Belief in the Moon Landing for Democrats Only, Apparently

[Bray123]

What's a "stupid question?"

Whether the moon landings happened, is a moot point really.

OK, it was a proposition rather than a question. But continuing a stupid proposition is still an insult to the incredibly bright and brave people who managed to do it (and created the vehicles and science around the entire project).

 

[Bray123]

But what if they didn't? What if they were forced to pretend that they did.

If you have read all my posts on this,all I'm saying is, I'd like more proof. I didn't even say that I've made a decision one way or the other.

NASA claim they lost the details of how they got to the moon ???

We still safely can't get a human through the van Allen belt, but we did then.

Is it wrong to ask questions about these things ? Or do we just blindly accept what we're told.

All those hundreds of thousands of people were forced, and none of them ever sold their story to an eager tabloid press? Plus the technology of faking it in those days was more difficult than actually doing it.

Add on things like the raised number of stress related incidents amongst NASA employees during missions and cardiovascular disease amongst astronauts, and it's easier to make an argument that the 2020 election was rigged.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Look Fuzzy, I can take criticism.

I'm not criticising you.

When there is verifiable evidence, that is beyond refute, yet you still harbour doubts? Then engage in speculation on the event. That is why I point out I doubt you're intellectually talented enough debate the moon landings. I made that post not for you, but so others are aware, and don't waste their time.

The options are only two, either the USA landed men on the moon, or all 194 of the world's governments and millions of people are in on the secret.

Now which option are you suggesting might be the case? The later?

But I believe respect and youll get respect.

I'm not here for respect from the other users.

I honestly wish you well.

Thanks I guess, but wholly unnecessary.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It would have helped if Neil Armstrong, just swore on the bible,

Why, what difference would that make? I'm not religious, and if Neil was, he might have changed that view after his experience. Or maybe no one even asked him too?

but he couldn’t bring himself to do it and would never discuss the landing in detail afterwards.

Gene Cernan had no problems talking about his experience, and while I never saw Neil Armstrong in person, he did tours all over the world about it. I'm pretty sure he talked about it then.

I know that is no proof, but what's the harm in asking questions. That's actually what science is supposed to do.

Science is about questioning, but the moon lands are not science, they were engineering. How do you have doubts when we have physical evidence such as moon rocks, and photographs and even "movies". That kind of evidence should end the debate. Unless a person harbours doubts about "everything". There is a name for those,"Doubting Thomas".

I should also point out you "believe" in Religion,where there is no evidence, but deny moon landings where there is a multitude of evidence...

 

[MajorRewrite]

It would have helped if Neil Armstrong, just swore on the bible, but he couldn’t bring himself to do it and would never discuss the landing in detail afterwards.

Neil Armstrong Talks About The First Moon Walk

Dear Mr. Krulwich

I was delighted to read your December 7 column on the the Apollo 11 lunar surface traverses, The NASA maps do accurately portray the locations of the pathways used to complete the myriad of tasks we were assigned. And, although I have not checked, I believe the comparison with the size of athletic fields is reasonably accurate.

You asked: "Who knew?"

The answer to that question is: Just about anyone who had any interest in learning the answer. The plan for the lunar surface work was widely distributed and we even did a full dress rehearsal for the press at the NASA Johnson Space Center.

It is true that we were cautious in our planning. There were many uncertainties about how well our Lunar module systems and our Pressure suit and backpack would match the engineering predictions in the hostile lunar environment. We were operating in a near perfect vacuum with the temperature well above 200 degrees Fahrenheit with the local gravity only one sixth that of Earth. That combination cannot be duplicated here on Earth, but we tried as best we could to test our equipment for those conditions. For example, because normal air conditioning is inadequate for lunar conditions, we were required to use cold water to cool the interior of our suits. We did not have any data to tell us how long the small water tank in our backpacks would suffice. NASA officials limited our surface working time to 2 and 3/4 hours on that first surface exploration to assure that we would not expire of hyperthermia. After returning to and repressurizing the Lunar Module, we were able to drain and measure the remaining water in the backpacks to confirm the predicted.

