Jump to content

An extraordinary statement?


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Concerning the WOS being hacked , do I have no proof of who hacked it ? No ... Do I suspect you of doing it ? ... Yes ... And here are the reasons why .... Anyone who can post the untruthful , hateful things you did under the user names of Mr. Chewbacca and elsewheremanisamoron is capable of doing anything , including messing up forums ...

That's a direct and false accusation that you will end up regretting.

Duane - we both agreed to draw a line underneath what happened at MSN and discuss fairly and in a civil manner on here, which up until your baseless accusations we'd managed to do. Why you've decided to bring up MSN here I don't know - anyone who read your posts on there before you systematically deleted EVERY SINGLE ONE of them can make there own mind up on who was posting untruthful hateful things.

I have NEVER posted under the pseudonym elsewherisamoron, the only name I use is postbaguk as it relates to my email address. I posted on MSN as MisterChewbacca as I already had that MSN name from a while ago and didn't change it, though I did make it known that I also posted as postbaguk. On this forum of course, we all use our real names.

Here's a little tip for you Dave ... When you post under different user names and pretend to be someone else

...setting you straight again, just so it sinks in... I did NOT post as anyone other than MisterChewbacca on MSN

you need to change the way you post .... Don't use the same language .... don't post the same bad habit of using too many commas where they are not really necessary .... and don't continue to put those few little dots , like this ... between only a few of your sentences either .... It's always a dead giveaway if you post the same way each time you use different names ...

Duane - your inability to analyse photographs is mirrored in your inability to accurately draw the correct conclusions from analysing posts. I did not vandalise the MSN site under any guise, neither do I know who did (though I would like to know, because whoever it was has succeeding in getting my name blackened). Neither did I have anything to do with what happened to WOS.

You, of course, have prior form for vandalising sites when you deleted all of your posts on MSN.

Do I think you vandalised it to get back at elsewhereman for stripping you of your manager status? Of course not. I don't make ridiculous jumps of logic like that.

Now, if I had a true conspiracist's mindset, I would use your analysis of the language style used as ABSOLUTE PROOF that it was either yourself or elsewhereman who vandalised the MSN site.

Thankfully, I'm open-minded, and not having a conspiracist's mindset, I can't draw any conclusions.

All I can say is I'm pissed off that whoever saw fit to vandalise the MSN site hasn't had the guts to own up, they must have known that I was being accused of doing it, so should have come clean just to stop me being falsely accused.

Here's the other reason I think you hacked the site ... On the day you joined the site posting under the name of Postbaguk , your only post showed up at the end of a thread titled " Can You Smell Your Very Own Soul ? " , authored by straydog ... NOT !

I KNOW it wasn't authored by you - there were MANY threads that were muddled up after it had been hacked - many show you as the author when you clearly weren't. I read that thread because I was intrigued by the title. If I remember, it was authored by someone called Squall (just off the top of my head). I ended up giving him some genuine advice about the state of his health - let's hope if he does have a serious problem he read my advice before it was censored... errr, deleted. (I love this freedom of speech thing...)

Not only did I not author it , that title had nothing to do with the thread where you posted your one and only post of nonsense ...

The title had nothing to do with the thread? I didn't start the thread, someone else did!!! Did you actually read my post? It was thoroughly genuine. "Phantom smells" and "deja vue" ARE symptoms of a tumour in the temporal lobe. That's one reason why I was compelled to respond... if the guy WAS still concerned about his symptoms I thought he should ask his doctor.

Then below that very strange title was a post which I had authored titled " Opppsss , is This an Alien Bootprint on the 'Moon' ? " ... And somehow that one one post title was repeated about 15 times down the forum board , attached to threads it obviously didn't belong to .... Posting under that weird title was your way of leaving your calling card .... and like I stated before , it was a stupid thing to do .

Haven't a clue what you're banging on about. I posted in one thread, a thread of YOURS gets posted several times, and you think this is something to do with me? How on earth do you think the two events are linked??? Duane, if this is the level of "evidence" you have, I pity anyone who is being tried with you on the jury. They'd be hung, drawn and quartered before they even testified.

