NASA reproduces a building block of life in the lab

[Wild Cobra]

If that is true way bother debating with someone you consider a kid? And you have made ofther insults in the past of me being a washed up old pot smoking hippy so how can you now say you though I was an adolescent?

I'll let you wonder. Maybe I slammed you purposely, maybe I didn't.

Your assuming Apollo 11 landed on the moon. your assuming all the evidence I have provided to you is false. You and your Myth buster pals have not yet proven man went to the moon.

What about the retroreflector?

You try to claim you believe in some sort of creator or intelligent designer and yet you support Darwin.

The theories are not mutually exclusive.

But that is your right I suppose, you have the right to be ignorant I will just have find it in my heart to try and educate you and I hope it works this time.

I have repeatedly shown you to be the ignorant one.

I asked you time and time again why would NASA have to stage them being half way between earth and the moon just to have it played back as a live transmission?

I don't have all the answers. The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.

why would they say the camera is in the window when in fact it is on the other side of the capsule? why the lies?

Who knows and who cares? I wouldn't consider the terminology they used a lie.

please watch the film were I have noted the time line I have question try not to avoid them

go to the mark 5:29 of 9:27

What about it? Somewone with a mike maybe worried and just started to say "talk."

So what?

this is part II start from 0:00
and please explain to us all why NASA deliberately had to lie, and feel free to use your Myth Buster pals as backup.

So what? The narrative the woman gives is fantasy. What she alls an arm could be a finger in front of the lens. She also has the dates off. Julian dates are used. 198.01.15 to 198.01.30, the first reel, is the 198th day of 69 at 01:15 to 01:30. The 198th day is the 17th. Not the 18th. The third reel is the 19th, not the 20th, the day before they landed.

Talk about lying, this lies and you don't even look things up. You trust without verifying.

I just provided evidence how NASA lied to the public and you have the nerve to say ?

No you didn't.

Do you have any idea how far and deep the Van Allen radiation belts are?

Yes

the inner region centered at an al ude of 2000 mi. (3200 km) and the outer region at an al ude between 9000 and 12,000 mi. (14,500 and 19,000 km).

The outer actually goes farther than that.

all the photos you keep posting are within the safe zones.

Or outside the belt. Ever ponder that concept?

Yes I have and reading about it and having to pass though it are two different things.

There is enough shielding for the few hours they travel through it.

My God. They aren;t staying in the belt.

Picture taking can be your worst enemy my friend, if your going to pull out what pictures can or can't be taken card, if so then this one will be seen as a fraud.

No fraud. With bright surfaces, you have to raise the shutter speed so fast and make the F-stop a larger number to keep from having over exposure. In doing so, the stars don't have enough light reaching the film. Then there is the possibility of the radiation washing out the stars completely, and the photos corrected while developing for contrast.

Talk about photo shop!

even Slomo has the sense to toss in a star or two.

If there were stars seen that are real dim compared to the really bright foreground objects, then you would have more ground to call the photo's fakes.

Do you see stars on a bright summer day?

[mouse]

First off Wild Cobra we have to ease up on quoting each other.

I get lost midway during the quote and can't figure out what question your avoiding. Plus lets keep two subjects on the table at once as soon as one of us gives in or we call it a draw then we can move on.

I want this to be a painless as possible for us and the readers.

Secondly, I can't take anymore of you tossing your hands in the airs and saying it doesn't matter every time I ask you a question you can't answer. part of a good debate is admitting the other person has a good point and doing your best to answer back or at least say "I really can't answer that"

Don't say it doesn't matter as i do answer most of your questions with my best replies at least do the same.

next are some examples of a debate going in the wrong direction...

What about the retroreflector?

At no time did I ever say space craft or rovers never went to the moon. even the Russians crash landed a vehicle on the moon. even mars has two rovers that can drill and look at rocks through a microscope and send the images back to earth.

I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.

I have repeatedly shown you to be the ignorant one.

not by avoiding my questions.

I don't have all the answers.

Then use Google! if we went to the moon I have the burden of proof on my shoulders to prove that we didn't you have the easy part you can just access the www and the many NASA sites and get all the info you need to answer any question I ask.
unless we didn't go to the moon then I can see how that could be difficult.