There was great uncertainty about how well we would be able to walk in our cumbersome pressurized suit. My colleague demonstrated a variety of techniques in view of the television camera that I had installed in a position predetermined to be in the optimum spot for coverage of all of our activities. Preflight planners wanted us to stay in TV range so that they could learn from our results how they could best plan for future missions. I candidly admit that I knowingly and deliberately left the planned working area out of TV coverage to examine and photograph the interior crater walls for possible bedrock exposure or other useful information. I felt the potential gain was worth the risk.

It is true that we would have liked to stay on the surface longer and traveled further away from the Lunar Module and the television camera. But we had a number of experiments to install, samples to document and collect, and photographs to take. The time available was fully allocated and we were working diligently to complete our assigned tasks. The Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector we installed is still in use today in a variety of scientific experiments.

Later Apollo flights were able to do more and move further in order to cover larger areas, particularly when the Lunar Rover vehicle became available in 1971. But in KRULWICH WONDERS, you make an important point, which I emphasized to the House Science and Technology Committee. During my testimony in May I said, "Some question why Americans should return to the Moon. "After all," they say "we have already been there." I find that mystifying. It would be as if 16th century monarchs proclaimed that "we need not go to the New World, we have already been there." Or as if President Thomas Jefferson announced in 1803 that Americans "need not go west of the Mississippi, the Lewis and Clark Expedition has already been there." Americans have visited and examined 6 locations on Luna, varying in size from a suburban lot to a small township. That leaves more than 14 million square miles yet to explore.

I have tried to give a small insight into your question "Who knew?"

I hope it is helpful.

Sincerely,

Neil Armstrong

Commander

Apollo 11

Google instantly found this example for me, along with many others. Proof is SO DIFFICULT to find.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As a result I don't live in fear,

Are you implying I do?

I live in hope.

Good for you! I live in reality.

 

[ll74]

He very rarely spoke and eventually stopped. That's a recognised and accepted fact. Of course you can drag up occasional correspondence or chats.

So was he lying before and just had to stop? Or did he just not want to talk about it anymore?

Does his decrease in frequency support either perspective sufficiently at all?

 

[MajorRewrite]

He very rarely spoke and eventually stopped. That's a recognised and accepted fact. Of course you can drag up occasional correspondence or chats.

The conspiracy nut mind is fascinating. Refute anything they say, and they’ll come up with a lame reason to continue their belief in conspiracy.

It’s an insidious mental illness.

 

[MajorRewrite]

So was he lying before and just had to stop? Or did he just not want to talk about it anymore?

Does his decrease in frequency support either perspective sufficiently at all?

Armstrong stopped talking about the moon landing when he passed away in 2012.

 

[ll74]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ong-apollo-11-nasa-exposed-mike-massimino-spt

Holy crap that website is horrible. I scrolled through about 50 ads to read four or five small paragraphs.

Tl Dr (didn't scroll through 1000 ads) - he was humble.

 

[MajorRewrite]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...ong-apollo-11-nasa-exposed-mike-massimino-spt

I’m not sure why you posted that. Everyone in that article agrees that we landed on the moon multiple times.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Because it implys Armstrong rarely did interviews.

And that’s proof of what?

Sasquatch is notoriously shy and very rarely does interviews, but you believe in him.

 

[drusus]

But what if they didn't? What if they were forced to pretend that they did.

If you have read all my posts on this,all I'm saying is, I'd like more proof. I didn't even say that I've made a decision one way or the other.

NASA claim they lost the details of how they got to the moon ???

We still safely can't get a human through the van Allen belt, but we did then.

Is it wrong to ask questions about these things ? Or do we just blindly accept what we're told.

How much proof do you want? There is endless proof of Apollo, and the missions that led up to it. What did your podcasts have, other than the usual things that have been answered a million times?

