Moon Landing Hoax

  • 59 Replies
  • 29176 Views
?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2007, 05:58:38 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

That the flag was not waving.  Which is why I said motionless...


If so, the flag obviously stopped waving eventually. It did wave at any rate, as evidence and eye-witnesses show - why else would everyone talk about it?


But I suppose you're incapable of observing this for yourself, Engineer, as you already have proved to be incapable of seeing that the horizon bends even though you're a pilot. Forgot, my mistake.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2007, 07:27:17 AM »
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "Xargo"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

That the flag was not waving.  Which is why I said motionless...


If so, the flag obviously stopped waving eventually. It did wave at any rate, as evidence and eye-witnesses show - why else would everyone talk about it?


But I suppose you're incapable of observing this for yourself, Engineer, as you already have proved to be incapable of seeing that the horizon bends even though you're a pilot. Forgot, my mistake.

You are correct.  I am incapable of observing this myself, as I cannot see the flag that was left on the moon from earth, and NASA is not going to take me to the moon to see it anytime soon.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Xargo

  • 670
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2007, 08:16:17 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
You are correct.


Yep.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

?

DrQuak

  • 256
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2007, 04:04:41 AM »
I read that article that was posted at the top of this topic and it was actually quite interesting, especially the one about how the crosshairs are behind the white object. that was always the one "hoax" i could never rationalize.... would never have thought of bleed through.

*

Sanirius

  • 289
  • +0/-0
  • ~rawr~
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2007, 08:07:01 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Sanirius"
Modern shuttles never went further.

They are not designed to.


exactly, so thats why i doubt that the moon landing every happened

Modern aircraft carriers cannot be used to travel underwater.  Does that mean submarines never have?


my point was, that modern-day shuttle flights, never leave orbit.
and never did.
Just a little doubt cuz how did an old piece of junk with less technology in it than in a modernday 20$ walmart watch go 240000 miles.?

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2007, 09:46:46 AM »
Quote from: "Sanirius"

my point was, that modern-day shuttle flights, never leave orbit.
and never did.
Just a little doubt cuz how did an old piece of junk with less technology in it than in a modernday 20$ walmart watch go 240000 miles.?

How did the first submarine travel underwater with no technology, when a modern aircraft carrier with all it's modern technology can't?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Sanirius

  • 289
  • +0/-0
  • ~rawr~
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2007, 09:49:15 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "Sanirius"

my point was, that modern-day shuttle flights, never leave orbit.
and never did.
Just a little doubt cuz how did an old piece of junk with less technology in it than in a modernday 20$ walmart watch go 240000 miles.?

How did the first submarine travel underwater with no technology, when a modern aircraft carrier with all it's modern technology can't?


i get ur point! plz get mine!
An aircraft carrier isnt designed to go underwater, while the apollo was designed to go into space! and it did! it just never left orbit!

?

DrQuak

  • 256
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2007, 12:09:29 PM »
well ok how about a less glaring difference, the 1964 SR71 Blackbird flew at Mach 3, the 2006 Airbus A380 flies at just below mach 1 (mach 0.85), the 2004 F-22 Raptor flies at around mach 2.5

The Harrier jump jet is capable of taking off vertically, however the first generation Harrier is  
Quote
an old piece of junk
compared to the F-22 Raptor

?

Fridge

  • 24
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2007, 05:54:51 PM »
Quote from: "Sanirius"
u couldnt get passed the van Allen belts anyway, might damage health or kill. The Van Allen belts are solar winds that are trapped by earths magnetic field at aproximatly 400 miles height. Modern shuttles never went further. How the frak did those old ships go like 250000 miles to the moon?
Maybe its true, but i sure have my doubts


Actually, its a common misconception. The Van Allen belts arent anywhere as strong as people who believe in a fake moon landing claim it to be. You also have to remember that they went through these belts at quite a speed.

