Wikipedia's "Summary"

[LionKing]

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax

[Andromeda]

That's not Wikipedia, it's a conspiracy site called "wikispooks".

There is so much nonsense there, I'm not sure where to begin.  What do you want to talk about, wrt that page LionKing?

[Bryanpoprobson]

and the point of this thread is??? Debate about wikispooks??

[LionKing]

Ah ok ..just looked like wikipedia..

you can if you want speak about anything you think that wasn't discussed before and this brings it about

[Andromeda]

There has been nothing new in hoaxist claims for a long time, IMO everything has already been discussed.

What do you want to talk about LionKing?

[Bryanpoprobson]

It's full of inaccuracies and is loaded towards the hoax side of the argument. Thread Closed.

[LionKing]

Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?

[LionKing]

I see the reply here http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html
can we know the whole context

[Andromeda]

Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?

If you read the citations for that quotation (at the bottom of the page), they ALL refer to pro-hoax books.

I think the Clavius page you have linked to discusses it well.

[LionKing]

Did O'Leary say what he said indeed or this is just a hoaxed speach?

If you read the citations for that quotation (at the bottom of the page), they ALL refer to pro-hoax books.

I think the Clavius page you have linked to discusses it well.

I saw it on youtube. He said it, but Clavius is saying it was out of context if I understood well.

If Jay is goign to write a book someday, and I encourage him to do so, the more we discuss issues the more he or whoever wants to write gains insight on how to refute and the more all of us learn. I understand that the pro-moon hoax may not give full context, but O'Leary can.

[Andromeda]

Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere.  I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly.  TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).

[LionKing]

Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere.  I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly.  TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).

I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.
yes, English is not my first language.
What I think is lacking is the context that he is saying that the pro-hoax party took away O'Leary's quote from its context. Providing the full context would give a better refutation.

Best

[Echnaton]

Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere.  I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly.  TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).

I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.

As a long time reader of your posts, I understand that you are not patronizing others here.  Rather I think it is the reflexive acceptance of alternate/hoax explanations over a critical questioning of them that rubs some people the wrong way. 

[Andromeda]

Apologies if my words upset you, LionKing.  I meant that it seemed odd to me to offer someone unsolicited advice on something they may or may not choose to do.

[LionKing]

Jay has discussed these issues a LOT for many years and is very good at refuting hoaxist claims factually and clearly, as can be seen in his posting history here and elsewhere.  I'm not sure what you think is lacking in his approach or why you did not take it up with him directly.  TBH, your last post sounded pretty patronising although I am aware that may not have been your intention (and am I correct in thinking that English is not your first language?).

Echnaton,
If the hoax refutation is not renewed in a sense, and if it is not viewed from new angles , things will become very redundant and boring. If you want this, fine.. I can stop any posts.  I haven't went over every detail of the hoax theory  and I am ready to learn some more. As I learn more I am sure others learn as well. At any rates, that O'Leary resaid that he believed the moon landings happened is approximately enough, but the quotes are stunning, so it migth be a good idea to say why and how he said them becasue they are not "normal" to hear someone saying that.



I don't know how an advise for the good seems patronising? of course it is not my intention.

As a long time reader of your posts, I understand that you are not patronizing others here.  Rather I think it is the reflexive acceptance of alternate/hoax explanations over a critical questioning of them that rubs some people the wrong way.