The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.

That is a lie. the live feeds were placed on the projection screen by NASA the same way they received the images they could have beamed them to any station in the US. this was 1969 not 1869 besides the images didn't go to Houston at first a satellite dish in Australia received them first then relayed them to NASA so how are you going to tell me different?

if your going PWNED! me like TLongII says you do at least do your homework.

Who knows and who cares?

After this quote I realized you have given up and only want to talk about topics you feel comfortable answering and that is not how a real debate works you don't get to punt the ball every time you want to shift the burden of scoring a touchdown.

If I bailed out on answering your questions I would be teased and ridicule why should you get a pass?

No further quoting is necessary after this point until you can honestly find real answers to my last questions.

And don't use the "Who cares" card It shows everyone that your shouldn't even debate a topic if you never gave a in the first place, and for someone who doesn't care you seem to do allot of quoting on the subject.

take a day off, rest a bit, lick your wounds and come back with some better next time. To be honest I have have yet to even get warmed up on this topic.

Just wait until we get into the the Apollo LEM Niel Armstrong almost died trying to test it they never show him actually being able to control it and you want us to believe he and others land on the moon without a hitch?

who writes this ?

[mouse]

the possibility of the radiation washing out the stars completely, and the photos corrected while developing for contrast.

Radiation doesn't nit pick on how it effects film it effects the whole film not just the stars. Your starting to sound like a talking head sent down from NASA do you really think I will continue wasting my time with you if your going to not take my questions seriously?

This is what film looks like when there is radiation. notice the dots throughout the picture.

Do you see stars on a bright summer day?

Every time I visit Hollywood.

that is how I will answer you in the future if you can't stop avoiding the tough questions.

Go to mark 2:05/5:32

tell me why the live feed and the still shot are two different images?

[mouse]

Another thing I have been real patient with you and have not pulled out the radiation card on the photos. It is a known fact the Van Allen belts of radiation that you claim is harmless is enough to show up on the film if not ruin it, not to mention the fact the radiation in space. And before you Google a witty comeback keep in mind who provided the film and how they was in bed with NASA.

Don't pull out the special jell coated film card it has been proven to be a lie and no film to this day can handle any radiation so keep that in mind when you go in that direction.
You don't want me to bring up the extra lighting used during those picture.
it may be best if you avoid the whole topic of NASA photos if you know what I mean.

Go to 5:53/9:51

[phyzik]

Debunk the Lunar Laser ranging experiment mouse.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missio...periments/lrr/

[mouse]

Why so you can tell everyone you paid for my chocolate milk back in the 4th grade and I have yet to pay you back?

You never told me how offering me the use of your FTP server had anything to do with water on the moon and you said I was a lazy ass grass cutting loser.

But I will say this it wasn't until last night when I felt bad for the topic starter that I realized the OP was you. So out of respect and to avoid anymore personal insults I will retreat from this debate Wild Cobra although you weaseled out of answering the hard questions I will forfeit the debate you can call yourself the winner.

Good day chaps hope to see you both at a gtg some day.

[JoeChalupa]

If you build it they will come.....out of the woodwork.

[Wild Cobra]

First off Wild Cobra we have to ease up on quoting each other.

I get lost midway during the quote and can't figure out what question your avoiding. Plus lets keep two subjects on the table at once as soon as one of us gives in or we call it a draw then we can move on.

Maybe you should do as I do. Pull up a second window.

I want this to be a painless as possible for us and the readers.

This is getting hard for me. I have attention deficient disorder, so as it's becoming a more boring topic, expect less from me.

Secondly, I can't take anymore of you tossing your hands in the airs and saying it doesn't matter every time I ask you a question you can't answer. part of a good debate is admitting the other person has a good point and doing your best to answer back or at least say "I really can't answer that"

There are so many sites that debunk what you are posting. I'm not going to look them all up. You want me to make guesses like you girlfriend on YouTube? How someone can say there is proof we didn't go to the moon is beyond me. There is no proof. This has beet slightly entertaining, but getting boring as you keep posting the same bull I have debunked in the past. Look it up yourself.

How can you completely believe one point of view and tottally diosregaudrd another, especially when that the "myth" point of view has complete fallacies attached?

