RE: The moon landing.

RE: The moon landing. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 1:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilmissdefiant quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: stef Your "owner" is an idiot. He is not an idiot, he's just 'a few clowns short of a full circus!' Ok, let me say that, Back off on my Owner, he has his right to his own opinion. My Question is, who else believes the moon landing was faked? Your "owner"does indeed have a right to his own opinion. Unfortunately for him,and you,this isn't a matter of opinion. We did,in fact,land on the moon....and your "owner" is an idiot.

Fellow -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 1:10:59 PM)
quote: Oh please do tell us. I am eager to learn them, although admittedly skeptical. It is not the topic here. I am sure the topic has been thoroughly discussed here in the past.

crazyml -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 1:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I am sure the topic has been thoroughly discussed here in the past. If by "thoroughly discussed" you mean "taken out back, ass fucked then kicked-the-shit-out-of" then, yeppers.

crazyml -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 1:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilmissdefiant Ok, let me say that, Back off on my Owner, he has his right to his own opinion. My Question is, who else believes the moon landing was faked? Of course he has a right to his own opinion. Just as Mad Jack McLaverty has a right to believe that the aliens abducted him. You've a right to believe anything in a free society. That's what makes it so fucking awesome. Now, I elect to exercise that beautiful right by believing that anyone who believes the horseshit conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked is an idiotic jackass. Are we ok now?

vincentML -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 1:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: Oh please do tell us. I am eager to learn them, although admittedly skeptical. It is not the topic here. I am sure the topic has been thoroughly discussed here in the past. The only ones I am aware of are: 1. creationism 2. intelligent design aka creationism 3. alien visitations aka creationism

DomKen -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 2:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: Oh please do tell us. I am eager to learn them, although admittedly skeptical. It is not the topic here. I am sure the topic has been thoroughly discussed here in the past. If you think you have evidence in favor of creationism please present the best evidence. Once I'm done crushing that we can move on to the second best and so on until you either run away or change your beliefs.

PeonForHer -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 3:03:31 PM)
I remember watching a programme about this a while ago. If memory serves, there were various bits of evidence cited: that there was no way of preventing radiation from the sun from killing the astronauts and neither their suits nor the shell of the Apollo modules would have protected them; that the wrong reflections were shown in the visors of the astronauts in the photos; that the light falling on the moon in said photos was wrong . . . . There were sneaky allusions to the conspiracy in the Bond film Diamonds Are Forever - a perfect mock-up, complete with Moon's surface, in which some of the action took place. I also saw an interview with Neil Armstrong in which he was asked about this conspiracy. The man nearly got up and punched the interviewer, he was so apoplectic. But I'm afraid what clinches it for me - as a non-conspiracy - is the idea of such a vast, complicated scheme being set up in the hope that a) nobody in the know would ever leak the info and therefore cause the USA perhaps the greatest embarrassment it had ever suffered and b) no-one in any other part of the world - particularly the USSR and China - would have the means to be able to establish for themselves that a rocket had not, in fact, left the Earth, gone to the Moon, dropped a lunar module onto it, then broadcast radio messages from there. (Hell, didn't they even have the technology to pinpoint the source of a radio signal as far back as WW2? That was how spies were caught . . . .)

Aylee -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 3:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilmissdefiant quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: stef Your "owner" is an idiot. He is not an idiot, he's just 'a few clowns short of a full circus!' Ok, let me say that, Back off on my Owner, he has his right to his own opinion. My Question is, who else believes the moon landing was faked? Only the Apollo 18 one.

DomKen -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 4:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer b) no-one in any other part of the world - particularly the USSR and China - would have the means to be able to establish for themselves that a rocket had not, in fact, left the Earth, gone to the Moon, dropped a lunar module onto it, then broadcast radio messages from there. (Hell, didn't they even have the technology to pinpoint the source of a radio signal as far back as WW2? That was how spies were caught . . . .) HAM radio operators listened in to the chatter between Houston and the Apollo capsules. That required aiming an antenna at the right spot in the sky and that orbital track was only possible if a craft was making the transit to the Moon. It is just one of many pieces of incontravertible evidence that several Apollo missions went to the Moon.

Politesub53 -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 4:51:31 PM)
Maybe one of the worlds greatest technological achievements. Space travel manned and unmanned, had already become reasonably common but landing a man on the moon was something special.

