Page 44 of 207 FirstFirst ... 344041424344454647485494144 ... LastLast
Results 1,076 to 1,100 of 5161
  1. #1076
    sick demented ring****** ChumpDumper's Avatar
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Post Count
    100,236
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UTSA Roadrunners
    After you guys can explain to me why NASA staged being half way to the moon we can continue the debate until then its all really just smoke and mirrors.

    go to 8:40 on the video and explain that.
    Already discussed in this thread.

    You didn't read it.
    _____________________________

  2. #1077
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Can you produce an "unmanned probe" ?


  3. #1078
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    This is yet another thing pointed out before by others.

    If we had landers and rockets capable of going there, gathering material, and returning, then you have 75% of what you need to actually send humans there. Throw in some life-support and some space suits, and it doesn't take much more to actually do it.
    .
    75% is not 100%

    Can you be 75% pregnant? Why would NASA do something they was only 75% sure about?

    If others in this topic have to be 100% on presenting their evidence then you should have to be 100% also.

    I can see you guys just want to keep dodging my question so maybe I should dumb it down a few notches.

    Here is an easy one.

    Why did NASA show video footage of "two" separate Moon missions and they shared the same Hollywood set?


  4. #1079
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks

    Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.[/B]

    What part of not cut and paste did you not get? I wanted "your" personal opinions and you go back to some website? Who here has trouble reading?

    I used look up to you RandomLie I figured you to be a season debater but your just an over glorified FatFreddy88 you really don't want answers you just want a school yard smack off.



  5. #1080
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks

    go to the 4:00 mark on the film


    Go to the 4:00 mark on the film



    Still waiting on an answer.

  6. #1081
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,622
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Still waiting on an answer.
    You muppett!!

    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=1078

    You have the brain power of a shrimp.

  7. #1082
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,622
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Here is an easy one.
    yes it is, dead easy.

    Why did NASA show video footage of "two" separate Moon missions and they shared the same Hollywood set?


    These two pieces of footage were taken 3 minutes apart on the same mission and the same EVA.

    Your trouble is you believe anything told to you. This is listed in the ALSJ with the dialogue from both clips noted down as correct.


    Debunked years ago on many different forums. Here is just one concise example....
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/f...l#backgrounds2


    Bad: The other ``identical background'' segment shows an astronaut on a hilltop. A second video shows two astronauts on the same hill (and this time it really is the same hill), and claims that NASA itself says these two videos were taken on two different hills separated by many kilometers. How can this be? They are obviously the same hill, so NASA must be lying!
    Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric's assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:
    Narrator: Background discrepancies are also apparent in the lunar video.
    [...]
    [Video showing John Young at Station 4 on EVA-2, with Fox caption "Day One". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
    Narrator: This shot was taped in what was purported to be the first of Apollo 16's lunar excursions.
    [Audio of John Young dubbed over clip: "Well, I couldn't pick a better spot", actual MET of 123:58:46]
    [Next, video of John Young and Charlie Duke at Station 4, EVA-2. In reality, about three minutes after the first clip. Fox caption "Day Two". Click here for the transcript and here for the RealVideo clip.]
    Narrator: And this video was from the next day, at a different location.
    [Audio of Charlie Duke dubbed over clip: "That is the most beautiful sight!", actual MET of 124:03:01]
    Narrator: NASA claims the second location was two-and-a-half miles away, but when one video was superimposed over the other the locations appear identical.
    [Audio of John Young dubbed over "Day Two" video: " It's absolutely unreal!", actual MET 144:16:30] Narrator: Conspiracy theorists claim that even closer examination of the photos suggest evidence of doctoring.
    That last line is pretty funny. The audio you hear of the astronauts in those clips was actually all from different times than the video! So that's why the hill looks the same. It's the same hill, and the two clips were not taken a day apart, but from three minutes apart or so. Again, had the program producers bothered to check their sources, they would have received a prompt answer. That's all I did: I emailed the editor of the ALSJ. It was pretty easy to do, and he answered me in minutes.
    Last edited by Fatfreddy88; 11-09-2010 at 07:31 AM.