Don't say it doesn't matter as i do answer most of your questions with my best replies at least do the same.

Your best is regurgitating other peoples lies. I am getting rather disappointed you have not taken it upon yourself to research the basic facts involving photography, chemistry, and physics that apply here. It is a complete waste of my time if you continue on this course.

next are some examples of a debate going in the wrong direction...

At no time did I ever say space craft or rovers never went to the moon. even the Russians crash landed a vehicle on the moon. even mars has two rovers that can drill and look at rocks through a microscope and send the images back to earth.

I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.

Not at all. Are you telling me that a robotic machine of the day (rover) existed to land, and set up a retroreflector? Wow... That would be a feat for the late 60's/early 70's.

The rovers sent to Mars were rather recent. Are you even remotely aware of how much technology has changed?

not by avoiding my questions.

Most your questions are too boring, and until you understand some basics, what good does answering them to but waste my time?

Then use Google! if we went to the moon I have the burden of proof on my shoulders to prove that we didn't you have the easy part you can just access the www and the many NASA sites and get all the info you need to answer any question I ask.

That's the problem. You only believe what you Google, without an intelligent though of your own on the matter. You have no proof, and every time I explain why you have no proof, you are too ignorant to understand the explanation. I am not a teacher. I have a hard time talking down that far to explain things so someone who doesn't understand the basic sciences.

The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.

That is a lie. the live feeds were placed on the projection screen by NASA the same way they received the images they could have beamed them to any station in the US. this was 1969 not 1869 besides the images didn't go to Houston at first a satellite dish in Australia received them first then relayed them to NASA so how are you going to tell me different?

I am pointing out the feeds are not compatible to broadcast television. There was no electronic equipment in 1969 to convert slow-scan <240i 10hz to 480i 30hz. They were either recorded and played back, or projected and captured. Either way, the quality of any live feed being limited to a 500khz signal is very poor quality compared to NTSC.

How they traveled to Houston doesn't matter. There were three different Transceivers on Earth that relayed to Houston depending on the relative alignment between the Earth and Moon.

if your going PWNED! me like TLongII says you do at least do your homework.

My memory is not the internet. Sorry if yours is. I have researched this topic in the past, and I do know what I'm talking about. Sorry you don't.

I don't like repeating my work.

After this quote I realized you have given up and only want to talk about topics you feel comfortable answering and that is not how a real debate works you don't get to punt the ball every time you want to shift the burden of scoring a touchdown.

No, I'm getting bored with you. When you completely disregard good evidence, what do you expect.

If I bailed out on answering your questions I would be teased and ridicule why should you get a pass?

Then ask worthwhile questions, or ones that indicate you have some basic understanding of the sciences in play.

No further quoting is necessary after this point until you can honestly find real answers to my last questions.

Then give me real, worthwhhile questions instead of boring me. Give me a challenge.

And don't use the "Who cares" card It shows everyone that your shouldn't even debate a topic if you never gave a in the first place, and for someone who doesn't care you seem to do allot of quoting on the subject.

the "who cares" is because you are asking answers to something that has too many possibilities, like the camera. He could have been holding it "in the window" and got his finger across the lens. Could have been something floating in the Capsule. "Who Cares" because the narrators assertion is not the only possible explaination. Just because I don't have a solid answer doesn't make her probable lie correct.

take a day off, rest a bit, lick your wounds and come back with some better next time. To be honest I have have yet to even get warmed up on this topic.

I have no woulds to lick, You've been owned all though this, and don't realize it.

Go ahead. Take time to warm up. I expect it will take a few years to understand the basic sciences involved.

Just wait until we get into the the Apollo LEM Niel Armstrong almost died trying to test it they never show him actually being able to control it and you want us to believe he and others land on the moon without a hitch?

who writes this ?

Seen that so many years before. Even with the crash, they proved the concept valid. Remember, he was operating that in an atmosphere that has gusts of wind, and at six times the gravity than the moon has. Reactionary mass is all out of whack, especially when you have to fight unexpected wind.

[Wild Cobra]

Radiation doesn't nit pick on how it effects film it effects the whole film not just the stars. Your starting to sound like a talking head sent down from NASA do you really think I will continue wasting my time with you if your going to not take my questions seriously?

