| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> Message to Tom | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Message to Tom |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 31, 2012 Views: 1422 | Message to Tom I received this email from "Tom". (boastfultulip) "Dear Mr. Mayes, Ran across your site, it's very interesting. Not personally a believer in the moon landing was a hoax theory, but there's an interesting point I've read before that is a bit strange to me, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. The area under the moon lander looks undisturbed, and the conspiracy theory has it that the boosters, upon landing on the moon, should have kicked up quite a mess underneath the lander, which does seem to be a valid argument. in the pictures, the ground does look undisturbed. If I missed your debunking of this theory, sorry, I'm sure I'll find it upon closer inspection of your site. If not, please offer any ideas or facts to back up your beliefs. Thanks for your time. Tom" I get emails just like this from Hoax Believers (HB's) every single week. Whenever anyone says to me, as Tom did, "please offer any ideas or facts to back up your beliefs", then I know I am dealing with an HB because only HB's use that language. Back up my beliefs indeed! The moon landings are a historical fact, not a belief. Add to that another of his comments "..should have kicked up quite a mess underneath the lander, which does seem to be a valid argument." Then you know for sure you are dealing with an HB, they just can't disguise themselves, no matter how hard they try. I replied by email. This is what I said. "You hoax believers, because that is what you are, stand out a mile no matter how hard you try to slip under the radar. (I quote you) "if not, please offer any ideas or facts to back up your beliefs." They are not "a belief", the moon landings are a fact of history regardless of the ignorant thoughts of a few disbelievers like you." This is his reply "Dear Mr. Mayes, Wow, wasn't what I expected at all. In fact, I DO believe the moon landing was real, and I use some of the facts you share on your site as proof in my own conversations amongst my friends, but whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. Your insults were uncalled for, calls your credibility into question, and definitely riled me up. It's extremely ignorant of you to assume that I was "trying to slip something under the radar", as you were wrong. There's no doubt I'm not the most eloquent speaker or writer, and you probably could very easily shred me in a debate, but to take one sentence out of context, and use that to paint me as a nut (who's trying to pull the wool over your eyes), while ignoring the question? Lol, I stated very clearly that I'm not a believer in the hoax theory, reading IS a basic skill, so why assume I'm trying to fool you? For what purpose? In the anonymous internet, any nutty theories can be expressed safely, don't you think? In this man's opinion, that reflects pretty poorly on your insight and open mindedness, as well as makes you a very rude person. I wonder if this also makes you the "stupid" person. Obviously you fired me up with your name calling (that's probably why I'm stooping to your level and firing back) but you do seem like an otherwise knowledgeable man. You seem to have put a lot of thought and research into your theories (sorry "facts" if that word works better), and in spite of being a bit of an insufferable ass, your site is interesting, and holds great debunking info/opinions. My original question is the one that I have no good answer for in my own conversations, and I thought getting help from someone who claims to be an expert was the way to go. Please, if you are up to the "challenge", and you can see past you arrogant assumptions that you know my true intentions, offer your insights, but do it on your site, as I block rude people from e-mailing me directly. Or just go on assuming you know it all, and avoid the tougher questions like all cowardly, internet tough guy blowhards do. So there, nyah nyah. Have a nice day, Tom" Seems he didn't like what I said. It is true though that the only people that regarding the Moon landings ask me about my "beliefs" and say "does seem to be a valid argument (for a hoax)" are the sad old HB's every time. The reason that many of them try to slip under the radar in the guise of regular folk is because they know if they come right out and say they think it is a hoax I will in all probability not bother to reply. It is true I have far better things to do, besides, that is what my web site is for, to save me the bother of having to eternally repeat myself. If in fact Tom is not an HB then I apologise, but he has to understand that he does make all the noises they do, and "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck." Furthermore, he should have read through my site first before asking a question that has been asked on just about every Apollo Moon Landings web site in existence. Tom should also consider if he would ask me what my "belief" was regarding the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? I don't think so, the word "belief" would be totally inappropriate, just as it is in connection with the moon landings. Here is my answer as it appears on my web site. Question and Answer number 21. Tom, please take note. http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Are%20hoax%20believers%20stupid.htm "Are Moon Hoax believers stupid? 21) The Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no crater beneath its feet despite the considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent. And why do you think the lunar module would make a crater? What happens to disturbed dust in a vacuum, what trajectory will it take? How much thrust was being used at touchdown? At what angle did the module approach the landing site? How deep is the layer of dust where it landed? Find the answer to these questions and you will have your explanation." Tom, if you are unable to find out the answers yourself, or are unable to figure them out, do not hesitate to ask for further advice and guidance and I will be happy to explain it all to you. Glad to be of service. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 3, 2012 Views: 1402 | RE: Message to Tom Hi "Tom". (boastfultulip), I am still waiting for your response. If you are having any difficulty understanding my responses, I appreciate HB's are not very smart, don't be afraid to ask. Regards Keith |
| Posted By: Cladeus Posted On: Jul 18, 2012 Views: 1356 | RE: RE: Message to Tom I've seen a few documentarys over the years on this subject. I'm no scientist and have no experience or knowledge of astronomy etc I just watch documentarys and then make up my own mind. One detail that does stick in my mind is that on earth we are subject to the suns rays, we wear sun screen to reduce the risk of skin cancer from the suns harmful rays. One programme mentioned that in space there are high levels of radiation. In 1969 and prior, we did not have the technology or the materials to build a rocket/module to protect the occupants from such radiation. One scientist stated the walls of the module would need to be made of lead and 4ft thick! It would never get off the ground. If we went in 1969, why haven't we been back and set up base? Why haven't we been and collected 1 shuttle worth of Helium 3 which would be enough to run the whole of the USA for 1 year? Why aren't we using the moon as a base? It's far cheaper than sending up shuttles/rockets/probes - this has been proven. There's just too many if's and buts. I don't believe everything I read or hear in the media. Secrets between us and the Russians have been going on for years.... who's to say July 20th 1969 wasn't planned? staged? I'd need more proof before I believe we landed. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 18, 2012 Views: 1354 | RE: RE: RE: Message to Tom Hi Cladeus, If you want to believe the moon landings were a fake then just carry on. Your comments show such a level of ignorance that debate would be pointless. |