Edgar Mitchell on Neil Armstrong X-Conference 2009

During the Q&A Dr Edgar Mitchell comments on Neil Armstrong at The X-Conference 4/18/2009. Thanks for watching i will be uploading more ,Subscribe if your interested. Check out my rare video store on youtube at Stone Circle Video

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Astronaut
• Edgar
• Mitchell
• on
• Neil
• Armstrong
• X-Conference
• 2009
• ufos
• ets
• apollo
• science
• aliens
• moon

[johndownunder]

Dr Mitchell a man of real character.

[Abdulrahman711]

this is amazing...

[Betamax101]

@Cosmored The emphasis on the words "keep" and "post it" !

I delete it because it is spam. You are a serial spammer who makes no effort to debate. You just spammed that link here. You are a sick individual.

watch?v=52dNmDFvxew

People should go to that thread and read through it. Especially post 43, demonstrating how much of a jerk you are, avoiding debate at all costs.

[Cosmored]

@Betamax101

Why do you keep deleting this link from the comment section of your videos when I post it?

politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo­-moon-missions-were-faked-stud­io (dot) html

Is it because you destroyed your credibility in post #43?

[Betamax101]

@Cosmored Yes. my_playlists?p=5B072595E7EC721­0 Occam's razor says it is impossible to move something with air from more than a few inches away. It says flags don't oscillate like that on Earth with air. It says the duration of the movement is way beyond normal motion. It says cameras with triple wheel colour capture and a purpose built CRT are prone to ballooning effects. It also says that you are a spamming imbecile.

debunking-a-moron DOT blogspot DOT com

Enjoy.

[Cosmored]

@wahaya2

"There is a synoptic test known as 'Occam's razor"

Can you make the evidence in this clip go away with Occam's razor?

/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y

[wahaya2]

@Cosmored There is a synoptic test known as 'Occam's razor' - in essence, one eliminates successive hypotheses until you arrive at the most likely, or most succint one - the one that requires the least assumptions to be made. It's like the old idea of the earth at the centre of the universe - technically possible, but then the explanations for the apparent motion of the celestial bodies become so complicated that one must inevitably conclude the idea is wrong.The same applies here to some extent

[wahaya2]

@Cosmored But the fact that there are six of them, each right next to a lunar module descent stage, which has been imaged from orbit? They would have had to land them separately if the lunar module wasn't manned, and that sort of accuracy in landings was not possible in the 60s.

You talk a lot about possibility. It is theoretically possible that NASA faked everything, but it is ALSO possible that man has walked on the moon. Given the strength of the evidence, the latter seems more plausible.

[Cosmored]

@wahaya2

"but is there any proof they were?"

The fact that it's possible means that reflectors on the moon are not proof that there were people on the moon.

s125 (dot) photobucket (dot) com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?a­ction=view&current=Roverplants­reflector (dot) mp4