I only offered a possible explaination. It is almost certain the other I offered. That the stars were simply too dim to be seen under the cir stances the shots were taken.

This is what film looks like when there is radiation. notice the dots throughout the picture.

That's also what a picture looks like from film of a fast ASA, under-exposed, and "pushed" during development. The dots appear to me as the grain of the film. Different film will have different results, and the type of radiation also matters.

I would be curious to see what the link says on that one.

Every time I visit Hollywood.

that is how I will answer you in the future if you can't stop avoiding the tough questions.

Go to mark 2:05/5:32

tell me why the live feed and the still shot are two different images?

The angle of the two cameras and the position of the front flap:







Again, I'm tired of rehashing points made and available for you to find yourself.

Moon Base Clavius

[mouse]

I lost track of how many times you said you was tired and bored, then why do you insist on debating me?

And why now after I hit you with the hard to answer ?

Also I find it rather odd how when I ask hard to answer questions your all of a sudden bored and tired, and you don't want to repost your .

How can you say that large object in front of the lens was the astronaut's finger when the film clearly shows the camera was on the other side of the capsule?

also you didn't explain the dome light that was above, was that his finger also.?

and why would you post a different photo of the astronaut's closed flap when I am talking about the so called live jump photo they did on supposed live TV?

You can and moan all you want and say you have been owning me throughout the debate which to me is ok I'm not after school yard street creds I don't care about how many of your pals at star bucks high five you every time you post a Myth buster link.

If fact I have always wanted the truth and wanted to know why NASA staged all this and if the Moon landing was real?

If your display of insults and poor at ude is the product of you owning someone in a debate then more power to you. I am sure anyone with a 9th grade education can read for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

See you in the politics forum next time you claim the earth is 4 billion years old.

peace brah!

[Wild Cobra]

I lost track of how many times you said you was tired and bored, then why do you insist on debating me?

Tired of repeating myself and bored because your evidence is so insanely stupid.

And why now after I hit you with the hard to answer ?

I will look a thing up now and then, especially if it's something I didn't see before.

Also I find it rather odd how when I ask hard to answer questions your all of a sudden bored and tired, and you don't want to repost your .

No, it's the stupid questions I have answered at other times I am tired of repeating and that you bore me with.

How can you say that large object in front of the lens was the astronaut's finger when the film clearly shows the camera was on the other side of the capsule?

The camera could have been moved, and probably was.

also you didn't explain the dome light that was above, was that his finger also.?

Without cabin light, how can they see what they are doing?

Come on man, think, and stop asking me these boring questions you can look up.

and why would you post a different photo of the astronaut's closed flap when I am talking about the so called live jump photo they did on supposed live TV?

It was a photo of the same astronaut on the same outing. I used that one to clearly show the flap. Do you disagree that the angles caused your misperception of events?

You can and moan all you want and say you have been owning me throughout the debate which to me is ok I'm not after school yard street creds I don't care about how many of your pals at star bucks high five you every time you post a Myth buster link.

I think I only posted one.

If fact I have always wanted the truth and wanted to know why NASA staged all this and if the Moon landing was real?

As long as you have the false conviction they staged , you will never find the answers you are looking for, because they really went to the moon.

Will you stop posting this meaningless propaganda please. They took photo's of the earth on three different days as they went to the moon. The last photo is probably the first, while they were still close to earth.

Remember, three reels, day 198, day 199, and day 200...

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse, do you even understand this:

[phyzik]

Why so you can tell everyone you paid for my chocolate milk back in the 4th grade and I have yet to pay you back?

You never told me how offering me the use of your FTP server had anything to do with water on the moon and you said I was a lazy ass grass cutting loser.

But I will say this it wasn't until last night when I felt bad for the topic starter that I realized the OP was you. So out of respect and to avoid anymore personal insults I will retreat from this debate Wild Cobra although you weaseled out of answering the hard questions I will forfeit the debate you can call yourself the winner.

Good day chaps hope to see you both at a gtg some day.

Honestly? I was drunk and pissed. I admit it. Not because you are right on ANYTHING in this thread, its just frustration that you REFUSE to accept evidence from EXPERTS but yet expect us to accept the word of, who many consider, frauds with an agenda.

