Steph Curry says moon landing is a hoax

[Hackenberg - Banned]

40 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Studying him isnt something overly necessary. Yes, he had a great point with his position on how the church was using the people. However, he had his own set of nonsense philosophies as well. It's not that he was stupid, it's that he seemed to only rely on his own philosophical understanding of the world, and that's where humanity has always fallen short. 

"Beware of the philosophies of men". That's a very true statement.

No need to be religious, just read for yourself. What books are you currently reading Hack?

Archive.org is your friend. You can find all types of books there. Some of these books if I find important enough I buy the actual book. Never know what the internet restrictions will be in the future. 

Why? Do they have books a step away from being burned or hidden? Because  there's truth in them? I'll look 

[JustInFudge]

20 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I got a bottle of Ron Zacapa Edicion Negra in my house.

Trust me...It's close, but no cigar. 

The only rum I've ever tried that I could somewhat stomach was a 25 year Flora De Cana.  I'll have to keep an eye out for that stuff and give it a try, if I want a stomach ache.

 

[Villain The Foe]

16 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Why? Do they have books a step away from being burned or hidden? Because  there's truth in them? I'll look 

Yes. Archive.com basically has digital versions of tons of books from all era's. You can find many written and published in the 1800's, some as far back to the 1600's. Alot of these books are revived by publishing companies such as "Forgotten Books publishing" if you actually want to purchase. They basically find old books that they may deem as history important to humanity and they will scan the pages from whatever source material and republish the book. They're not associated with the website, but I've become familiar with this particular publishing company as of late because I've been buying quite a few older books around 150 years old.

I like the website in particular because you can do keyword searches so if you're reading a main book but simply want to quick check that information from other sources using other books for "fact checking" you can do all of that on Archive while being able to search for keywords, and then reading a few passages before and after the keyword to establish and maintain context.

 

[Villain The Foe]

16 minutes ago, JiF said:

The only rum I've ever tried that I could somewhat stomach was a 25 year Flora De Cana.  I'll have to keep an eye out for that stuff and give it a try, if I want a stomach ache.

 

Im not huge on strong liquor. If you like smoothness to your drink as well as not that sh*tfaced drunk feeling after a few rounds then def try Ron Diplomatico. It's flavorful enough to enjoy as a mix with Soda, you can drink it straight and not burn your your throat, have it warm or on the rocks....even cook with it. 

Its a very versatile rum and you can get a bottle in the States for less than $40 bucks, and it rivals Rums in the $100-$150 range easily. 

Trust, I was always the basica vodka cocktail guy anytime I had a drink and I always stayed away from rums for example given the crap I tried before.

Ron as well as Klecko's fav Zacapa are both really good. Diplomatico is just more my speed. Just keep a bottle in the house. Lol. 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

Yes. Archive.com basically has digital versions of tons of books from all era's. You can find many written and published in the 1800's, some as far back to the 1600's. Alot of these books are revived by publishing companies such as "Forgotten Books publishing" if you actually want to purchase. They basically find old books that they may deem as history important to humanity and they will scan the pages from whatever source material and republish the book. They're not associated with the website, but I've become familiar with this particular publishing company as of late because I've been buying quite a few older books around 150 years old.

I like the website in particular because you can do keyword searches so if you're reading a main book but simply want to quick check that information from other sources using other books for "fact checking" you can do all of that on Archive while being able to search for keywords, and then reading a few passages before and after the keyword to establish and maintain context.

 

So/ but the old ones are entirely digital?

[Villain The Foe]

4 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

So/ but the old ones are entirely digital?

Yes. Check out the website. You can read all of these books from the site

[#27TheDominator]

12 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

Why? Do they have books a step away from being burned or hidden? Because  there's truth in them? I'll look 

The local library isn't worthwhile, but you will run to a random website that a random person on the internet suggests because Truth? 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

3 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

The local library isn't worthwhile, but you will run to a random website that a random person on the internet suggests because Truth? 

Lol You're trying too hard. This made no sense. Libraries are censored. You will not find every angle on certain topics.

The older the book. The better odds of a first hand truth being found out. Before govt got a hold of it. Propaganda  and revisionist history  are the norm now.

 

 

 

 

 

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Lol You're trying too hard. This made no sense. Libraries are censored. You will not find every angle on certain topics.

The older the book. The better odds of a first hand truth being found out. Before govt got a hold of it. Propaganda  and revisionist history  are the norm now.

 

 

 

 

 

But websites you never heard of 24 hours ago are never slanted.  There is no propaganda on the internet. 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

47 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

But websites you never heard of 24 hours ago are never slanted.  There is no propaganda on the internet. 

 Thanks, Capt Obvious.  I already said revisionist history  is the norm. Research is obvious after that.

 

[Villain The Foe]

3 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

But websites you never heard of 24 hours ago are never slanted.  There is no propaganda on the internet. 

What's slanted about going to an archive website, typing in a book that you want to read, then reading it? 

Where's the propaganda in that? This isnt like googling something and knowing that google is on record confirming that they manipulate their search algorithm depending on what you're searching for. 

You Dom are a random guy that I "almost" met one time at a Knicks game....yet with that fact in mind, I can with absolute certainty say that without even knowing or ever having met you, that you use Google in some form every single day. 

Didnt google create what is now a multi-national mega company based on providing browers of the "world wide web" access to information from "random websites"? 

There is a bunch of propaganda on the internet, and alot of that propaganda are introduced by agencies such as NASA. lol. 

Maybe you should stop trying so hard like Hack said.

Oh, and here's the wiki to archive.org for folks who find themselves conveniently concerned about random websites that they didnt directly access from a google search. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive

[Villain The Foe]

  .

[#27TheDominator]

11 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

What's slanted about going to an archive website, typing in a book that you want to read, then reading it? 

Where's the propaganda in that? This isnt like googling something and knowing that google is on record confirming that they manipulate their search algorithm depending on what you're searching for. 

You Dom are a random guy that I "almost" met one time at a Knicks game....yet with that fact in mind, I can with absolute certainty say that without even knowing or ever having met you, that you use Google in some form every single day. 

There is a bunch of propaganda on the internet, and alot of that propaganda are introduce by agencies such as NASA. lol. 

Maybe you should stop trying to hard like Hack said.

Oh, and here's the wiki to archive.org for folks who find themselves conveniently concerned about random websites that they didnt directly access from google. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive

Personally, I don't give a ****.  I generally think reading more is a positive and being skeptical about what you read is a good thing.  That wasn't meant to be a put down of you, Villain, but I bet I know you better than Hackenberg.  Yet, he was willing to run over to your site and check it out, while being skeptical of any history or library because they are "censored."  I get that you guys are like-minded and all that, but if you can't see the irony, I can't help you. 

FWIW, I do use google daily, but I also do a ton of research and almost none of it involves google - other than the truly basic which I do for convenience sake. 

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Personally, I don't give a ****. 

I stopped reading right at the moment you lied. 

You do give a ****, which is why you're trying so hard. 

 

[jack48]

On 12/11/2018 at 6:32 PM, Blackout said:

These young whippersnappers will say anything for attention

Man in the Moon says Steph Curry is a hoax.

[Hackenberg - Banned]

9 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

What's slanted about going to an archive website, typing in a book that you want to read, then reading it? 

Where's the propaganda in that? This isnt like googling something and knowing that google is on record confirming that they manipulate their search algorithm depending on what you're searching for. 

You Dom are a random guy that I "almost" met one time at a Knicks game....yet with that fact in mind, I can say with absolute certainty say that without even knowing or ever having met you, that you use Google in some form every single day. 

There is a bunch of propaganda on the internet, and alot of that propaganda are introduce by agencies such as NASA. lol. 

Maybe you should stop trying to hard like Hack said.

Oh, and here's the wiki to archive.org for folks who find themselves conveniently concerned about random websites that they didnt directly access from google. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive

My 52 year old sister, knowing I had a pc for 10 years. Asked me once.. "do you use Google?"..she wasnt being sarcastic. She doesn't even understand  basic sarcasm. thinks you're being mean or rude.She can't   make natural adult assumptions. i was in the hospital  for 8 hours because  of a rapid heart rate.. we leave ( me with my sister and mother) she says "do you want to go to Nancys Burgers?...she wasn't being funny. She doesn't  get sarcasm.  I had to come to the sad realization  that  my sister  is literally that stupid.really? Suggesting a fast food  burger after a heart issue? The typical American robot drone. She sits in a recliner with a laptop  on her thighs 12 to 17 hours a day. She's  been playing one of those pc build and conquer games for years now .If sitting is the new smoking, she's beating the odds. Sadly, she is the common  denominator of the general public. The only skill she has is reading and following instruction  booklets to a T.

But no creative or critical thinking skills. Unless you do something like she does, you're doing it wrong. But she never leaves her house and has no friends. She somehow got married a second time. Women have it so ******* easy in this world. 

Oh. .she seldom turns on her main tv. But made sure to watch the 50 year moonlanding show, on it. 

 

[#27TheDominator]

4 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

I stopped reading right at the moment you lied. 

You do give a ****, which is why you're trying so hard. 

 

What exactly am I trying?  

This is such a strange response.  Do I care if Hackenberg goes to archive.com?  Absolutely not.  Do I care if he can't see that accepting a recommendation at face value, is in direct opposition of everything he has said previously?  Maybe a little. Hypocrisy does tend to bother me.  You both should remember, much like astronauts that were fake-dead would use different names, those that are actually looking to deceive you and out for your soul will appear to be like-minded.

[Hackenberg - Banned]

11 minutes ago, jack48 said:

Man in the Moon says Steph Curry is a hoax.

He is. 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

6 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

What exactly am I trying?  

This is such a strange response.  Do I care if Hackenberg goes to archive.com?  Absolutely not.  Do I care if he can't see that accepting a recommendation at face value, is in direct opposition of everything he has said previously?  Maybe a little. Hypocrisy does tend to bother me.  You both should remember, much like astronauts that were fake-dead would use different names, those that are actually looking to deceive you and out for your soul will appear to be like-minded.

I didn't accept anything at face value. 

You appear to lack basic critical thought yourself. Looking at a site to see what books it has ,is called a form of research.  Not  acceptance. You needed that spelled out for you? I didn' reject libraries either. I simply said revisionist  history is wide spread. Doesn't mean I don't use a library. Your assumptions are off the map. 

Dude?

[Villain The Foe]

42 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

What exactly am I trying?  

This is such a strange response.  Do I care if Hackenberg goes to archive.com?  Absolutely not.  Do I care if he can't see that accepting a recommendation at face value, is in direct opposition of everything he has said previously?  Maybe a little. Hypocrisy does tend to bother me.  You both should remember, much like astronauts that were fake-dead would use different names, those that are actually looking to deceive you and out for your soul will appear to be like-minded.

If you can point to that fake dead astronaut currently using a different name, I'll accept your position of this being hypocritical.

Catch 22. Lol

[#27TheDominator]

10 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

If you can point to that fake dead astronaut currently using a different name, I'll accept your position of this being hypocritical.

Catch 22. Lol

Nah.  I guess you were right the first time.  I don't care. 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

5 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Nah.  I guess you were right the first time.  I don't care. 

And neither does Curry. He was told to say it, so threads like this could happen.

But that's  typical  America.they don't care enough to want to know the truth.

 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

On 12/11/2018 at 3:32 PM, Blackout said:

These young whippersnappers will say anything for attention

That's exactly  what it's  purpose was.  To create debate over crap that don't  matter.

[Villain The Foe]

12 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Nah.  I guess you were right the first time.  I don't care. 

Its not about me being right the first time or taking pride in being right. I'm nothing more than dry bones down in the valley bro. Im simply putting a mirror on your own words, not in a way of being an arsehole, but maybe as a way for you to consider that though you don't agree with many of my conclusions, maybe the general point Im presenting however that something isnt right could actually be correct.

Here's another "catch 22" in your own words.

Quote

You both should remember, much like astronauts that were fake-dead would use different names, those that are actually looking to deceive you and out for your soul will appear to be like-minded

Question. Are we (me and you) of "like minds" right now? Is it often that we're ever of like-mind?

Anytime there's a discussion like this, it seems like im on a contrary side of the popular view...amirite???

These are your own words my friend, not mine. And I, 100% agree with you. Maybe you should take heed to your own words the next time you're in a room and the entire room is of like-mind and lock-step with you...outside of those 1or 2 folks who are "always wrong", until they're said to be "right" but by that time folks have decided "not to care". ??

 

Remember Dom, my random friend...it doesnt serve me or anyone well to be called or thought of as a dumb ass, idiot and stupid all day long. If im willing to accept these reactions and not waver in my position, it must be for a reason....and that reason sure as hell isn't because im dealing with folks of "like-mind".

Yet the irony of it all is that it's me saying "beware of these deceptions" while all the folks of like-mind makes the "proverbial hat that im wearing" out to be made of tinfoil for even considering these to be deceptions.

But, I guess we'll have to run with the saying that you don't care. 

I wish people did. Quite unfortunate. 

[CTM]

On 7/20/2019 at 2:40 PM, Villain The Foe said:

I see that NASA is in anniversary mode. Cool. Lets see what they've done since then. 

Here's a NASA image courtesy of the "DSCOVR EPIC" team which shows the backside of the moon and the earth behind the moon. 

Just so folks know that this is a legit NASA image, it's been taken directly from their own website. Here's the link: 

https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=86353

Lets take a closer look at this image.

 

Has anyone spotted the problem yet?

 

Let me not expose it yet, but instead let me continue to provide some more images. 

Below are a Series of images showing the Moon transiting Earth, captured by "NASA's EPOXI" spacecraft.

The official NASA link to these images along with actual video is here: 

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/epoxi_transit.html

 

Have you spotted the problem? Shall I give a hint? Okay. 

Look closely at the images. Notice how absolutely large the Earth looks while also having the entirety of the moon in every shot? 

I know some may say "Duh, Earth is estimated to be 4 times the size of the Moon and the images you provided proves it". 

You know...let me get right to it. 

Here is an image of Apollo 8 called "Earthrise". "This view of the rising Earth greeted the Apollo 8 astronauts as they came from behind the moon after the lunar orbit insertion burn. Earth is about five degrees above the horizon in the photo".

Here's the NASA link to this shot. 

https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/69/earthrise/

 

I have a question. Why is the earth so small? 

Lets look at another alleged astronaut image. 

Here's an image of Earth from the Apollo 11 mission. 

"This view from the Apollo 11 spacecraft shows the Earth rising above the moon's horizon. The lunar terrain pictured is in the area of Smyth's Sea on the nearside". Here's the NASA link for this photo also. 

https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/187/apollo-11-mission-image-view-of-moon-limb-with-earth-on-the-horizon/

 

Why is it that earth is so small in these images yet the images above not only show an Earth of a massive size in comparison, but if you look closely you can even see cloud formations on earth that are similar in size to the moon. yet for some reason the earth's size is drastically different while on the moon's surface? A moon with no atmosphere to interfere with what you see??? 

 

I think these images are worth 1000 words. Happy 50th anniversary NASA and I wish the best of luck to those now fighting with cognitive dissonance after seeing this. However, here's something that you can do to help defeat that dissonance. 

Think to yourself. "Why is it that there has been so much video footage captured personally by astronauts from the moon's surface yet none of them...not'a one, has ever had the bright idea of simply panning the video camera to the sky in order to view to earth and simply recording it? Wouldnt that be the #1 most obvious thing to do when on the f'ing moon?" Even if the recorder is attached to the suit, there are ways to view the sky with the assistance of other astronauts. Also, where were all the "mega jumps" while in 1/6 gravity?. 

You know what you'll also never see? Stars. Wanna know why? Because the details are in the stars people. If they cant replicate all of the stars in the sky to their exact positioning in the sky relative to both the moon as well as Earth, then the best thing to do is to simply never show them. Problem solved. Remember, we can see a full sky of stars on earth, even with atmospheric interference. The moon doesnt have that issue because it barely has an atmosphere. The stars should look the clearest and the most brightest on the moon, especially from the dark side of the moon. Secondly, during ancient times and even today, humanity has always been able to use the sky as a clock or for navigation. There are too many stars in the sky for all of these space programs to replicate them accurately because anyone from earth could simply tell by their own point of view of the night sky and tell that what they're presenting is utter bull crap. So the best thing to do is to never show stars. 

Let me let you in on this...it's fake. 

lol. Like I said, the only thing that was sent to the moon was our imagination. And to be honest, though I "lol", it really isnt funny. Like evolution, folks really do believe this. Even I did at one time. 

