Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on February 20, 2019, 12:36:00 PM
-
What would it take for you all to admit that I am right, that man never set foot on the moon?
How many years have to pass without
* any country (there are plenty of countries technologically capable: China, Russia, India, Europe, USA, Canada, Japan)
* leaving low earth orbit for ANY reason
which would begin to "repeat" the accomplishment of man going to the Moon?
Right now, it's been 46 years and counting. No country has so much as left low-earth orbit since then. Color me suspicious.
What if you saw the following table of max jumping height for John Jones:
2009: 1.1 foot
2010: 1000 feet
2011: 1.2 foot
2012: 1.2 foot
2013: 1.1 foot
2014: 1.3 foot
2015: 1.1 foot
2016: 1.1 foot
2017: 1.2 foot
2018: 1.3 foot
2019: 1.3 foot
Wouldn't you throw out the reading for "2010" as an aberration?
My assertion: The so-called "moon landings" are an aberration so far above the mean that they must be discarded.
I don't buy all the pathetic excuses that "it's too expensive", "people are bored with it", "people would rather watch I Love Lucy" and so on. Maybe some of those excuses held in the 1970's, but they have been invalid for some time.
Then there's the positive evidence I have: NASA talking about having "lost the technology" to land on the Moon, and how they still need to solve the problem of passing through the Van Allen Belts of radiation surrounding the Earth. Wait, what? I thought they did so already, past tense, in the "moon landings" of the 1970's?
-
What would it take for you all to admit that I am right, that man never set foot on the moon?
Video evidence :)
-
In fact, in light of NASA saying they lost the technology, saying they can't pass through the Van Allen Belts at the moment, I would go even further:
Even if we DID go to the Moon, we didn't go. We can no longer brag about it as an expression, "We can go to the moon, but we can't solve poverty" and so on. No, we CAN'T go to the moon, any more than they could in 1510.
If we want to test ourselves again, maybe we can rehabilitate that expression. But having done something and then losing the ability completely such that you're back where you were 20 years before it happened -- what good is that?
And keep in mind the USA is the only country that went. All the other countries never even claim to have landed a man on the moon.
-
It would take you to not be wrong about lots of other stuff...
But since you frequently promote utter nonsense I don't value your opinion on such matters. You are not qualified to judge. You are just latching onto the conspiracy theories of others.
If you didn't have such a track history of being led by your own bias and being selective about what is "evidence" and what is not, AND there was not huge amount of evidence that NASA went to the moon such as images of the tracks left there by lunar orbiters and several hundred pounds of moon rocks which are given and lent to universities around the world to examine under spectrometry, then I might consider it possible.
But given all the evidence, it seems certain to me that it is just another fool theory you latch onto because it gives you a feeling of control or understanding about the plans of the "star council" of evil men. You like to think you know how the world operates. It makes you feel powerful.
And I am not just picking on you Matthew. Everyone I know, including my elder sister, who believes in such nonsense is unreasonable and unbalanced and makes poor decisions in other aspects of their life. If I met someone wise, accomplished and with very good judgement on other things who believed the moon landings were faked then I'd listen to what they had to say, but I have never met such a person.
-
Ggreg, I'm only going to say this once.
I am OK with you providing a "dissenting voice" on this forum.
However, I do have one requirement for you "coming back" to the forum and continuing your membership here.
You must not bring up, or mention in any context, my water leak from a few years ago.
In case you forgot, I'll remind you: your being a jerk about that was the reason I banned you. You showed not the least bit of sympathy, and threw the book at me for a human flaw that I believe I share with almost everyone else.
I told you at the time and I'll tell you again: I'm no expert at what one thousand, a hundred thousand, or 1 million gallons of water looks like in a pool or spread over a large surface. Maybe everyone else can easily envision astronomical quantities and I'm just retarded. But either way, I insist that you LAY OFF about this disaster which cost my family over $900 (that was with the water company giving me 1/2 off).
But I know, you earn that much in a 3 hour visit to one of your clients. But not me!
-
And I am not just picking on you Matthew. Everyone I know, including my elder sister, who believes in such nonsense is unreasonable and unbalanced and makes poor decisions in other aspects of their life. If I met someone wise, accomplished and with very good judgement on other things who believed the moon landings were faked then I'd listen to what they had to say, but I have never met such a person.
So it's all about the messenger, huh? It's all about people rather than ideas? You know what gender thinks that way?
What happened to being a man and arguing IDEAS? So I could have powerful arguments but if I'm dressed in rags you totally dismiss my arguments with a good old "ad hominem"? How feminine.
For what it's worth, I have the same respect for your judgment that you have for mine. So the feeling is mutual.
But nevertheless, I just burst your bubble. I guess I don't fit the mold at all.
I am highly educated and intelligent. I'm a software developer. I spent 3.5 years at a traditional seminary and got good grades (hint: not everyone did). I completed the 3-year Latin program in 2 years. Besides an English teacher's command of English, a decent grasp of Latin, I also can speak/understand a lot of Spanish and Japanese. I studied German enough to know the basics.
If you can pretend you're a man and enter the world of facts/evidence for a few minutes, the evidence suggests I don't have bad judgment either. I have excellent credit, have zero debt, I live on acreage with an average sized house (stone exterior) plus outbuildings, all paid for. We've never received a late notice, much less had any utilities threatened. I married my wife 14 years ago and we're still living in harmony with our 8th child on the way. Our children are all happy, healthy, and well adjusted. I don't have a criminal record, not even misdemeanors. I haven't even received a traffic ticket since my early 20's. I don't drink or smoke, much less use drugs.
I don't make as much as you because I choose to be more aloof from the World than you. It was/is my choice. Money doesn't equal good judgment or wisdom, much less sanctity, or else we should canonize or at least idolize Ted Turner, Oprah, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, etc.
What other yardsticks do you have to measure "bad judgment"? I'd love to hear them.
I'm no mental patient, damaged goods, or someone that can be accused of having bad judgment.
-
Next, Ggreg, let me address your other nonsense.
1. The jury is still out on the "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" issue. Too soon to declare either of us wrong on this one.
2. Ditto for the SSPX. I never called dates! You show me where I called a date, and then I'll admit that I was wrong.
Nevertheless, even if I did say "SSPX Deal - sign on the dotted line - imminent!" I wasn't exactly wrong. If the SSPX is choosing to get approval from Rome in steps, piecemeal, one sacrament at a time, so as not to alarm the Trad faithful, was I really wrong? Not at all!
I never said anything about a piece of parchment with a huge John Hancock on it from +Fellay, the Pope, and a few other officials. Sure, this might come EVENTUALLY, but by then it will have been LONG OVER for the Traditionalism of the SSPX.
What matters is the SSPX changing their position, and de-facto selling out to Vatican II and the Modern World, by laying down their arms TO ANY DEGREE. Once they BEGIN to compromise in this way, it's time to jump ship. At least if it's true that said sellout is coming from the top down -- which it is.
-
It would take you to not be wrong about lots of other stuff...
But since you frequently promote utter nonsense I don't value your opinion on such matters. You are not qualified to judge. You are just latching onto the conspiracy theories of others.