The time it would take to get radiation sickness in those belts is measured in weeks, not minutes. And conisdering these strengths, we can also conclude that the (fairly poorly) sheilded spacecraft that they were in was ample protection from these winds
ts Fucking Round

?

sodapop112

  • 264
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2007, 07:20:38 PM »
Quote
Just a little doubt cuz how did an old piece of junk with less technology in it than in a modernday 20$ walmart watch go 240000 miles.?


i agree my watch can fly to the moon gather moon rock samples and fly back.
he kinds of equations that they have now are the kinds of equations you would get in an approximation scheme to some underlying theory, but nobody knows what the underlying theory is.

discover magazine

*

Sanirius

  • 289
  • +0/-0
  • ~rawr~
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2007, 10:40:22 PM »
oh thats what i thought

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Re: Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2007, 06:49:57 AM »
Quote from: "Orange"
I find it difficult to understand how some of you refuse to believe in the moon landing. I therefore provide the following link to enlighten you:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm
The man (Keith Mayes) is very intelligent and resourceful man, and you can look at this site here. He attempts to debunk unproved theories with logic and science, and in most cases is successful. I suggest that you take the time to look at the above link, or check out the rest of his site.

The link uses a lot of space to convince people that Moon hoax debunkers are after money.  It specifically names Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel.  As far as the leader of the Moon hoax exposers, the facts of Bill Kaysing's life are completely opposite to this assertion.  Kaysing dedicated his life to helping the homeless and unfortunate as you can judge by some of the books he wrote (other than his 1975 classic 'We Never Went to the Moon') deal with getting out of the rat race, affordable homesteading, eating good meals for 99 cents-a-day, et cetera and feature in multiple self-help and survival catalogs.  He operated the Holy Terra Press which distributed such publications to homeless, Vietnam veterans, and others in California and elsewhere.  He ended his days living by choice an ascetic life in a trailer without electricity.  

The link also states that Kaysing's material is pure garbage.  I have Kaysing's book, and I have seen video interviews of him, one of the privately produced ones by an objective third party as well as the FOX network documentary of about four years ago (which played a significant part in popularizing the controversy) which included interviews of Kaysing, and Kaysing was approachable and well informed in all these interviews.  He knew very well what he talked about.

Your link is a prejudiced and misinformed slander.

Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2007, 06:12:54 PM »
can someone explain to me why the moon looks 3d bc the sun shining on it at an angle. i cant wait to see what kind of answers you ppl will give me. also, what supports the moon? is it one of the elephants friends or a hippo perhaps? please fill me in

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2007, 07:50:05 AM »
Quote from: "m4a1_assassin"
3d bc

I am sorry in the event that it should have been obvious, but what does this mean?
Quote from: "m4a1_assassin"
What supports the moon?

An angel both supports the Moon and guides its course.  This is also true with reference to the Sun and stars.

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • +0/-0
  • Rabble rabble rabble
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2007, 08:33:27 AM »
Quote from: "Areopagite"
Quote from: "m4a1_assassin"
3d bc

I am sorry in the event that it should have been obvious, but what does this mean?

bc = because

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #45 on: February 01, 2007, 08:45:06 AM »
Quote from: "m4a1_assassin"
can someone explain to me why the moon looks 3d bc the sun shining on it at an angle.

In spite of John 'Lofty' Wiseman's assertion to the contrary, the lighted portion of the Moon does not always face the Sun.  
Also, many a lunar eclıpse has occured while the Sun and Moon were both visible in the Sky at the same time.  In other words, the Moon was not in the Earth's alleged shadow during these eclipses.

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #46 on: February 01, 2007, 08:45:18 AM »
seriously? people still believe this bullshit about the moon landings being fake? What experts endorse the evidence?



0


zero.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2007, 09:04:27 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
seriously? people still believe this bullshit about the moon landings being fake? What experts endorse the evidence?

The following is only a partial listing:

The classic expose of the Apollo moon travel hoax is 'We Never Went to the Moon' by Bill Kaysing (1975). Bill Kaysing worked for the "space" program (specifically SECRET security clearance level work for the Rocketdyne Corporation) back in the 1950's and 1960's, and he was a well informed authority on the subject having studied it for decades. The following website distributes many older books and videos debunking the space hoax by Bill Kaysing and others including 'We Never Went to the Moon' (1975 and subsequent editions) by Bill Kaysing, informative interviews of Bill Kaysing, official NASA "space" videos including all of the Apollo videos and several relevant contemporaneous NASA publications. This website along with David Percy's website listed below are the best two websites debunking NASA's Apollo Moon travel hoax that we have come across:
http://www.weirdvideos.com/index2.html

The following link is a synopsis of the case debunking the moon landing hoax by the late Bill Kaysing (1922-2005):
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/moon.html

Bill Kaysing's expose of the Moon landing hoax was first published by Eden Press in 1975, and the Moon landing hoax has not been repeated since. NASA stopped producing Apollo video movies depicting alleged interstellar travel to the Moon after 1974.

