Comments on: Truth

By: Chris Jaquess

Chris Jaquess — Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:28:00 +0000

The only thing that really bothers me about the "proof" that the lunar
landing was a hoax is one glaring contradiction.
Evolutionist Scientist contend that the earth and moon have existed for
billions of years. Thus through the aeons of time the moon travelling
through space would have picked up a lot of space dust. They trully
expected three feet or more of dust on the moon. That is why they built
the landing module with wide feet and long legs. Asimov envisioned the
lunar lander "slowly sinking out of sight into the dust..." When they got
there the dust was only an inch or so thick... Do you think that if it had
been staged, they would have went with popular opinion and built a set
with more 'dust'?

By: Tara

Tara — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:19:00 +0000

sure. actually, my source was a book (can't remember name or author
though, me bad!) which had investigated such “urban legends” - so it does
have more credibility for me than the initial “legend”. Of course, maybe I
should catch one of my chemist friends and have the dosing re-done, that
would be the final word (at least for me).
What I really wanted to say is what this implies for the way the world's
beliefs hold together. Not just an individual, but the whole society.
That's what “scares” me the most.

By: dave c

dave c — Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:35:00 +0000

although I don't know your sources, you realize of course that the stories
surrounding the 'correction' of past mistakes (eg “it all started off when
somebody messed up one decimal in their calculations”), are just as likely
to have survived through repetition, rather than truth, as the original…
ahhh, the urban legend.

By: dave c

dave c — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

although I don’t know your sources, you realize of course that the stories
surrounding the ‘correction’ of past mistakes (eg “it all started off when
somebody messed up one decimal in their calculations”), are just as likely
to have survived through repetition, rather than truth, as the original…
ahhh, the urban legend.

By: Tara

Tara — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

sure. actually, my source was a book (can’t remember name or author
though, me bad!) which had investigated such “urban legends” - so it does
have more credibility for me than the initial “legend”. Of course, maybe I
should catch one of my chemist friends and have the dosing re-done, that
would be the final word (at least for me).
What I really wanted to say is what this implies for the way the world’s
beliefs hold together. Not just an individual, but the whole society.
That’s what “scares” me the most.

By: Chris Jaquess

Chris Jaquess — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The only thing that really bothers me about the “proof” that the lunar
landing was a hoax is one glaring contradiction.
Evolutionist Scientist contend that the earth and moon have existed for
billions of years. Thus through the aeons of time the moon travelling
through space would have picked up a lot of space dust. They trully
expected three feet or more of dust on the moon. That is why they built
the landing module with wide feet and long legs. Asimov envisioned the
lunar lander “slowly sinking out of sight into the dust…” When they got
there the dust was only an inch or so thick… Do you think that if it had
been staged, they would have went with popular opinion and built a set
with more ‘dust’?