When did NASA say they lost details of how they got to the moon? There are millions of pages of documents that went in to that mission.

Another one with the Van Allen belts. Do you have any data to support that claim or did you just believe what the podcast told you?

It would have helped if Neil Armstrong, just swore on the bible, but he couldn’t bring himself to do it and would never discuss the landing in detail afterwards.

Armstrong did talk about the moon landings but he was a quiet and humble man. He recognized that he was one person out of a huge effort and didn't want to hog the limelight. There was also no need for him to swear anything to appease random people and their endless conspiracy theories.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Thanks for telling me what I believe in, its reaching farcical levels now.

You have every right to believe whatever you wish. If you're going to voice those in a public manner, be prepared for push back. Don't like the push back, don't express your thoughts.

 

[ll74]

The "just asking questions" perspective. It's a commitment to a false worldview without publicly admitting it.

"Unanswered questions" which correlate to the topic are brought up to muddy the waters.

And since there are never any answers to the speculation, the originator can bring up whatever they want... Often introducing small flase events which are easily disproven.

Putin did that in his fucker interview and snagged a shit ton of right wing idiots in the process.

 

[wizzard426]

Armstrong rarely did interviews because had no use for the bone questions that reporters always ask. Gordon Johncock rarely did interviews so he really didn't win Indy twice.

The 3 best punched noses in history.

1) Parnelli Jones punched Eddie Sachs in the snoot for calling him Parn-oily at the victory banquet in 1963

2) Jeremy Clarkson gives Piers Morgan a doink on the beak for being typical Piers Morgan

3) Buzz Aldrin anointing Bart Sibrel on the snozola in epic fashion

Honorable mention: Jim Everett going after the Jim Rome for calling him "Chris" one too many times

 

[MajorRewrite]

Thanks for telling me what I believe in, its reaching farcical levels now.

You haven’t sworn on the Bible that you don’t believe in Sasquatch. Your lack of recent interviews on the subject of Sasquatch is also highly suspect.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

But what if they didn't? What if they were forced to pretend that they did.

If you have read all my posts on this,all I'm saying is, I'd like more proof. I didn't even say that I've made a decision one way or the other.

NASA claim they lost the details of how they got to the moon ???

We still safely can't get a human through the van Allen belt, but we did then.

Is it wrong to ask questions about these things ? Or do we just blindly accept what we're told.

Some hypotheticals are so ridiculous they aren’t even worth wasting time to consider. For example, some people believe that George Washington was a imposter. Of course that’s nonsense, but it could be true.

There’s more evidence that astronauts walked on the moon than than for the historical existence of George Washington. That’s why I can confidently claim that astronauts DID walk on the moon.

(George Washington was a real person BTW, despite what some crockpots claim.)

 

[MajorRewrite]

(George Washington was a real person BTW, despite what some crockpots claim.)

If George Washington was real, why didn’t he do more televised interviews? And why didn’t he swear on the Bible that he was real??!?

I’m not saying that “George Washington” was actually Betsy Ross cross-dressing as a man. I’m just asking questions.

 

[Pad_Foot]

I have no doubt all those missions, incidents, people, low earth orbit flights etc are genuine.

However there are questions to be answered about the actual moon landings.

It would have helped if Neil Armstrong, just swore on the bible, but he couldn’t bring himself to do it and would never discuss the landing in detail afterwards.

What questions?? State them!!

Here’s Myth Buster’s take. What else you got?

Oh… there you go!! “They” are hiding the TRUTH!!

This next one knocks down a lot of the bs, but ask yourself why others allowed the hoax at 50 minutes or so. Were Russians that stupid??

 

[wizzard426]

"The Questions".......so.......what is the latest round of talking points?

One of the more popular that I found intriguing was that "a 1975 Timex digital watch has more computing power than the Apollo computer" which is an absolute bold faced lie.

