily. It is very apparent to me as someone from the outside. You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?

Kiwi, although I respect older persons, you come across as cantankerous and extremely rude. "Pull yourself together", "stupid", "get out of the fire", "get on with it", etc. Please, Kiwi. What is it with members here that they are all trying to tell me what to do? I had never addressed any comment to you, Kiwi. Did your mother never tell you that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it?" The distinct impression is that members here are HOPING that any new hoax believer posting on this site WILL turn out to be simply argumentative, or worse, a 'troll'. In my case, this is completely untrue. I would like answers, which so far I am getting - but in between the argumentative comments.

I said before, that I don't spend hours a day on this site, but I will post questions, including a specific one which involves the NASA website, and which Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on.  You will all regard this as another 'rant', but what I have said here is very important - if you want to advance belief in the Apollo programme. If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?

So what is it going to be? Are you all going to post a flurry of comments advising me to 'get on with it'? I'll say it again: "I'll post my questions when I have the time to do so." The question regarding NASA's image is very lengthy and will require some time to type. As one of your more astute members said to other members: "Relax". The very fact that you are paying me so much attention, proves how few hoax believers actually visit or sign up on this site.  I have incidentally, accepted the reasons given for no dust being visible on the LM's footpads, proving many members wrong in their assumptions of me.

Nevertheless, as you are all 'frothing at the mouth', (something which I sincerely hope is addressed in the near future and minimised), I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours. I hope it can and will be explained. If you would prefer me not to post any other questions, inform me thereof. I will simply continue disbelieving, and posting my views on other sites and forums. It's up to you.