If you didn't have such a track history of being led by your own bias and being selective about what is "evidence" and what is not, AND there was not huge amount of evidence that NASA went to the moon such as images of the tracks left there by lunar orbiters and several hundred pounds of moon rocks which are given and lent to universities around the world to examine under spectrometry, then I might consider it possible.
But given all the evidence, it seems certain to me that it is just another fool theory you latch onto because it gives you a feeling of control or understanding about the plans of the "star council" of evil men. You like to think you know how the world operates. It makes you feel powerful.
And I am not just picking on you Matthew. Everyone I know, including my elder sister, who believes in such nonsense is unreasonable and unbalanced and makes poor decisions in other aspects of their life. If I met someone wise, accomplished and with very good judgement on other things who believed the moon landings were faked then I'd listen to what they had to say, but I have never met such a person.
Star council of evil men? Try the Freemasons. You know that little group that pre-Vatican 2 Popes warned us about and banned Catholics from joining, the very same little group who the last couple Popes just so happen to be members of. It beggars belief why you're even a Trad at all when you seem to love Jєωs and Masons.
-
Star council of evil men? Try the Freemasons. You know that little group that pre-Vatican 2 Popes warned us about and banned Catholics from joining, the very same little group who the last couple Popes just so happen to be members of. It beggars belief why you're even a Trad at all when you seem to love Jєωs and Masons.
He doesn't necessarily love them, but he seems to join the modern world in mocking any and all "conspiracy theories" even when the whole Trad movement is founded on the truth of a specific conspiracy: that of Freemasons (a movement founded by Jєωs) to infiltrate the Catholic Church.
He doesn't want to come right out and mock the Freemasonic conspiracy (like a neo-SSPX priest, Fr. Trevor Burfitt, did -- there's that other issue Greg and I disagree on!) so he makes up an exaggerated straw man like the "star council of evil men". Might as well build up a straw man and talk about Reptilians or something.
BTW, I don't believe in any of the nonsense cօռspιʀαcιҽs. I don't believe any deceased entertainers are still alive. I don't believe in Flat Earth. I don't believe in aliens or time travel. I'd say my judgment is pretty sound and based on Catholic doctrine and a Catholic worldview. If I end up being wrong about any of the "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" I gave credence to, it certainly won't reflect badly on me. I'll have plenty of good reasons to point to, which justified a rational man giving them credence.
Ggreg doesn't have a leg to stand on when he says I just follow like a sheep without thinking. Why am I not still with the SSPX then? Why am I not still with Fr. Pfeiffer? I was the first to sound the alarm at the first sign of trouble in both cases. For each and every unpopular opinion I have, I have hard data and logical reasons to justify it.
-
Some of the stuff in the thread reminds of an amusing story told by E. Michael Jones. He was disputing some important matters with a very rich man. The very rich man in exasperation finally sarcastically asked of Jones why if he was "so damn smart" he wasn't "rich." Without losing a beat Jones responded by asking him why if he was "so damn rich" he wasn't "smart."
-
Klas,
Great quote! I love it.
I was going to add that it must bother Ggreg (and other like him) that his main asset (pardon the pun) is his wealth, income, and career. But how many people have him beat? Since he values worldly career, wealth, etc. he has to be jealous of all the 1%ers who have him beat. If his arguments against us "underachieving Trads" on CI hold any water, then he has to hold his head in shame for not measuring up to THEIR achievements. Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
Most of us on CI, on the other hand, can comfortably say that we haven't put all our eggs in the wealth or career basket. We had other priorities, which indeed hindered our careers, but they also allow us to not get upset when we see so many others richer than us. Wealth was never what we were after to begin with.
-
One Solitary Life
“HE WAS born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in still another village, where he worked in a carpenter’s shop until he was thirty. Then for three years he was an itinerant preacher.
“He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family or owned a house. He did not go to college. He never visited a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He did none of the things one usually associates with greatness. He had no credentials but himself.
“He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. He was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a [stake] between two thieves. While he was dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing, the only property he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
“Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today he remains the central figure of the human race, and the leader of mankind’s progress. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this planet so much as that one solitary life.”* (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/fn/r1/lp-e/101993372/0)—An anonymous commentary on the life of Jesus Christ.
-
He did none of the things one usually associates with greatness.
Technically true (he didn't have an army or a large bank account) but he did work many miracles, which are normally out of the question for any human being. Let's not act like He did nothing great...
Other than that, a great quote.
-
But given all the evidence, it seems certain to me that it is just another fool theory you latch onto because it gives you a feeling of control or understanding about the plans of the "star council" of evil men.
Methinks that you're rather cozy with said "star council" ... probably on a first-name basis with George Soros. Such connections are the most likely source of your affluence, given that you have not demonstrated any kind of intelligence here on CI.
-
images of the tracks left there by lunar orbiters
Now that I would like to see, tracks left by an orbiter.
-
You said "Mark my Words" about Ruth Bader Ginsburg being dead. And she is clearly still alive. She was in an open court session on Wednesday meaning many people who know her saw her. What are you going to do for the next year when she repeatedly shows up?
That she has a "body double" like Sister Lucy.
Obviously if you want to come up with those sorts of crazy explanations then anything is justifyable. But then why not accept Pablo's crazy justifications?
They are no more wacky doodle than yours.
-
That she has a "body double" like Sister Lucy.
Yeah, I know, the Deep State has no reason to postpone the inevitable. It's only the legality of Abortion on the line. There's not many evil men propping THAT industry up, and there's no money to be made in the abortion industry. There's no way a huge cabal of evil men could find and hire another old woman who kinda looks like RBG.
In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.
Most people would accept Kim Kardashian as RBG if the MSM universally put Kim forward as RBG. Most peoples' memories are short, suggestible, and very faulty.
-
You said "Mark my Words" about Ruth Bader Ginsburg being dead. And she is clearly still alive. She was in an open court session on Wednesday meaning many people who know her saw her. What are you going to do for the next year when she repeatedly shows up?
That she has a "body double" like Sister Lucy.
Obviously if you want to come up with those sorts of crazy explanations then anything is justifyable. But then why not accept Pablo's crazy justifications?
They are no more wacky doodle than yours.
Personally, I never thought RBG had kicked the bucket myself, but Sister Lucy? Really? A woman who insisted the 3rd Secret be released later than 1960, under the orders of Our Lady, would then sit around for several decades after twiddling her thumbs and going back on everything she said prior? While also getting heaps of plastic surgery surely, since faces just don't change that much naturally.
(https://catholicismpure.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/a45b20ea-6799-4ae6-914c-ea80f7dda50f.jpeg)
She waited until quite late in her life to get braces, tooth shavings, and chin and jaw surgery. And a rhinoplasty.
And perhaps most inexplicably, her philtrum shrunk. Let me tell you, as someone with a decent knowledge in maxillary development and dental health, NO ONE's philtrum shrinks as they age. Their lips get smaller and the skin there sags further, lengthening it. It never gets shorter, bar lip-lift surgeries and the like.
The Sister Lucia we see in the later years is clearly someone with a very different facial form to the real Sister Lucia. I'm well aware of the effects of aging on the face, but many of the "changes" we see in her face would be the exact opposite of those we could expect to see from ages. And others are just simply impossible.
-
I am highly educated and intelligent. I'm a software developer.
Being highly educated and intelligent is not the same thing as having expertise in every field.