You are quite clearly applying your "Apollo hoax" logic to real life and jumping to the wrong conclusions AGAIN - like you did with the stagelights in the visor photo.

Oh and the "live" TV coverage of the alleged Apollo landings is quite an interesting subject to discuss ... but I will save that for another day , as it is quite a long story about how nasa managed to fake that as well .

I can't wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whoever eslewheremanisamoron is, posted this on MSN:-

"This site was set up for this pathetic waste of space to gain revenge but those he wished revenge upon are all far too intelligent to turn up here."

Firstly, Elsewhereman eventually admitted he set up the site so he could insult people without risking being banned. Secondly, I was one of the principle posters on MSN until a few weeks ago (I'd had enough of the ad homs from Elsewhereman so I left) - so why would I post that sentence above? I'd be insulting myself.

(The sort of evidence I was expecting and hoping you would have of whoever had hacked WOS or vandalised MSN was IP addresses, registered emails addresses etc - NOT pure speculation. That is NOT proof - and it's very poor evidence.)

Duane, you can take your false accusations and stick them. No-one enjoys having their name besmirched either in "real-life" or "cyberspace"... least of all me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you smell your very own soul Postbaguk ? ... I doubt it ... And I have no doubt you wrote that thread title and no doubt that you posted as elsewheremanisamoron also ... Like I said ... the phrasing , commas and dots are an exact match ... Of course after what E posted to you , I don't blame you a bit for being angry ... but why you included me in your tirade I'm not really sure , as I thought we agreed to leave all of that stupidity behind us and stop with the insults.

If you would like to continue to discuss Apollo with me here in a rational manner that's fine .. If not , I understand ... People don't like to be accused of wrong doings even when they're guilty of them .

This is getting more and more ridiculous.

Tell you what, get in touch with Squall on WOS - send him a PM. Ask him if he started the thread "Can you smell your own soul". Then get back to me with your apology - publicly please.

How does someone starting a thread called "Can you smell your soul" become proof that I started it? And even if I had, so what? I've already stated that I contributed to that thread. What is the problem with that? The WOS was hacked WELL before I joined.

PM Squall, then paste his reply here along with your apology. Then we can get back on topic and do what we agreed to - discuss Apollo.

(I did not include you in any tirade on MSN - if you'd care to read this thread and UM properly, you'll know that I publicly praised you on BOTH boards for having the moral courage to admit to being wrong about the stagelight photo - I would hardly be doing that one second then turning round and slagging you off under a pseudonym on another board.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...In Mr. Krantz's apparent innocence he let it slip out at the very end of this excellent documentray about nasa's alleged accomplishments during the Apollo missions , that NO ONE at Houston's mission control had any way of telling a real launch and landing from one done in the sims .... Quite an unknowing blunder on his part I must say , and I'm sure a statement which he now must regret as ever having admitted to .

He also went on to say that Armstrong had crashed the LM in the sims repeatedly many times before the Apollo 11 launch date , therefore it was not only a great surprise but a huge relief to him and all the other members of mission control when Armstrong miraculously managed to land the LM safely in the unknown and untested conditions of lunar orbit , shortly after repeatedly crashing the LM many times over in the practice simulation sessions .

(My bolding)

Okay, to begin we have two Flight Controllers (both from my posts) who disagree with Gene Kranz (a Flight Director, the difference being previously explained).

Duane also accuses Dave of "spin" re:

... I didn't claim that the LM was crashed just a few days before launch ... that's just more disinformation on your part ....

Please point out where Dave said that. Stephen quoted Duane saying they had crashed during sims and Dave's quote from Mr Difronzo also had referenced crashes during sims. Mr Difronzo says that Duane incorrectly said that they crashed the LM afew days before their flight. This again was Duane's quote about what Gene Kranz had said:

...and also that Armstrong had crashed the LM several times during the sims shortly before launch , so he ( Krantz) was very relieved when Armstrong somehow managed to land the LM without any problems at all on the moon , shortly after crashing it so many times in the sims ....

