LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[gillianren]

Yeah, you know what?  If you have anything to say, say it.  If all you're going to do is lecture us about our behaviour, why are you taking the time to post at all?

[Grashtel]

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.

You know your claims of being short on time would seem more plausible if you weren't posting them as part of a big rant about how you are being treated here.   If you had instead used the time to actually post some of your questions about Apollo you would receive a much better response.

[ka9q]

Edward, skip the long meta-discussions about how you (think you) are being treated here and GET ON WITH IT.

What is your evidence for the Apollo program not being as generally documented? Lay it all out.

Given how much time you spend on meta-discussions and how little you spend on substantive issues, claiming a lack of time, one might be forgiven for thinking that this just might be a smokescreen for a lack of defensible, factual evidence.

[Edwardwb1001]

I am 'lecturing' you about members' behaviour, because I feel that it is sorely needed, gillianren. As important as questions are, in my opinion, how people conduct themselves on this site is equally important for the reasons given.

So, if members cease making assumptions about me, and making incorrect statements about me, I will stop 'lecturing' and begin posting questions. My so - called 'rants' here are not only about how I'm being 'treated', a word that members continually use, it seems, in an attempt to make me seem thin-skinned. Far from it - otherwise I wouldn't post these responses, and I would have quietly disappeared - something it seems a number of members would prefer every hoax believer to do.

After I posted my first question, which was IMMEDIATELY after I joined up incidentally, I received a few comments which I thought were uncalled for, and later, a number of incorrect assumptions - hence my ongoing response.  You seem to forget that not only have I been on this site for only about one week, but I DID make a number of comments regarding responses to my first question.  It takes time reading all the responses, in more than one forum, as well as perusing the rest of the site.

Perhaps if you had more hoax believers on this site you would have more questions, but many don't want to communicate with members here - and not only for the reasons you might think. Calm down! What's the huge hurry? (Obviously starved of questions, for the reasons I mentioned). I WILL post questions.

[Philthy]

I know, I do not post much, mainly because what I would say has been said.

I should say that I do not only "believe" the Apollo landings happened as recorded, I KNOW without a doubt they did.

However......

Edward does have one point, as off topic as it might be, there is a lot of "calling him/her out." I know, I know, we've been there done that. Obviously he/she hasn't.

But, everyone here has a bigger point.........

Edward, GET ON WITH IT!!

Phil

[cos]

While we wait how about playing guess the question.

I'll start;

Why are there no stars in the sky?

(actually that would be quite funny).

[gillianren]

I am 'lecturing' you about members' behaviour, because I feel that it is sorely needed, gillianren. As important as questions are, in my opinion, how people conduct themselves on this site is equally important for the reasons given.

You know what?  I disagree with you.  This is an educational resource.  You showed up here, called tens of thousands of people liars, and presented no valid reason for your belief.  You've said you'll get to it, but why wasn't it the first thing you did?  If this was so incredible to you, why wasn't it the most important thing you could have said, right away?  I don't understand this.  Unless the ill-informed stuff you started with was the thing which convinced you that Apollo was faked, in which case I weep for your science education. 

So, if members cease making assumptions about me, and making incorrect statements about me, I will stop 'lecturing' and begin posting questions. My so - called 'rants' here are not only about how I'm being 'treated', a word that members continually use, it seems, in an attempt to make me seem thin-skinned. Far from it - otherwise I wouldn't post these responses, and I would have quietly disappeared - something it seems a number of members would prefer every hoax believer to do.

Here's my assumption about you.  You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Apollo.  Now, you're welcome to prove me wrong, but until you start showing some scientific knowledge, I'm just going to carry on with that assumption.

After I posted my first question, which was IMMEDIATELY after I joined up incidentally, I received a few comments which I thought were uncalled for, and later, a number of incorrect assumptions - hence my ongoing response.  You seem to forget that not only have I been on this site for only about one week, but I DID make a number of comments regarding responses to my first question.  It takes time reading all the responses, in more than one forum, as well as perusing the rest of the site.

As I said, my only assumption about you thus far has been that you don't know what you're talking about.  I suspect that is true of most of us.  There is also the assumption that you are going to present the same old evidence we've seen dozens, if not hundreds, of times before, and you're welcome to prove that one wrong, too.  But why would you post here if you hadn't at least read all the way through Clavius or this site (and there isn't much of it, unless you go into the archive on the old system) first?  Surely that would be a sensible way to find out if your questions had already been answered.

Perhaps if you had more hoax believers on this site you would have more questions, but many don't want to communicate with members here - and not only for the reasons you might think. Calm down! What's the huge hurry? (Obviously starved of questions, for the reasons I mentioned). I WILL post questions.

Why didn't you start with them?  The reason we don't have many HBs here is that hoax belief is dying, and the few remaining hover on YouTube, where proper debate is impossible.

[Edwardwb1001]

Actually, Philthy, you've just spoilt it for the other members, with yet another "get on with it".  You obviously didn't read my 'meta-discussion' where I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours.  I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it. I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.

I'm not interested in hearing members 'answers' to other questions of mine on THIS site. Not with the bad grace with which they're given. I'll find them elsewhere.

[Chew]

One to add to the Bingo card:

Actually, Philthy, you've just spoilt it for the other members, with yet another "get on with it".  You obviously didn't read my 'meta-discussion' where I said I'd post my principle question within 48 hours.  I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it. I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.