PeonForHer -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 5:03:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer b) no-one in any other part of the world - particularly the USSR and China - would have the means to be able to establish for themselves that a rocket had not, in fact, left the Earth, gone to the Moon, dropped a lunar module onto it, then broadcast radio messages from there. (Hell, didn't they even have the technology to pinpoint the source of a radio signal as far back as WW2? That was how spies were caught . . . .) HAM radio operators listened in to the chatter between Houston and the Apollo capsules. That required aiming an antenna at the right spot in the sky and that orbital track was only possible if a craft was making the transit to the Moon. It is just one of many pieces of incontravertible evidence that several Apollo missions went to the Moon. That's kind of what I thought. In WW2, all it would take to locate a spy broadcasting a message by radio in Nazi occupied Europe was two mobile radio receivers. They could then triangulate and fix the source of the baddie Allied signaller. But the tech knowledge here, for me, is secondary. Political science is my particular bag. From this I know that you do not set up such a huge scheme because somewhere the truth is going to get known. The powers-that-be would like to think that they're that clever, and in some ways they'd like us to believe that they're that clever, but they know that they're not. They fuck up, and very badly too, and they're generally pretty clear about that fact. No. No president - not even one both highly tricksy but very stupid - would sanction a fake Moon landing - not even on the American people, never mind the rest of the world. Far, far too much respect to be lost if found out. Can you imagine it? The USA would - seriously - end up looking like the silliest bullshitter in the entire history of humankind.

Fellow -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 7:34:36 PM)
quote: If you think you have evidence in favor of creationism please present the best evidence. Once I'm done crushing that we can move on to the second best and so on until you either run away or change your beliefs. Hopefully you agree our understanding about the structure of the Universe is a theory. You may believe the man in the wheelchair, but there are other theories around. Holographic Universe theories, consciousness-based and such leave lot of room for creationism as the information becomes primary to the projections. I do not claim having thought these things through myself though. Bible vs. Biology primitive discussion what we often see does not have much value.

DomKen -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 8:09:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: If you think you have evidence in favor of creationism please present the best evidence. Once I'm done crushing that we can move on to the second best and so on until you either run away or change your beliefs. Hopefully you agree our understanding about the structure of the Universe is a theory. You may believe the man in the wheelchair, but there are other theories around. Holographic Universe theories, consciousness-based and such leave lot of room for creationism as the information becomes primary to the projections. I do not claim having thought these things through myself though. Bible vs. Biology primitive discussion what we often see does not have much value. I don't care about scpeculation. I care about evidence. There is none for creationism and so much against it that it is safe to say it didn't happen.

littlewonder -> RE: The moon landing. (10/1/2012 10:30:50 PM)
Just sayin'

graceadieu -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 12:35:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lilmissdefiant Ok, let me say that, Back off on my Owner, he has his right to his own opinion. Sure, he does. He also has the right to believe that the world is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, and Elvis got abducted by aliens. They're all about as likely as the Apollo program being faked.

graceadieu -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 12:42:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Furthermore the Japanesse lunar orbiter took very good pictures of the Apollo 15 site in 2008. Also, a couple of the Apollo missions left reflective arrays on the moon. By bouncing laser beams off of the reflective arrays, scientists were able to measure the distance to the moon with total accuracy. We knew generally how far away it was before that, but because of the reflectors the astronauts left on the moon when they went there we can now measure the distance down to like an inch. ETA: Also, if the missions were fake, what the hell did they do with all that fuel? They had enough to get to the moon. Did they just go up and go around in space for a week to use it all up, without bothering to go the moon? Or are they saying that there never was a launch and all the people in Florida were just paid off to lie about it?

tazzygirl -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 1:10:54 AM)
quote: Ok, let me say that, Back off on my Owner, he has his right to his own opinion He has every right to his opinion. I have every right to mine. My opinion is, he opinion is idiotic.

GotSteel -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 5:05:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM Clearly one group relies on statistical reasoning whereas the other rejects statistical reasoning. quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM See my previous post. Since skeptics and conspiracy theory enthusiasts belong to the same genus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that some of the psychoanalytic theory concerning conspiracy theory enthusiasts also apply to skeptics. Yeah....you can't do that. Check the quote from your previous post that says it all. You're talking about two groups that are polar opposites when it comes to thinking. Skeptics are relying upon their rational intellect where as conspiracy theorists are intuitively misapplying their paranoia or emotional insecurities onto events. Because the way these two groups think is so completely different it's ridiculous to try and apply research and theory about one groups method of thinking to the other.

crazyml -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 5:25:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow but there are other theories around. Yes, there are. Most of them are fucking stupid, of course, which is something that, in the interests of clarity, you ought to acknowledge.

GotSteel -> RE: The moon landing. (10/2/2012 12:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I'm getting alarmed at the birthers, creationists, and moon deniers. Seems to be a rise in either the numbers of whackjobs, or else their vocality. I do recall seeing figures that conspiracy theorists are on the rise (though I'm having trouble quickly putting my hands on the source). Thing is they often aren't "whackjobs" at least in the sense of actually being mentally ill. What's going on is that they are reshaping events to validate their feelings of insecurity. As such it feels right to them even though it doesn't make any sense when analyzed rationally.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125