Of course, your comeback is going to be the experts are in on it... thats the frustrating part...

but there is an easy end to it all.

Watch the video I posted. , skip to around the 6 minute mark if it pleases you. Watch from that point.

Then..... tell us how that piece of equipment got there. Sorry, no robot at the time was complex enough to set that up. thats not an excuse, if that was the case, almost 40 years later your telling me they couldnt have done that for the Mars rovers? Or are the Mars rovers in some desert here on earth as well...

To me it seems you decided to quit when that crucial piece of IRREFUTABLE evidence was brought up and you decided to deflect the factual evidence by crying about my admittedly petty insults. Still, the evidence remains as fact regardless of what an ass I was.

BTW, the video addresses the flag issue, the lighting issue, the star issue, the boot print issue, the supposed slow motion video issue as well as the fact of the laser project, which is probably the most damning evidence for any Apollo 11 conspiracy theory.

In fact, the project still runs today right here in Texas! Just take a trip to the McDonald observatory for your proof. They have done it at least several times for TV shows. you can see it live and in person! , the guy in the video is INVITING you to come as a conspiracy theorist!

Nevermind the fact that there where HUNDREDS (most likely over a thousand) of employees of NASA at the time, your going to sit there and tell me they are staying quiet when we have tons of top military people coming forward with claims of unidentified flying objects?

A GTG would be cool this year, despite all the hate on the forum its still just a forum. These debates, regardless of how vicious they get, are still healthy discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

The part of Mouse will be played by Mel Gibson.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, the video addresses the flag issue, the lighting issue, the star issue, the boot print issue, the supposed slow motion video issue as well as the fact of the laser project, which is probably the most damning evidence for any Apollo 11 conspiracy theory.

In fact, the project still runs today right here in Texas! Just take a trip to the McDonald observatory for your proof. They have done it at least several times for TV shows. you can see it live and in person! , the guy in the video is INVITING you to come as a conspiracy theorist!

I think he's a lost cause. Not going to listen to and reasonable facts.

BTW Mouse. What I referred to as a retro-reflector is the reflector for those laser range finding experiments. It is done almost daily to measure the very slim changes in distance between the moon and Earth. Until it was set up, we had limited accuracy of the moons distance, and not enough to state the moon orbital shift as close as we do today. The moon recedes about 1-1/2" per year. We would never be able to measure it so precise without laser range finders off a dedicated reflector.

[mouse]

I can't believe I am going to do this it goes against all my principles.

aw , here we go again........


For the love of all that is holy Wild Cobra put down the mountain dew code read and Phyzix put down the pork skins and remove that round can of Skoals
chewing tobacco from your right rear pocket of your skin tight Wrangler jeans and let some blood flow to your head.

I said in my last three postings everything you need to know already!

#1 Phyzik dude I told you in the other topic where you told everyone I tried to steal information from your top secret FTp server that if you was drunk and didn't mean it you can "PM" me and I will understand, you think your the only one around here who gets drunk and post they regret?

I have made a career of doing just that. I also told you as long as beer sales are still legal in Texas I will not debate with you in the future to insure that event doesn't take place again so save your questions and rebuttals for Whottt and Chump Dumper.Thank you see you at a GTG some day.

#2
Wild Cobra I said and more than once I don't debate with posters who say "who cares" when I ask a tough question, I don't debate with posters who say "I don't have all the answers" when they act like they do and they have Google at their disposal.
I don't debate with posters who say "I am tired of this " and then they come back for more just to say "I am tired of this " and they come back for more...

#3 For the sake of moving froward I said "you win! I lose! we did land on the moon! there is water on the moon!"
I wanted to know why if all what you and your beer drinking FTP server friend Phyzik say is true about us going to the moon then why would NASA have to fake certain live feeds and stage them just to play them back as if they were live?

You decided to say "who cares why?" "I am tired of this " "I don't have all the answerers"

Does that sound like someone I want to waste time debating with them When I could be looking for employment so I don't have to mow Kori's lawn to survive in my cardboard box under the 410 / San Pedro rd bridge?

So far you and your pal Phyzix have posted I am a lazy uneducated loser who mows lawns and listens to some ing form youtube that happens to be my girlfriend and I don't deserve to use a FTP server.

