Dark side of the moon
David Dalton
in The Pink Floyd song Dark Side of the Moon) is the far
side of the moon. However at new moon the dark side
of the moon is the near side of the moon so we here
on earth are all on the dark side of the moon at new moon.
I've noted that before and maybe so have others.
David
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton
John Griffin
For sure...billions of them.
>
> David
> http://www.nfld.com/~dalton
>
>
>
Dr. Tom B. Whatever
David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:lmt4j0ht4hcktcgfs...@4ax.com...
m II
Did you notice this phenomena before or AFTER the song came out?
mike
Wally Anglesea
"John Griffin" <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9554C82236060th...@130.133.1.4...
Yeah, but most of them weren't delusional, or fixated on the number 5
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer
<kna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Pink Floyd has a song called "Dark Side Of The Moon"? (wink)
Actually, they do not.
>
>
>David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
>news:lmt4j0ht4hcktcgfs...@4ax.com...
>> This time of the lunar month the dark side of the moon (as
>> in The Pink Floyd song Dark Side of the Moon) is the far
>> side of the moon. However at new moon the dark side
>> of the moon is the near side of the moon so we here
>> on earth are all on the dark side of the moon at new moon.
>>
>> I've noted that before and maybe so have others.
>>
>> David
>> http://www.nfld.com/~dalton
>>
>>
>
----
Time for some thrillin' heroics.
----
Moe Meantam
honored sci.astro with:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:48:10 GMT, "Dr. Tom B. Whatever"
><kna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Pink Floyd has a song called "Dark Side Of The Moon"? (wink)
>
>Actually, they do not.
Quite right. And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer
wrote:
As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
Mr. 4X
> This time of the lunar month the dark side of the moon (as
> in The Pink Floyd song Dark Side of the Moon) is the far
> side of the moon. However at new moon the dark side
> of the moon is the near side of the moon
These are the moon phases.
> so we here
> on earth are all on the dark side of the moon at new moon.
WTF should that mean?
Wayne Throop
: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
Hm. What lights the side that happens at any given time to be facing
away from the sun then? Are you meaning "the dark side of the moon isn't
static", or are you counting starlight, or earthlight, other planetlight
or something?
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
to be facing the sun unlit, then?
Moe Meantam
>: Moe Meantam <nann...@yahoo.com>
>: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>
>Hm. What lights the side that happens at any given time to be facing
>away from the sun then? Are you meaning "the dark side of the moon isn't
>static", or are you counting starlight, or earthlight, other planetlight
>or something?
Everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the
moon.
I can't think of anything to say, except I think it's marvelous.
Ha ha!
Moe Meantam
with:
>
>> so we here
>> on earth are all on the dark side of the moon at new moon.
>
>WTF should that mean?
The lunatic is in the hall?
Mr. 4X
news:lfa7j0pgd64ae1bm1...@4ax.com:
I'm afraid something like that.
Mr. 4X
Wally Anglesea
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:10939...@sheol.org...
>: Moe Meantam <nann...@yahoo.com>
> : And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>
> Hm. What lights the side that happens at any given time to be facing
> away from the sun then? Are you meaning "the dark side of the moon isn't
> static", or are you counting starlight, or earthlight, other planetlight
> or something?
You need to listen to the very last track on the album.
Governor Swill
wrote:
>:: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>
>: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
>: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
>
>It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
>to be facing the sun unlit, then?
Yo mama so fat...
Bedwarmer
--
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our conuntry
and our people and neither do we.
-- George W. Bush, at the White House, August 5, 2004
artyw
Is there still a Pink Floyd?
BTW, is this one PINK:
stePH
> This time of the lunar month the dark side of the moon (as
> in The Pink Floyd song Dark Side of the Moon)
The Jedi Knights are on the glass
You get one free when pumping gas
There’s JarJar Binks, and rubber Yoda masks
Got to get the whole set while they last
Collectors fight for action figures in the store
And everyday the Taiwanese make more
And when that damn film closes
It won’t be too soon
There’ll still be lots of toys at Taco Bell
And if those marketeers don’t change their present course
They’ll drive me to the dark side of the force
All that ya touch
And all that ya see
Star Wars in your face
At every meal
The shoes on your feet
And potato chips you eat
The chicken you bite
George Lucas sold the rights
And when all this ends
The video will come
And someone must drink
Every Pepsi can under the sun
‘Till they’re through
To get rid of the Queen of Naboo
YODA: “There is no dark side of the force. It is all marketing. Gullible
you are. Sold you have been. Taco, chicken, Yoda! Kermit is his dinner.
