Thread: Man has landed on the Moon. July 20, 1969. Sir, questions, sir.

Originally Posted by ChrLz

My question was:


I'll take that as a NO.

. Funny, I offered the claim and the step by step and the references.

You just ain't a qualified peer (lack of integrity).

Very wise move, Bish. Your fear of what will happen is warranted.

I don't have any fears; I trust that all are capable of reading for themselves if the evidence is in frnt on them. Ie... Each item is from NASA with links. From the astronauts (their per se quotes) and their photos.

You may use alternative data for your analysis. I just got mine from the source.

The problem with you is you believe I would even care about you personal attacks. Well I don't! I just have that unique ability to think for myself and therein also be honest with myself even if it means completely ruining my whole outlook on things people consider true. Meaning I would have never even doubted the program until I analyzed the material myself.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

. Funny, I offered the claim and the step by step and the references.

Funny, I don't see any sign of that.

And anyone with a bit of brainpower would ask you - Why didn't you simply answer the question?

You just ain't a qualified peer (lack of integrity).

Really? I'll let the readers decide.

I don't have any fears; I trust that all are capable of reading for themselves if the evidence is in frnt {sic} on {sic} them. Ie... Each item is from NASA with links. From the astronauts (their per se quotes) and their photos.

And that's it? What you have posted so far is the extent of your 'analysis'? Oh well, I guess the fears may show up later...

You may use alternative data for your analysis. I just got mine from the source.

??? Gee, thanks for your 'permission'. While of course I will use other mainstream-accepted sources, I'll be using NASA information - but PROPERLY considered and analysed. And if you dispute any of the points, you will of course be able to offer your 'considered' rebuttal.

Umm, you haven't done this before? I thought you said you had done several years of studies on some of these topics - I hope that doesn't just mean hanging around conspiracy sites and gathering opinions. If it does, you are in for a rough ride.

The problem with you is you believe I would even care about you {sic} personal attacks. Well I don't!

Would you like to quote those personal attacks? Do you mean stuff like this:

that is like claiming, if people dont believe the bible they are going to hell...
soon people like you will not matter...
i aint all giddy like you...
You are apparently upset by my posts ... Im glad
the slow learners need homework...
i like to keep an open mind. How about YOU?...
i thought you could have comprehended what was written, when read the first time...
As for the other post by the peanut gallery...
i do the homework and the brokebacks gobble...
You just ain't a qualified peer (lack of integrity)...

Is that the sort of personal attack you mean? But gee, those are .. your words. Now, quote mine, there's a good chap.

I just have that unique ability to think for myself

I think blowing one's own horn is rather unbecoming. But if you are the only one who truly thinks for yourself.. I am in awe... (... of the fact that you think that..)

Meaning I would have never even doubted the program until I analyzed the material myself.

Readers are invited to note that Bishadi just said he has done an 'analysis'. That will be important later.

Now, before I proceed to properly look at the issue, and given there appears to be a suggestion of trolling, may I courteously ask:

Is anyone ELSE genuinely interested in looking in great detail at the topic of the behavior of lunar regolith in a vacuum, with regard to the Apollo missions?

Because if the only person who is disputing this is Bishadi, I'm not all that enthusiastic about proceeding.

But if there are genuinely interested readers, or those sitting on the fence who might think he may be onto something, then I'm most happy to go ahead and show how a real analysis is done, and in the process point out all of the information that Bishadi apparently thinks is unimportant.

The fact that I will be helping to educate others, will make the effort (admittedly a small one, as the info is all quite close to hand) worthwhile.

Bishadi, before I begin (if I bother), do you have any corrections, additions or subtractions from what you have already posted? (Here's a hint, editing your previous posts NOW will not look good...)

Originally Posted by ChrLz

[B]

I'll let the readers decide.

exactly. You cant read apparently. For example; the data and links i used are from nasa and the astronauts themselves. (per se)

While of course I will use other mainstream-accepted sources, I'll be using NASA information - but PROPERLY considered and analysed.

you be funny. What is better than direct from the source?
[quote]

The fact that I will be helping to educate others, will make the effort (admittedly a small one, as the info is all quite close to hand) worthwhile.

I can see that most of your effort is small!

Bishadi, before I begin (if I bother), do you have any corrections, additions or subtractions from what you have already posted? (Here's a hint, editing your previous posts NOW will not look good...)

nope...... i could care less if i leave errors.

This subject is stupid in itself as it dont make a (*)(*)(*)(*) of difference. Now if you read the other moon thread, it has the "classified stuff," and people can actually learn something that they can teach their kids.

This thread is almost stupid now that you're attacking me versus the evidence.

Here's a hint, if something is classified, it's not going to be posted on an internet conspiracy forum.

Are you talking about the "classified" video of the alien shooting the astronaut with the ray gun?

Originally Posted by countryboy

Here's a hint, if something is classified, it's not going to be posted on an internet conspiracy forum.

what conspiracy forum?

