styca
|
|
November 06, 2019, 06:16:33 PM |
|
If the moon landing was a hoax then 100% of NASA's workforce would have shouted it to the world back in the 60's and 70's and would be continuing to shout it now. The fact that no scientific groups anywhere in the world dispute the moon landings and the only people who argue this are internet loons shilling for money and attention should be a massive red flag to all of you on the fence.
Exactly the same goes for global warming. I've been on another thread, linking to the report the other day on human-caused climate change signed by 11,000 scientists, and full of evidence... but no, it's not enough. You'll never convince these people with flimsy things like proof...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 06, 2019, 06:24:26 PM |
|
If the moon landing was a hoax then 100% of NASA's workforce would have shouted it to the world back in the 60's and 70's and would be continuing to shout it now. The fact that no scientific groups anywhere in the world dispute the moon landings and the only people who argue this are internet loons shilling for money and attention should be a massive red flag to all of you on the fence.
Exactly the same goes for global warming. I've been on another thread, linking to the report the other day on human-caused climate change signed by 11,000 scientists, and full of evidence... but no, it's not enough. You'll never convince these people with flimsy things like proof... The evidence for NOT landing on the moon has been debunked. The evidence for global warming has been countered sufficiently so that we don't know.
|
|
|
|
notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
November 06, 2019, 07:01:53 PM Last edit: November 07, 2019, 04:17:53 PM by notbatman |
|
^^^ The Apollo 11 lunar lander is made from curtain rods, aluminum foil, tar paper, scotch tape, and BMX bicycle parts. It's a fucking homeless tweeker's shelter and there's no defending that pile of garbage bruh. The Moon landing hoax hasn't aged well, we can zoom in on those high res images today and see the fraud! The Moon is not a solid object it's a light in the sky, a 32 nmi wide disk of electrical plasma. 1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma, landing on it won’t be possible | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/1oCNGcbwxWgImages: NASA
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
November 06, 2019, 09:46:24 PM |
|
...
1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma, landing on it won’t be possible | RetroFocus -- ....
Well, four years later that sciency guy was proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
November 06, 2019, 09:58:04 PM |
|
If the moon landing was a hoax then 100% of NASA's workforce would have shouted it to the world back in the 60's and 70's and would be continuing to shout it now. The fact that no scientific groups anywhere in the world dispute the moon landings and the only people who argue this are internet loons shilling for money and attention should be a massive red flag to all of you on the fence.
Exactly the same goes for global warming. I've been on another thread, linking to the report the other day on human-caused climate change signed by 11,000 scientists, and full of evidence... but no, it's not enough. You'll never convince these people with flimsy things like proof... No, that's really not a "report on human-caused climate change", and it's not "full of evidence." Rather it's a strange and odd bit of advocacy for "social and ecological justice."
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 07, 2019, 02:08:00 AM |
|
The Moon is not a solid object it's a light in the sky, a 32 nmi wide disk of electrical plasma. 1965 scientist claims the moon is plasma, landing on it won’t be possible | RetroFocus -- https://youtu.be/1oCNGcbwxWgHowever, this is different than your early flat earth posts said. When are you going to release for us the complete physics that you base your stuff on? I ask this because your ideas don't work in the face of other physics.
|
|
|
|
notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
November 07, 2019, 03:21:42 AM |
|
...The Apollo 11 lunar lander is made from curtain rods, aluminum foil, tar paper, scotch tape, and BMX bicycle parts. It's a fucking homeless tweeker's shelter and there's no defending that pile of garbage bruh. The Moon landing hoax hasn't aged well, we can zoom in on those high res images today and see the fraud!...
|
|
|
|
styca
|
|
November 07, 2019, 05:39:05 AM |
|
-snip-
I may disagree with everything you've ever written on these Politics and Society threads, but that image is a masterclass in comedy. Thanks. Have a merit. You do realise though that the chimp has his fingers in his ears because of the deafening sound of Apollo 11 launching?
|
|
|
|
notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
November 07, 2019, 03:43:45 PM Last edit: November 07, 2019, 04:04:24 PM by notbatman |
|
If the rocket doesn't blow up mid-flight or isn't just straight up CGI/models, it ends up at the bottom of the Bermuda triangle. The only rockets that aren't "stage magic" are the rockets the military uses to launch giant ultra-high altitude (1000 miles) mylar balloons. I suspect there's a layer of dense/liquid-crystal gas that needs a rocket to penetrate to insert the balloon above, like a tampon dispenser. They tend to prefer twisting and inverting the truth rather than a straight up hoax/lie if at all possible. They love being misleading and having the audience make an assumption and come to some absurd conclusion; it's all about manipulating your perceptions. Black Arrow R4 on display in the Science Museum, with the stages and fairing separated, and the flight spare of the Prospero satellite (satelloon balloon). Image: By Andy Dingley - Author's own photo, CC BY-SA 3.0(((Project Echo))) Image: Public DomainImage: Occult
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 07, 2019, 04:52:45 PM |
|
If the rocket doesn't blow up mid-flight or isn't just straight up CGI/models, it ends up at the bottom of the Bermuda triangle. The only rockets that aren't "stage magic" are the rockets the military uses to launch giant ultra-high altitude (1000 miles) mylar balloons. I suspect there's a layer of dense/liquid-crystal gas that needs a rocket to penetrate to insert the balloon above, like a tampon dispenser. They tend to prefer twisting and inverting the truth rather than a straight up hoax/lie if at all possible. They love being misleading and having the audience make an assumption and come to some absurd conclusion; it's all about manipulating your perceptions. https://i.imgur.com/BXcRM37.jpgBlack Arrow R4 on display in the Science Museum, with the stages and fairing separated, and the flight spare of the Prospero satellite (satelloon balloon). Image: By Andy Dingley - Author's own photo, CC BY-SA 3.0https://i.imgur.com/CcdHfGw.jpg(((Project Echo))) Image: Public Domainhttps://i.imgur.com/crpado9.jpgImage: OccultHey, man, if you would foramlize your religion as a 501-c-3 religion, you could probably get all kinds of kickbacks from government and the IRS.