'Capricorn One,' written and directed by Peter Hyams (an associate of Arthur Clarke who collaborated with him for the movie 2010), is a 1978 movie starring Elliott Gould and O.J. Simpson about a faked mission to the Moon. 'Capricorn One' is also available through the aforementioned website:
http://www.weirdvideos.com/index2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

'Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers' by British authors David Percy and Mary Bennett is the most comprehensive expose (well in excess of 500 pages) I have encountered concerning the moon landing hoax. They also produced a two-and-a-half hour documentary movie entitled 'What Happened On the Moon.' The 'Fortean Times' states that David Percy's 1997 'Astro-Nots' article generated more feedback than any other article in the journal's history. David Percy's books and videos can be obtained through the Aulis Publishers website. The website also contains many articles debunking the Apollo program and other space related material by Percy, Bennett, and other writers:
http://www.aulis.com/index.htm

'Dark Moon' can also be obtained through its american publisher:
http://store.adventuresunlimitedpress.com/store.lasso?sub=detail&sid=C1943459A9EA45&item=1245

Bart Sibrel, an american producer, directed the documentary movie 'A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.' The documentary is available through his website which also contains information exposing moon landing propaganda:
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

'Was It Only A Paper Moon?' is a DVD video documentary that debunks the moon landing claims. It can be obtained from the following website which also has articles by James Collier exposing the moon landing fraud:
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/moon/

Ralph Rene's website which includes his book 'NASA Mooned America':
http://www.rene-r.com/

Masonic symbolism used by NASA is also part of the subject of the following essay by a Venezuelan researcher:
http://geocities.com/levelwater/mathlies03.html

Goddard's Journal is a website which has a section exposing the Moon landing hoax:
http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm

An informative article by Byron Lebeau who investigated the other exposes listed here is contained on the MAAR website:
http://www.maar.us/nasa_mooned_us.html

'Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program' by William Brian
www.amazon.com/Moongate-Suppressed-Findings-Space-Program/dp/0941292002

'How America Faked the Moon Landings' by Charles T. Hawkins
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6477886391235654973&q=faked+moon
www.amazon.com/How-America-Faked-Moon-Landings/dp/images/0974940526

'Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?' and
'Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a t-elle menti!'
by Philippe Lheureux
www.world-mysteries.com/nasa1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1399132.stm

Jan Lundberg - Hasselblad technician

Howard McCurdy - American University space historian

Jack White - American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy

Marcus Allen - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."

'Did We Go?' documentary directed by Aron Ranen and produced by Benjamin Britton
www.moonhoax.com

Clyde Lewis - Ground Zero Radio
www.clydelewis.com

Dr. David Groves - (who works for Quantech Image Processing) and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following sites of interest have already been posted courtesy of "Goodfriend." They are reposted here with the objetive of consolidating the space hoax resources in one post:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://batesmotel.8m.com/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is a synopsis of the controversy over the existence of Moon travel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'How the CIA Manufactures History'

A study of how false history is manufactured and propagated by the US Central Intellignce Agency has been written by former agent Victor Marchetti (author of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, 1973):
www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/9/3/Marchetti305-320.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of the hoax, the following sites endorse the moon landing propaganda:

As can be inferred from its name, the website of Phil Plait, the most prominent of this lot of NASA apologists, consists of unsubstantiated claims, faulty logic, and generally all around "bad astronomy":
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Other defenders of the fantasy of Moon travel:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list45245

The Project Apollo Archive sells the NASA Apollo videos:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/

Last and certainly least is NASA's official website:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html?skipIntro=1