Are you talking about the "classified" video of the alien shooting the astronaut with the ray gun?

did you get the giggle?

how about the OP, did you learn that in school or did you just learn how the moon got its 'water'?

The fun part to realize, is that it would mean that there is water all over the universe, naturally.

The part i like to share with people, is anyone and everyone can 'walk on water'. I know that claim may seem 'way out there' but i have learned the trick and rather enjoy sharing it with anyone.

But then again perhaps i should stop representing the 'how to' as it could be considered 'top secret' in some circles.

Originally Posted by Bishadi

You cant read apparently.

Ad hominem ignored. (Although given the fact that Bishadi's responses don't seem to align with what s/he quotes, the words kettle, pot and black seem to apply.)

For example; the data and links i used are from nasa and the astronauts themselves. (per se)

Why does s/he repeat the 'per se'? It was redundant when used the first time..

To properly analyse something even slightly complex, it is necessary to consider all aspects, and to provide cites and references from independent sources.

you be funny. What is better than direct from the source?

Refer above. Plus Bishadi is disputing NASA's overall record of the Apollo mission, but s/he uses NASA as his sole source of information. Yes, clearly a scientist!

I can see that most of your effort is small!

Ad hominem.

I haven't even started.

nope...... i could care less if i leave errors.

From the horse's mouth... Why would anyone bother debating such a person?

This subject is stupid in itself as it dont make a (*)(*)(*)(*) of difference.

Yes, again, the words of a careful, considered approach... One would have to ask why s/he started to post here, then?

Now if you read the other moon thread, it has the "classified stuff," and people can actually learn something that they can teach their kids.

I'm guessing that Bishadi is referring to this other thread in this forum, which to date contains only his own posts, no useful subject, no reasoning of his own, no actual point, just parroted text and Youtube links. And it has (deservedly, perhaps?) elicited no response or interest whatsoever to date.

Given that no-one has yet leapt to his defense here either, I wonder if he will, at some point, get the hint?

This thread is almost stupid now that you're attacking me versus the evidence.

Amusing. Anyway, unless someone else would like to take up these ill-informed claims and wishes to debate sensibly, this is over.

Originally Posted by ChrLz

To properly analyse something even slightly complex, it is necessary to consider all aspects, and to provide cites and references from independent sources.

but this subject is not rocket science but more like the sherlock holmes kind of science. This subject is about investigative honesty.

Bishadi is disputing NASA's overall record of the Apollo mission, but s/he uses NASA as his sole source of information.

kind of like what you are doing.

there was no third party to prove the landing occurred.

My first point was that when, India mapped the moon, i looked at the pictures from the ASU site, within days. I looked for the lander.

i did see it.

That was third party material i was interested in and it didnt pan out.

From the horse's mouth... Why would anyone bother debating such a person?

you asked me to correct my previous post and for one, i couldnt and two, i could care less about being professional on such a subject. A kid could have figured out what i posted is pretty tough to get around

and you are just ranting like a spoiled kid

Amusing. Anyway, unless someone else would like to take up these ill-informed claims and wishes to debate sensibly, this is over.

with you? Thank you


IF any wish to read the thread, i questioned why the lander is not covered in dust?

I offered the claims of Buzz and Armstrong that conflict the pictures;

a) Armstrong claimed the engines were still on at landing - yet look under the lander, dust pebbles and the foot print that so many consider the 'first step' on the moon.

b,c,d,e, and f.....................

dont need them

Originally Posted by Bishadi

there was no third party to prove the landing occurred.

My first point was that when, India mapped the moon, i looked at the pictures from the ASU site, within days. I looked for the lander.

i did see it.

That was third party material i was interested in and it didnt pan out.

ooops...

I DIDN"T see it!

oooops....

i hate making mistakes but at least i can admit and address them, when i see them.





you asked me to correct my previous post and for one, i couldnt and two, i could care less about being professional on such a subject. A kid could have figured out what i posted is pretty tough to get around



heck i had a disclose, right there

you want the truth

you cant handle the truth

Originally Posted by Margot

My uncle worked on this NASA project..

I am just amazed that these kids think it was a Hollywood stunt.

I think we get dumber every year.

You know... it really is fascinating the number of people that think that it did not really happen. I am an engineer, and tend to think in a rational way. So the last time someone brought this up... I did the following instead....

Instead of dismissing him, or telling him he was a fool... I asked... "Ok... so if it did not really happen... what are all of the things they would have had to do to fake it?". He was REALLY confused by that one. I mean really (as I explained it to him)... there are documents to forge, people to silence, and LOTS of technical challenges to overcome in the faking of such a thing...

And as the conversation went on... and we talked about ALL of the things that would have been needed to "fake it", it became very clear in all of about an hour, that it would have been equally difficult to "fake it" as to do it "for real".

This is especially true for the reflector that they have on the moon, that they measure the distance with all the time.... http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Awfully hard to get lasers and electronic equipment to LIE but I suppose it is still possible...