Apollo 13

[Al Johnston]

I'm holding out for the high-speed phonebooth elevator that CONTROL had...

... I'll pass on the cone of Silence though...

[Andromeda]

Why should I bother?  Honestly, why should I?

You've had your nonsense debunked already, and your reaction was to pretend you hadn't seen it (I don't know if that pretending is conscious or unconscious), spout abuse and then flounce off.  So why should I bother doing more?

You asked us to open our eyes.  Try removing your hands from yours.



FTR, I am neither American nor a "guy".

[JayUtah]

He wasn't the first to make this claim. In 1996, Bill Kaysing called Jim Lovell a "comic Manchurian Candidate" who was "either brainwashed, hypnotized, programmed or whatever to present this spurious story of having gone to the moon."

Is that the same Bill Kaysing that tried to sue Lovell for calling him "wacky"? 

Yes, either "wacky" or a "kook."  I don't remember which.  I do remember, however, that Kaysing represented himself in court and managed to get his case dismissed with prejudice.  The only way to fail, legally speaking, to any greater extent would be to also get slapped with contempt.

[Andromeda]

It's interesting that someone who wilfully breaks the forum rules should think it appropriate to tell us how things "should" be here.

[allancw]

Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax. No? Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other? (I mean aside from those paid for doing this.) 

What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.

[Andromeda]

Heinous, isn't it?  A group of people with a common interest, having conversation.

How much are you being paid to be here, Allan?

[RAF]

What a fine little ****** **** you all have going.

So now that you have devolved into juvenile humor, do you still expect to be taken seriously?

You're so "out of it", you're not even worth acknowledging...

[AtomicDog]

I've noticed that he has not said anything meaningful about Apollo since his return to this thread. It's all been insults hurled at us and other conspiracy woo.

[Luckmeister]

allancw, There's no reason why we should tag along on your constant desperate change of subject after you've been given answers you "guarantee" (whatever that means) we won't be able to provide. So let's stay with claims you have made and the answers you have ignored. I think it's important that you address them now and show that you are willing to admit error to avoid further wasting of our time on you.

Please comment on the documents that have been provided regarding VARB avoidance you strongly asserted don't exist. I'm sure at least one of us will remind you of this request after each post you make that doesn't address it. You need to be accountable for your claims and acknowledge details you have been wrong about. Any good journalist or critical thinker would want to tie up those loose ends. Please do that for us.

[gillianren]

Second:  there actually is a limit under American criminal law for trying to argue that a person is guilty in one instance because he was guilty in a past instance.  Past behavior is not per se evidence that a person has committed a subsequent crime.

I was going to point this out myself.  Hey, isn't the concept of "prior bad acts" something that would come up on Miami Vice?

[sts60]

I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.

While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam,...

Allan, I'm sorry about your friend.

To respond to the first part of your post, I have asked why you are here; specifically, I asked if you were here to learn something, or here to reinforce your own convictions.  Here is why I ask that:

In reply #239 I pointed out that you had been given citations explicitly mentioning trajectory design through the Van Allen belts - which you had guaranteed did not exist. 

Will you live up to your guarantee? 

If not, why not?

[JayUtah]

Here's a question that surely is relevant: Is there even one regular in this forum that takes the position that Apollo was a fabrication/hoax.

This domain name originated with a hoax claimant who invited people here to debate him on the subject.  After a year or so of patient discussion and questinon, he actually changed his mind and agreed there was little credible evidence to support the hoax.  We've had quite a few hoax proponent regulars over the years.

Do you just wait for someone like me to come along so you can congratulate each other?

The forum exists for no reason other than to entertain discussion and debate on the authenticity of the Apollo missions.  That purpose is not served by having only one side of the question represented.  While we have had, over the ten years or so of the domain's existence, a number of webmasters and a number of long-time hoax proponents, there are not presently any regulars who advocate a hoax.  Most "melt down" rather quickly and go elsewhere.

You're quite welcome to stay as long as you want and debate Apollo as best you can.  But frankly you don't seem as interested in the facts of Apollo as you do in trying to shame people who disagree with you.  Since that is not allowed, I predict you'll soon be banned.

I mean aside from those paid for doing this.

Who is being paid to post here, and how do you know that?

No answer?  Ah, didn't think so.  You're desperate to find some other reason why people disagree with you and dispute you.  As others have pointed out, you are entirely unable to deal with the possibility that there is informed disagreement and opposition to your belief.  You have to fabricate other reasons, rather than face the possibility of being mistaken.

What a fine little [vulgar reference] you all have going.

I see you are unable to remain civil.  Contrary to your insinuations, the inability to comport oneself as an adult is usually why people are asked to leave this forum.  Can you explain why hoax claimants invariably turn to childish language and insults?  Is it so they invite moderator intervention and can then go elsewhere and claim they were sanctioned "for their beliefs?"

[allancw]

Hey LUCKMEISTER, etc etc: NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS. You can repeat your crap about trajectories as many times as you get paid for or whatever your motive is, but it does not make it true.

And neither has anyone even touched the question of whether the LMs were heated or air conditioned or somehow both.

[Jason Thompson]

NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.

Bull. You were provided references, and sts60 even quoted the relevant sections to you. That is EXACTLY what you are insisting no-one provided, and yet you still insist it's not there. Is blindness a problem for you?

[Bob B.]

NO ONE SHOWED ME ONE MENTION OF HOW THE MISSIONS AVOIDED THE WORST OF THE BELTS.

Aside from the excerpts that Sts60 provided, you were also shown preplanned and actual trajectory data.  If NASA tells you the trajectory they're flying, and that trajectory avoids the worst of the VARB, then that sure as hell is a mention of how they plan to avoid the VARB.