---------------------------------------------

Prevention of Exposure

Lieutenant Colonel Virgil "Gus" Grissom, USAF was the leader of the crew of Apollo 1 that burned on the launch pad at Cape Kennedy in 1967 killing all three astronauts. Bill Kaysing has stated that Grissom had major misgivings about the "space program" and has even stated that Grissom was murdered to prevent him from exposing the entire "space" farce. Both Kaysing and Grissom's son Scott Grissom, a pilot like his father, have requested investigation into the Apollo I tragedy claiming that the death of those astronauts was not accidental and that Scott's father was murdered. Investigator Thomas Ronald Barron actually conducted a revealing investigation and compiled a corresponding 500-page Congressional Report back in 1967. He was murdered the same year and the report kept from public view, but Bill Kaysing managed to obtain a 46-page summary of the report from Senator Alan Cranston which deals with the sabotage of Apollo I and which is available through the initial website listed above containing much of the older material exposing the space hoax.

A bound photocopy of the summary of the 1967 US Congress Barron Report on the murder of Gus Grissom and the other Apollo I astronauts is available from the following website:
http://www.weirdvideos.com/index2.html

The following article gives a summary biography of Gus Grissom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Grissom

The following link provides the official Congressional explanation for the cause of the deaths of the Apollo I crew with links to the Accident Review Board Reports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

Partial List of NASA Murders

The following article contains a list of several Apollo personnel and also civilians who mysteriously died often shortly before they were to make publicly known certain facts of which they were privy but which not consistent with official NASA propaganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2007, 09:28:26 AM »
quoting wikipedia, i usually don't but i figured for the kind of information i was seeking it didn't matter.

Quote
...Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Southern California...


English, really. This made him qualified to run a fast-food franchise or be someone's secretary.

Quote
Kaysing was the company's head of technical publications but was not trained as an engineer or scientist. Kaysing's critics believe that Kaysing lacked the technical knowledge to make an informed opinion, and have denounced his conclusions.


Without formal training in advanced physics or engineering we are supposed to take his opinion seriously?

David Percy and Mary Bennett, a producer and a professor of Classics. Also, not people I would trust on matters of engineering and science.

Bart Sibrel, an amateur filmmaker and stalker.

James Collier, a fundamentalist politician.

Ralph Rene, an inventor with no college education or formal education in physics or engineering.

Jan Lundberg, a left-wing activist.

Howard McCurdy, a politician and microbiologist.

The list of un-qualified personnel goes on and on. Any physicists or specialist engineers with a background in developing spacecraft on that list? nope.

All of their arguments are easily explained away by people with even an iota of understanding about physics and common sense. They prey on people that lack this to propagate their falsehoods and pseudoscience. Why? It's the only way for them to get their 15 minutes of fame of course.

Also that Erols link you gave ( http://users.erols.com/igoddard/moon01.htm ) refutes many of the moon hoaxers claims.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2007, 11:34:20 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote
Kaysing's critics ... have denounced his conclusions.

Wow, thanks for giving us the inside on that one.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Without formal training in advanced physics or engineering we are supposed to take his opinion seriously?

Yes, unless you want to receive only the opinions of a small (compared to the whole) and especially biased and brainwashed segment of this controversy.

  Kaysing did work for Rocketdyne Corporation which has long been one of the principle companies in the "space" program.  Much more importantly he investigated this subject for several decades.

Quote from: "troubadour"
David Percy and Mary Bennett, a producer and a professor of Classics. Also, not people I would trust on matters of engineering and science.

If you ever desire acquaintance with the more informed of your opposition, then your ignorance of Percy's book will keep you in the dark becaue it is rather well researched.  I have most of the books referenced above (the French researcher's is the main one I have not got due to its recent publication), and I would say the classicist Percy's book is the single most informative of them all.  It is with delight that I recall that I once knew an old (jesuit) university history professor who said that until one has studied the classics, they do not even begin to understand history.  

Quote from: "troubadour"
Bart Sibrel, an amateur filmmaker and stalker

His documentary is professionally produced (available on DVD, VHS, etc.), informative, and widely quoted.  Bart Sibrel is usually one of the first people mentioned by both friend and foe as a major contributor of knowledge to the Moon landing controversy.  Characterizing him as an amateur is misleading and false.  As to his alleged stalking, I would say that anyone who checks into the facts will find that Buzz Aldrin is too afraid to grant an interview to someone as knowledgeable about his checkered career as Sibrel.  This is aside from the fact that Sibrel could file assault and batter charges against Aldrin if he had so chosen for Aldrin physically attacked Sibrel.  

