Steph Curry says moon landing is a hoax

[CTM]

6 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Yet another example of objects scaling relative to one another expose this bullsh*ttery and fakery. 

I posted both images separately along with an additional ones allegedly taken from 31 million miles away, and I asked "Does anyone see the problem". 

Ironically I came across this gem using 2 of the photos I posted last month to show this problem. Seems like there are people outside of me who are also realizing that there is something incredibly wrong with the scaling when compared. 

Either one of these images are false, or both of them are. Im banking on both of them being complete fakes personally given that they're labeled as images or composites by NASA. Look, there is simply no actual sane way you can have earth and moon scale relative to one another the way they do on the left, yet on the surface of the moon you get view of the earth like that on the right. I was born at night, but not last night.

Folks have eyes, but they literally cannot see. The 2 things that they know for sure, #1. is that Villain is a moron, #2. the moon landings were real no matter the visual evidence taken directly from NASA's own website that would suggest otherwise. 

That's cool. But no matter how much of a moron I may be, these photos...um, excuse me, Images are not authentic. That is for sure. 

What's crazy, is that I had folks talk about the specifics of chin shape and earlobes when I compared images of astronauts who allegedly died to folks currently living with the same face and same name. Yet that same level of examination for some reason cant be used on these photos presented. 

It just shows just how strong the indoctrination is. Folks will curse me before ever considering that the two different pictures in their face are so different to the point of absolute absurdity. 

So some knucklehead makes a photoshop with a laughing smiley and you felt this was strong enough evidence for an "I told you so" post ?

[Villain The Foe]

13 minutes ago, CTM said:

So some knucklehead makes a photoshop with a laughing smiley and you felt this was strong enough evidence for an "I told you so" post ?

Actually, if you look on the left, you'll see what that knucklehead is laughing about. 

Honestly, the fact that people believe it, is rather funny. The fact that when it's posted and the only thing that folks can see is a laughing smiley on the right, that is pretty scary. 

Seems like the folks using photoshop is NASA. 

With that said, it isnt a "I told you so" post, given that I actually told folks this over a month ago. It's just more confirmation. 

 

[CTM]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Actually, if you look on the left, you'll see what that knucklehead is laughing about. 

Honestly, the fact that people believe it, is rather funny. The fact that when it's posted and the only thing that folks can see is a laughing smiley on the right, that is pretty scary. 

Seems like the folks using photoshop is NASA. 

With that said, it isnt an "I told you so" post, given that I actually told folks this over a month ago. It's just more confirmation. 

 

Yea, hes making the same ridiculous point as you. The smiley was more interesting 

Old saying, 2 wrongs dont make a right 

[Villain The Foe]

6 minutes ago, CTM said:

Yea, hes making the same ridiculous point as you. The smiley was more interesting 

Yes he is. And the only thing that the naysayers have for ammunition is either calling me names or saying that what im presenting is ridiculous, though it comes directly from NASA's own website. 

Or the inability to answer simple questions. 

 

How about this, how about being mature for a moment. Not asking to agree with me, but just mature.

Do you really not see a problem with the two photos? 

Nothing strikes you as odd about them? 

Or am I asking questions that wont be answered? 

No name calling, lets talk about the topic. I think that's a great idea. Its clear that im making ridiculous claims. Lets get pass that if you're still going to entertain me, and how about entertaining the topic and what is being presented as support of my position.

[CTM]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Do you really not see a problem with the two photos? 

Nothing strikes you as odd about them? 

Asked and answered numerous times

 I see no problem with two photos and its exactly what I would expect if I took the pictures myself 

[Villain The Foe]

1 minute ago, CTM said:

Asked and answered numerous times

 I see no problem with two photos and its exactly what I would expect if I took the pictures myself 

Yet you didnt take the pictures, and neither did NASA since the refuse to call them pictures but images or composites, and they're so different to the point of absurdity.

How do you simply expect this? Have you ever been to the moon? What is this expectation of yours based on? 

 

 

[CTM]

5 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Yet you didnt take the pictures, and neither did NASA since the refuse to call them pictures but images or composites, and they're so different to the point of absurdity.

How do you simply expect this? Have you ever been to the moon? What is this expectation of yours based on? 

 

 

A basketball would look significantly bigger than the sun if it was in front of my face, but if I backed up 1000 yards and zoomed it would be significantly smaller than that same sun

That is why I would expect the earth to look small compared to the moon from the moons surface but much bigger if I backed up 31M miles and zoomed in on both.

I really dont understand why this isnt obvious to you.

[Villain The Foe]

38 minutes ago, CTM said:

A basketball would look significantly bigger than the sun if it was in front of my face, but if I backed up 1000 yards and zoomed it would be significantly smaller than that same sun

That is why I would expect the earth to look small compared to the moon from the moons surface but much bigger if I backed up 31M miles and zoomed in on both.

I really dont understand why this isnt obvious to you.

This image below was said to be taken 31 million miles away from the Earth. The moon is said to be 239,000 miles away from the Earth, which means that this image is taken over 30 million miles away from the moon. There is enough distance from both objects to get an accurate scale of the moon and earth relative to one another. Still with me? Lets continue. 

So if the moon and the earth scale to one another in this way, then when you stand on the Moon's surface just 239,000 miles away from the Earth, the Earth should take up most of the entire sky that you see, given the scale that's shown in the images provided to you. 

No one is saying that the moon wouldnt look bigger if you decided to put it in front of your face and cover whatever is behind the moon. The absurdity is how incredibly small the Earth is while standing on the moon 239,000 miles away from it, yet you can clearly see the scale of them relative to one another 31 million miles away. 

Your comparison, similar to others is not what's being displayed here. Im not covering your face with a basketball to block the sun behind it. Besides that, you didnt even scale the basketball to the sun, didnt provide proper distance between the sun and the basketball etc. 

The reason why what you're saying isnt obvious to me, is because its obvious that it doesnt make any sense as a comparison to what is being shown to you. 

So again, your expectations are based on a terrible comparison as well as a lack of understanding that the photo isnt behind the moon, but 30.7 million miles away from it, as well as a lack of understanding of what objects scaling relative to one another actually means. 

[CTM]

11 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

This image below was said to be taken 31 million miles away from the Earth. The moon is said to be 239,000 miles away from the Earth, which means that this image is taken over 30 million miles away from the moon. There is enough distance from both objects to get an accurate scale of the moon and earth relative to one another. Still with me? Lets continue. 

So if the moon and the earth scale to one another in this way, then when you stand on the Moon's surface just 239,000 miles away from the Earth, the Earth should take up most of the entire sky that you see, given the scale that's shown in the images provided to you. 

No one is saying that the moon wouldnt look bigger if you decided to put it in front of your face and cover whatever is behind the moon. The absurdity is how incredibly small the Earth is while standing on the moon 239,000 miles away from it, yet you can clearly seen the scale of them relative to one another 31 million miles away. 

Your comparison, similar to others is not what's being displayed here. Im not covering your face with a basketball to block the sun behind it. Besides that, you didnt even scale the basketball to the sun, didnt provide proper distance between the sun and the basketball etc. 

The reason why what you're saying isnt obvious to me, is because its obvious that it doesnt make any sense as a comparison to what is being shown to you. 

So again, your expectations is based on a terrible comparison as well as a lack of understanding that the photo isnt up on the moon, but 30 million miles away from it, as well as a lack of understanding of what objects scaling relative to one another actually means. 

Yea, no. You dont have a clue what you are talking about but its really pointless to continue at this point. Maybe someone else will play 

[Villain The Foe]

7 minutes ago, CTM said:

Yea, no. You dont have a clue what you are talking about but its really pointless to continue at this point. Maybe someone else will play 

What proofs or supporting points do you have outside of your assumed expectations of what your photos would look like while being taken on the moon based on you putting a basketball in front of your face to compare it to the sun from earth? 

 

Incredible what public school's have done.  

[CTM]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

What proofs or supporting points do you have outside of your assumed expectations of what your photos would look like wile being taken on the moon based on you putting a basketball in front of your face to compare it to the sun? 

 

Incredible. 

I dunno, what proofs or supporting points do you have outside of your assumed expectations?

 

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, CTM said:

I dunno, what proofs or supporting points do you have outside of your assumed expectations?

 

The images directly from NASA's website, along with their own alleged distances. 

Im using their own work and alleged distances. NASA is an agency you clearly respect. 

You wouldnt respect me if I instead put a basketball in front of my face to cover the sun, with zero context in regards to scale, distance etc. 

amirite?

[CTM]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

The images directly from NASA's website, along with their own alleged distances. 

Im using their own work and alleged distances. NASA is an agency you clearly respect. 

You wouldnt respect me if I put a basketball in front of my face to cover the sun, with zero context in regards to scale, distance etc. 

amirite?

 NASA is filled with highly trained experts and multiple layers of bureaucracy before anything is released and your evidence is one of thier photos, which apparently a glaring superobvious error that only you, hack and some kid with photoshop have figured out ?  (And none of the PhD's at nasa noticed this super obvious error)

And you believe this to be evidence for your side of the debate ? 

Incredible indeed.

[Villain The Foe]

14 minutes ago, CTM said:

NASA is filled with highly trained experts and multiple layers of bureaucracy before anything is released and your evidence is one of thier photos, which apparently a glaring superobvious error that only you, hack and some kid with photoshop have figured out ?  (And none of the PhD's at nasa noticed this super obvious error)

Actually, 7 of their images if you took the time to count them. 

I see the problem now, you're a respecter of persons. You ignore what your eyes are clearly showing you because you have this position that NASA is filled with highly trained experts with multiple layers of bureaucracy releasing anything. 

The irony in this, is...Why would NASA need multiple layers of bureaucracy to release photos if they're just "photos"? 

 

You continue on by asking why PhD's at NASA didnt notice it, which leads me to believe that you DO NOTICE IT. Your problem isnt that you dont notice it, it's that you need an authority figure to confirm for you that there is indeed a problem, not a hack and some kid photoshopping smiley faces on side of NASA images that are untouched by this hack and kid but can be viewed right now from their website...not even your own eyes will convince you, but a NASA expert or a fellow with a PhD. Wow. 

 

I understand the issue now. You cant think for yourself without a title to tell you what to think. 

 

The truth wont be able to penetrate that immediately, but I do hope that in someway I've assisted you in seeing this problem...and im not even being funny. 

 

[CTM]

1 minute ago, Villain The Foe said:

I see the problem now, you're a respecter of persons. You ignore what your eyes are clearly showing you because you have this position that NASA is filled with highly trained experts with multiple layers of bureaucracy releasing anything. 

Nope. My eyes tell me the picture is accurate. That was my first answer which you didnt like because it lacked evidence or something. 

I just find it bizzare that you are trying to claim thier photo as evidence for your side of the debate because it requires an assumption that you know more about this stuff than even a single scientist at NASA which clearly isnt true

[Villain The Foe]

13 minutes ago, CTM said:

Nope. My eyes tell me the picture is accurate. That was my first answer which you didnt like because it lacked evidence or something. 

I just find it bizzare that you are trying to claim thier photo as evidence for your side of the debate because it requires an assumption that you know more about this stuff than even a single scientist at NASA which clearly isnt true

You're not ready for this. You've just expressed what im dealing with. What im showing you is one thing, but your responses arent your own but based on the narrative of experts and degree holders. 

Nothing I show you will change that because you're not dealing with what is being shown to you, but your blind admiration for experts and authority figures with titles. 

You're not ready for this. Im good. 

[CTM]

Just now, Villain The Foe said:

You're not ready for this. You've just expressed what im dealing with. What im showing you is one thing, but your responses are arent your own but based on the narrative of experts and degree holders. 

Nothing I show you will change that because you're not dealing with what is being shown to you, but your blind admiration for experts and authority figures with titles. 

You're not ready for this. Im good. 

If I'm ever ready I let you know.

[Villain The Foe]

4 minutes ago, CTM said:

If I'm ever ready I let you know.

I'll be here. 

[Villain The Foe]

Though this is quite general, it immediately reminded me of this conversation as well as others in the past when folks use conventional science as some sort evidence when in reality it's nothing more than fantastically absurd forms of mathematics that has nothing to do with the scientific method or anything observable. The 1st 4 minutes of this video by Dr. Michio Kaku is absolute gold. 

Not only does he confirm that the word "theory" when talking about scientific theory, means exactly that, a theory. But then he says something at the end (2:40-3:00 mark) that just summed it up as what I've always said most of this stuff was. Pseudoscience. It's not science, its philosophy and here is a Dr. of theoretical physics telling you that he and everyone he's ever been around within his field understands this. 

But it gets even more comical. From the 3min-to 4 min mark he explains how the founders came across "string theory" in a math book, along with how he created an equation based on string theory which is "1 inch long" that explains everything. These people are not scientists, but are philosophers of mathematics and of grand conceit. 

This is no different than star trek, star wars or any other "science fiction" creation folks come up with. The only scientist off the top of my head that actually deserves the title "Scientist" is Nikola Tesla. And to think that people then lean on this to support their position, when it's nothing more than theoretical delusions of grandeur. It isnt science based on the scientific method, such as experimentation, but it's about accepted ideas, world view and funding. Such a shame, really.

How about the part where he talks about creating a mini big bang by colliding protons together, yet we're taught the big bang was formed out of "nothing" and then created "everything"...which would clearly include protons. You're not creating a big bang, you're  looking to slam protons together. 

Keep in mind that this is what he does for a living. This is his day job. 

However, if one has the time and are in  need of a laugh, listen to the interview overall. The insanity only confirms the folly.

 

[slimjasi]

Stick to basketball, sport 

[slimjasi]

On 12/12/2018 at 7:30 AM, Jetsfan80 said:

I love when these idiots say "Moon Landing" as a singular.  Did they fake all 6 landings?  Did they fake Apollo 13?  Do they realize that covering up something like this would actually cost more than it would to actually land on the Moon?

Idiots.

Out of all of the mainstream conspiracy theories out there, this one is easily the most idiotic.  

[TuscanyTile2]

On 7/8/2019 at 6:51 AM, jgb said:

In a world where whistleblowers are celebrated by the press and lauded with lucrative book deals, awards, etc., a conspiracy of this size would immediately collapse under its own weight. If a NASA scientist blew the cover off this "hoax," he'd be an instant millionaire on the movie rights alone. 

This goes for any conspiracy that would take >1000 people (probably even less) to perpetrate, including "rigging" NFL games.

Meanwhile the NBA was rigged but they brilliantly managed to gloss over it and somehow win back the public's trust.  Now people barely remember it.

[ZachEY]

On 8/25/2019 at 6:29 PM, Villain The Foe said:

@Jet_Engine1 just liked an old post which brings me back to this thread.  Now, Villian, if you believe this image is relevant, could you please tell me what camera/lens is capable of capturing approximately 10% of the surface area of the moon (or, earth, if it’s easier)?  Please spare us an exceptionally verbose response, and just explain to me how you would capture an image with that much terrain?  For the sake of the math, if that image comparison is accurate, you’re talking about roughly 680 miles of circumference in one photo.  Again, no need for a long response, just a quick explanation, or perhaps photo you took that spans 680 miles of terrain.

EDIT: For the sake of proportions, the photo you would need to take on earth would need to include 2,500 miles, roughly.  So, you'd basically be taking a photo of the entire east coast, plus 300 miles into Canada.  Could you please share the type of camera and where you'd stand to get such a photo?

[ZachEY]

Also, really just came here to post this:

 

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Also, really just came here to post this:

 

 

Were you at the funeral?  Did you see the body?  He's not really dead that's just what THEY want you to think.

 

@Hackenberg - Banned

[Villain The Foe]

7 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Also, really just came here to post this:

 

Poor guy probably hit his head on the firmament. 

[Villain The Foe]

3 hours ago, TeddEY said:

@Jet_Engine1 just liked an old post which brings me back to this thread.  Now, Villian, if you believe this image is relevant, could you please tell me what camera/lens is capable of capturing approximately 10% of the surface area of the moon (or, earth, if it’s easier)?  Please spare us an exceptionally verbose response, and just explain to me how you would capture an image with that much terrain?  For the sake of the math, if that image comparison is accurate, you’re talking about roughly 680 miles of circumference in one photo.  Again, no need for a long response, just a quick explanation, or perhaps photo you took that spans 680 miles of terrain.

EDIT: For the sake of proportions, the photo you would need to take on earth would need to include 2,500 miles, roughly.  So, you'd basically be taking a photo of the entire east coast, plus 300 miles into Canada.  Could you please share the type of camera and where you'd stand to get such a photo?

I dont understand this. 

 

(hope that wasnt too long for you). 

[greenwichjetfan]

Just so everyone’s clear - where do we stand on the ISS and the Dragon launch, etc?

[Wonderboy]

On 12/13/2018 at 9:55 AM, Philc1 said:

It’s a dumb conspiracy theory that’s popular right now because all the other conspiracy theories (JFK, aliens building the pyramids) have been debunked

Yea sure. Next we'll hear the Jets actually lost Super Bowl III.

[Arsis]

On 5/30/2020 at 5:06 PM, greenwichjetfan said:

Just so everyone’s clear - where do we stand on the ISS and the Dragon launch, etc?

I'm waiting for the expert Steph Curry and his cheating wife to chime in before I make my mind up.

[EM31]

1 hour ago, Arsis said:

I'm waiting for the expert Steph Curry and his cheating wife to chime in before I make my mind up.

I dunno guys.  Villain (and Steph) may be onto something here.  Was I the only one who saw the CNN coverage where the launch was already in progress before the countdown had even hi zero? Just sayin' that looks mighty suspicious.

And those "spacesuits"  Look how flimsy they are.  Like something out of a cheap 1970's sci-fi TV series (Buck Rogers in the 25th century comes to mind).  Everyone knows that real space suits should carry more size than that.

Once again just sayin'