Like that has anything to do with finding water on the Moon. I provided a video of an Astronaut jumping in midair and another astronaut taking a photo and showed you how the photo and the video did not match and NASA claimed it was the same jump and you think because you post a "drawing" with some red lines on it that it destroys my video evidence?

Somehow I have a feeling your not going to read or understand this post either and I am afraid you will just curl up in a ball tonight wearing your Neil Armstrong PJs on your Moon shaped bunk bed with Phizix as you two high five each other on another job well done and that is your right as an American citizen.

As for your towel boy TlongII who seems to think I got owned something he is very familiar with as he is the token ST sheep loving piñata around here,
please note I will pass the cherished ST debate champ trophy to you and your online friends as I leave this topic in utter shame...................





















mess with the bull you get the horns!

[Wild Cobra]

#2
Wild Cobra I said and more than once I don't debate with posters who say "who cares" when I ask a tough question, I don't debate with posters who say "I don't have all the answers" when they act like they do and they have Google at their disposal.
I don't debate with posters who say "I am tired of this " and then they come back for more just to say "I am tired of this " and they come back for more...

I explained why I used those words. I think you just finally realized, no matter what you say, I can bust the conspiracy theory's rational.

We went to the moon. Just because some people don't think so, and make up reasons why we didn't, notice that everything they say can easily be "busted."

[mouse]

I explained why I used those words. I think you just finally realized, no matter what you say, I can bust the conspiracy theory's rational.

Did you scroll once again scroll over the "You win! I lose!"
"Your right! I'm wrong!" comments I made?

Are you the Cub's special poster who takes the short bus to a Topic?

Do you not understand metaphors?

We went to the moon. Just because some people don't think so, and make up reasons why we didn't, notice that everything they say can easily be "busted."

The only thing you busted was good debate that had potential.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you scroll once again scroll over the "You win! I lose!"
"Your right! I'm wrong!" comments I made?

Too bad you don't believe that.

The only thing you busted was good debate that had potential.

The debate has no potential when all you do is post other people's propaganda. Like this YouTube video you post. It then becomes "who has the most links." What you want to do is take scientific reasoning out of the equation, and that if flat out wrong.

In your latest video, I see an environment with many possibilities, but the narrator takes a narrow and obvious incorrect view. Without you asking a specific question, I don't know what you are looking for. In others, you give a time index, and I see so many lies in the narrator, I don't know how to answer without writing a book.

Example:

From one window to the other. The capsule could have change orientation. Maybe they either were done and had to reorient, or wanted to try an angle from the other window.

The thing hanging from the window could have been a filter.

The camera obviously was away from the window, but that doesn't mean it always was.

We simply don't have all the facts, and for the narrator to insert a biased false version is just a form of lying. He has no evidence something else didn't occur. To believe his version without question is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. For me to comment on everything said, I feel is stupid, because I think it should be obvious the guy is making false implications.

There is nothing I have ever seen or heard that can convince me we didn't go to the moon, starting with Apollo 11. Everything can be debunked that the naysayers say, and all the photo's and video fit and have explanations.

You want a debate? Anytime you want to link a video or site, then make specific remarks around specific actions so I don't have to guess.

[Blue Jew]

How many times can you kill a Jew?

[Wild Cobra]

You know mouse, there is something I remembered, so I found a photo.

Columbia (the command module of Apollo 11) has three windows facing the same forward (up) direction. That's why in that last video you posted it didn't matter that we saw Earth from two of them.

The narrator claiming this as proof is ridiculous. If he did any homework, he knowingly lied. If he was ignorant of the fact, then he was unqualified to make the claim.

What does that say for the integrity of anything else he says?

[mouse]

Too bad you don't believe that.

I don't have to believe it. Did the Jap's really think they surrendered after the atom bomb was used? They did what they had to so they could move on.

Deep down in their hearts and minds they know different.

The reason I said "you win!" "I lose!" so we can move on since you and your two lapdogs in this topic are keeping score of this owning contest they claim it is.

I was so desperate to see if you could keep a real debate going I was willing to P3own myself in the process for the sake of mankind the supreme sacrifice.