Many, many youtube videos on the topic

Thomas Jefferson is the several greats grandfather of George Jefferson, the guy in the documentary about owning a laundry and moving from Harlem to the eastside

 

[HisArpy]

So insular. Surlyness doesn't become you as a former attorney. You treat others badly and unjustly so.

I read your Lizzie & CC story. It doesn't allow comments. It smacks of the MC's arrogant nature, but overall, it's not bad. The intro was entertaining but laden with too many details. The plot wandered and could have used some reduction of content to help smooth out the meanderings. Overall, I'd give it a 4* rating for effort and attention to details. The persona carries into your jabs here as well. Too bad about that. I see why you are protective.

People would likely traverse from here to there to skewer your work as payback for your character assassinations.

Others like to ignore you. I'm not that way. I enjoy your attempts to play God, feeble as those attempts are. I'll be by your side when you need to scold someone. Count on me to help you out.

To expect good treatment, you also have to give that in return. Your pejorative remarks make you a large target. No wonder you act so pissed.

You, like most trolls, allow your personal internal self hatred to color your commentary as an intentional way to try to hurt people you don't even know. It must REALLY SUCK to be you and have no way to avoid dealing with yourself every morning. Not that I give a shit except to be glad I'm not you.

I do want to congratulate you for illustrating exactly why I don't publish more here. You were perfect in your trolling and bullshit flinging. I mean who else but a fuckwad would choose one of the lowest rated stories and then say they'd give it the same rating as everyone else and think that was somehow bashing the story and then ADMIT the low rating is because of personal animosity against my political views?

Worse you probably only skimmed it, decided you needed to come back here and post a critique that isn't anything of the sort because it's really a hate filled personal attack, and never officially rated the story. YOU and those who think and act like you do are the reason comments for my works are closed. The fact that Laurel won't fix that problem is why I don't publish here any longer.

For those who read the fuckduck's "critique" above and decide that you don't want to read my stuff because of it, there are quite a few good stories available which have higher ratings. Many with the coveted H. There's even one which has no sex in it and which also has a high rating.

Familiar!

Of course you'll have to like cats, magic, sorcerors/witches and Dodger's Baseball to appreciate it. Those who are Angel's fans might need to find another neighborhood.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

But you're pushing back with made up tales of believing in Sasquash.

Where did I say that? Another poster did, so take it up with him.

Push back from some people is fair (Bright shiny girl).

Where have I been rude? Where did I name call?

Untruths about my beliefs are unfair and just made up points to make your impolite style of argument sound reasonable.

I admit to projecting "religion" on you. However you stated "It would have helped if Neil Armstrong, just swore on the bible". That seems to indicate you have "Faith" in the bible. As I mentioned I have zero faith in the Bible or Religion, so Neil swearing or not on a Bible wouldn't sway me either way. I looked at the evidence (including growing up through Mercury/Apollo) and made up my own mind.

I'll leave the last word to you. Otherwise we'll be here forever.

Cheers.

Trust me, I won't chase you around trying to convince you of the moon landing. That is something you need to figure out yourself. Just don't expect me not to comment if you decide to state what you believe in.

 

[dmallord]

You, like most trolls, allow your personal internal self hatred to color your commentary as an intentional way to try to hurt people you don't even know. It must REALLY SUCK to be you and have no way to avoid dealing with yourself every morning. Not that I give a shit except to be glad I'm not you.

I do want to congratulate you for illustrating exactly why I don't publish more here. You were perfect in your trolling and bullshit flinging. I mean who else but a fuckwad would choose one of the lowest rated stories and then say they'd give it the same rating as everyone else and think that was somehow bashing the story and then ADMIT the low rating is because of personal animosity against my political views?

Worse you probably only skimmed it, decided you needed to come back here and post a critique that isn't anything of the sort because it's really a hate filled personal attack, and never officially rated the story. YOU and those who think and act like you do are the reason comments for my works are closed. The fact that Laurel won't fix that problem is why I don't publish here any longer.

