Was the landing on the moon a fake?

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

Ah, that's the distinction. Very good, 2009AD. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment. But I have to thank deee for the moment of Zen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.

Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippifried

Actually, Mr Big made it to the moon first.

Here's photographic proof of the launch.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image....L._AA280_.jpg

You mean the Moon belongs to the communists!!!!

Of course not. The moon belongs to Gidney & Cloyd. If Armstrong had actually taken that step, he would've gotten scrootched for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

Quote:

Originally Posted by SarahG

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.

Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a
single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Was called the United States of America when Hansen was elected

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Ah, that's the distinction. Very good, 2009AD. Thanks for the moment of enlightenment. But I have to thank deee for the moment of Zen.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Even if we go with Sarah G's argument, his point about president of congress is completely wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

The claim is John(? not sure about the first name) Hanson. However he wasn't the first president. He was only the first president of the U.S. not recognized under the Constitution. Seymour the the first president of anything ever.

John Hanson was not President of the United States.

lol which eliminates you from this discussion

No, it means you don't understand that "President of the CONGRESS" and "President of the United States" are not the same.

We don't do "parliament". The President is NOT a member of Congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

I can't, I'm going to sleep soon. But what do you think your example shows besides the fact that "President of the United States" is an ambiguous phrase? The issue of the Moon Landing doesn't turn on a point of language or misunderstanding based on a definition or an ambiguity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by SarahG

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774, Washington was not president until 1789 should we ignore Randolph who was actually the president in 1774?, Or Hansen who was the first president when they named it the United States of America? John Hancock, who we recognize was actually president twice before George Washington was elected.

Should history begin 15 years after the birth of the county?

Technically that was another country, a collection of allied countries to be precise.

The whole constitutional convention was a blatant violation of the articles of the confederation. Meaning our entire government from the planning of the constitution, to the ratification process, to today, is actually criminal.

The articles were very clear on what the reform processes were to be, our founding fathers disregarded them, and planned a new government from scratch using secret meetings that the public were not included on. Franklin was escorted around by armed guards to make sure he wouldn't accidentally leak the secret meetings to the public. It was an illegal coup!

Before the ratification of the constitution, we were not 1 country but a collection of individual sovereign states. Therego the COUNTRY as a
single unit, starts ~15 years after the birth of our country.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312172/early.html

Was called the United States of America when Hansen was elected

That was the name of the confederation/alliance, that's not quite the same as saying we were all integrated into one big federal government.

"Germany" called itself Germany at times when there was no legal entity of Germany, just a collection of states, kingdoms, and so forth. When our ambassador Gerad was sent to Germany in 1913, "Germany" as a legal entity didn't exist yet, consquently the kings of several German countries like Saxony were quite pissed off at us for not also giving them diplomatic recognition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

So let me get this straight. You're not sure about the reportage of any event for which you weren't present. But you're certain Washington wasn't president until 1789. How do you know there was a year 1789?

Already said that its what is written, told you that i can never tell u its 1oo percent accurate cause i was not there, but we are just being redundant at this point. But its cool but i can go all night

I can't, I'm going to sleep soon. But what do you think your example shows besides the fact that "President of the United States" is an ambiguous phrase? The issue of the Moon Landing doesn't turn on a point of language or misunderstanding based on a definition or an ambiguity.

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

But I'm asking you about your analogy. It doesn't seem to apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

Are you 100% sure? You were not there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,

1774? Where did you go to school?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

But I'm asking you about your analogy. It doesn't seem to apply.

We have argued alot about different things trish, so u should know, i dont do analogies, I gather so called facts than speak on them. Once again I cant definitively say that the moon walk was BS, but u have to agree that u cant definitively say that it actually happened

The link you provided was a YAHOO news, not from NASA. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What do you mean by the original footage? The transmissions were picked up and recorded simultaneously by NASA and many different television stations. So there are many original recordings. So what if NASA lost theirs.

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

But then what was your point of bringing up John Hanson, if it wasn't to point out the epistemic analogy that in both cases you weren't there to observe what went down. My claim is the epistemic parallels breakdown once one realizes the Hanson issue turns on a definition of a word (president) and the Moon Landing issue does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Randolph was president of congress, Hansen was the president of the United states, I already said that and provided a link

Are you 100% sure? You were not there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

yea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,

1774? Where did you go to school?

Are you 100% sure? You were not there. Already said no

ea,but we celebrate the birth of our nation as july 4 1774,[/quote]

Sorry, 1776, but 74 is when randolph was elected

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

But then what was your point of bringing up John Hanson, if it wasn't to point out the epistemic analogy that in both cases you weren't there to observe what went down. My claim is the epistemic parallels breakdown once one realizes the Hanson issue turns on a definition of a word (president) and the Moon Landing issue does not.