 

You have to be trolling here. This is basic perspective. From my backyard my house appears bigger than the sun. Same concept 

[CTM]

On 7/22/2019 at 10:43 AM, Jetsfan80 said:

I call it having unlimited "Crazy Currency".  Even when you think they're done spouting crazy stuff, they just come up with something new that's even crazier. 

Villain has gone full @Hackenberg.  Never go full Hackenberg. 

Theres always a deeper conspiracy to retreat to when you successfully prove the current arguement wrong. Often these sorts are also textbook Dunning Kruger. Makes the whole exercise of debunking futile 

[CTM]

On 7/23/2019 at 7:47 AM, TeddEY said:

So why not just lead with, and stick with this perfectly reasonable take... I don’t think space exploration is worthwhile, or worth the investment, especially when those dollars could be better served helping people in need right here on earth.  That’s a perfectly reasonable take that’s light years (!!!) away from, I can’t prove it so it didn’t happen.

Investment in space exploration is critical for the future of our species. Will also help more people in the long run. You have to balance the needs of the future along with the present, otherwise there will be no future.

[Villain The Foe]

30 minutes ago, CTM said:

You have to be trolling here. This is basic perspective. From my backyard my house appears bigger than the sun. Same concept 

Folks need to stop commenting and take the time to understand what scaling of objects are that ARE NOT 93 million miles away from one another. 

If NASA can take this shot here at a distance of 31 million miles away from earth, then the moon doesnt get bigger while the earth suddenly gets smaller because you're now standing on the moon. 

 

If NASA were to take a similar picture 31 million miles away from the Earth, but with the Sun behind the earth, the Sun wouldnt suddenly grow to this massive size because you're no longer on earth viewing the sun. The sun would still be smaller in comparison because of how far away it already is. Why is this so haaaaard to understand? 

The picture you're looking at PROVES the shenanigans, it's just that folks either dont comprehend the difference between scaling of objects of the size of the Earth and moon at just 239,000 miles apart relative to the sun and earth with the sun being 93 million miles away from it. 

Do not immediately respond. Take the time to understand what was just said to you. And then, still do not respond. Think about it again just to make sure you understand that Earth looks this size next to the moon because it's not at a far enough distance to look smaller, as the Sun for example. 

 

[CTM]

On 7/23/2019 at 2:49 PM, Hackenberg said:

The public. People dumb enough to let govt keep taking 40% of every paycheck.

They don't need that much for a f___ing road

See the thing is theres truth to what you say, the politicians and capital class keep us entertained and fighting over wedge issues while continuing to gain more and more control. I'm with you up to there but it's a far leap between that and a conspiracy that requires the silence of 1000's of people and foreign governments.

[Jetsfan80]

32 minutes ago, CTM said:

You have to be trolling here. This is basic perspective. From my backyard my house appears bigger than the sun. Same concept 

Not sure what is more pathetic.  Him taking all of this time and effort to troll OR him actually believing what he writes. 

[CTM]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

If NASA can take this shot here at a distance of 31 million miles away from earth, then the moon doesnt get bigger while the earth suddenly gets smaller because you're now standing on the moon. 

Of course it does, if it sit on my roof and take a picture of the sun ascending my roofs horizon it will look smaller than my roof.

If I move even 1 mile away the sun will dwarf the size of my house 

[Villain The Foe]

Just now, CTM said:

Of course it does, if it sit on my roof and take a picture of the sun ascending my roofs horizon it will look smaller than my roof.

If I move even 1 mile away the sun will dwarf the size of my house 

Bro, listen

If you're on your roof, then you cannot possibly be comparing the size of the earth relative to the moon because you dont have the earth in the picture. 

 

It's called "scaling of objects relative to ONE ANOTHER!!!!!. 

Learn what that is. 

 

[CTM]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Bro, listen

If you're on your roof, then you cannot possibly be comparing the size of the earth relative to the moon because you dont have the earth in the picture. 

 

It's called "scaling of objects relative to ONE ANOTHER!!!!!. 

Learn what that is. 

 

I was comparing the roof to the moon in your photos (and sun to the earth)

[ZachEY]

17 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Why is this so haaaaard to understand? 

Because it's wrong?

[ZachEY]

47 minutes ago, CTM said:

You have to be trolling here. This is basic perspective. From my backyard my house appears bigger than the sun. Same concept 

From your driveway, your car also appears bigger than a 747, if "the sun is too far" is the issue here.