Ruining the planet it will be. Side of the road it will be. Pepsi cans,
garbage!”
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer
stePH
> You owe Bob Rivers a buck.
Bob Rivers can eat my cock with catsup :)
stePH
> Is there still a Pink Floyd?
Hasn't been a Pink Floyd since 1979 or 1980. _The Final Cut_ was
actually Roger Waters' first solo album, despite the name "Pink Floyd"
on the cover and the presence of David Gilmour's guitar work.
Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer
wrote:
>Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer wrote:
>> You owe Bob Rivers a buck.
>
>Bob Rivers can eat my cock with catsup :)
>
>stePH
Different strokes and all that...
Robert Carnegie
<thr...@sheol.org> writes
>:: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>
>: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
>: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
>
>It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
>to be facing the sun unlit, then?
I think Rick's(?) point is, the actual colour of the Moon is rather
dark grey. So compared to, e.g., a nice shiny space capsule, it
looks grubby.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
Scott Lurndal
>In article <10939...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop
><thr...@sheol.org> writes
>>:: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>>
>>: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
>>: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
>>
>>It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
>>to be facing the sun unlit, then?
>
>I think Rick's(?) point is, the actual colour of the Moon is rather
>dark grey. So compared to, e.g., a nice shiny space capsule, it
>looks grubby.
>
Actually, Rick was parroting the closing phrase from the song Dark Side
of the Moon.
scott
Happy Troll
wrote:
>In article <10939...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop
><thr...@sheol.org> writes
>>:: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>>
>>: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
>>: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
>>
>>It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
>>to be facing the sun unlit, then?
>
>I think Rick's(?) point is, the actual colour of the Moon is rather
>dark grey. So compared to, e.g., a nice shiny space capsule, it
>looks grubby.
My sources say there's an alien base (mining operation) on the dark side of
the moon -- grey aliens. And it was discovered in the 60s, IIRC
That's how the aliens are able to keep an eye on earth -- they're using the
moon as a home base. And that's why the aliens met the Apollo 11 crew on
the moon and told them to never attempt to land on the Moon again and of
course, NASA never did.
And Bush's bullshit about going back to the moon is just that -- bullshit --
he knows full well that the aliens will not allow that.
William George Ferguson
wrote:
As has already been mentioned, there is no song "Dark Side of the Moon",
at least not one by Pink Floyd. When people say 'the song Dark Side of
the Moon', they usually mean "Brain Damage/Eclipse", the final 2 cuts on
the album. (Brain Damage is "The Lunatic is in my head..." and Eclipse is
"All that you touch, and all that you see...")
--
"Who needs the big picture? Not me! Hints are fine."
-Joan Girardi
(after God showed her just a little of his omnipresent brain)
Aratzio
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:16:15 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>> Are you slated to speak at the Republican Convention?
>
>Do you actually expect Bush/Cheney to be re-elected by an ordinary honest
>vote? Of course not.
>
>The only way Bush can remain as President would be to cause another 911
>event and declare war.
>
>I suggest he Nuke the Netherlands.
How about Clinton, MD?
Aratzio
wrote:
>In article <6n0dj09sd5u6fub7p...@4ax.com>, Happy Troll
><ju...@small.troll> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:16:15 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>> > Are you slated to speak at the Republican Convention?
>>
>> Do you actually expect Bush/Cheney to be re-elected by an ordinary honest
>> vote? Of course not.
>
>I expect you to come clean about your real political leanings, Alexa!
>>
>> The only way Bush can remain as President would be to cause another 911
>> event and declare war.
>
>We need more HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!
>
>> I suggest he Nuke the Netherlands.
>
>Are you crazy? That would cut off lots of excellent beer and Eddie
>Merckx bicycles.
>
Well we (tinw) would still have Belgian, Czech and Mexican beers.
Happy Troll
wrote:
How about NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHAT SO EVER.
We DO NOT NEED THEM.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:41:29 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <6n0dj09sd5u6fub7p...@4ax.com>, Happy Troll
>><ju...@small.troll> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:16:15 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Are you slated to speak at the Republican Convention?
>>>
>>> Do you actually expect Bush/Cheney to be re-elected by an ordinary honest
>>> vote? Of course not.
>>
>>I expect you to come clean about your real political leanings, Alexa!
>>>
>>> The only way Bush can remain as President would be to cause another 911
>>> event and declare war.
>>
>>We need more HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!
>>
>>> I suggest he Nuke the Netherlands.
>>
>>Are you crazy? That would cut off lots of excellent beer and Eddie
>>Merckx bicycles.
