Tindarormkimcha's thread

[frenat]

Wow, this is without question the most boring troll I have ever come across on a discussion forum. No arguments, just regurgitatating long-debunked BS and refusing to engage.

It's like he's not really trying.  Kind of sad really.

[JayUtah]

They may have had some idea that no one was going to leave Earth orbit for the next 40 odd years. Been there, done that, time to get on with life.

It's not as if it's a big secret.  Practically every Apollo astronaut has written a memoir, and the reason they typically give is to return to home and family after devoting what was for some several years of 7-days-a-week, 14-hours-a-day labor.  They trained and worked hard, flew their missions, and then simply wanted a respite.  Of course no conspiracy theorist accepts that answer.  They pretend it's some mystery and insinuate otherwise.  Pure wishful thinking.

[JayUtah]

It's like he's not really trying.  Kind of sad really.

Yeah, even IDW put in more effort than this.

[AtomicDog]

Some of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?

James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.

Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.

Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.

Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977

Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?

So, why didn't Pete Conrad, Al Bean and John Young resign?

[darren r]

I'm starting to think this guy is, himself, a hoax. Not a hoax believer. A hoax.

[JayUtah]

I'm starting to think this guy is, himself, a hoax. Not a hoax believer. A hoax.

Oh, I'm quite sure he's laughing with puerile glee at his success in making the regulars jump.  He obviously has absolutely no interest in following up to anything he posts, or even reading the responses.

[Luke Pemberton]

The level of his argument is like watching tennis.

He/she serves a link/image/website.

Backhand return with response.

He/she serves a new link/image/website (no engagement with previous post).

Backhand return with response.

He/she serves a new link/image/website (no engagement with previous post).

I'm under the impression that he/she thinks everything he/she posts is irrefutable and we are here to heed his/her advice and he/she is doing us a favour by rescuing us from the clutches of our cult and leading us to salvation. I'm finding it hard to work out what sort of human is at the other end.

[Chew]

And of course don't forget in all this enormous confusion these people are in here that the moon is really an artificial object! NOT a natural one!

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?

You consider reading a Christopher Knight book as doing "research"? Bwahahaha!

[Chew]

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

What a gullible rube. 99.99% of the memory of any computer game is for the graphics. You don't need graphics if you have a window. Calculating the physics is a lot simpler than calculating the graphics. A long time ago I wrote a computer game in GW-basic on an old Zenith computer to land a lunar module on the Moon. Its only graphics was a print out of the altitude, down-range distance, vertical velocity, horizontal velocity, thrust, and fuel remaining. It took less than 2 kb. A "simple calculator" is all you need to land on the Moon. The hard part of the mission, the orbital mechanics, was solved back on Earth using the supercomputers of the day and the results radioed up to the spacecraft.

[DD Brock]

Some of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?

James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.

Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.

Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.

Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977

Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?

Read this next statement very very carefully.

Because it was OVER!

[JayUtah]

Come on, admit it lady, you haven't done your research now, have you?

Actually I'm very familiar with quite a number of the steaming piles of fecal material in print upon which you can waste time, money, and brain cells -- if you have a lot of the first two and not very many of the third.  All you're telling me is that you may have read this one.  Your treatment of its contents as if they were facts or foregone conclusions is what I was getting at.  Its authors conclusions are not something your critics are obliged to "remember" as facts simply because you perhaps wish them believed.

[raven]

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

What a gullible rube. 99.99% of the memory of any computer game is for the graphics. You don't need graphics if you have a window. Calculating the physics is a lot simpler than calculating the graphics. A long time ago I wrote a computer game in GW-basic on an old Zenith computer to land a lunar module on the Moon. Its only graphics was a print out of the altitude, down-range distance, vertical velocity, horizontal velocity, thrust, and fuel remaining. It took less than 2 kb. A "simple calculator" is all you need to land on the Moon. The hard part of the mission, the orbital mechanics, was solved back on Earth using the supercomputers of the day and the results radioed up to the spacecraft.

Plus, it had pilots. People on board to to judge the situation and make changes when needed. For example, if Apollo 11 had been a probe, its autopilot would have taken it into a boulder field, and it likely would have crashed. But Neil went manual and guided the thing down, using his skill, experience and his eyeballs and brain to make corrections the computer could not.
Tindarormkimcha, before Apollo 11 landed, there was unmanned probes sent by both the former Soviet Union and NASA that landed on the moon. If landing on the moon is impossible with two trained pilots on board the lander, should it not be also impossible to unmanned landers? Yet  other conspiracy theorists try to explain away the presence of reflectors, something verifiable by any with the right equipment, by saying NASA sent them unmanned.
The presence of reflectors is undeniable, yet if they could be sent unmanned, which the Russians did do by the way, then the computers of the time could also be enough to send trained pilots to do the same.
You can't have it both ways.

[gillianren]

You know, usually, when we get a new HB in, I check more regularly, because the discussion is interesting.  (Leaving aside that my faire boss had back surgery today, and faire starts this weekend--leaving his assistants and his daughter to run everything without him.)  This . . . is not interesting.  We could pretty much all copy-paste responses to other threads, and we'd still be doing more of the work.

[LunarOrbit]

Tindarormkimcha,

Like others have said, I am saddened by the current state of team "hoax believers". They have suffered too many defeats, and lost all of their best players. Maybe it's a rebuilding year. But there isn't much hope for your team if you're the best they've got left.

How about you prove to us that you actually understand the subject and can discuss it intelligently instead of just copying and pasting from other sites? I'm so fed up with hoax believers like you who come in here guns blazing just to create a high post count as quickly as possible.

You have made 67 posts in a little over 24 hours, and there has been no substance to any of them. It has just been a regurgitation of other people's hoax claims that were debunked years ago. Do you not feel shame from the poor quality of your argument? Do you not look at what you have posted and think "I can do better!"? Your work has been lazy. If you were my student, I would fail you. If you were my employee, I would fire you.

So here is the deal: I'm close to banning you for trolling since you appear to be more interested in provoking anger than you are in having an intelligent conversation. But I'm going to give you one more chance. Pick your strongest proof that the moon landings were faked and make your case. We will discuss it until there is agreement to move on to the next topic. If you continue to just spam the forum with material from other hoax believers without at least attempting to discuss it I will ban you. Or would you rather just admit you don't have what it takes and quit now?

[smartcooky]

I'm starting to think this guy is, himself, a hoax. Not a hoax believer. A hoax.

Oh, I'm quite sure he's laughing with puerile glee at his success in making the regulars jump.  He obviously has absolutely no interest in following up to anything he posts, or even reading the responses.

A drive-by scatter-gun poster huh?