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
November 07, 2019, 04:57:50 PM |
|
If the rocket doesn't blow up mid-flight or isn't just straight up CGI/models, ....
In reality, the world wide rocket launch schedule is published and well known for years into the future. https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/launch-schedule/
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 07, 2019, 11:25:20 PM |
|
Besides, the rocket blow-ups of the past have been clearly and widely documented. The documentation shows that rockets were gradually improved so that they barely ever blow up any longer.
|
|
|
|
styca
|
|
November 10, 2019, 06:01:51 AM |
|
Maybe the moon landing is fake after all. The more I look at the photos, the more I can see they don't quite look real. Seriously though, every argument that we didn't land there has been thoroughly debunked. The only reason to think it's fake is a love of conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 10, 2019, 01:46:57 PM |
|
^^^ Again, would you show everyone in the world the actual photos of something like a moon landing while you were doing it? 1. It's top secret. 2. If there were a chance for failure... why show it until there is certainty? And then it is too late to change the movies. 3. The actual filming is private property even if it is government funded. 4. A camera in space with tech from '69 isn't going to show anything clearly.
|
|
|
|
styca
|
|
November 10, 2019, 01:51:57 PM |
|
There was a chance of failure, and yet the US didn't suddenly announce oh by the way we've gone to the moon and here's the proof. Kennedy spent most of the '60s banging on about it from the "We choose to go to the Moon" speech onwards... when obviously there was a huge chance it wouldn't work. The government spent huge amounts of money trying to reduce the risk of failure, and it worked, the moon landing happened. A phenomenal achievement. If they realised during the '60s that it would fail, they couldn't really say with any credibility: actually we've spent vast sums of money on this but you know, we're not going to bother. Once that first speech happened, it was in public, succeed or fail.
|
|
|
|
notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
November 10, 2019, 01:59:18 PM Last edit: November 10, 2019, 02:19:46 PM by notbatman |
|
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 1368
|
|
November 10, 2019, 02:00:42 PM |
|
There was a chance of failure, and yet the US didn't suddenly announce oh by the way we've gone to the moon and here's the proof. Kennedy spent most of the '60s banging on about it from the "We choose to go to the Moon" speech onwards... when obviously there was a huge chance it wouldn't work. The government spent huge amounts of money trying to reduce the risk of failure, and it worked, the moon landing happened. A phenomenal achievement. If they realised during the '60s that it would fail, they couldn't really say with any credibility: actually we've spent vast sums of money on this but you know, we're not going to bother. Once that first speech happened, it was in public, succeed or fail.
Yes, it happened. But the films that were made public while it was happening, aren't necessarily the actual films of it being done. Or do you have some inside info somehow?
|
|
|
|
styca
|
|
November 10, 2019, 02:05:58 PM |
|
There was a chance of failure, and yet the US didn't suddenly announce oh by the way we've gone to the moon and here's the proof. Kennedy spent most of the '60s banging on about it from the "We choose to go to the Moon" speech onwards... when obviously there was a huge chance it wouldn't work. The government spent huge amounts of money trying to reduce the risk of failure, and it worked, the moon landing happened. A phenomenal achievement. If they realised during the '60s that it would fail, they couldn't really say with any credibility: actually we've spent vast sums of money on this but you know, we're not going to bother. Once that first speech happened, it was in public, succeed or fail.
Yes, it happened. But the films that were made public while it was happening, aren't necessarily the actual films of it being done. Or do you have some inside info somehow? I'll concede that they aren't necessarily at-the-time films. It would be a sensible insurance policy to cover themselves and only show the event after it had already happened.
|
|
|
|
Spendulus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386
|
|
November 10, 2019, 02:44:58 PM |
|
There was a chance of failure, and yet the US didn't suddenly announce oh by the way we've gone to the moon and here's the proof. Kennedy spent most of the '60s banging on about it from the "We choose to go to the Moon" speech onwards... when obviously there was a huge chance it wouldn't work. The government spent huge amounts of money trying to reduce the risk of failure, and it worked, the moon landing happened. A phenomenal achievement. If they realised during the '60s that it would fail, they couldn't really say with any credibility: actually we've spent vast sums of money on this but you know, we're not going to bother. Once that first speech happened, it was in public, succeed or fail.
Yes, it happened. But the films that were made public while it was happening, aren't necessarily the actual films of it being done. Or do you have some inside info somehow? I'll concede that they aren't necessarily at-the-time films. It would be a sensible insurance policy to cover themselves and only show the event after it had already happened. Real time TV cameras were taken on the Apollo missions, but the vast majority and all the high quality work was film, and was developed only after return to Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera
|
|
|
|
notbatman
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
|
|
November 10, 2019, 03:40:00 PM Last edit: November 10, 2019, 04:23:31 PM by notbatman |
|
|
|
|
|
|