I am really amused that you continue to pretend that it is a ludicrous theory since it is in the mouth of Rumsfeld and others that I heard it. I summarize what have been said if you don't want to hear it, just close your ear. Some people don't want to believe gas chambers of Hitler, you have the same right. As for the Russians, it seems that they knew it. In the same report TV they mentioned that in his memoir the Kremlin chief asked : don't you ask yourself why Nixon didn't attend the landing on the moon ? They interviewed a Russian scientist who said that at that time they only needed two hours to discover that the film was a fake (it was Stanley Kubrik who helped them make the film although he didn't want to he was somehow obliged - amusing details : the reporters discovered also some rest of the film that wasn't used and on the fake moon land they showed a movie jacket of the 2001 Odessey ). Why they didn't reveal it to the world ? It was not discussed, but previous day there was an other report about the cold war and in a letter between Krutchev and Kennedy (they exchanged 45 letters only 4 have been declassified) it was revealed that they have agreed that the Russians will build the Berlin's wall so they have perhaps agreed to shut up in exchange of a concession from US but I was not revealed so I'm sorry I won't invent for you ... read 1984 perhaps you will get the basics of geostrategy and psychology manipulation of the mass from the military guys. What is sure is that there was 400 billions contract at that time that was distributed to 3 states California, Texas, the 3rd I don't remember, and that they need that the mass opinion agreed to sustain the budget of space defense. That's why they asked Disney for 2001 Space Odessey ... and the landing on the moon. In fact to give more details, someone among the 4 suggested the idea of the film to Nixon so it was not Nixon's idea at the origin. Georges Orwell's 1984 http://www.online-literature.com/vi...17?term=warfare " From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals. Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. "
I would say Harry has fallen out of his tree. But I don't think he was ever up there to start. Anyone ever see the movie "Capricorn One"? Obviously Harry was watching it in a state of semi-consciousness. Put it together with the 18 missing minutes of Nixon's Watergate tapes. And this is what he comes up with. General Rumsfeld? Harry just got a field promotion. He is GFU. Congrats Harry! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/plotsummary Peace, Harry.. Don't fall off the edge of the earth. It is flat you know. Elvis told me. Last Tuesday. RS PS: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp
Poor guy ... I saw a 50 Minutes TV report ( not on mass TV channels but on the cable channels - a history channel - the majority of french don't have the cable because it is not free) where Rumsfeld and his 3 others "friends" in the same room have spoken about 1/3 of the film. It is you that should land from the Moon haha !
OH!!! Well CABLE....why didn't you say so sooner. That changes everything. And what makes you believe I didn't "land from the Moon"? Certainly that is no less reasonable than most of your other very clearly explained facts, theories, and delusions. Et tandis que votre anglais est supérieur à mon Français, si j'étais vous, je m'en tiendrais aux panneaux français de message pendant un moment. Votre mutiler du notre la langue n'est pas aussi mauvaise que la mine serait à vous, mais toujours, Harry, vous avez besoin comprenez que nous ne pouvons pas comprendre la moitié de ce que vous essayez de dire. Travail là -dessus. Il y a beaucoup de pièce pour l'amélioration. Paix, RS
Where are the arguments among your pile of emptiness ? Sorry your french is awfull at least as bad as my english except that I am on english forum and so I speak english. Continue with diversion method if you want if that's all you have. Nevertheless I advise that you try from time to time to center on technical discussion around the subject of the thread: I think it would be much more interesting that pretending than I am an idiot and that I will answer "so you are".
Come on Harry...."pile of emptiness"? All I said is that just because you see or hear something on television, that does not make it true. The theory that the moon landing was staged has more holes in it than all the cheese in Switzerland. As was shown, if you looked at the links I posted, these conspiracy theories were circulating about the space program even before the Apollo program was launched. "snopes.com" is a pretty reliable source. Check it out again. And I agree. My French is horrible. I said that already. I admire your ability to communicate in English. As I stated, your language skills are far superior to mine. But my point was, that despite your efforts, it IS sometimes confusing to decode your wording. Sometimes it seems you go out of your way to use more complex terms than are necessary to make your point. Keep it simple, and it translates easier. Again, I am jealous of your language skills. I know I have none. And when I use my limited ability in French, it gets me in trouble more often than not. And if you think I can't write, you should hear how bad my accent is. I wouldn't even attempt to speak French in Paris... they barely tolerated me in the provinces. I was just teasing about you mangling English. You do no worse than half the Americans who post here. At least you have an excuse. When did I ever call you an idiot? You must have me confused with someone else. I never did, and never would. Are you nuts? Maybe. Stupid? No way. RS
I don't think Harry actually cares about any of this shit, he just cuts/pastes it here. Maybe he did not like all the anti-French comments last year? Was he doing this before that time? I know a cracked pot guy that sits around the local burger joint and talks about conspiracies and hands out literature and what not all afternoon every day. It is a form of suicide really, you learn about all these conspiracies and then you are so demoralized and paralyzed that you give up. The guys' last job was years ago, he was a part time janitor. My surmisal of the guy is that basically he just never wanted to work. He talks of work as something that he tried once and did not like very much, meanwhile he has his gimp money from the govt. and an older woman that houses him so he's happy. Harry, on the other hand, has some grasp of mathematics and claims he was an engineer so maybe he actually did work at some point. He never seems to work on his website, it was 90% under construction last time I looked.
Who knows? Maybe Harry is just another Don Bright alias Anything is possible. But certainly he does tend to start threads based on pretty off the wall subjects. My guess is that Harry uses ET for two purposes. To work on his English skills, which are pretty good, but clearly he is never going to be an interpreter at the UN. Secondly, like most of us, Harry finds ET a good place to alleviate boredom. My thread about smoking has as much to do with trading as his about the "staging of the moon landing"... I give the guy credit though for actually posting to the trading forums on occasion. That's more than can be said about a huge percentage of the "chit chatters"....including myself lately. But in my case, I ran out of things to say that I felt were relevant to trading. But still the majority of my posts were not in "chit chat" (I don't think...it gets closer every day lately). Next week, I will resume trading full time (I have not done that since late August). I am sure I will be full of questions since I will be entering uncharted waters (for me). Marketsurfer and Nitro...beware!!!! The master becomes the student. (So it goes). But I am looking forward to it. I have recovered from my "trader's burnout". I admit to having been negative on the year trading stocks. First time ever for me. When Gordon Gekko can out-trade me with my 18 years of experience, I knew it was time to sit on the bench for a while. Needed and took a break. Some vacation time...some travelling. And got some business done to keep the gas tank full, the cleaning lady paid, and my ISP up and running The essentials Peace, RS
So none of the new capitalist Russkies are interested in the hundred's of thousands of dollars that any super market tabloid or TV show would pay for a revelation of this hoax? Right....
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Excerpt: Fox TV and the Apollo Moon Hoax (February 13, 2001) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thursday, February 15th 2001 (and replayed on March 19), the Fox TV network aired a program called ``Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?'', hosted by X-Files actor Mitch Pileggi. The program was an hour long, and featured interviews with a series of people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings in the 1960s and 1970s. The biggest voice in this is Bill Kaysing, who claims to have all sorts of hoax evidence, including pictures taken by the astronauts, engineering details, discussions of physics and even some testimony by astronauts themselves. The program's conclusion was that the whole thing was faked in the Nevada desert (in Area 51, of course!). According to them, NASA did not have the technical capability of going to the Moon, but pressure due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union forced them to fake it. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right from the start: this program is an hour long piece of junk. From the very first moment to the very last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science. I was able to get a copy of the show in advance, and although I was expecting it to be bad, I was still surprised and how awful it was. I took four pages of notes. I won't subject you to all of that here; it would take hours to write. I'll only go over some of the major points of the show, and explain briefly why they are wrong. In the near future, hopefully by the end of the summer, I will have a much more detailed series of pages taking on each of the points made by the Hoax Believers (whom I will call HBs).