I'm not interested in hearing members 'answers' to other questions of mine on THIS site. Not with the bad grace with which they're given. I'll find them elsewhere.

This is rich. Typical hoax believer attitude. You have no moral concern about insulting the hundreds of thousands of people who worked hard and long to send men to the Moon and can take justifiable pride in their accomplishments but we call you scientifically ignorant and your taint starts bleeding.

[ka9q]

Edward, I'll say it yet again:

GET ON WITH IT.

Don't think that asking your "principle [sic] question" will be some sort of "reward" for us. It's our requirement if you want to be taken seriously.
 

[ChrLz]

I rest my case.

[Philthy]

But...that 48 hours was like..........3 or 4 days ago

Phil

GET ON WITH IT!!

Sheesh

[Abaddon]

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?

Sure you are. Doesn't make it right though.

ChrLz, why did you erroneously and misleadingly state on October 11 that I haven't conceded a single thing?

Cos you didn't.

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.

And I could register your name on 50 forums, so what?
 

Wait a second, a member mentioned that hoax believers never correct each other. 

Yup. But members here correct each other all the time, the difference being that members here say "Cool, I didn't know that" as opposed to HB types who say "That cannot be"

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.

If you post crap, why are you surprised to have it called as crap?

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.

HB types believe all manner of rubbish. Why should you get special treatment?

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.

AH is about the facts of the matter. You just don't like that much.

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?

Of course it never occurred to you that HBs are plain flat out wrong? Or it never occurred to you to present evidence, no?

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?"

There is nothing nice to say about hoaxies. Kiwi is a gentle soul, and you are using ad hom to beat the band.

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.

Consider your own first impression.

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?

Whee, more ad hom. This site exists as a point of information and discussion. Your inneptitude is another point of discussion.

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.

That depends on whether you get on with it or not?

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.

 

No, it's up to you whether you meaningfully engage or not. So far, your insulting manner is not winning any friends.

[Jason Thompson]

Andromeda - you deserved every 'ad hominem' you received (in my opinion) and I am entitled to my opinion, am I not?

Your entitlement to an opinion does not grant it inviolable respect. Your ad hominem attacks are not justified, nor are they productive. Leave them behind and deal with the substance of your disbelief if that is what you came here to discuss.

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.

What is misleading here is the suggestion that Andromeda purposefully quoted those two comments. She posted links to three YouTube videos without drawing attention to any specific comments. It was me who quoted your comments. If you make those comments on a public forum you can expect them to be held up as examples of your behaviour. If you openly admit to yanking the chains of others in other places, yes you can expect them to be used here as examples to support our view that that is just what you are doing here.

If you're going to resort ot ad hominem attacks, at least direct them to the correct person.

You do want to convert hoax believers, do you not?

This is not about conversion, this is about discussion. We're not on any mission here.

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.

Rubbish. In your case this is exactly what you are turning out to be.

Andromeda (rather childishly, I might add, considering her unjustifiably inflated opinion of herself) has placed a bet on.

How dare you? You don't know the people on this site, and you certainly don't know Andromeda. How do you know what she bases her opinion of herself on? I assure you, it is most certainly NOT unjustly inflated. She knows far more about science, Apollo and many other things than you do. Hell most of us here know more than you do. Andromeda, in particular, since you singled her out, has worked damn hard to get where she is now, and she should be justly proud of her achievements. I know her. You don't. Don't you dare try to suggest anyone here has an unjustifiably inflated opinion of themselevs.

If it was so uncontested around the world, this site wouldn't exist, would it?

Ignorance is sadly widespread. I'd gladly see sites like this disappear if it meant we could be spared the trolls, the ignorance, the abuse and the publicitry obsessed individuals who don't care what they say as long as they get attention.
 

"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.

Oh spare us the excuses. You just posted a huge lengthy rant, and you came back and posted another comment after that. Why don't you have these questions already typed out if they are so key to your discussion?

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.

You couldn't sound any less sincere about that. You are yanking our chains. We've seen it before. You admit to it in other places. You want to prove people wrong in their assumptions stop doing the very things we all assume you will do, like posting this long, pointless waffle, and get to the point.

I will post my NASA website image related question within the next 48 hours.

Why couldn't you just post it when you first came on here? If you had time to write all the posts you have so far done so, you had time to post that question.

I frankly don't care what you think of our attitudes. I don't care whether you believe in Apollo or not. I do care when you start insulting other members here in place of posting anything meaningful.

[Jason Thompson]

I'll send the question as a PM to a member who is a least civil and not as demanding (and childish), and I hope it can and will be explained to me. But that will be it.

Oh, how convenient for you. You'll hide away your discussion of this important question where no-one can see it and where you will therefore not be held to any public accoutability for your response.

Pathetic. If your question is so critical why are you afraid to put it out in public?

I will be sure to mention the plethora of whining, griping, childlike members on this site on other forums and sites on the internet - not only youtube, you can be certain. I don't think its going to do your cause any good.

Do you think you're the first to do that? We've had people doing that for years. We've had people coming on here just so they can get banned and crow about it on other forums. Members here have been subjected to personal attacks all over the net. Most recently one person has tried badly imitating members, or using their names in other places to smear our reputations. The threat of legal action shut him up quite swiftly.

You're not remotely new or original, and I am genuinely saddened to see you confirming our assumptions despite your ongoing assertion that they are all unjustified.