  8. #1083
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    What part of not cut and paste did you not get? I wanted "your" personal opinions and you go back to some website? Who here has trouble reading?

    I used look up to you RandomLie I figured you to be a season debater but your just an over glorified FatFreddy88 you really don't want answers you just want a school yard smack off.
    I don't even think you believe this stuff. Why should I bother addressing anything you post?

    When you post stuff that is obviously lies, and provably so, as has already been pointed out, and do so continuously, long after it has been addressed and debunked, I dont' really feel the need to waste any more time than you do.

    As for the video:


    Wake me up when you get someone directly involved in the hoax to come forward.


    or

    When you can adequately explain how NASA was able to fake 800+ pounds of moon rocks well enough to fool tens of thousands of geologists for 40 years.

    Until then, the "I don't understand the video/photo footage" schtick got old, the first 999,999 times it got debunked.

    The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

    1-The photos are all faked.

    and

    2-
    The videos are all faked.

    and

    3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

    and

    4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

    and

    5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

    and

    6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

    and

    7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

    and

    8- Several people organized and coordinated these seperate processes and they kept secret.

    and

    9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspriracy.

    and

    10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

    and

    11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

    and

    12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-govermental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomolies, and/or kept quiet about it

    and

    13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

    and

    14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

    and

    15- The people assinged to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

    and

    16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

    and

    17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

    and

    18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

    and

    19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

    and

    20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

    The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

    Therein lies the problem.

    If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

    This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

    They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

    21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

    and

    22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

    and

    23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

    The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/coverup, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

    Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the video footage" youtube video is just another stone on the fail pile.

    Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.
    _____________________________
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -- The kind of Republican that would kicked out of the party today.

    "You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things." -President Trump

    Putin has built up their military again and again and again. Their military is much stronger. He’s doing nuclear, we’re not doing anything. Our nuclear is old and tired and his nuclear is tippy-top from what I hear. Better be careful, folks, okay? You better be careful.” -President Trump



    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...16#post9293816

  9. #1084
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Can you produce an "unmanned probe" ?



    Can you produce an "unmanned probe" ?
    Not what I asked for.

    You want to claim that the rocks that have been exhaustively studied by thousands of people for 40+ years were brought back by "unmanned probes". (mostly because it is, and was, technologically impossible to fake the material)

    To do this would have required a series of sophisticated probes before the advent of the microprocessor. Someone would have designed them, built them and flown them, because even robotic probes require people to run them.

    Can you produce testimony of someone who designed an "unmanned probe" capable of bringing back that much lunar sample material during that time period?
    ...or for that matter, anyone who built or flew them?

    "but look at this footage" is bullshit. Please stop bullshitting me.

  10. #1085
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,574
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Throw in some life-support and some space suits, and it doesn't take much more to actually do it.
    ...unless the theory that space radiation is stonger than they're telling us turns out to be true. In post #1 of this thread there's some info on space radiation.

  11. #1086
    Believe. Monitron's Avatar
    Post Count
    1
    NBA Team
    Washington Wizards
    ...unless the theory that space radiation is stonger than they're telling us turns out to be true. In post #1 of this thread there's some info on space radiation.

    Your activities have come to our attention.

  12. #1087
    Veteran
    Post Count
    2,574
    NBA Team
    Chicago Bulls
    You want to claim that the rocks that have been exhaustively studied by thousands of people for 40+ years were brought back by "unmanned probes". (mostly because it is, and was, technologically impossible to fake the material)
    That's what we read about the rocks but it may not be true at all.

    At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buosgl6J3Kw

    Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/l...9_bt170-99.htm

    There are other scientists who say the opposite.
    http://www.google.es/search?q=deplet...nium&tbs=vid:1

    It's clear that the government can find scientists willing to sell out and lie.

    Here's a scientists who says that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
    (00:16 time mark)

    added 5-15-14
    ------------------------------------
    Here's another case of official mainstream journals publishing untrue information.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4
    (1:36:40 time mark)


    This means that if there's a scientist who thinks the rocks didn't come from the moon, he'd have a hard time getting his opinion known.