Carl Sagan told a story about reading Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. (Worlds in Collision claimed Venus or Mars passed close to Earth several times, changing Earth's orbit and inclination, causing Earth's rotation to stop for a while, and causing several other natural disasters that became part of early writing and religious stories.) Sagan, whose expertise was as an astronomer, said the claimed motions of Venus/Mars were nonsense, but he thought the references in early writings were interesting. Then he gave the book to a friend who had expertise in early religious literature. His friend said the literature interpretation was nonsense, but thought the physics raised interesting questions.
The main lesson here is that the discipline of a field involves knowledge and methodologies that those without training in the field generally do not know. Those untrained in a field are not only likely to make mistakes, but they don't have the background to be able to recognize when they might be making mistakes.
In my own work, I deal with several people with advanced degrees. Although highly educated and generally intelligent, they still routinely make gross errors in fields in which they do not have training. Only a few are able to take a correction.
-
Those that wrote the Fatima story have an interest in painting Sister Lucia as some kind of Holy Saint, but we have no first hand evidence to suggest that.
The body double would also need to convince the nuns in her convent, her confessor, her family members who came to visit, that she was the same person.
And what for? What did it achieve? Fatima is still attested to by many conservative Trads.
Suffice it to say that the real Sister Lucy, long before the body double, also said that Our Lady told her that "the Dogma of the Faith would always be preserved in Portugal"
Yet Portugal has visibly perserved nothing. It is a secular nation, with homo marriage, abortion and one of the lowest birthrates in the entire world.
So that bit is clearly untrue.
I therefore conclude that the Real Sister Lucy simple went the way of most Catholics and slavishly followed the reforms of Vatican II. She was a simple minded peasant and believed and trusted authority. That is why we see her slobbering over the hands of JP2 in June 2000 because she bought into the same JP2 myth that others did, that he was some sort of holy rock star.
-
Methinks that you're rather cozy with said "star council" ... probably on a first-name basis with George Soros. Such connections are the most likely source of your affluence, given that you have not demonstrated any kind of intelligence here on CI.
There is no star council. If there was, we would have Madame President Hillary Clinton and not Donald J Trump.
If the last few years prove anything they prove that those "in control" are not as "in control" as people like you like to imagine and have been ranting and raving about for the last 40 years.
Of course, you will respond that "the Joos" and the central banks control Trump, Pope Francis, Michael Voris and Barney the Dinosaur and indeed me, but you would have also said that if Clinton had been elected. Trump was paid and controlled opposition so that Clinton could win with a landslide. Since you don't have to follow any rules or rationality or common sense or observable facts then you can come up with any cock-and-bull justification for your mad ideas of how the world operates.
Until you are the last man alive left on earth you would be convinced that "the Joos" were behind the weather, aircraft contrails, dog-poop in the streets and flouride in the water.
What there is is the opportunistic alliances between rich/powerful interests to gain some financial, political or other advantage or to cover up their misdeeds. But there are contrasting, sometimes opposing rich and powerful interests who seek to expose them from time to time. That is why Bernie Madoff is able to get away with stealing 50 Billion from rich people and Nick Leeson can bring down a bank. It is why Putin can take down some oligarchs in Russia with his divide and rule strategy. If there was a Star Council then those things would not happen nor would Bill Clinton be caught with his pants down or on flights to a paedophile's private island.
And there is also foolishness, hubris, drinking your own kool-aid and miscalculation which is how Donald J Trump ended up as the President of the United States of America.
-
Suffice it to say that the real Sister Lucy, long before the body double, also said that Our Lady told her that "the Dogma of the Faith would always be preserved in Portugal"
Yet Portugal has visibly perserved nothing. It is a secular nation, with homo marriage, abortion and one of the lowest birthrates in the entire world.
You're making a lot of assumptions here. You're going to write-off the Fatima message because of what you ASSUME is the meaning of the "portugal phrase"? A phrase that is part of an incomplete sentence, which ended with "etc"? That's pretty bold and impulsive, even for you.
Portugal was extremely catholic under Salazar until the early 70s Revolution which started the freemasonic infiltration of the country. They've slowly declined, just as all other countries did. Our Lady never promised they wouldn't decline. THE SENTENCE WAS UNFINISHED. The sentence would be completed in the 3rd Secret. Remember, She was commenting in 1917, over 6 decades from the time of the 70s, when Portugal started declining. She never said Portugal would be Catholic country forever. And we also don't know what She meant by "dogma of faith". Being a secular country doesn't necessarily mean you've given up the Faith, as a whole.
If I wanted to make assumptions, I'd assume that Sr Lucy and Our Lady's message makes sense, and that what She said about Portugal was that they would preserve the dogma of the faith until the 60s (which most catholic countries did NOT) when the 3rd Secret was supposed to be revealed. She then probably predicted the false council, the false mass and all the infiltration into the Church (as many who have read the secret have alluded to). In other words, after the 60s all bets are off, for the Church would be in chaos.
-
There is no star council. If there was, we would have Madame President Hillary Clinton and not Donald J Trump.
:laugh1: Trump is completely under there control. No one becomes president unless he is controlled.
-
Being a secular country doesn't necessarily mean you've given up the Faith, as a whole.
Of course it does.
A country that supports sodomite marriage and has one of the lowest birthrates in the entire world has given up the Faith as a whole.
I am sure in Iceland and Scandinavia you can still find well restored monuments to Norse gods and poems and re-enactments and symbols to please the tourists and connect with their own history but as a whole those countries have completely given up on pagan worship, sacrifices under a giant oak, bowls of sacrificial blood, swearing of oaths etc. At most there are a mere handful of freaks who try to re-enact those rituals.
What they have today is COMPLETELY different than their beliefs of the past ages. Resurrect any norseman from the past and he would recognise precisely NONE of his religious traditions.
---
What does the word ALWAYS mean? Five decades is not even a human lifetime. Hardly always.
And why single out Portugal if it provided ZERO resistance when compared to Spain or Italy, Poland or the Philippines?
Portugal has absolutely nothing to recommend it. So clearly Sister Lucia made that bit up. As history has shown.
-
Klas,
Great quote! I love it.
I was going to add that it must bother Ggreg (and other like him) that his main asset (pardon the pun) is his wealth, income, and career. But how many people have him beat? Since he values worldly career, wealth, etc. he has to be jealous of all the 1%ers who have him beat. If his arguments against us "underachieving Trads" on CI hold any water, then he has to hold his head in shame for not measuring up to THEIR achievements. Sauce for the goose is good for the gander.
Most of us on CI, on the other hand, can comfortably say that we haven't put all our eggs in the wealth or career basket. We had other priorities, which indeed hindered our careers, but they also allow us to not get upset when we see so many others richer than us. Wealth was never what we were after to begin with.
What makes you assume that is my main asset?
You seem to talk about it far more than I do Matthew.
I don't consider those above me in the 1% do have me beat. I can pay my bills, (even when my pipes leak), I have money in the bank, my wife and kids are in Germany this week skiing during the half-term holidays, I eat nice food, live in a house that I would not want to be any larger and have reasonably good health, since I have never smoked nor do I drink very much. I have never seen anything the rich have that I particularly want.