Duane then says that Gene Kranz was only refering to the landing. This nicely sidesteps the issue of how the Flight Controllers were able to monitor the spacecraft and interact with the crew in real time from launch through LOI through trans-lunar coast, or ascent stage lift-off to docking to EOI through to splashdown. Without being fooled.

Duane also says:

...if the flight director of mission control couldn't even tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one...

As I have said twice before, the Flight Director might not be able to tell the difference, but the Flight Controllers could.

If you can prove otherwise, I'd be interested in contacting your source for this information. I have already provided you with details on how to contact the person I consulted as to the accuracy of your statements.

Duane also said that "...I am not very good at quoting people verbatum[sic]..."(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8473&st=15#). That is quite important, because accidently paraphrasing someone could give an entirely different meaning to what they said. If a statement is important, you should quote it verbatim.

That is important because Duane refered to the simulation being so real no-one could tell the difference in launch and landing...

... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...8473&st=15#

Yet then went on to say:

...Krantz was speaking of the LANDING only ... So if I confused the issue and said launch , you have my apologies ....

Yes, Duane, you are confusing the issue - however unintentially - at a crucial point.

So take note of the accuracy of what Duance says... it is important. Is it important to differentiate between "I shot JFK" and "I wish I had shot JFK"? You be the judge.

Duane asked about filmed tests of the LLRV / LLTV - and he was provided clips of them. If Duane would like to claim these flights were faked, please do so. There were many witnesses. Still, these were only training flights on earth of a craft meant to simulate what the LM might experience in its descent.

Finally, the various accusations of ad homs back & forth. Read carefully over the whole thread, and judge for yourself who is the offender. If you feel so inclined, make your opinion known on the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is ridiculous is how every thread on Apollo turns into off topic nonsense .

You have my apologies for accusing you of hacking the WOS with no real proof that you did it.... I have no need to PM anyone there about this .... I will take your word for it that the topic was there and not authored by you ... As for the stupidity on the MSN forum , I think it's best we just let all of that go now ... It's in the past and we both agreed to be civil to each other on this forum ....

I regret my part in going off topic and accusing you of wrong doing with no proof and also of insulting you or anyone else in any of my posts here .... I seem to be followed from forum to forum by the same people who are determined to create havoc for me when discussing the Apollo hoax information and at this point I am really tired of the way this subject always turns into unnecessary and constant ad homs from both sides . ... From now on if I post anything about Apollo I plan to stay on topic and hope everyone else here can do the same .

Duane

As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting an email here I received from someone who isn't registered (the forum isn't accepting new registrations at the moment). It's from Mike Difronzo, he's been following this particular thread with interest, and has given me permission to post it here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One thing seems to be the actual quote that Mr. Krantz uttered in the documentary was as follows:

“The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.”

It should be understood that Gene was admittedly the most emotional Flight Director there was. In the documentary, his emotion regarding Apollo 11 is apparent, and the drama he injects is completely understandable, as well as profoundly human.

Nonetheless, it might be mentioned that all of the controllers knew that sims were in fact sims. What Gene was indicating is that they were so well done that they couldn’t tell the difference between them and the real thing. All of the flight controllers would certainly agree with this assessment, despite the fact that they knew full well that they were sims.

Someone mentioned that the difference between the sims and the actual landing was the fact that they had live TV feeds of the landing. This is incorrect. [EDIT (Dave G) - that was me - I wasn't very clear in my post, I didn't mean the landing itself, but the EVA... my bad!] There was no TV coverage of the landings provided from the spacecraft. The environment in Mission Control was precisely the same during the sim as it was during the actual landing. The 10 x 20 display in the front of the MOCR, as well as the data on the controller’s screens, as well as the comm between the controllers and the crew and the backroom people, were all indistinguishable from the real thing. The only difference was the PAO sitting there speaking to the networks, giving status reports from time to time.

Duane said the following:

“ He (Krantz) also went on to say that Armstrong had crashed the LM in the sims repeatedly many times before the Apollo 11 launch date , therefore it was not only a great surprise but a huge relief to him and all the other members of mission control when Armstrong miraculously managed to land the LM safely in the unknown and untested conditions of lunar orbit , shortly after repeatedly crashing the LM many times over in the practice simulation sessions .”