The debate has no potential when all you do is post other people's propaganda. Like this YouTube video you post. It then becomes "who has the most links." What you want to do is take scientific reasoning out of the equation, and that if flat out wrong.

Sorry if my style of debating doesn't satisfy you and I apologize if I didn't read the book on How to debate Wild Cobra and not get him upset rule book.

Seems to me you have no problem posting 100s of Myth buster links when you get a hair up your ass but if someone else post any links all of a sudden you pull out the rule book? Your not only bias you make debating about as much fun as asking Phyzix to use his FTP server.

In your latest video, I see an environment with many possibilities, but the narrator takes a narrow and obvious incorrect view. Without you asking a specific question, I don't know what you are looking for. In others, you give a time index, and I see so many lies in the narrator, I don't know how to answer without writing a book.

The point of the video is NASA lies to the public why can't you admit that so we can move on?

Example:

From one window to the other. The capsule could have change orientation. Maybe they either were done and had to reorient, or wanted to try an angle from the other window.

The thing hanging from the window could have been a filter.

The camera obviously was away from the window, but that doesn't mean it always was.

We simply don't have all the facts, and for the narrator to insert a biased false version is just a form of lying. He has no evidence something else didn't occur. To believe his version without question is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. For me to comment on everything said, I feel is stupid, because I think it should be obvious the guy is making false implications.

Once again you miss the point. Why "stage" the event and play it back later and say it is live? Does it really matter what window they used? Are you really that ignorant to try and say maybe the guy who shot JFK was just cleaning his gun at the time?

The point of the video is to show the public how NASA staged many events get off the what window they used theory it doesn't matter.

There is nothing I have ever seen or heard that can convince me we didn't go to the moon, starting with Apollo 11.

I kinda got that after page two

Everything can be debunked that the naysayers say, and all the photo's and video fit and have explanations.

Debunk the staging of the astronauts filming the earth out of the window to play back later.

You want a debate?

Not anymore, and not with you.

Anytime you want to link a video or site, then make specific remarks around specific actions so I don't have to guess.

If I do that it will look like I want to continue the debate and I will look like a flip flopper I need to stand by my earlier statements.

In reality you think it really matters if we went to the moon? Do you think It really matters if Bush knew about 9/11 before it took place?

What matters are the lies that are being told like a huge aircraft at the last minute tucked in it's wings to fit into a small 15 foot hole and evaporated into the pentagon.

And how NASA who couldn't even get a rocket off the ground without exploding was able to have many trips to the moon and back without any serious problems.


I don't just pick on NASA the USSR staged many things also that I point out when I am able to debate someone who really wants to debate. And one day I might just find such a person.

[Wild Cobra]

The point of the video is NASA lies to the public why can't you admit that so we can move on?

I don't see any lies in it.

Once again you miss the point. Why "stage" the event and play it back later and say it is live? Does it really matter what window they used? Are you really that ignorant to try and say maybe the guy who shot JFK was just cleaning his gun at the time?

I don't know what you are talking about? Just because the narrator says it happened that way doesn't make it fact.

Not everything was claimed to be live. Only the slow scan B&W was live I believe was.

The point of the video is to show the public how NASA staged many events get off the what window they used theory it doesn't matter.
Were you there? Do you know they were staged?

Maybe some of it was practicing. Ever think of that?

The window matters because your narrator mentioned it and either lied or was incompetent to make the assessment he did. I point it out to show he has no credibility.

Debunk the staging of the astronauts filming the earth out of the window to play back later.

They had to play back film and color video later.

If I do that it will look like I want to continue the debate and I will look like a flip flopper I need to stand by my earlier statements.

I have explained myself. You are not seeing the facts behind what you post, and link stuff as if it's a game as to who can find the most Easter eggs.

I don't just pick on NASA the USSR staged many things also that I point out when I am able to debate someone who really wants to debate. And one day I might just find such a person.

I know. You just like conspiracies and believe what others say. I get it.

[mouse]

I don't see any lies in it.

naturally you only see what you want I notice that.

I don't know what you are talking about? Just because the narrator says it happened that way doesn't make it fact.

The slate on the film was dated for another time. The film was played back as live it has nothing to do with the narrator.

Not everything was claimed to be live. Only the slow scan B&W was live I believe was.