    If someone tried to blow the whistle, the press would ignore him or her.
    http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1...ntion-span.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...sky+media&aq=f
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rdRlOSBoY
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...l_Chomsky.html
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...dia_watch.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pr...anda_page.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Me...a_Control.html
    http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/He...ystem_One.html

    Here's some evidence that it might even be downright dangerous to try to come forward with the truth.
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...terious+deaths

    We are lied to about history.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145531

    In an environment such as this it's plausible that the stuff we read about the rocks is totally bogus.

    If the Surveyor program wasn't faked, they had the technology to bring back rocks with robot craft...
    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary.../surveyor.html

    ...so it's plausible that some scientists really did see authentic moon rocks.

    Can you produce testimony of someone who designed an "unmanned probe" capable of bringing back that much lunar sample material during that time period?
    As I said above, if someone were to try to come forward, he'd be risking his career and maybe even his life. Then, the press would ignore him.


    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/27709
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
    ---------------------------------------------

    Everything you pro-Apollo people put forward can be explained and doesn't make the very clear hoax evidence disappear. Your attitudes don't fit the situation. Your position is very poor.

    Here's a guy with a PH.D who thinks the moon missions were faked.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3YcQhdDps
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij9BHiaC4t0
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...terious+deaths

    On this page there's a list of people who think Apollo was a hoax.
    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax
    Last edited by Cosmored; 03-19-2016 at 10:50 AM.

  13. #1088
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,622
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    I don't even think you believe this stuff. Why should I bother addressing anything you post?

    When you post stuff that is obviously lies, and provably so, as has already been pointed out, and do so continuously, long after it has been addressed and debunked, I dont' really feel the need to waste any more time than you do.

    As for the video:


    Wake me up when you get someone directly involved in the hoax to come forward.

    or

    When you can adequately explain how NASA was able to fake 800+ pounds of moon rocks well enough to fool tens of thousands of geologists for 40 years.

    Until then, the "I don't understand the video/photo footage" schtick got old, the first 999,999 times it got debunked.

    The following assumptions are completely required for the ultimate "moon landings were faked" theory to be true:

    1-The photos are all faked.

    and

    2-The videos are all faked.

    and

    3-Several people faked the photos and kept that secret.

    and

    4-Several people faked the videos and kept that a secret.

    and

    5-The physical evidence, i.e. rock and soil samples are all faked or were retrieved using robotic missions.

    and

    6-A large group of people faked the rock and soil samples and kept that a secret.

    and

    7- It was possible with 1960's era technology to fake hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil to make it appear to have come from the moon or it was possible with 1960's era technology to secretly bring back hundreds of pounds of soil.

    and

    8- Several people organized and coordinated these seperate processes and they kept secret.

    and

    9- All of the astronauts are lying and in on the conspriracy.

    and

    10- All of the telemetry and systems data coming into the consoles at mission control were faked 24 hours a day for the duration of the missions in a manner good enough to deceive hundreds of NASA technicians, or the hundreds of NASA technicians were all in on it.

    and

    11-All of the thousands of people who have studied the samples brought back and all of the people doing peer-review on the scientific papers were either fooled by the perfectly faked rocks or in on it too.

    and

    12- All of the radio buffs, amateur astronomers and other non-govermental witnesses to the signals and spacecraft in flight didn't notice any anomolies, and/or kept quiet about it

    and

    13- The Soviet Union actively participated in the hoax, and all the radar/radio technicians, astronomers, etc. that might have been able to figure out that the US was faking the multiple flights were told to be quiet.

    and

    14- Everybody told to be quiet has kept quiet even on their deathbed or every single one of the confessions has been covered up. (this includes the geologists studying the faked samples too)

    and

    15- The people assinged to monitor and/or threaten everybody who had first hand knowledge of this also keep quiet.

    and

    16- The pictures from subsequent missions to the moon in which clear pictures of the landing sites showing artifacts exactly as NASA claims happened are faked.

    and

    17- The people that worked in all the subsequent missions were either duped by these faked pictures being snuck into the data streams, or in on the conspiracy too.

    and

    18-The range-finding reflective dishes on the moon were placed by secret robotic missions.

    and

    19- These secret 1960's era robots placed these reflectors more accurately than any other robotic missions did at the time.

    and

    20- All of the people who built and tested the rockets and other equipment were either duped or were in on it too.