>>
>
>Well we (tinw) would still have Belgian, Czech and Mexican beers.
You want some GOOD beer, try the central American beer, esp. what the locals
drink. Actually beer is quite good for you -- high in carbs, but much more
nutritious than processed flour.
Aratzio
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:58:25 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 02:20:11 GMT, Happy Troll <ju...@small.troll>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:16:15 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you slated to speak at the Republican Convention?
>>>
>>>Do you actually expect Bush/Cheney to be re-elected by an ordinary honest
>>>vote? Of course not.
>>>
>>>The only way Bush can remain as President would be to cause another 911
>>>event and declare war.
>>>
>>>I suggest he Nuke the Netherlands.
>>
>>How about Clinton, MD?
>
>How about NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WHAT SO EVER.
>
>We DO NOT NEED THEM.
Okay, can we carpet bomb Clinton, MD then?
Aratzio
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:04:00 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:41:29 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <6n0dj09sd5u6fub7p...@4ax.com>, Happy Troll
>>><ju...@small.troll> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:16:15 -0600, "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Are you slated to speak at the Republican Convention?
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually expect Bush/Cheney to be re-elected by an ordinary honest
>>>> vote? Of course not.
>>>
>>>I expect you to come clean about your real political leanings, Alexa!
>>>>
>>>> The only way Bush can remain as President would be to cause another 911
>>>> event and declare war.
>>>
>>>We need more HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!
>>>
>>>> I suggest he Nuke the Netherlands.
>>>
>>>Are you crazy? That would cut off lots of excellent beer and Eddie
>>>Merckx bicycles.
>>>
>>
>>Well we (tinw) would still have Belgian, Czech and Mexican beers.
>
>You want some GOOD beer, try the central American beer, esp. what the locals
>drink. Actually beer is quite good for you -- high in carbs, but much more
>nutritious than processed flour.
So where exactly is Mexico located?
Paul Lawler
> My sources say there's an alien base (mining operation) on the dark
> side of the moon -- grey aliens. And it was discovered in the 60s,
> IIRC
Your sources are incorrect (unless, of course you have evidence to the
contrary), and no, YDRC.
> That's how the aliens are able to keep an eye on earth -- they're
> using the moon as a home base. And that's why the aliens met the
> Apollo 11 crew on the moon and told them to never attempt to land on
> the Moon again and of course, NASA never did.
Really? I suppose that Apollo 14, 15 16 and 17 were mass hallucinations?
Again, if you want to contradict history, you just might want some hard
evidence to back you up.
> And Bush's bullshit about going back to the moon is just that --
> bullshit -- he knows full well that the aliens will not allow that.
Uh huh... now give the nice orderly your hand and he'll lead you to your
seat for dinner.
--
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument
on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me
at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite
me." -Dave Barry
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<p56dj05kamfm890fi...@4ax.com>:
Just South of Oregon.
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' 4/27/04 (cg5t80pl73d7r1s81...@4ax.com)
"Nope, Lockheed provided the cover for 9-11 due to abuses of it's system. They're guilty as charged. But ultimately it was Bechtel who concocted the
9-11 events." Alexa connects some totally different dots. 8/6/04 (n3p8h0lvp0u3tj0j4...@4ax.com)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Dan Baldwin
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
Happy Troll
>Happy Troll <ju...@small.troll> wrote in
>
>> My sources say there's an alien base (mining operation) on the dark
>> side of the moon -- grey aliens. And it was discovered in the 60s,
>> IIRC
>
>Your sources are incorrect (unless, of course you have evidence to the
>contrary), and no, YDRC.
Check it out yourself -- remote view the moon.
>> That's how the aliens are able to keep an eye on earth -- they're
>> using the moon as a home base. And that's why the aliens met the
>> Apollo 11 crew on the moon and told them to never attempt to land on
>> the Moon again and of course, NASA never did.
>
>Really? I suppose that Apollo 14, 15 16 and 17 were mass hallucinations?
>Again, if you want to contradict history, you just might want some hard
>evidence to back you up.
How many times did NASA have a man walk on the moon and how many times has
since then NASA sent anyone to walk on the moon?
>> And Bush's bullshit about going back to the moon is just that --
>> bullshit -- he knows full well that the aliens will not allow that.
>
>Uh huh... now give the nice orderly your hand and he'll lead you to your
>seat for dinner.
Ask the astronauts who were on Apollo 11.
Happy Troll
Happy Troll
Governor Swill
wrote:
>artyw wrote:
>
>> Is there still a Pink Floyd?
>
>Hasn't been a Pink Floyd since 1979 or 1980. _The Final Cut_ was
>actually Roger Waters' first solo album, despite the name "Pink Floyd"
>on the cover and the presence of David Gilmour's guitar work.
Prolly why it sucked so loud.
Bedwarmer
--
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our conuntry
and our people and neither do we.
-- George W. Bush, at the White House, August 5, 2004
Steven Sullivan
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 07:16:50 -0700, stePH <acet...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >artyw wrote:
> >
> >> Is there still a Pink Floyd?
> >
> >Hasn't been a Pink Floyd since 1979 or 1980. _The Final Cut_ was
> >actually Roger Waters' first solo album, despite the name "Pink Floyd"
> >on the cover and the presence of David Gilmour's guitar work.
> Prolly why it sucked so loud.
Can't be...because the 'Floyd' albums after it sucked louder, and Rog had
nothing to do with them.
--
-S.
What am I, some kind of a _can't take a quote_, *poor sport of a f_ck*,
who's whizzing out in flameless shame?
Bunn E. Rabbit
Some Primate wrote:
>> My sources say there's an alien base (mining operation) on the dark side of
>> the moon -- grey aliens. And it was discovered in the 60s, IIRC
>>
>> That's how the aliens are able to keep an eye on earth -- they're using the
>> moon as a home base. And that's why the aliens met the Apollo 11 crew on
>> the moon and told them to never attempt to land on the Moon again and of
>> course, NASA never did.
>>
Ah Ha! So _that's_ why the 'Man on the Moon' has large dark eyes and
a grey hue.
I'm Scared!
--
Bunn E. Rabbit
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
So the whole resides within itself? So what is on the outside?
lensman1955
> Recently "Mr. 4X" <random...@klvkry.invalid.com> honored sci.astro
> with:
> >
> >> so we here
> >> on earth are all on the dark side of the moon at new moon.
> >
> >WTF should that mean?
>
> The lunatic is in the hall?
Maybe he's next to the kids!
In "Toys," Robin Williams had a great line;
"There's a lunatic in the company and it's not me."
Happy Troll
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
>Some Primate wrote:
>
>>> My sources say there's an alien base (mining operation) on the dark side of
>>> the moon -- grey aliens. And it was discovered in the 60s, IIRC
>>>
>>> That's how the aliens are able to keep an eye on earth -- they're using the
>>> moon as a home base. And that's why the aliens met the Apollo 11 crew on
>>> the moon and told them to never attempt to land on the Moon again and of
>>> course, NASA never did.
>>>
>
>Ah Ha! So _that's_ why the 'Man on the Moon' has large dark eyes and
>a grey hue.
>
>I'm Scared!
What's more frightening:
finding out extraterrestrials have been on or around earth for a long time
or finding out that some of the people who have known this all along want to
kill you if you find out?
Happy Troll
wrote:
What whole?
>resides within itself?
Which self?
> So what is on the outside?
Nothing is outside of itself.
Scott Lurndal
>>
>>Actually, Rick was parroting the closing phrase from the song Dark Side
>>of the Moon.
>
>As has already been mentioned, there is no song "Dark Side of the Moon",
>at least not one by Pink Floyd. When people say 'the song Dark Side of
>the Moon', they usually mean "Brain Damage/Eclipse", the final 2 cuts on
>the album. (Brain Damage is "The Lunatic is in my head..." and Eclipse is
>"All that you touch, and all that you see...")
>
Das tut mir leit.
you are correct, sir.
scott
Robert Carnegie
m>, Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> writes
>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>In article <10939...@sheol.org>, Wayne Throop
>><thr...@sheol.org> writes
>>>:: And there is no dark side of the Moon, really.
>>>
>>>: "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rick...@bellsouth.net>
>>>: As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
>>>
>>>It is? What keeps the side that happens at some given time
>>>to be facing the sun unlit, then?
>>
>>I think Rick's(?) point is, the actual colour of the Moon is rather
>>dark grey. So compared to, e.g., a nice shiny space capsule, it
>>looks grubby.
>
>Actually, Rick was parroting the closing phrase from the song Dark Side
>of the Moon.
If Brian May can be a professionally qualified astronomer and rock
music god at the same time, I am willing to believe that another
successful British music act includes one or more members who
know what colour the Moon's surface is. Anyway, as I say, you
should be able to tell from seeing astronauts on TV. Having said
that, it's not very,very, /very/ dark; it's just not very light.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
news:9fadj0dsfh2r36q9t...@4ax.com...
|
| How many times did NASA have a man walk on the moon and how many times has
| since then NASA sent anyone to walk on the moon?
Six. The point is that you said they were warned off on the first of those
missions. So despite a monumentally significant warning, NASA landed five
more crews over three years.
| Ask the astronauts who were on Apollo 11.
We have. They don't agree with you.
Here's a hint: "Above Top Secret" isn't factual.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:9fadj0dsfh2r36q9t...@4ax.com...
>|
>| How many times did NASA have a man walk on the moon and how many times has
>| since then NASA sent anyone to walk on the moon?
>
>Six.
Name all the missions the USA walked on the moon.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>| Ask the astronauts who were on Apollo 11.
>
>We have. They don't agree with you.
Yeah they do, dumb ass.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| Name all the missions the USA walked on the moon.
Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| >| Ask the astronauts who were on Apollo 11.
| >
| >We have. They don't agree with you.
|
| Yeah they do, dumb ass.
Proof? Or should I take your nom du net at face value?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:50umj05gj150b75oe...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Name all the missions the USA walked on the moon.
>
>Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Were they all faked?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:71umj01c1av8be1sk...@4ax.com...
>|
>| >| Ask the astronauts who were on Apollo 11.
>| >
>| >We have. They don't agree with you.
>|
>| Yeah they do, dumb ass.
>
>Proof?
Ask the Apollo 11 astronauts.
And btw, how many times did the US astronauts walk on the moon?
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
|
| Were they all faked?
Are you arguing that they were? If so, let's see your proof. But first
read my site (URL below). I won't rehash here any arguments that are
covered there.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >| Yeah they do, dumb ass.
| >
| >Proof?
|
| Ask the Apollo 11 astronauts.
Onus is on you.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:llvmj0huk5i013i77...@4ax.com...
>| >Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
>|
>| Were they all faked?
>
>Are you arguing that they were? If so, let's see your proof. But first
>read my site (URL below). I won't rehash here any arguments that are
>covered there.
Provide proof that the astronauts on any mission after Apollo 11 actually
walked on the moon.
Were they faked?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:tuvmj0l4u6bsjpskq...@4ax.com...
>| >| Yeah they do, dumb ass.
>| >
>| >Proof?
>|
>| Ask the Apollo 11 astronauts.
>
>Onus is on you.
Nah, the onus is on NASA and why they lied about their space programs.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >
| >Are you arguing that they were? If so, let's see your proof. But first
| >read my site (URL below). I won't rehash here any arguments that are
| >covered there.
|
| Provide proof that the astronauts on any mission after Apollo 11 actually
| walked on the moon.
If your argument relies on the premise that Apollos 12 through 17 were
faked, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that.
| Were they faked?
You tell me.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >| Ask the Apollo 11 astronauts.
| >
| >Onus is on you.
|
| Nah, the onus is on NASA and why they lied about their space programs.
If you're claiming they lied, then the onus is on you to substantiate that
claim.
You imply that the Apollo 11 astronauts will confirm that they were
contacted by aliens. If that is a true claim, then you should be able to
give a reference or citation to where such a confirmation has been
published. If you cannot do so then I have no obligation to believe what
you say.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:i31nj0ts6n3317seb...@4ax.com...
>| >
>| >Are you arguing that they were? If so, let's see your proof. But first
>| >read my site (URL below). I won't rehash here any arguments that are
>| >covered there.
>|
>| Provide proof that the astronauts on any mission after Apollo 11 actually
>| walked on the moon.
>
>If your argument relies on the premise that Apollos 12 through 17 were
>faked, then you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that.
>
>| Were they faked?
>
>You tell me.
There is no evidence after Apollo 11 that NASA ever set foot on the moon
again, ass boy.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:f51nj0dfmonvau8qe...@4ax.com...
>| >| Ask the Apollo 11 astronauts.
>| >
>| >Onus is on you.
>|
>| Nah, the onus is on NASA and why they lied about their space programs.
>
>If you're claiming they lied, then the onus is on you to substantiate that
>claim.
Nah, ass boy. The onus is on NASA to provide proof they even landed on the
moon after Apollo 11.
There's no proof what so ever that they did.
>
>You imply that the Apollo 11 astronauts will confirm that they were
>contacted by aliens. If that is a true claim, then you should be able to
>give a reference or citation to where such a confirmation has been
>published. If you cannot do so then I have no obligation to believe what
>you say.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to see you real
cheap.
Why is it long time NASA employees have discovered there's a hidden space
agenda beyond what NASA is publicly admitting, and it involves 'faster than
light' travel and a plan to colonize another habitable planet, and in fact
NASA has no plans to go to Mars or the Moon, but instead wants to get as far
away from Earth as possible -- except they have a slight problem with space
travel, in that the G forces would kill them, plus they have no clue on how
to travel 'faster than light'. And they can't figure out how to operate the
saucer at Groom Lake, as all tried to date have failed.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| There is no evidence after Apollo 11 that NASA ever set foot on the moon
| again, ass boy.
You seem to be trying to name-call away responsibility for your statements.
If I consult the usual sources, I find a considerable amount of evidence
that the missions after Apollo 11 took place. In fact, there is more
evidence for the later missions than for Apollo 11. Denial of evidence is
not an argument.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:0l1nj0p7kljh6d7kc...@4ax.com...
>|
>| There is no evidence after Apollo 11 that NASA ever set foot on the moon
>| again, ass boy.
>
>You seem to be trying to name-call
Don't worry about the name calling, ass boy. NASA has called plenty of
people ass boys, so it shouldn't bother you a bit, ass boy.
>away responsibility for your statements.
>If I consult the usual sources, I find a considerable amount of evidence
>that the missions after Apollo 11 took place. In fact, there is more
>evidence for the later missions than for Apollo 11. Denial of evidence is
>not an argument.
Gee, ass boy, the only evidence NASA has that they went to the Moon after
Apollo 11 is what they're saying -- and they provide no evidence of it what
so ever.
Do you actually believe that liars tell the truth?
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| Gee, ass boy, the only evidence NASA has that they went to the Moon after
| Apollo 11 is what they're saying -- and they provide no evidence of it
what
| so ever.
You're simply restating your claim that "no" evidence exists. We have
thousands of photographs, miles of film, actual samples, the testimony of
Soviet and amateur trackers, etc. Are you saying this body of evidence
simply doesn't exist?
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| Nah, ass boy. The onus is on NASA to provide proof they even
| landed on the moon after Apollo 11.
If you go to the Johnson Space Center and ask for evidence, they'll be happy
to assist you. Some of it is even available online.
| Why is it long time NASA employees have discovered...
Please don't try to change the subject. NASA has provided proof of its
missions. You simply say that body of proof doesn't exist. Are you, in
fact, denying its existence?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:p02nj0dk7suhbmrks...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Gee, ass boy, the only evidence NASA has that they went to the Moon after
>| Apollo 11 is what they're saying -- and they provide no evidence of it
>what
>| so ever.
>
>You're simply restating your claim that "no" evidence exists. We have
>thousands of photographs, miles of film, actual samples, the testimony of
>Soviet and amateur trackers, etc. Are you saying this body of evidence
>simply doesn't exist?
I don't doubt they launched other Apollo missions, but there's no proof WHAT
SO EVRR that they landed a manned mission on the moon after Apollo 11.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| I don't doubt they launched other Apollo missions, but there's
| no proof WHAT SO EVRR that they landed a manned mission on the
| moon after Apollo 11.
You're simply restating your assertion. It seems to be widely accepted in
the historical and technical communities that evidence exists for subsequent
Apollo missions. Do you have an explanation for the demonstrable existence
of material you say does not exist?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:qm1nj0dd0is55itgk...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Nah, ass boy. The onus is on NASA to provide proof they even
>| landed on the moon after Apollo 11.
>
>If you go to the Johnson Space Center and ask for evidence, they'll be happy
>to assist you. Some of it is even available online.
Sure, I know all about revisionist history. It's done all of the time.
Why should anyone believe Johnson Space Center, they're NASA.
>| Why is it long time NASA employees have discovered...
>
>Please don't try to change the subject.
Why is there a hidden space program involving /faster than light' travel?
Do ya think NASA is planning on jetting off to a god forsaken dust bowl like
Mars?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:7b2nj05bjtoqesnmc...@4ax.com...
>|
>| I don't doubt they launched other Apollo missions, but there's
>| no proof WHAT SO EVRR that they landed a manned mission on the
>| moon after Apollo 11.
>
>You're simply restating your assertion. It seems to be widely accepted in
>the historical and technical communities that evidence exists for subsequent
>Apollo missions.
Now doubt there is. Even the Russians say so. But there's NO EVIDENCE THAT
NASA EVER SET FOOT ON THE MOON AFTER APOLLO 11. Where's the film of the
astronauts walking on the moon after Apollo 11?
> Do you have an explanation for the demonstrable existence
>of material you say does not exist?
Provide the proof that NASA landed men on the moon after Apollo 11.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >
| >If you go to the Johnson Space Center and ask for evidence,
| >they'll be happy to assist you. Some of it is even available
| >online.
|
| Sure, I know all about revisionist history. It's done all of the time.
Ah, so you believe the material *exists*, but you dispute its authenticity.
That's quite a bit different than saying it doesn't exist. Is denying its
existence your way of avoiding a meaningful discussion of its authenticity?
| Why should anyone believe Johnson Space Center, they're NASA.
Then why should anyone believe the Apollo 11 astronauts when they say they
were contacted by aliens. Are they not also NASA?
It seems you pick and choose what you want to believe from among all the
information that is available.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| Where's the film of the astronauts walking on the moon
| after Apollo 11?
Here: http://www.spacecraftfilms.com
and here: http://www.apolloarchive.com
The authoritative sources are obtained from the JSC media center.
| > Do you have an explanation for the demonstrable existence
| >of material you say does not exist?
|
| Provide the proof that NASA landed men on the moon after Apollo 11.
I have, and you have acknowledged that such evidence does, in fact, exist.
Please stop asking for it.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:9e2nj0d5o2pmk3jc4...@4ax.com...
>| >
>| >If you go to the Johnson Space Center and ask for evidence,
>| >they'll be happy to assist you. Some of it is even available
>| >online.
>|
>| Sure, I know all about revisionist history. It's done all of the time.
>
>Ah, so you believe the material *exists*, but you dispute its authenticity.
>That's quite a bit different than saying it doesn't exist. Is denying its
>existence your way of avoiding a meaningful discussion of its authenticity?
Just provide the proof that NASA astronauts walked on the moon after Apollo
11, or shut the f*ck up, ass boy.
>| Why should anyone believe Johnson Space Center, they're NASA.
>
>Then why should anyone believe the Apollo 11 astronauts when they say they
>were contacted by aliens.
Yep, now you've got it right -- because they have no reason to lie.
> Are they not also NASA?
NASA told them to shut up, and they refused.
>It seems you pick and choose what you want to believe from among all the
>information that is available.
Yeah, it's called thinking.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:en2nj055ke1i2osov...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Where's the film of the astronauts walking on the moon
>| after Apollo 11?
>
>Here: http://www.spacecraftfilms.com
>and here: http://www.apolloarchive.com
>
>The authoritative sources are obtained from the JSC media center.
NASA again. They lie. You just can't believe them
>
>| > Do you have an explanation for the demonstrable existence
>| >of material you say does not exist?
>|
>| Provide the proof that NASA landed men on the moon after Apollo 11.
>
>I have, and you have acknowledged that such evidence does, in fact, exist.
>Please stop asking for it.
No proof huh? I though so. Where's the film of astronauts waking on the
moon after the Apollo 11 mission? EH??????????
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >
| >Ah, so you believe the material *exists*, but you dispute its
authenticity.
| >That's quite a bit different than saying it doesn't exist. Is denying
its
| >existence your way of avoiding a meaningful discussion of its
authenticity?
|
| Just provide the proof that NASA astronauts walked on the moon after
Apollo
| 11, or shut the f*ck up, ass boy.
I have, and you have acknowledged its existence.
| > Are they not also NASA?
|
| NASA told them to shut up, and they refused.
You missed the point. You categorically disregarded anything from NASA, yet
you do not dispute NASA's astronauts.
Further, you have not provided any citation or reference to substantiate
that the Apollo 11 crew has made any statements supporting your position.
| Yeah, it's called thinking.
No, it's called selective quotation and it's a method of avoiding the truth
in preference to one's preconception. You're interpreting sources based on
how well they fit your preconceived opinion and rejecting those that dispute
it.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:fq2nj05o7alirn1rr...@4ax.com...
>| >
>| >Ah, so you believe the material *exists*, but you dispute its
>authenticity.
>| >That's quite a bit different than saying it doesn't exist. Is denying
>its
>| >existence your way of avoiding a meaningful discussion of its
>authenticity?
>|
>| Just provide the proof that NASA astronauts walked on the moon after
>Apollo
>| 11, or shut the f*ck up, ass boy.
>
>I have, and you have acknowledged its existence.
>
>| > Are they not also NASA?
>|
>| NASA told them to shut up, and they refused.
>
>You missed the point. You categorically disregarded anything from NASA, yet
>you do not dispute NASA's astronauts.
The Apollo NASA astronauts are no longer NASA astronauts. They don't work
for NASA anymore.
>Further, you have not provided any citation or reference to substantiate
>that the Apollo 11 crew has made any statements supporting your position.
>
>| Yeah, it's called thinking.
>
>No, it's called selective quotation and it's a method of avoiding the truth
>in preference to one's preconception. You're interpreting sources based on
>how well they fit your preconceived opinion and rejecting those that dispute
>it.
Nize, try ass boy. But you have no proof that NASA walked on the moon after
Apollo 11 -- where's the film, eh????????????????????
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| NASA again. They lie. You just can't believe them
If the evidence they present is false, then you should be able to
demonstrate factually that it is false. Merely claiming that it is does not
discredit it.
| Where's the film of astronauts waking on the
| moon after the Apollo 11 mission? EH??????????
It's been presented. You imply that it is false, but you provide no
argument to falsify it.
First you say it doesn't exist. Then you admit it exists, but cannot be
trusted. Why do you keep changing your story?
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
| >You missed the point. You categorically disregarded anything from NASA,
yet
| >you do not dispute NASA's astronauts.
|
| The Apollo NASA astronauts are no longer NASA astronauts. They don't work
| for NASA anymore.
Neither do the crews of subsequent missions, except for John Young. So by
your standards of evidence, those other crews are of equal credibility as
the Apollo 11 crew, and they claim to have walked on the moon.
| Nize, try ass boy. But you have no proof that NASA walked on the moon
after
| Apollo 11 -- where's the film, eh????????????????????
You categorically disregard it. That is not the same as showing it to be
false.
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:ov2nj0tgkum02kabk...@4ax.com...
>|
>| NASA again. They lie. You just can't believe them
>
>If the evidence they present is false, then you should be able to
>demonstrate factually that it is false. Merely claiming that it is does not
>discredit it.
Listen up ass boy, it's YOUR claim that NASA walked on the moon after Apollo
11. So just provide the film, eh? Where is the film of the astronauts
walking on the moon after July 1969?
WHERE IS THE FREAKIN FILM??????????????
>
>| Where's the film of astronauts waking on the
>| moon after the Apollo 11 mission? EH??????????
>
>It's been presented. You imply that it is false, but you provide no
>argument to falsify it.
Where is it, dumbass?
>
>First you say it doesn't exist. Then you admit it exists, but cannot be
>trusted. Why do you keep changing your story?
Stop trolling me, dumbass.
Where's the film of the astronauts walking on the moon after Apollo
11??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:bc3nj0pol3thilchl...@4ax.com...
>| >You missed the point. You categorically disregarded anything from NASA,
>yet
>| >you do not dispute NASA's astronauts.
>|
>| The Apollo NASA astronauts are no longer NASA astronauts. They don't work
>| for NASA anymore.
>
>Neither do the crews of subsequent missions, except for John Young. So by
>your standards of evidence, those other crews are of equal credibility as
>the Apollo 11 crew, and they claim to have walked on the moon.
>
>| Nize, try ass boy. But you have no proof that NASA walked on the moon
>after
>| Apollo 11 -- where's the film, eh????????????????????
>
>You categorically disregard it. That is not the same as showing it to be
>false.
Just hand over all of the films of the astronauts walking on the moon after
Apollo 11, okay, or else shaddup, ass boy.
Jay Windley
"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
|
| Listen up ass boy, it's YOUR claim that NASA walked on the moon after
Apollo
| 11.
Not so. I suggest that there is evidence supporting that assertion. You
are the one claiming assertively that NASA missions after Apollo 11 were
fake. Naturally you will need to explain any evidence that seems to dispute
your findings.
| WHERE IS THE FREAKIN FILM??????????????
I gave you references. You categorically refuse to examine it. There is no
need to blow a fuse over evidence you won't look at.
| >First you say it doesn't exist. Then you admit it exists, but cannot be
| >trusted. Why do you keep changing your story?
|
| Stop trolling me, dumbass.
It's not trolling to ask someone to reconcile two apparently contradictory
statements. Why do you keep changing your story regarding NASA evidence?
Happy Troll
wrote:
>
>"Happy Troll" <ju...@small.troll> wrote in message
>news:j74nj09e45v7pj3eg...@4ax.com...
>|
>| Listen up ass boy, it's YOUR claim that NASA walked on the moon after
>Apollo
>| 11.
>
>Not so. I suggest that there is evidence supporting that assertion. You
>are the one claiming assertively that NASA missions after Apollo 11 were
>fake. Naturally you will need to explain any evidence that seems to dispute
>your findings.
>
>| WHERE IS THE FREAKIN FILM??????????????
>
>I gave you references. You categorically refuse to examine it.
There's no film there, dumbass. Where' s the film of the astronauts walking
on the moon after Apollo 11?
There isn't any, dumbass troll.
There's no verifiable proof that NASA ever walked on the moon after
Apollo11.
<snip troll>
And why is there a hidden space program that's remained hidden for decades?