So millions of viewers that saw thew astronauts in the capsule talking to the TV was taped? Are you saying the only thing that was live was the landing?

Can you please describe the drink in your hand I would like to have one myself.

Maybe some of it was practicing. Ever think of that?

I knew you was funny but your stand up routine has hit a new low! They had 10 years to practice and they did. The events on film were shown later on to be live it's a known fact it's no big secret anymore.

please tell me you haven't hit rock bottom and your just uttering nonsense just to post in this topic. Please tell me your just having a good laugh you can't really take what your posting serious?

I really don't think you watched the whole film I know for a fact you didn't listen because the people back on earth at NASA say loud and clear after the film was made how it looks good for play back.

Did you just happened to not hear that part? Can't you just say "ok you got me" is that such a hard thing to do?

Do you want me to give you a pass so you can maybe feed me more bull on another subject like the missing exhaust plumb that was not underneath the LEM when it shot back to earth?




Would you like to move on to other NASA bull lies?

Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artifacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

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.


The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

The keeps coming how much time you have?

The window matters because your narrator mentioned it and either lied or was incompetent to make the assessment he did. I point it out to show he has no credibility.

The show has numerous PHD and scientist geologist and NASA experts as well as photo lab technicians and many other experts and you want to call them out as being lairs and frauds?

You have some nerve dude, it's one thing to call me a lair and a fraud it's another to call people who are 100 times smarter than you will ever be in all your lifetimes.


You have sunk to a new low to call out highly educated professionals. I bet you have no idea who these people in the do entary even are.

They had to play back film and color video later.

No !

If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."

Dr Brian O'Leary astronaut

I have explained myself. You are not seeing the facts behind what you post, and link stuff as if it's a game as to who can find the most Easter eggs.

then why do you continue to reply?

I know. You just like conspiracies and believe what others say. I get

That's the point you don't seem to get !.

http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

[Wild Cobra]

naturally you only see what you want I notice that.

How in am I suppose to address what you say is a lie when you don't tell me?

What lie?

The slate on the film was dated for another time. The film was played back as live it has nothing to do with the narrator.

Really?

What did I miss. I saw a form of a Julian date listed, 198, 199, and 200. Those three dates match the day of the year to the month and day of the mission.

So millions of viewers that saw thew astronauts in the capsule talking to the TV was taped? Are you saying the only thing that was live was the landing?

No, most of the stuff was reviewed after they got back. I remember watching the stuff live, and there was very little, and only B&W of Apollo 11, except the take-off and splashdown. I guess it's possible they could have been close enough to broadcast a live color images, but I don't recall seeing any.

I knew you was funny but your stand up routine has hit a new low! They had 10 years to practice and they did. The events on film were shown later on to be live it's a known fact it's no big secret anymore.

They took shots of the Earth for three days during the three days it took to get to the moon. You laugh at a possible suggestion I make, when the narrators is just making things up.

Get a grip please.

I really don't think you watched the whole film I know for a fact you didn't listen because the people back on earth at NASA say loud and clear after the film was made how it looks good for play back.

Again, why does that matter? Not everything would be live. So many possibilities, I'm not going to write a book.

Did you just happened to not hear that part? Can't you just say "ok you got me" is that such a hard thing to do?

Actually, with other background noises, I didn't. What's the time index on that?

Do you want me to give you a pass so you can maybe feed me more bull on another subject like the missing exhaust plumb that was not underneath the LEM when it shot back to earth?

By the time Apollo 17 took off, we had better technology to broadcast color from the moon.

Would you like to move on to other NASA bull lies?

You haen't shown me any yet.

Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

Evidence? Another claim without any huh?

If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artifacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

There is ample evidence:

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.

Al, they needed was simple navigation computation, handled by a microsequencer, which is a series of gate chips on circuit boards.

The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

Opinion as fact?

Have a newspaper article showing that those words are true?

The show has numerous PHD and scientist geologist and NASA experts as well as photo lab technicians and many other experts and you want to call them out as being lairs and frauds?

Yes!

You have some nerve dude, it's one thing to call me a lair and a fraud it's another to call people who are 100 times smarter than you will ever be in all your lifetimes.

People with agendas lie.

If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."

It was protected, and didn't spoil.