I have plenty of free time and only work for 20-30 hours per week and still earn a decent living. This year I will make about $230,000 after taxes. Since I live below my means it is all fairly stress free. The worst aspect of my current contract is the need to travel 1 week out of 8. But for 20 years I travelled far less.
When I look at people like Jeff Bezos taking pictures of his willy and sending them to some over suntanned bimbo I wonder why he thinks it is worth throwing away a 25 year marriage and rocking the emotions of his 4 children and embarrassing himself publicly. I see hard-working 1%ers messing up their lives all the time. Not all of them, by any means, but a good proportion.
A good proportion of CI'ers cannot find anyone suitable to marry and/or cannot afford to move home to a resistance hot-spot and change career to live in the new location. They would certainly prefer to do that if they were able to because in the meantime they are going along to SSPX masses or are home-alone. I regularly see people on here worried about financial collapse or the price of housing or weddings or gasoline and how the Jєωs are outsourcing all the good jobs to the developing world. For people who are not after wealth you sure seem to mention how difficult it is to acquire because of the Jєωιѕн conspiracy to make Christians weak and poor.
-
A country that supports sodomite marriage and has one of the lowest birthrates in the entire world has given up the Faith as a whole.
The US would outlaw abortion/civil unions TOMORROW if it was put up for a popular vote. I'm sure that's the same for many countries, including Portugal. You can't completely correlate the actions of politicians with the voters they "serve". Most politicians are bought and paid for; they serve their masters (most of whom are anti-catholic) not the people.
The dogma of faith has to do with belief, not necessarily politics. Drug addiction, womanizing, contraception, alcoholism - all of these immoral practices do not necessarily mean the person has given up the Faith.
-
I can pay my bills, (even when my pipes leak), I have money in the bank, my wife and kids are in Germany this week skiing during the half-term
Is this some kind of dig?
Did you read my message (I believe it was in this thread) giving you the ONE CONDITION for your continued membership on CathInfo?
I'll repeat it here: You have to never bring up my water leak, my water meter reading ability, my ability to estimate large volumes of water, etc.
I think this is a small, reasonable request. I guarantee you that if roles were reversed, you would demand much more. I probably would have been banned already.
There is no other term for it: when I banned you, you were being a complete a**hole about my water leak and my subsequent mis-reading of my water meter (NOTE: I don't work for the water company, and I have never been trained in how to read a water meter). You were being a complete jerk about my honest mistake, and meanwhile had ZERO compassion for a family losing several weeks' income to a water leak.
I lost a ton of respect for you after that incident. If you can't be compassionate about something that could happen to *anyone*, then what could you be compassionate about? I realize how hard it is to be compassionate towards people who are bad with money when you are great with money, or towards those with a food addiction when you have no problem with food -- because you could never picture yourself in that predicament. I guess your six-figure income has insulated you from most or all suffering thus far, to the point that you've forgotten how to commiserate with others about ANY predicament.
-
Ggreg, this must be hard for you to understand, because for you everything is emotional/personal or you don't bother with it, but some of us men like to discuss abstract and philosophical matters.
Also, some of us have a thing called nobility, concerning ourselves with higher things and the public good rather than just our own six figure income and career and maybe the good of our own immediate family.
For example, the Jєωιѕн control of the money supply. I can discuss this issue without PERSONALLY hurting thanks to their control. Perhaps I just have COMPASSION on others who are suffering. Compassion -- a foreign concept for you, I know.
-
There is no star council. If there was, we would have Madame President Hillary Clinton and not Donald J Trump.
If the last few years prove anything they prove that those "in control" are not as "in control" as people like you like to imagine and have been ranting and raving about for the last 40 years.
Of course, you will respond that "the Joos" and the central banks control Trump, Pope Francis, Michael Voris and Barney the Dinosaur and indeed me, but you would have also said that if Clinton had been elected. Trump was paid and controlled opposition so that Clinton could win with a landslide. Since you don't have to follow any rules or rationality or common sense or observable facts then you can come up with any cock-and-bull justification for your mad ideas of how the world operates.
Until you are the last man alive left on earth you would be convinced that "the Joos" were behind the weather, aircraft contrails, dog-poop in the streets and flouride in the water.
What there is is the opportunistic alliances between rich/powerful interests to gain some financial, political or other advantage or to cover up their misdeeds. But there are contrasting, sometimes opposing rich and powerful interests who seek to expose them from time to time. That is why Bernie Madoff is able to get away with stealing 50 Billion from rich people and Nick Leeson can bring down a bank. It is why Putin can take down some oligarchs in Russia with his divide and rule strategy. If there was a Star Council then those things would not happen nor would Bill Clinton be caught with his pants down or on flights to a paedophile's private island.
And there is also foolishness, hubris, drinking your own kool-aid and miscalculation which is how Donald J Trump ended up as the President of the United States of America.
For one I'll say I disagree with all the downvoting, but denying the Jєωιѕн conspiracy is ridiculous. One Democrat denounces a PAC that supports Israel - nearly gets crucified. Congress passes laws outlawing boycotts of Israel. Jєωs own all the large media companies and the Federal Reserve. Those are all facts. The US pays more to Israel than any other country by a huge margin - fact. Every President(even Trump) is a huge Zionist and even kisses their bloody wall wearing Yarmulkes? Fact. Jєωιѕн owned organisations like SPLC and ADL, along with their media arms, push the demonisation of whites while crucifying anyone who calls out Jєωιѕн over-representation in the top 1% and government? Fact. Jєωιѕн politicians, journalists and activists accuse white people of having white privilege but call anyone who points out Jєωιѕн privilege an αnтι-ѕємιтє? Fact. Most of the biggest pro-diversity and pro-migration activists, NGOs, etc. are Jєωs/Jєωιѕн owned? Fact.
Everything I've said up above is verifiable, easily googleable fact. It's borderline dogma too, the Church always warned us of perfidious Jєωs and our Lord warned us of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
-
ggreg I so enjoy all your posts. Did you forget that Matthew believed that fake snow was falling in some southeastern state? I believe it was you & a few others who set him straight. After all this he says he's intelligent!
-
If you can't be compassionate about something that could happen to *anyone*, then what could you be compassionate about?
Yes, all the learning, judgement, practical prudence, power, importance, and money in the world mean nothing to God when compared to having compassion and charity for others.
-
Let's get back to the topic.
My impression is that after they started the Cold War, the NASA Moon program is the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic's largest government embezzlement program of the period.
It was a good exercise for them to see how much they could steal with smoke & mirrors, right before the American taxpayers eyes.
Of course, now they raid our gov't treasury 24/7... the Pentagon losses being astounding.
-
I do believe that NASA was all about $. We were sold a lie about exploring space and in exchange, the taxpayers funded the NASA-developed police state - with 1,000s of satelites to spy on us, the internet to (eventually) control the economy, healthcare, etc and as a fun little kicker, it attacks religion by supporting atheism and alien mythology. NASA also helps to develop weapons and high-tech warfare stuff, thereby thwarting peace in the world.
-
… If I met someone wise, accomplished and with very good judgement on other things who believed the moon landings were faked, then I'd listen to what they had to say, but I have never met such a person.
Sad to say, that's about right. Certainly with respect to the Apollo 11 moon landing, such persons can be found in the thousands in cyberspace, but they all turn out to be "challenged" in the flesh-and-blood department.