Gene never said that, either in his book or in the documentary.

Gene would say that “we crashed”, when speaking of a crashed sim. He wouldn’t, and didn’t blame it on Armstrong. He also never said they had crashed many times.

The fact is that they had crashed several times during sims in June, 1969. These crashes were due to faults uncovered in mission control during the integrated simulations, which were designed to spot problems and weaknesses in the flight control teams. Prior to the beginning of these sims, Armstrong and Aldrin had practiced flying the LM many times, knew the process, and had developed their own operations quite well.

No one, least of all Armstrong, was surprised, nor thought it miraculous, that he had landed the LM on the Moon on July 20, 1969. Relieved, mind- numbed, emotionally overwhelmed to one extent or another? Yes. Surprised? No.

The sims were, after a couple days of nominal runs, purposefully loaded with problems. There was a purpose in this. To abort properly during a sim was not a failure. It was a success. To improperly abort was a failure, which was designed to highlight a problem, and develop a solution.

Other facts that Duane seems to get wrong habitually, despite the fact that we discussed it in some detail on UM, are the following:

He keeps stating that the Apollo 11 lunar crew crashed the LM just days before their launch to the Moon.

This is incorrect.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin actually completed their integrated sims with Mission Control by June 25, 1969. They had spent approximately two weeks in 16 hour long sessions starting in early June. There were actually crashes on June 10, but no more. There were plenty of aborts, successful ones, however.

They were in crew quarters at KSC as of June 26, 1969, and further integrated sims were conducted between the MOCR team and the Apollo 12 prime crew (Conrad and Bean), as well as the Apollo 12 backup crew (Apollo 15 prime crew: Dave Scott and Jim Irwin).

July 5 was the final session of sims at Mission Control, which culminated in an improper abort due to mis-understood computer program alarms. The crew aboard the LM simulator was Scott and Irwin at that time, and a day or so later, they participated in a few more simulations geared toward refining the procedures for these program alarms (which turned out to be the reason that the actual Apollo 11 landing was successful…because these very same program alarms occurred on the actual landing).

Thus, Armstrong and Aldrin were not involved in an integrated sim from late June through the actual landing…almost three weeks prior to launch they had concluded such sims.

I think this statement of Duane’s reflects his contention completely:

“…if mission control, including the flight director, couldn’t tell the difference between a real lunar landing and a simulated one, then how could the unsuspecting public be expected to?”

An interesting twist.

The answer would have to be with a question:

The “unsuspecting public” had absolutely no idea about the training, the simulations, or the actual mechanics involved in spaceflight. The “unsuspecting public” generally had no idea that there was 6 months of intense training in all mission aspects for the crew of Apollo 11 immediately prior to the flight, and no idea that about 175 hours of intense integrated simulations were conducted with Mission Control and the flight crew (s) in a mere 11 days from early June through early July 1969. Thus:

Why would the unsuspecting public have any concern about the difference between a simulated landing and a real one? The only thing they would be witnessing would be the real one.

I think that the fact that the Flight Director couldn’t tell the difference speaks volumes about the quality of the training he and his team were put through. The idea that such a statement, in one person’s mind, points to a hoax, is rather skewed reasoning.

…during the actual landing, while the program alarms were happening and GUIDO Steve Bales and his back room people were handling the situation, a line was briefly left open and the back room was heard to say, “This is just like a simulation.”

(You’ll find reference to this in Gene’s book.)

I think that pretty much sums up that Gene’s assessment was pretty well right on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As usual that's quite a fine bit of spin you posted there Mike ... Now I see where you got your user name of MID from ... your initials ..... But like I always said , when it come to being a spin master of nasa disinformation , you are one of the best ! ... Too bad you can't join this forum , as that's just what is needed here ... one more nasa defender who is a pro at spreading nasa BS ... You even managed to bring up info from past posts of mine on the UM which have nothing to do with what I posted here now ... I didn't claim that the LM was crashed just a few days before launch ... that's just more disinformation on your part .... and you thought that I never learned anything from you ! LOL

But in spite of all the spin you posted here ( thanks to your partner in crime , Greer /postbaguk/ Mr. Chewbacca ) .. the bottom line still remains the same ..... Flight director Gene Krantz could not tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one .... Funny how nasa's sims were SO REALISTIC IN EVERY SINGLE RESPECT ! .... The better to fool us with , I'm thinking .