Quote from: "troubadour"
Ralph Rene, an inventor with no college education or formal education in physics or engineering.

True, but you neglected to mention that he is an atheist who has no motivation for his expose of NASA other than facts such as the blatant photo faking as shown on the first two pages of his book which shows an official NASA photo of the first space walk from a Gemini flight next to a photograph taken two years previously to that in the back of an airplane which are quite obviously the exact same photograph.

In other woprds, the information these people present is genuine, but specially trained people you refer to are trained to ignore contradictions.

Quote from: "troubadour"
people still believe this bullshit about the moon landings being fake?

The reality is the reverse of what you believe.  I have seen the list of people above grow in the last few years, and people like Bill Kaysing are no longer as much a minority as previously.  Moon landing disbelievers have never been an extreme minority like Flat Earth believers.

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2007, 12:35:40 PM »
i'm not talking about motivations, i'm talking about credibility. None of those people actually have credibility. If i had to put a motivation on their efforts it would simply be to become famous for something. If there was a sane and lucid astrophysicist that came out and seconded their claims, then they would have merit. Pretty much all of the reasons they come up with are easily debunked. Such as the odd photo-effects(based on a lack of understanding of the dynamics of photography and light)or the radiation from the Van-Allen belt(based on a lack of understanding of radiation, biology, and the actual strength of the belts).

Pretty much all pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are based on bad science. Educate yourself. Then come back.

Try http://www.badastronomy.com/  for a start.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2007, 12:28:57 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
None of those people actually have credibility.

Wrong, they are credıble.  One does not have to belong to an exclusive club to know the truth about this.  Beliefs about travel to the Moon are deluded fantasies reguardless of who believes them.  Your belief that universities having a monopoly on the truth is an Orwellian system where only members of a clique are initiated.

  Besides, you neglected to take note of David Groves who does work with NASA photos.  And if you had paid attention to the post, you would have noticed that I am already aware of Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website.  That website has nothing to do with astronomy or reality.  As far as websites such as Bad Astronomy which advance the hoax that men went to the Moon is concerned, the Clavius website mentioned above is at least as dedicated.  If I had taken your side on this issue, I would have mentioned that one rather than Phil Plait.  They are more honest as they at least acknowledge their debt to Arthur C. Clarke (not to mention the author of the unscientific Gregorian calendar).

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2007, 07:18:50 AM »
What I'm saying is that it takes at least a basic 4 year education in Astronomy, Cosmology, Aeronautical Engineering, Mathmatics, or Astrobiology to make claims about advanced issues in their respective fields.


And there are a lot more people that think (and know) we went to the moon. People who's opinions i would respect as they have credibility.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2007, 09:50:36 AM »
Your comments are absurd, but at least your last reply was more civilized than how you began.

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2007, 10:21:56 AM »
Quote from: "Areopagite"
Your comments are absurd, but at least your last reply was more civilized than how you began.


lol i didn't realize you are Dion in disguise, now it all makes sense.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2007, 10:37:39 AM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
lol i didn't realize you are Dion in disguise, now it all makes sense.
Which at least shows that you were not just slinging mud at myself alone.  You are an equal opportunity discriminator.  

Anyway, if a radio debate occurred between a flat Earth believer and a round Earth believer, who would be your top three choices to represent each side?

Also, if a broadcast radio interview of a flat Earth believer or a knowledgeable individual was conducted, who would be your top three choices to be interviewed?

On that note, what ever happened to the proposed beast and Max Fagin debate?

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2007, 10:57:53 AM »
you can't debate science like you can say, politics. You either have evidence and observations to back up your theory, or you don't. If there are 2 competing theories with similar amounts of evidence, usually occam's razor comes into effect, slicing up the more complicated one.

?

Areopagite

  • 137
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2007, 11:08:30 AM »
So you have no recommendations?

?

troubadour

  • 551
  • +0/-0
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2007, 02:35:06 PM »
Quote from: "Areopagite"
So you have no recommendations?


as soon as you find an answer to the debunking of every single one of these schmuck's reasons for why the moon landing was faked, I'll be happy to talk about it.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Moon Landing Hoax
« Reply #59 on: February 18, 2007, 09:54:13 PM »
tl;dr