    The above series of "and" statements would adequately provide all the available evidence.

    Therein lies the problem.

    If ANY one thing in this long "and" statement is false, the whole thing is logically false.

    This actually isn't enough for some of the conspiracy theorists.

    They add to this a few things that aren't really quite necessary to fake the moon landings:

    21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

    and

    22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

    and

    23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.

    The weakest links of course are the facts that no one has ever come forward to admit they actively took part in the faking/coverup, and that the most tangible evidence, namely the rocks, has been exhaustively studied for 40 years.

    Next to those gaping holes, another "I don't understand the video footage" youtube video is just another stone on the fail pile.

    Every single one of that big list has to be true in order for your theory to hold up. If even one link is broken, it falls apart like tissue paper in rain.
    Cosmospam answer these.

  14. #1089
    Cosmoron - owned! Fatfreddy88's Avatar
    Name
    Mike Hunt
    Post Count
    1,622
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    As I said above, if someone were to try to come forward, he'd be risking his career and maybe even his life. Then, the press would ignore him.
    Just like Bill Kaysing? The internet would not ignore them, yet where are they

    All you ever offer is the same shit over and over. I think the Madrid weather has gone to your head.

  15. #1090
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs

    As I said above, if someone were to try to come forward, he'd be risking his career and maybe even his life. Then, the press would ignore him.
    But asshats like you weould be all over it like stink on shit.

    It would not stop people like you from spreading such testimony virally, and it would quickly be beyond the ability of the conspirators to control, no matter how competant you claim they are.

    They are so competant they can keep all of this first-hand account of fakery from you, but fall down on the job when it comes to faking pictures?

    Seriously?

    Deathbed confessions would completely negate the "fear for one's life" schtick, anyways.

    Given that one of my points is that, by adding people to monitor all the participants, you increase the number of people in on the conspiracy right there, adding to the number of potential witnesses who might have a crisis of conscience.

    "but look at all of this irrelevant bullshit" doesn't cut it.

    You don't have any firsthand testimony by anyone involved in faking the evidence do you?

  16. #1091
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    ...unless the theory that space radiation is stonger than they're telling us turns out to be true. In post #1 of this thread there's some info on space radiation.
    21-Radiation above low earth orbit is so intense it will fry a human being who is exposed to it for even a short time.

    and

    22- All the data concerning that radiation is faked, showing that radiation levels are low enough for a human to survive.

    and

    23- Everybody who has designed electronics for satellites that uses this faked data didn't notice that their equipment was failing at much higher rates than it should have.
    The same data tables used to show that space is safe for human beings is used as the basis for the design of the electronics placed in orbit.

    Can you provide evidence of satellites failing at much greater rates than anticipated?

  17. #1092
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    RandomLie I specifically asked that you not cut and paste. That shows you either don't read what i post or your going to debate me like I am debating an automated software and that is not how I debate. I do cut and paste but if a poster ask me my "personal" opinions about something I try do do just that.

    I can see your either in a hurry or your just on autopilot either way I can't continue this debate with you.

    FatFreddy although you brought up a good point you already pulled out the name calling card and if you re-read my postings you will see I took your name off my list of civilized mature posters I can debate with so direct your replies to another poster. thank you.

    As I already knew from years of debating here @ ST I will never get an honest personal answer to why NASA felt they had to Stage being halfway to the moon and it's really because there is no good answer.

    Instead of admitting NASA screwed up and move on you all rather put your heads in the sand and therefore you leave me with no one else to converse with so from time to time I may enter this topic looking for intelligent life but I doubt I will find some anytime soon.........................