As it happens, my brother was one of the dozen or so designers of the engine powering the command module, the vehicle piloted by Michael Collins. Before I sign on to the roster of skeptics, Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
---------------------
It's for such sensible comments as the one quoted above that ggreg will be missed. It's a pity that talking sense to the senseless has never been enough to satisfy him.
-
As it happens, my brother was one of the dozen or so designers of the engine powering the command module, the vehicle piloted by Michael Collins. Before I sign on to the roster of skeptics, Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
---------------------
My Uncle Gene worked for Grumman Corp. on Long Island (NY) in the 60s when they built some of the equipment for Apollo 11. I can't ask him about it because he passed in 2007, but I can assure you he was neither a nutter nor intellectually challenged. He had a PhD in engineering. After the space program went caput, he taught at NYU until his retirement in 1990.
The subject of the entire space program is fascinating, however, one must keep in mind that regardless of one's opinion, Our Lord won't be asking about it at one's particular judgment. This is a topic that the devil can use to lure the overly curious away from what is most important.
-
Ok, so your brother and Uncle Gene built space stuff. So what? Did they physically go to the moon? Just because rockets were sent up to space and a space station was built and all the trimmings, doesn't mean that it's ALL a lie. Some of the tech is marvelous stuff. What's at question here is the specfic fact of landing on the moon, which neither your brother or Uncle can attest to. So their "evidence" is circuмstantial.
My great Uncle was one of the men who first rode into the nαzι camps at WWII. He was sworn to secrecy by his superiors. I just heard that he went to the VA hospital a month ago and opened up to a bunch of doctors for 3 hours, telling war stories, including stories about the camps. Does this mean that the h0Ɩ0cαųst happened because my relative visited the camps? No, 2 separate and totally different questions. Yes, the camps existed. Yes, people were killed there. Were 6 million killed? Not yet proven.
-
Well, they paid my Uncle Gene very well to work on a hoax, much better than at NYU!
-
Well, they paid my Uncle Gene very well to work on a hoax, much better than at NYU!
Of course they did!
No one is denying that astronomical amounts of real money were spent.
And I agree with Pax -- no one is saying that your relatives were lying. They were working on very real components. They just didn't go to the Moon.
One of the arguments against the Moon Landing Hoax theory is "there's no way they could keep such a big secret with thousands of contractors and employees involved!"
Actually, it would be easy. It's called compartmentalization. Or in layman's terms, "need to know basis". The guy working on the deployment mechanism of the landing gear doesn't know *squat* about any other element of the mission. Each person or group had a VERY narrow focus of what they were working on. Only a very few men sat at the top with a bird's eye view and knew the whole picture. So only the very highest level administrators would have been privy to the truth or falsehood of the actual moon landing.
-
Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
I worked at NASA (Glenn Research Center) for a few years. I can tell you that the number of people who know the big picture can probably be counted on one hand. Each person works on only a tiny piece of any given project. So what would your brother have lied about, building an engine? I'm quite sure that he did in fact build an engine. As for what it was actually used for and whether the moon landings happened as advertised, he was in no better position to judge that than anyone out here.
That's a typical attack against the moon-hoaxers, that there would have to have been a conspiracy of silence involving over 100,000 people. Nonsense. Of those 100,000 probably at least half did mundane jobs like cleaning toilets and emptying garbage cans. Many others did little more than paperwork. You probably had a team of 10 people designing a door handle.
-
One of the arguments against the Moon Landing Hoax theory is "there's no way they could keep such a big secret with thousands of contractors and employees involved!"
Actually, it would be easy. It's called compartmentalization. Or in layman's terms, "need to know basis". The guy working on the deployment mechanism of the landing gear doesn't know *squat* about any other element of the mission. Each person or group had a VERY narrow focus of what they were working on. Only a very few men sat at the top with a bird's eye view and knew the whole picture. So only the very highest level administrators would have been privy to the truth or falsehood of the actual moon landing.
And, of course, we have the Manhattan Project which was kept secret through compartmentalization. Even Harry "Freemason" Truman didn't know about it until he assumed the presidency.
-
Sad to say, that's about right. Certainly with respect to the Apollo 11 moon landing, such persons can be found in the thousands in cyberspace, but they all turn out to be "challenged" in the flesh-and-blood department.
As it happens, my brother was one of the dozen or so designers of the engine powering the command module, the vehicle piloted by Michael Collins. Before I sign on to the roster of skeptics, Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
---------------------
It's for such sensible comments as the one quoted above that ggreg will be missed. It's a pity that talking sense to the senseless has never been enough to satisfy him.
claudel, have you ever attacked ggreg for thinking the h0Ɩ0h0αx happened? Are you aware that he fell for the Jєωιѕн swindle of 9/11 and encouraged trads in 2002 to fight their wars? Really, I always thought you were a smart guy, but I'm scratching my head over your enthusiasm for such an obvious Judaizing windbag like ggreg. I remember you popping up on his previous ban thread some years ago expressing sorrow at his departure.
I'm beginning to wonder if traditional Catholics, in the main, are Noahides.
-
"claudel, have you ever attacked ggreg for thinking the h0Ɩ0h0αx happened?"
I wasn't aware that I was obliged to or that any fruitful purpose would be served thereby. I say more about this question of yours below.
_____________
"Are you aware that he fell for the Jєωιѕн swindle of 9/11 and encouraged trads in 2002 to fight their wars?"
Of course I am. He was far from being the only CI denizen who did so, alas. Surely you have read the sycophantic rubbish about the US military that Ekim, for instance, has written for years. Even so, neither Ekim nor ggreg has ever represented the danger to the Faith that I consider cassini (just for one) to represent—and at bottom, concern for the True Faith ought to be the motivating rationale for anyone's presence here. Besides, even Bishop Williamson is willing on occasion to be in the same room as h0Ɩ0h0αx affirmers, isn't he?
There is a rather more rudimentary concern as well. In common with most other adults, I had then, as I have now, a notably circuмscribed quotient of time to devote to the frivolity of blog and forum crawling. As ggreg seldom if ever paid the slightest attention to anything I wrote, I chose and continue to choose to use that limited time in ways I deem more useful. Time spent shouting at someone with a formidable ego structure who, incomprehensibly to me, is so blind as to have fallen for the Jєωs' lies hardly strikes me as time well spent.
__________________
"Really, I always thought you were a smart guy, but I'm scratching my head over your enthusiasm for such an obvious Judaizing windbag like ggreg."
Are you quite sure that this is a useful or effective, let alone courteous, mode in which to address me?
___________________
"I remember you popping up on his previous ban thread some years ago expressing sorrow at his departure."
I'm not sure I regard "sorrow" as the mot juste here, but I certainly did write that I would miss him—at least in the extraordinarily narrow sense in which I might be said to "miss" anyone in this cyberworld, a world whose importance to my terrestrial life as a whole is minuscule, especially now that my end is not far off.
The foregoing being said, why then did I write, both then and more recently, what I did about ggreg? I did so simply because he was one of the small minority of commenters here who did not regard rationality as trivial and dispensible. As a rule he was one of a very few who did not—either in so many words or in effect—write "I'm utterly ignorant of the matter at hand, but here's what I have to say about it, and the rest of you darn well better treat it as a prophetic utterance." (Isn't this in fact the virtual norm hereabouts?)
Most of all, I wrote what I did several years ago because, on at least a dozen occasions, he forthrightly offered other CI participants assistance with job placement, with résumé preparation, and with similar matters where his secular experience and credentials could be of measurable benefit to others. As I have admitted, I don't spend oodles of time here, but if you can name ten other commenters who have given visible evidence of taking the Corporal Works of Mercy seriously, you will amaze me.
I'm done. Say or think of me what you like.
-
… That's a typical attack against the moon-hoaxers, that there would have to have been a conspiracy of silence involving over 100,000 people. Nonsense. Of those 100,000 probably at least half did mundane jobs like cleaning toilets and emptying garbage cans.
There is a certain poetry, isn't there, in seeing someone whose thought processes are almost invariably mundane equate engine design with toilet cleaning? What's more, he goes on to offer it as a specimen of sweet reason and sound reflection!
My inner Aesop, alas, keeps muttering "sour grapes." I suspect he'll doze off again soon, however, unlike CI's resident Deep Thinkers.
-
There is a certain poetry, isn't there, in seeing someone whose thought processes are invariably mundane equate engine design with toilet cleaning? What's more, he goes on to offer it as a specimen of sweet reason and sound reflection!
And, despite your poetic (yet entirely gratuitous) rejection, the analogy holds, with the point being along the lines of the compartmentalization noted by Matthew. One deals with the toilet compartment, while another deals with the engine compartment.
You falsely asserted that those who believe that the moon landing was hoaxed effectively call your uncle a liar. Most who believe the moon landing was hoaxed do in fact hold that the Apollo missions did orbit around the earth ... which would have required engines.
-
… You falsely asserted that those who believe that the moon landing was hoaxed effectively call your uncle a liar.
No, I didn't. That is to say, I asserted no such thing, falsely or otherwise. That sort of childish ad hominem is a gambit in your style, not mine.
Another thing, Laddy: I never had any uncles.
Comprehending English words on a page has never been your strong suit, has it? I'm still waiting to see what is.
-
"claudel, have you ever attacked ggreg for thinking the h0Ɩ0h0αx happened?"
I wasn't aware that I was obliged to or that any fruitful purpose would be served thereby. I say more about this question of yours below.
_____________
"Are you aware that he fell for the Jєωιѕн swindle of 9/11 and encouraged trads in 2002 to fight their wars?"
Of course I am. He was far from being the only CI denizen who did so, alas. Surely you have read the sycophantic rubbish about the US military that Ekim, for instance, has written for years. Even so, neither Ekim nor ggreg has ever represented the danger to the Faith that I consider cassini (just for one) to represent—and at bottom, concern for the True Faith ought to be the motivating rationale for anyone's presence here. Besides, even Bishop Williamson is willing on occasion to be in the same room as h0Ɩ0h0αx affirmers, isn't he?
There is a rather more rudimentary concern as well. In common with most other adults, I had then, as I have now, a notably circuмscribed quotient of time to devote to the frivolity of blog and forum crawling. As ggreg seldom if ever paid the slightest attention to anything I wrote, I chose and continue to choose to use that limited time in ways I deem more useful. Time spent shouting at someone with a formidable ego structure who, incomprehensibly to me, is so blind as to have fallen for the Jєωs' lies hardly strikes me as time well spent.
__________________
"Really, I always thought you were a smart guy, but I'm scratching my head over your enthusiasm for such an obvious Judaizing windbag like ggreg."
Are you quite sure that this is a useful or effective, let alone courteous, mode in which to address me?
___________________
"I remember you popping up on his previous ban thread some years ago expressing sorrow at his departure."
I'm not sure I regard "sorrow" as the mot juste here, but I certainly did write that I would miss him—at least in the extraordinarily narrow sense in which I might be said to "miss" anyone in this cyberworld, a world whose importance to my terrestrial life as a whole is minuscule, especially now that my end is not far off.
The foregoing being said, why then did I write, both then and more recently, what I did about ggreg? I did so simply because he was one of the small minority of commenters here who did not regard rationality as trivial and dispensible. As a rule he was one of a very few who did not—either in so many words or in effect—write "I'm utterly ignorant of the matter at hand, but here's what I have to say about it, and the rest of you darn well better treat it as a prophetic utterance." (Isn't this in fact the virtual norm hereabouts?)
Most of all, I wrote what I did several years ago because, on at least a dozen occasions, he forthrightly offered other CI participants assistance with job placement, with résumé preparation, and with similar matters where his secular experience and credentials could be of measurable benefit to others. As I have admitted, I don't spend oodles of time here, but if you can name ten other commenters who have given visible evidence of taking the Corporal Works of Mercy seriously, you will amaze me.
I'm done. Say or think of me what you like.
I'm not buying what you're selling, claudel. One of the reasons I quite liked reading your stuff over the years is for the doberman pinscher characteristic you've unleashed on those who post all manner of error. That you chose never to unleash that characteristic on a guy who is many times the fraud (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/thread4greg-an-englishman's-perspective-on-russian-perspective/msg639195/#msg639195) that some others here are is saying a lot about you.
And a guy who thinks the h0Ɩ0h0αx happened and 9/11 went down as the Jєωιѕн establishment says is either not respectful of rationality, or is, but for a subversive Jєωιѕн end. If you're so impressed with what you interpret as ggreg's virtuous points, then you shouldn't be bothered with anyone, as even serial killers have some nice qualities. Why be bothered with anyone. I'm sure cassini is nice to animals.
Btw, I'm not convinced the moon landings were faked. As a layman I asked the resident "experts" here to convince me otherwise and they did a poor job of it, particularly NeilObstat (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/moon-landings-no-hard-science-knowledge/90/) in his reaction to my demolishing of Kaysing.
-
I'm not selling anything, rum. On the other hand, I decline to accept dictation as to what or whom I must snarl at or attack—in this, of course, I am far from unique. I still have a functioning brain and a functioning conscience, and it is to them I look and to them I answer.
As ggreg has once again been given the boot, probably permanently—to virtually universal applause, may I add!—your irritation with me for remarks that amount to damning him with faint praise is disproportionate, to say the least. If agreement between us on perhaps 85 to 90 percent of matters doesn't suffice for you, perhaps you ought to be grilling yourself, not me.
This is my last word on this matter.
Pax tecuм.
-
Comprehending English words on a page has never been your strong suit, has it? I'm still waiting to see what is.
True. I am, indeed, not particularly adroit at casting poetic prose entirely devoid of any substance whatsoever, presenting myself as a pompous pseudo-intellectual. I shall at once begin to undertake, thesaurus in hand, the task of translating your lofty verse by distilling it to its substative argument. Worry not about the demands on my time, since I can typically render 15 paragraphs of yours in about one sentence ... which in the final analysis invariably epitomizes one or another textbook logical fallacy. Pompous windbag!
-
I'm not selling anything, rum. On the other hand, I decline to accept dictation as to what or whom I must snarl at or attack—in this, of course, I am far from unique. I still have a functioning brain and a functioning conscience, and it is to them I look and to them I answer.
As ggreg has once again been given the boot, probably permanently—to virtually universal applause, may I add!—your irritation with me for remarks that amount to damning him with faint praise is disproportionate, to say the least. If agreement between us on perhaps 85 to 90 percent of matters doesn't suffice for you, perhaps you ought to be grilling yourself, not me.
This is my last word on this matter.
Pax tecuм.
claudel translation -- Don't tell me what to do. Gregg got banned. I won't talk about my double standard anymore. Insincere gratuitous Latin phrase meaning, in context, "Leave me alone."
[[I am doing this to assist those on this board who are less erudite than the great claudel, so pretty much everyone ... since even we laymen should benefit from his wisdom.]
-
Those that wrote the Fatima story have an interest in painting Sister Lucia as some kind of Holy Saint, but we have no first hand evidence to suggest that.
Do you KNOW the story of Fatima?
I tend to agree with Fr. Hewko on this one, that anyone Our Lady appears to is probably a saint.
-
Sad to say, that's about right. Certainly with respect to the Apollo 11 moon landing, such persons can be found in the thousands in cyberspace, but they all turn out to be "challenged" in the flesh-and-blood department.
As it happens, my brother was one of the dozen or so designers of the engine powering the command module, the vehicle piloted by Michael Collins. Before I sign on to the roster of skeptics, Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
---------------------
It's for such sensible comments as the one quoted above that ggreg will be missed. It's a pity that talking sense to the senseless has never been enough to satisfy him.
claudel translation - Lots of people believe that the moon landings were faked, but they're all idiots.
My brother helped design an engine, so the moon landings must have happened.
I'll miss gregg since he was an ally in my war against the morons here on CI.
-
No, I didn't. That is to say, I asserted no such thing, falsely or otherwise. That sort of childish ad hominem is a gambit in your style, not mine.
Another thing, Laddy: I never had any uncles.
Comprehending English words on a page has never been your strong suit, has it? I'm still waiting to see what is.
claudel translation - You're an idiot for confusing my brother for another poster's uncle. Your argument is therefore invalid and must be summarily ignored. Ergo, the moon landings never happened. I win. Nya nya.
-
As it happens, my brother was one of the dozen or so designers of the engine powering the command module, the vehicle piloted by Michael Collins. Before I sign on to the roster of skeptics, Matthew is going to have to persuade me that my brother has been lying to me for fifty years. I wish him good luck with that.
---------------------
So what.
Your brother worked on an orbiter - so what?
We have the ability to get vehicles in LEO.
We do not have the ability to get vehicles to the moon, land, take off again, and return to earth.
Understand the difference?
http://www.aulis.com/apollo_fake_reentry.htm
-
Video evidence :)
Here ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4)
-
I'm not selling anything, rum. On the other hand, I decline to accept dictation as to what or whom I must snarl at or attack—in this, of course, I am far from unique. I still have a functioning brain and a functioning conscience, and it is to them I look and to them I answer.
As ggreg has once again been given the boot, probably permanently—to virtually universal applause, may I add!—your irritation with me for remarks that amount to damning him with faint praise is disproportionate, to say the least. If agreement between us on perhaps 85 to 90 percent of matters doesn't suffice for you, perhaps you ought to be grilling yourself, not me.
This is my last word on this matter.
Pax tecuм.
Who said you had to accept dictation?
So is ggreg your enemy? I'd hope he is, seeing as how it wouldn't be good for a Catholic to not be an enemy of someone who's pro-Israel, anti-anti-Jєωιѕн, and h0Ɩ0h0αx-peddling.
I don't think there was universal applause at ggreg's banning. Most of the people on these forums are Judaized and have absolutely no problem with him. He's never been popularly disliked on any of the forums he's been on, including TMW's sede forum (which isn't surprising seeing as how the h0Ɩ0h0αx-peddling Griff Ruby/Ubipetrus is much liked over there as well).
And you sure it's your last word? You expressed the same sentiment on the last page. You have a history of declaring exits. It's effeminate.
-
So, here's a question. If we've never been to the moon, and even to this day have not been to the moon, does that mean it is impossible to get to the moon in the first place?
This is a devil's advocate question. I believe the moon landings are a hoax. I'm just curious what others (particularly Matthew) think.
If it is impossible to get to the moon, what are the implications of that? Is there some sort of barrier that prevents travel beyond low-earth orbit?
-
So, here's a question. If we've never been to the moon, and even to this day have not been to the moon, does that mean it is impossible to get to the moon in the first place?
This is a devil's advocate question. I believe the moon landings are a hoax. I'm just curious what others (particularly Matthew) think.
If it is impossible to get to the moon, what are the implications of that? Is there some sort of barrier that prevents travel beyond low-earth orbit?
It is impossible given the current state of our technology. To provide the appropriate degree of shielding from radiation (unless some new shielding mechanism were invented) would require a mass that could not be sent to the moon given our current propulsion technology. Now, if you happen to believe in Flat Earth, etc. and other cosmological differences from the narrative of modern science, then there may be other reasons for impossibility.
-
It is impossible given the current state of our technology. To provide the appropriate degree of shielding from radiation (unless some new shielding mechanism were invented) would require a mass that could not be sent to the moon given our current propulsion technology. Now, if you happen to believe in Flat Earth, etc. and other cosmological differences from the narrative of modern science, then there may be other reasons for impossibility.
This is obviously a very strong -- and in my opinion -- an impregnable argument. That said, how exactly does NASA respond to this and what is (and where can we find) the best rebuttal/counter-response?
-
Rebuttals are easily found. Unlike with the h0Ɩ0h0αx, which is a dangerous thing to talk about, the establishment doesn't fear moon hoax proponents, many of whom, such as Bart Sibrel peddle the h0Ɩ0h0αx.
Van Allen himself, who is the discover of the belts, refuted the claim that Apollo astronauts could not survive through the belts.
From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt) and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_radiation_syndrome) and health threat from cosmic rays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays)). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) (a high-altitude nuclear test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion) in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.
- There are two main Van Allen belts – the inner belt and the outer belt – and a transient third belt.[114] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-116) The inner belt is the more dangerous one, containing energetic protons. The outer one has less-dangerous low-energy electrons (Beta particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle)).[115] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-vanallenbelts-117)[116] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-woods109-118) The Apollo spacecraft passed through the inner belt in a matter of minutes and the outer belt in about 1 1⁄2 hours.[116] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-woods109-118) The astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft.[116] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-woods109-118)[117] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-plait162-119) Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure.[117] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-plait162-119) Even Dr. James Van Allen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen), the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[118] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-120) Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ntgen_equivalent_man) (10 mSv (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert)), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[119] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-121) The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year[116] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-woods109-118)[120] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-122) and not much more than what Space Shuttle astronauts received.[115] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-vanallenbelts-117)
2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.
- The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[121] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-123) Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbiter_program) and Luna 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_3) (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.
-
Rebuttals are easily found. Unlike with the h0Ɩ0h0αx, which is a dangerous thing to talk about, the establishment doesn't fear moon hoax proponents, many of whom, such as Bart Sibrel peddle the h0Ɩ0h0αx.
Van Allen himself, who is the discover of the belts, refuted the claim that Apollo astronauts could not survive through the belts.
From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
i know, but where exactly can we find NASA"s "official" response to this line of attack and what exactly is that response?
-
According to this, from First Man: The Life of Neil Armstrong, by James R. Hansen:
Armstrong sent the birthday card and letter on to NASA’s associate administrator for policy
and plans. “Has NASA ever refuted the allegations or assembled information to be used in
rebuttal? I occasionally am asked questions in public forums and feel I don’t do as good a
job as I might with more complete information,” said Neil. Subsequently, in 2002, NASA
commissioned distinguished space writer and veteran UFO debunker James Oberg to write a
30,000-word monograph refuting the notion that the Apollo program was a hoax. After
news of the plan for Oberg’s book hit the papers, however, NASA quickly reversed course,
judging that not even a judicious, well-argued refutation could successfully achieve its
intended effect.
Longer excerpt here: https://pastebin.com/R6h8KHHz
Jєωgling "hoax site:nasa.gov" will get hits.
-
A perhaps interesting addendum to this topic, evidently President Trump believes the moon landings occurred and he wants the U.S. to return to the moon by the year 2024.
On Tuesday March 26, 2019 in Huntsville, Alabama Vice-President Mike Pence said:
At the direction of the president of the United States, it is the stated policy of this administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts to the moon within the next five years
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/trump-nasa-moon-2024/585880/?fbclid=IwAR3vqO--Muo4a4Kwln7cyx2ccO4upngxGR7KV3m0Od37Z6y9_lLP_XpJjek (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/trump-nasa-moon-2024/585880/?fbclid=IwAR3vqO--Muo4a4Kwln7cyx2ccO4upngxGR7KV3m0Od37Z6y9_lLP_XpJjek)
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/vice-president-mike-pence-returning-to-the-moon-in-five-years-is-a-goal-worthy-of-america (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/vice-president-mike-pence-returning-to-the-moon-in-five-years-is-a-goal-worthy-of-america)
-
Were the moon landings one huge April Fool's Joke?
-
Were the moon landings one huge April Fool's Joke?
You decide:
https://www.ozy.com/true-story/how-i-faked-the-apollo-moon-landing/68714 (https://www.ozy.com/true-story/how-i-faked-the-apollo-moon-landing/68714)
-
You decide:
https://www.ozy.com/true-story/how-i-faked-the-apollo-moon-landing/68714 (https://www.ozy.com/true-story/how-i-faked-the-apollo-moon-landing/68714)
Having a name like Canard should have been a giveaway.
Did you see this at the bottom?
Epilogue: Max Canard is no longer with us. In fact, he never was. And while the debate over the authenticity of the moon landings will no doubt continue, the current account is indisputably fake, written by Sean Braswell (https://www.ozy.com/ozy-tribe/sean-braswell/1319#onozy). Happy April Fools’ Day!
-
Most of all, I wrote what I did several years ago because, on at least a dozen occasions, he forthrightly offered other CI participants assistance with job placement, with résumé preparation, and with similar matters where his secular experience and credentials could be of measurable benefit to others. As I have admitted, I don't spend oodles of time here, but if you can name ten other commenters who have given visible evidence of taking the Corporal Works of Mercy seriously, you will amaze me.
Did he really? Because I reached out to him several times years ago, and he never even gave me a chance. He mentioned I would have to know something about "banking technology" to be of any use for him, as if whatever that is could not have been learned quickly if given the information.
He never asked for my resume or anything like that, so it wasn't as if he actually saw my resume and thought I wouldn't be a good fit, like it happens in any other setting.
It seemed odd to me that someone who supposedly offered employment to trads before, would turn one down without any consideration or interview.
-
Boomers such as claudel hold firm to the moonlanding secular religion.
-
The moon landing hoax is overwhelmingly proven by anyone willing to research both sides, to include what they don't want to hear. Most people think they know it all after having spent the better part of their research trying to support their own belief.
-
Did he really? Because I reached out to him several times years ago, and he never even gave me a chance. He mentioned I would have to know something about "banking technology" to be of any use for him, as if whatever that is could not have been learned quickly if given the information.
He never asked for my resume or anything like that, so it wasn't as if he actually saw my resume and thought I wouldn't be a good fit, like it happens in any other setting.
It seemed odd to me that someone who supposedly offered employment to trads before, would turn one down without any consideration or interview.
He got my younger brother a good job in Zurich at a rapidly growing hedge fund working in software dev back in 2014. It enabled my brother to marry in 2016.
If he didn't think he could help you, then perhaps he thought why waste your time interviewing you.
-
The moon landing hoax is overwhelmingly proven by anyone willing to research both sides, to include what they don't want to hear. Most people think they know it all after having spent the better part of their research trying to support their own belief.
Well, that really profound comment should clear up everyone's doubts one way or the other!
-
Boomers such as claudel hold firm to the moonlanding secular religion.
I am not a boomer, but you have just identified yourself as an ignorant, self-important, and pretentious moron.
-
I am not a boomer, but you have just identified yourself as an ignorant, self-important, and pretentious moron.
Projection much (all three)?
To itemize one of your errors apropos to the topic at hand (you being a Boomer), yesterday, you stated, "I'm 74 years old", here: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/misc-squabbling-jaynek-rum/msg688703/?topicsee
That means you were born in 1946, give or take one year.
Now, Wikipedia states Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964:
Baby boomers (boomers for short) are the demographic cohort following the Silent Generation and preceding Generation X. The generation is most often defined as individuals born between 1946 and 1964, during the post–World War II baby boom.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
Even if you're technically not a Boomer because you were born in 1945, you're still of the generations (Boomers & Silents) that adhere to many of the lies fed to them by the government, specifically the moonlanding hoax. Not to mention it was your generations who handed the USA over to Jєωs, fαɢɢօts, foreigners, feminists, communists, & globalists, and you handed the Church over to Jєωs and heretics.
-
That means you were born in 1946, give or take one year.
No, it doesn't, Croix. Moron!
-
Even if you're technically not a Boomer because you were born in 1945, you're still of the generations (Boomers & Silents) that adhere to many of the lies fed to them by the government, specifically the moonlanding hoax.
Rationality was in short supply when your parents conceived you, wasn't it?
You, obviously, are of the generation that regards thinking as beneath contempt.
-
The thing about Croix the Parasite that's almost funny—that is, as opposed to the other things about him, which are contemptible—is that he is so hungry for an audience that he hides himself behind one fake identity after another to reclaim the stage. He contributes nothing except venom to the topics he spits his comments upon. And like soot, he is to be found virtually everywhere.
Dante would have dreamed up an appropriately slimy eternal punishment for him.
-
The thing about Croix the Parasite that's almost funny—that is, as opposed to the other things about him, which are contemptible—is that he is so hungry for an audience that he hides himself behind one fake identity after another to reclaim the stage. He contributes nothing except venom to the topics he spits his comments upon. And like soot, he is to be found virtually everywhere.
Dante would have dreamed up an appropriately slimy eternal punishment for him.
What's funny is how quickly each of his new identifies is so quickly exposed. Everybody here knows him well enough now.
Matthew, any way you could ban his IP ... or is he spoofing IP addresses somehow?
-
What's funny is how quickly each of his new identifies is so quickly exposed. Everybody here knows him well enough now.
Matthew, any way you could ban his IP ... or is he spoofing IP addresses somehow?
Seconded with enthusiasm.