I brought that up to point out the fact that what we have been taught to definitively believe does not make it the definitive truth

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

Is my point, in the words of Robert Wuhl, "if legend sounds better than history, teach the legend"
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Quote:

Originally Posted by hippifried

It was all a pool feed through NASA. The TV people weren't picking it up direct.

Probably true. Feed on not, the other films are not copies of copies, they're original copies of the feed. What can one learn from NASA's footage that can't be learned from the others?

My link was from yahoo news from an Rss feed from the associated press.

Huh? My reference was about the original TV coverage of the landing.

Why would sounding better be a better recommendation than truth? That GW was the first president under the constitution is the truth, not legend. That Hansen was first under some other definition of "first president" is also true. No one's has been shown by your arguement to be teaching legend.

The only thing your example shows is that ambiguous phrases can be interpreted different ways. That little lesson, though true, has no relevance to the issue of the Moon Landing. It not as if you and I have different meanings of the "the Apollo 11 Moon Landing" and under one interpretation it happened and under another it didn't.

sorry, Hippiefried. my misunderstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

I was taught GW was the first president of the U.S. under the Constitution. So were you. And it's true. By truncating the phrase to "first president" and then reinterpreting it[s] meaning one can argue Hansen was the first president. But that doesn't show we can't be reasonably certain of things. It only shows you can manipulate language.

He was. Prior to 1787, the United States of America wasn't a nation. It was a confederation of independent states. Like the EU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

No, again you need to work on your reading comprehension. You did not understand the AP article, that's obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

Why would sounding better be a better recommendation than truth? That GW was the first president under the constitution is the truth, not legend. That Hansen was first under some other definition of "first president" is also true. No one's has been shown by your arguement to be teaching legend.

The only thing your example shows is that ambiguous phrases can be interpreted different ways. That little lesson, though true, has no relevance to the issue of the Moon Landing. It not as if you and I have different meanings of the "the Apollo 11 Moon Landing" and under one interpretation it happened and under another it didn't.

Ok, you were taught GW was the first president of the united states, I dont know about u, but no one said, the first president under our current constitution, they just said first president. That is legend, it sounds better than saying he was the 9th president since the US was established. Moon landing is what we were taught, but as technology gets more advanced this event has always lost footage, lost data, can not reproduce the specs involved, now we have a NASA article talking about how they lost the tapes and required studio reproduction. In this case its better for us if we believe the legend that we actually walked on the moon

Quote:

Originally Posted by trish

sorry, Hippiefried. my misunderstanding.

Really? I wouldn't have known it by your answer. I was replying to Deee. There was no Yahoo or RSS or internet in '69. It was live TV, via translator towers. Even cable was in it's infancy & only available in rural areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2009AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by deee757

Once again, I already provided a link that shoes you Nasa admitting that footage you saw is reproduction

You clearly did not understand what you read.

Have u ran out of facts and rebuttals? lol not bad for an ignorant nigger huh? Dont feel bad, i have have three articles published in APA journals.

No, again you need to work on your reading comprehension. You did not understand the AP article, that's obvious.

deee757 understands only what he wants to understand, don't let some minor details like FACTS fool him :wink:

Okay, then you admit, in the Hansen vs GW issue it's just a matter of definition of "first president", but the Moon Landing issue is a matter of evidence. The two are epistemically unrelated.

The footage of the Moon Landing still survives because NASA wasn't the only entity recording the original broadcast. The same is true of the telemetry. The most compelling evidence is the physical evidence. Anyone, if they go to NASA and get the lunar coordinates, can bounce a laser beam off the mirrors that were left at the Apollo 11 site. U.S. used to make measurement every day using those mirrors. Even though[] that program was recently cut, other observatories around the world are still dedicate[d] to using laser ranging to monitor the dynamics of the lunar orbit.

[edits in square brackets]

NASA recorded over their tapes of the landing. Geezle! How bonehead is that? & these are the clowns that are supposed to have pulled off the biggest hoax in histiory with 1969 technology???

Oh BTW: Those were reel to reel tapes. There were no VCRs in '69. I wonder if the people looking for the originals realize that. For christsake, these bozos might be looking for a cassette or a Betamax.

Well that's what the YAHOO news link reported. Who knows if they were taped over, misplaced by the Smithsonian or sitting on the shelf alongside some old Marilyn Chambers porno reels.

Well, I want to get some work done tomorrow morning, so I'm calling it a night. Nice to "see" you Hippiefried. Night everybody. And no deee, my leaving doesn't mean I relinquish my position.