Moon Landing

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Chances are, also, that astronauts would have been breifed on various report codes for unexpected event scenarios.

According to NASA or according to you?

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Chances are, also, that astronauts would have been breifed on various report codes for unexpected event scenarios.

Back in '69 the only practical method was 'voice delivery' back to mission control, so a vocal expression it would be, in such an event.
Sure we had three seperate pilots send unidendified flying object IAA reports just last week off Kerry.

You have zero proof of the codes scenario other than some bizarre hypothesis. And why use such a stupid and easily decoded word by conspiracists like Santa Claus? Surely for secret codes like this something benign like, I don't know say "PZT is set to green" or something that wouldn't be so obvious. Or you know just wait until they return to earth 2 days later and get debriefed???

Or maybe... Just maybe some one made a joke about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve...

Just to be clear accumulator, when the astronauts were talking about their farts and turds on the mission, was this code also?

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Who knows 100% for sure, only yourself, and no one else.

Wait, so you actually think it's possible that when they were talking about farming and a turd floating around the capsule, they were in fact talking about aliens...?
Lol.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Again only you know for sure.

Your 'expert opinion' regarding the possibility or facility of using any vocal coded messages (the santa claus reference) for unexpected events, when voice delivery was the only realistic inbound communication method in '68/69 is all that matters here.

So then when they were referring to farts and turds, what do you think they were actually talking about, since you've cracked their code?

And I don't claim to be an expert, I can just see why the suggestion that "Santa Claus means aliens" is ridiculous and silly and a bit childish.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

A double distraction, very good.
Something about farts, turds or something? How silly and childish indeed, from you.

The astronauts talked about farting and about a turd floating in the capsule.
That's simply a fact.

When I pointed this out, you suggested that this was also part of the secret code you've figured out.
Not sure why you're whining about me drawing attention to how ridiculous that is.

So when they were referring to turds and farts, what were they actually referring to?
Or is it the case they were actually referring to turds and farts?
If so, then how do you know that that isn't part of the secret code, but santa Claus is?

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

And again, direct avoidance of the big grown-ups question..

King Mob wrote: »

So, what's more probable? Please answer directly and honestly.
Giant silly conspiracy that lasts decades?
Or
Dude made a joke?

Answer that question honestly and directly, then maybe I will address my beliefs in aliens.
Otherwise, it's just you avoiding on topic questions with off topic rants.

But we both know what the answer is. And we both know why you won't answer it.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Have already addressed the question and stated it's:
i) 'probable' that there was the facility for coded vocal messages. In '68 from space, vocal radio transmission was the only practical method of communication.

ii) And that's it's very 'possible' but not certain, that they may have seen something 'unexplained' (as which happens frequently with airline pilots here, who file public and/or confidential reports).

You on the other hand pre-conclude it's:
i) 'impossible' that they would have seen anything unidentified,
and ii) that would have been 'impossilbe' to report it, if they did.

But that's not an answer to the question: Which is more likely?
Try again.
Which is more likely:
1. A giant decades long conspiracy to cover up aliens that relies on a secret code that both obvious and easy to decipher.
Or
2. A guy made a joke about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

You have to indicate which of these two scenarios is most likely of the pair.
So please answer by saying "I think X is more likely."
I really can't hold you hand any more than this.

We'll leave aside your grossly dishonest misrepresentations of my position until after you've actually answered the question.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

As presumed, classic repitition and diversion, from the avoidance handbook 101.

Lol, he says after dodge the question for the umpteenth time.

I am not going to address your off topic ranting as:
1. It's off topic.
2. It's bizarre.
3. I don't see much fruit in doing so as you can't answer a simple direct question.

So try again, point to the option that is more likely:
1. A giant decades long conspiracy to cover up aliens that relies on a secret code that both obvious and easy to decipher.
Or
2. A guy made a joke about Santa Claus on Christmas Eve.

Then maybe we can talk.
Otherwise, I'm done.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Lol, he says after dodge the question for the umpteenth time.

I've already answered multiple times, here it is AGAIN:
It's simply as likely as it isn't likely.

So you are suggesting that both scenarios are equally likely?
That's a new idea you have not suggested before. You have not given this answer before, so I'm not sure why you are claiming that you are giving it again.
I'm also not sure how that gels with your original statement that the real explanation, that it was a joke, was not possible.

But you'll have to explain how you see the pair of scenarios as equally likely, when one is a bit more ridiculous than the other...

Honestly, I think it indicates your skewed sense of reality that a vast global conspiracy is as reasonable explanation as "it was a joke."
Previously I thought you were just being outright dishonest.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

You answer to this same is:
It's 'impossible' to have seen anything unusual;
It's 'impossible' to report it even of they did.

Cool, where did I say this?

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Haven't bothered to read, but the full link address on mouse.hover indicates your suggesting some some random luckydip story, vaguely refrencing the moon. And from the world's favourite online taboild, vomited up by a journo student on unpaid work placement.

Uhh ok. It's the source of the story.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What's a "non-god or higher intelligence believer"?

An atheist apparently.

Theodore Wrong Tugboat wrote: »

Can you define 'god' ?

Why should I? My opinion on god(s)/creator/whatever is my own and I have no intention of defining it or justifying it to ANYONE. Just as I respect others' own beliefs and don't demand that they define their opinion.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Just because they weren't whooping and hollering at the press conference people put 2+2 together and come up with, well they obviously must have something to hide. These guys were ex military, trained to within an inch of their lives. Armstrong was infamous for how stoic and unemotional he was.

I remember watching one press conference and Armstrong coming across as very stoic as you say and almost depressed. It was odd. Yet, when you think about it, it would actually be suspicious if he was elated, whooping and hollering.

As an example, remember doing the Leaving Cert? Assuming we wanted to get the top results possible then since starting secondary school it was the ultimate goal. All that time, effort and study over many years all coalesced into what was effectively a week in June. You study, plan and dedicate and then after that one week is over, it's done. You've been so used to always studying, worrying, expending energy planning and then stressing and actually doing the exams you are then suddenly presented with the situation that no longer requires you to take tests, to study, plan or even think about the Leaving Cert anymore. While most will initially be ecstatic when it's finally over, you still have the established routines, habits and schedule as before. They didn't just disappear when you handed in your last paper. It's as if a mild form of depression envelopes you. It's a feeling like you still need to study for something. You see the same in any field of accomplishment e.g. the person training for months and months for a marathon, completing it and then being listless in the weeks after with no goal in mind anymore. There is no more marathon to train for, no more ultimate goal. The post (insert major goal achievement) blues it is labelled.

So scale it all the way up to test pilots training for years, training, planning on such a massive goal, in the public glare, getting to complete the ultimate test flight, become world famous and then when you come home it's all done. What else is there to do? Sit on company boards? Make money? Write a book?
Anything they did thereafter would have come up short of having landed and walked on the moon.

It was literally the essence of coming back down to earth for all of the Apollo astronauts, their overriding attitude being how in the hell can I top that?
If a Leaving Cert student can feel post-LC blues then imagine how they felt.

So when we see Armstrong et al sitting glumly in press conferences talking about Apollo, knowing that their future days are to be spent retelling the achievement and believing their best days are behind them then we shouldn't expect them to be ecstatic. It's this indifference and lack of cheer that feeds the moon hoaxers into exploiting their state of mind to imply they are lying/have something to hide/have guilty consciences etc. The reality is far more human.