I see now why Mr. Lamson was in no great hurry to race back here with Krantz's verbatum quote ... It's even more damaging than I remembered it to be .... and I guess Lamson was in no hurry to post it here because he didn't have a spin story all ready to go with this very revealing quote either , as you always seem to do .... Yes sir , when it comes to twisting , spinning , and outright inventing pro-Apollo 'evidence' , you are still the best in the business , no matter what user name you choose to use ... MID , Apollo 5140 and now Mike .

So the bottom line to all of this and the simple answer to Stephen Turner's original question of why I believe that mission control was left out of the loop and not in on the hoax, still remains the same ... The quote by Gene Krantz ... and now thanks to you , we can all read exactly what the Apollo flight director claimed in the documentary 'Failure is NOT an Option" ( I guess NOT !)

“The SIMULATIONS were SO REAL that NO CONTROLLER could discern the DIFFERENCE between the TRAINING and the REAL MISSION .”

How about that ? .... The launch was real , the spashdown was real , but the lunar landings ? .... Who knows ? ... Like I said before, if the flight director of mission control couldn't even tell the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ( or like he claimed ... "NO CONTROLER COULD DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE " ) , then how could the unsuspecting public be able to tell if the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon or not ? .... Obvious answer .... We couldn't !

I have no doubt that you will now send your friend Dave another e-mail to post here , telling us all about how ignorant and uninformed I am when it comes to the Apollo Program , but please spare me and the rest of us here the dramatics because I've read it all before in every condescending sermon of a post you ever wrote to me on the UM .... and you personally insulting me and my beliefs still does not help you to prove your case that Apollo really landed men on the moon .

No Duane it was not the nature of the Krantz quote that delayed my posting ( and thanks to Dave for providing the imformation) nor my desire to "spin" The quote simply is what it is. No I've been away on a location shoot for some days and even though I've checked this forum quickly from time to time while I was on the road, I was too busy processing files and posting web galleries to deal with the Krantz quote.

I do see however that when faced with someone actually finding the qoute and posting it, you changed your story in a nice little 'pre spin" move....

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig ... Sorry but you're wrong again ... You see the spinning here was done by Mike , not by me .... I didn't have the direct quote to answer Stephen Turner's question , this is true ... but now that Mike has so graciously supplied it , it just proved what I said from the very beginning about Krantz letting it slip that .... NO CONTROLER COULD DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM ONE DONE IN TRAINING ( simulation ) !!

Oppppssss .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig ... Sorry but you're wrong again ... You see the spinning here was done by Mike , not by me .... I didn't have the direct quote to answer Stephen Turner's question , this is true ... but now that Mike has so graciously supplied it , it just proved what I said from the very beginning about Krantz letting it slip that .... NO CONTROLER COULD DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM ONE DONE IN TRAINING ( simulation ) !!

Oppppssss .

First Duane says:

"All I know is what Gene Krantz admitted to in the documentary 'Failure is Not an Option . .... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ... and that's why he and everyone at mission control were so relieved when Armstrong somehow miraculously landed the LM on the lunar surface after crashing it repeatedly in the sims shortly before the Apollo 11 launch."

Then he says this: (to cover getting his butt kicked once again)

"Stephen ... Thanks for getting back on topic ... No one said anyting about the pre-launch , launch or re-entry being simulated ... Obviously the launch and re-renrty were real events ... It's what took place in between those two events that is being called into question .

Krantz was speaking of the LANDING only ... So if I confused the issue and said launch , you have my apologies .... "

And then there is the entire statement you simply made up about Krantz being suprised at the landing....sheesh...

Of coure there is more...you want me to bust your chops again?

Nope...sorry Duane it was YOU who was wrong and you got BUSTED>>>AGAIN!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig .... Do you really believe that rehasing every word I posted about this is going to change the fact that Gene Krantz let it slip out that neither he nor any other controller could discern the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ?

You are intentionly confusing the issue now by quoting my posts ... I already admitted that I said launch when I meant to say landing , so why bring it up again ? ... Why such persistence in attempting to make me look bad I wonder ? ... Maybe because I have your number , in the fact that you are too busy trying to refute the opposition with ridicule instead of a proper debate ? .... and are also not happy I'm sure , with Krantz's statement which answered Stephen Turner's original question to me .

I haven't seen this documentary in quite awhile , but I do remember Krantz talking about being relieved and surprised that Armstrong managed to land the LM on the moon , after repeatedly crashing it in the sims several times ....

So instead of your constant ridicule of me and my not owning the documentary to post a verbatum quote , why don't you watch it again and post exactly what Gene Krantz said about his relief over Armstrong landing the LM on the 'moon' , when he couldn't land in the sims without crashing it ...

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig .... Do you really believe that rehasing every word I posted about this is going to change the fact that Gene Krantz let it slip out that neither he nor any other controller could discern the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ?

You are intentionly confusing the issue now by quoting my posts ... I already admitted that I said launch when I meant to say landing , so why bring it up again ? ... Why such persistence in attempting to make me look bad I wonder ? ... Maybe because I have your number , in the fact that you are too busy trying to refute the opposition with ridicule instead of a proper debate ? .... and are also not happy I'm sure , with Krantz's statement which answered Stephen Turner's original question to me .

I haven't seen this documentary in quite awhile , but I do remember Krantz talking about being relieved and surprised that Armstrong managed to land the LM on the moon , after repeatedly crashing it in the sims several times ....

So instead of your constant ridicule of me and my not owning the documentary to post a verbatum quote , why don't you watch it again and post exactly what Gene Krantz said about his relief over Armstrong landing the LM on the 'moon' , when he couldn't land in the sims without crashing it ...

See there you go again....you just stated :

"I already admitted that I said launch when I meant to say landing , so why bring it up again ? ..."

But that does not reflect what you really said:

". .... Krantz stated that it was IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish the difference between a real launch and landing from a simulated one ..."

Thats simply not the truth. Your original statement included both launch and landing....you didn't misphrase in your statement and use the wrong word, you clearly used both and that was clearly your intent. You only changed your position when you were about to get your tit in a wringer...and now you simply can't tell the truth.

I've no problem with Krantz's words that the sims were realistic, in fact unless they WERE realistic they would be useless. It takes a pretty big leap to go from Krantz telling everyone how good the sims were to your claim that it impeaches the Apollo missions, especially in light of the fact that the sims were modular in nature. You are simply positing an very illogical theory.

Your words however are a different story. And oh what a story they tell. You have shown us many times over that you will shuck and jive, and change your story to fit your current situation. Thats not the mark of intellectual honesty. Handwaving at its finest. And thats the real problem with your arguments and rebuttals Duane. You have no background tn the areas you are protesting when it comes to the Apollo photography and yet you would have us believe that your simply act of viewing photographs is enough of a knowlege base to rebut real photographic fact. You also have shown your interpretive skills are sorely lacking but time and time again you simply dismiss hard evidence based on nothing more than your uninformed opinion. Why keep rehashing your words? Because it shows the bankrupt nature of your position.

You have my number? How quaint, but don't flatter yourself. You don't even have your own number yet. Refuting you is meaningless. You don't have the intellectual honesty to deal with the evidence, you simply stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it does not exist, all the while proclaiming your position as correct. You really have no choice, because you don't have the background or the knowlege to deal with the evidence...its simply over your head.

AS to the doco, Dave posted the rebuttal to your claim about Krantz and the landing. No need to do it again. Of course since its your claim (and one that seems to be made up out of thin air) you are the one that needs to back it up. Buy the dvd or rent it if you want to refute the post made by Dave....

Sorry found another one Duane...sheesh

You now say:

..."post exactly what Gene Krantz said about his relief over Armstrong landing the LM on the 'moon' , when he couldn't land in the sims without crashing it ..."

So you now contend that Armstrong NEVER landed the LM during ANY of the sims? Quite a statement Duane. Please back it up with some facts.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig ... If I am really so uninformed and "in over my head" about Apollo, then why do you spend so much time trying to refute every word I post here ? ... That's what I meant when I said that I have your number ... People who protest too much always give the game away ...

I did say launch and admitted my mistake , so what's the big deal ? ... Saying that I am dishonest is just psychological projection , as it would be you who argue everything on this forum in a completely dishonest manner .

Steve ... You being speechless is a blessing !

Oh and speaking of dishonesty , taking someone's quote out of context would fall into that catagory .... Neither you or Craig can 'win' this argument , so you both constantly lower yourselves to constant insults towards me ... You think by taking my words out of context now that you can make me look dishonest , when all I did was to make the mistake of including launch in with the faked landing .

I also admitted that I didn't have a direct quote from Krantz but was coming as close to it from my memory of what he said ..... Saying launch and landing was incorrect , as it was only the landing that Krantz was speaking of in the documentary .... Of course mission control could see that the launch was real ... We could all see that ....

But the bottom line still remains the same .... Gene Krantz admitting that neither he nor any other controller in mission control could discern the difference between a real landing from a simulated one ....

Both of you can continue to spin this subject all you like ... But your constant need to shoot the messenger for delivering a message you just don't happen to like is so pathetically transparent .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

You are intentionly confusing the issue now by quoting my posts ...

<snip>

:)

I'm speechless!

Duane-

Finally figured out what to say-

I'm not taking your quote out of context - By posting it alone I'm simply highlighting it. Why do you get so offended when someone correctly quotes you.

If Craig was confusing the issue by directly quoting you, I guess that's proof that you have no clue about the subject. It's not our fault that your own words make you sound like a fool. Obviously, you cannot discuss the issue in a cogent manner. That is not a personal attack, your inconsistent arguments reveal that you do not have the knowledge necessary to discuss the subject.

I am not “shooting the messenger”, I’m simply pointing out that your arguments are inconsistent and weak. Whether you like it or not, how and what someone post shows how knowledgeable they are in any given subject. If the story keeps changing, it only shows that the person making the argument doesn’t have a firm grasp of the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig ... If I am really so uninformed and "in over my head" about Apollo, then why do you spend so much time trying to refute every word I post here ? ... That's what I meant when I said that I have your number ... People who protest too much always give the game away ...

LMAO! Why? Why not? You are a target rich environment....sport shooting if you will.

And talk about protesting too much...you have gotten your tit in a wringer big time with your posts and the quotes "not out of context" prove it. Be a man and simply accept that you are clueless. Or continue to "protest" LOL!

Thanks for "giving the game away" Duane.

Oh and there you go again:

"If I am really so uninformed and "in over my head" about Apollo, then why do you spend so much time trying to refute every word I post here ?"

Every word? Not by a long shot! Your words matter Duane. Next time tell the truth, or I'll catch you again! Bang Bang.

added on edit:

Sorry I missed this one, you really outdid yourself today!:

"Saying that I am dishonest is just psychological projection , as it would be you who argue everything on this forum in a completely dishonest manner ."

EVERYTHING I ARGUE ON THIS FORUM IS DONE IN A COMPLETELY DISHONEST MANNER? Can you back that up or is this just MORE of Duanes standard BS? Of course it is BS! Bang Bang!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in all fairness Craig , I did tell the truth in what really matters ....

GENE KRANTZ COULDN'T DISCERN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL LANDING FROM A SIMULATED ONE ! .. and that little tid bit of information just won't go away , will it boys ? LOL

Hey the news is on right now and guess what kids ? ... nasa plans to 'return' to the moon in the year 2020 !!! .... How many years away is that ??? ... 14 !!

And we are suppossed to believe that nasa landed men on the moon 37 years ago and acomplished that amazing little feat in just 8 short years using antiquated 1969 technology !?!? .... LMAO is right !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...