For those who read the fuckduck's "critique" above and decide that you don't want to read my stuff because of it, there are quite a few good stories available which have higher ratings. Many with the coveted H. There's even one which has no sex in it and which also has a high rating.

Familiar!

Of course you'll have to like cats, magic, sorcerors/witches and Dodger's Baseball to appreciate it. Those who are Angel's fans might need to find another neighborhood.

I chose this particular story to read because it wasn't in BDSM that most of your stories are categorized, not because of its rating. I selected it as a shorter story and non-BDSM - just a random selection. At this point, I don't even recall how it was scored. I didn't admit to a 'low rating' for it because of personal animosity. That's no foundation for that statement.

I read it from beginning to end, not just skimmed it. Honestly, I wanted to get a feel of how you write. I scored it four. Five is the highest, as you are well aware. If a four score is bashing your story, well ...

After all, 'professional trolls' like to study and dissect their prey in a righteous manner. If a 'troll' results to dishonest trolling efforts, they are deserving of bad karma. If I trolled anyone, I would do it with razorblade-like cuts, letting them suffer in agony, as in the work-study Death by a Thousand Cuts, a book by the historians Timothy Brook and Gregory Blue.

What I commented on was not bashing the story by any means. If I wanted to bash it, I suppose I could have to piss you off, but it wasn't a bad story. Saying it meandered isn't a death nail. I said I liked the beginning. From this story, I can tell you are a decent writer - on Lit, anyway. I saw that you published something professionally long ago, but I'm not interested in looking for that. I didn't see any further posts on that effort.

As usual, you are over-reacting and full of yourself. But that's okay. Just you - being you.

Have a day,
Your friendly Troll, dmallord

 

[HisArpy]

I chose this particular story to read because it wasn't in BDSM that most of your stories are categorized, not because of its rating. I selected it as a shorter story and non-BDSM - just a random selection. At this point, I don't even recall how it was scored. I didn't admit to a 'low rating' for it because of personal animosity. That's no foundation for that statement.

I read it from beginning to end, not just skimmed it. Honestly, I wanted to get a feel of how you write. I scored it four. Five is the highest, as you are well aware. If a four score is bashing your story, well ...

After all, 'professional trolls' like to study and dissect their prey in a righteous manner. If a 'troll' results to dishonest trolling efforts, they are deserving of bad karma. If I trolled anyone, I would do it with razorblade-like cuts, letting them suffer in agony, as in the work-study Death by a Thousand Cuts, a book by the historians Timothy Brook and Gregory Blue.

What I commented on was not bashing the story by any means. If I wanted to bash it, I suppose I could have to piss you off, but it wasn't a bad story. Saying it meandered isn't a death nail. I said I liked the beginning. From this story, I can tell you are a decent writer - on Lit, anyway. I saw that you published something professionally long ago, but I'm not interested in looking for that. I didn't see any further posts on that effort.

As usual, you are over-reacting and full of yourself. But that's okay. Just you - being you.

Have a day,
Your friendly Troll, dmallord

You, like nearly every troll out there, decided to exercise your power for hurting others rather than merely enjoying life. You did what many trolls have done; you spotted my stories and decided to take a look to see if there was something you could use to injure me emotionally. So you did what all trolls who take that path do; you slandered my story in the hope I'd take it personally and quit the forum and website. If you could make me do that, you "win."

Unfortunately for you I don't give in to emotional blackmail. You chose one of the weakest stories I wrote as the target and it backfired on you. All you did was prove to everyone that your word cannot be trusted and that you will do as EVERY OTHER ABUSER out there does, claim to be the victim.

You're not the victim, you're a fuckup without a clue. You're not an original, you the same kind of asshole who abuses others to make yourself feel powerful. You act JUST LIKE every witless wonder ever born so you don't have to see yourself in your actual light.

You know what you are. I know what you are. And now the entire world knows EXACTLY what you are.

Congratulations, you have revealed yourself fully little troll. The best part is that no one forced you to do this, you did it to yourself. Because it is your nature to be a fuckup.