    _____________________________

    https://www.mixcloud.com/Jazzmo/guid...ains-20150403/
    https://www.mixcloud.com/?preview=1





    RackTheTRolls!

    Suck on these Darwin



    According to this video only 5 solders died, its all bullshit I was there.

    Original TRoll
    circa 1979






  18. #1093
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    But asshats like you weould be all over it like stink on shit.
    Is your other screen name fatFreddy88?

    And is there a forum where "adults" can debate?


  19. #1094
    LONG LIVE THE CHIEF lefty's Avatar
    Location
    Montreal
    Post Count
    89,664
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    College
    UCLA Bruins
    I'm too tired
    _____________________________

  20. #1095
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs

    As I already knew from years of debating here @ ST I will never get an honest personal answer to why NASA felt they had to Stage being halfway to the moon and it's really because there is no good answer.
    I will answer that question, if you answer this question:

    Why do you have sex with goats?

    Or

    Why did you metamorphasize from a giant snail into a human being?

    You have never honestly answered either of those questions.

    Mainly because the underlying assumption for both questions is false, just like your question.

    NASA did not "stage being halfway to the moon". Since the underlying basis of the question is contrary to reality, it cannot be answered.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-09-2010 at 11:51 AM.

  21. #1096
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    RandomLie I specifically asked that you not cut and paste.
    ... and yet that is all you have done here.

    Everyone of your videos has long since been debunked.

    Every.
    Single.
    One.

    It is not my problem if you refuse to accept that, and repeatedly copy and paste them here.

    You give the same, lame "I don't understand the video/photo evidence", and I will give the same

    You still don't have any first hand testimony from anyone who helped fake all the evidence, do you?

  22. #1097
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    I will answer that question, if you answer this question:

    Why do you have sex with goats?

    .
    This sums up the brain mass in this forum.

  23. #1098
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Mr. Sibrel has no actual evidence that the Apollo spacecraft stayed in low earth orbit the whole time, nor can he explain how it was able to go for two weeks without being spotted in the night sky. It would have been the brightest object in the sky next to the moon and Venus. And it would have been moving so fast that it would have transited the night sky in about three minutes. Bright, fast-moving objects in the sky attract attention. Mr. Sibrel argue[sic] that billions of people over six missions lasting more than a week each failed to see it.

    What Mr. Sibrel supplies is footage of the astronauts practicing for an upcoming telecast. Because television was added at the last minute, they hadn't had time to practice much with the equipment. So they were experimenting with different camera positions and exposure settings. Someone on the ground recorded it. Mr. Sibrel notes several observations which he can't explain in terms of his expectations, therefore he concludes the astronauts "must" have been faking it. That's it. That's his "smoking gun."

    And it's not true that you can only see the footage by ordering Mr. Sibrel's video. It is available -- unedited and without Mr. Sibrel's "interpretive" voice-over -- on the Apollo 11 DVD set from Spacecraft Films. Mr. Sibrel allows you to see only bits and pieces of this evidence which he considers so important.
    http://www.clavius.org/bibsibrel.html

    Meh. Yet another straw clutched at in the vain hope of credibility when accusing tens of thousands of people of being liars.

    You will believe anything, won't you?

  24. #1099
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    Location
    San Marcos
    Post Count
    37,052
    NBA Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    This sums up the brain mass in this forum.
    The logical form:


    "Why did [person] [action contrary to reality]?" has no logical validity.

    You cannot answer this question with anything other than "that question's premise is false".

    "Why did purple ponies build my car?"

    "Why did you have sex with goats?"

    "Why did NASA astronauts pretend they were halfway to the moon when they really weren't even in space?"

    "Why did the Keebler elves make a new cookie?"

    Etc.

    The simple answer has been provided, and unastonishingly only proves that astronauts aren't skilled cameramen.

  25. #1100
    Moss is Da Sauce! mouse's Avatar
    Post Count
    26,364
    NBA Team
    Dallas Mavericks

    NASA did not "stage being halfway to the moon".



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •