Jump to content

Steph Curry says moon landing is a hoax


Blackout

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Remember when NASA wanted to "Bomb the Moon" and streamed it live for all of us at home to see?

But as expected, what folks got was no impact explosion to be seen from this streamed event, but instead just a bunch audio of scientific jargon and a couple seconds of computer graphics at the end. But you know folks decided to believe it anyway because during this alleged live feed the camera cuts to a room full of NASA employees clapping and shaking hands saying "We did it", so it had to have happened though we didnt see a thing. I mean, men and women lie, but never the folks who receive billions annually to send your imagination out to space...that final frontier.?

Its so unfortunate that we never heard anything about the gigantic plume of moon dust that should have been created and easily viewed from their Hubble telescope given that the moon's gravity is allegedly 1/6 of the gravity on earth. Wouldnt it have been amazing to see how high that plume could have developed given the circumstances?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy 50th anniversary to mankind landing on the moon! 

Hundreds of thousands of great men and women helped the USA win the Space Race with Neil’s small step. They should be honored. Along with all of the technological bi-products that were developed for or as a result of the Space Race, their great work paved the way for a whole bunch of kids with vivid imaginations and literacy in math and science to grow up and create/build the world we live in today.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

globe_epc_2015198.jpg

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.

moon_epc_2014198.jpg

 

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.

260354main_EPOXItimelapse3.jpg

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".

69_136063main_bm4_high.jpg

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. 

187_detail_as11-44-6551_orig.jpg

"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. 

 

  • Thumb Down 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah...

the kept footage for 50 years that they never showed?

how convenient, since tech has given them the ability to fake it even further , during the 50 year span.

they told you they lost instructions how to get there and recorded over footage of the event...but oh , yeah, we kept all this other stuff secret...?

theres no legit explanation for how they go number two and get rid of it either. 

people just dont think it through.

i'm leaving on the table.. maybe they have or havent.

but when you say.. "oh, we lost the instructions how to and havent done it in 50 years.. lol. it means its bullsh*t.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2019 at 12:11 PM, TeddEY said:

An oversimplification, but our minds are acutely evolved to detect patterns and make meaning.  However, like any other skill, in some cases it is over-used and to our detriment.  For instance, the ability to worry is adaptive; it warns us of danger and keeps us safe.  Too much, and you face crippling anxiety.  Conspiracy theorists follow in that mold.

EY droppin' science up in this bitch!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2019 at 3:40 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. 

globe_epc_2015198.jpg

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.

moon_epc_2014198.jpg

 

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.

260354main_EPOXItimelapse3.jpg

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".

69_136063main_bm4_high.jpg

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. 

187_detail_as11-44-6551_orig.jpg

"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. 

 

TL;DR

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Literally, the only thing you've proven here is that you lack basic understanding of visual perspective.

Quick experiment.  Take a quarter (the moon) out of your pocket.  Hold it close to your eye (the camera), and look at a clock (the earth).  Holy crap!  You've created an image close to the one shot from the moon.  Where, it literally eclipses the larger object.  Now, remain in your seat.  Have a trusted friend or confidant take the quarter (the moon) from you.  Have them hold it halfway between you (camera) and clock (earth).  Try it 3/4 of the way too.  Suddenly, you've created an image that looks an awful lot like the first one you're calling a fake.  This is 2nd grade science class stuff...

But EY, when the quarter is on my eye, it doesn't look like the images of earth from the moon's surface, I can't see the clock at all!!!!  Sure, that's generally correct, because your camera is technically not on the moon, it's behind it.  So, to do this perfectly, or closer to perfectly, we need to put the camera (the eye) on the moon (the quarter).  Not something we can do.  Instead, imagine now, you had a tiny camera, say one used for arthroscopic surgery (astronaut with camera), and you mounted that on a volleyball (the moon) - the ratios would be off here.  Obviously you'd need a giant ball to camera ratio, to perfectly replicate the moon to astronaut ratio - and then, you moved a second, much larger ball, say a beach ball (the earth), a proportional distance away, and you'd be able to create a similar image from the moon looking at the earth.

Or, you can ask yourself another question.  Is the Earth bigger than the Sun?  Or frankly, is the Earth the biggest object in our solar system?  If you think that the answer is yes, you're wrong, and you can go back to using the quarters, clocks, volleyballs, and beach balls to understand why it only looks that way.  However, if you think, correctly, that the sun is bigger than the earth, then go outside and take a picture of a sunset, and it'll look very similar to the one of the moon from the earth.

Now, if you want to understand why no stars appear in photos from space, we need to understand photography a bit better.  In comparison to the stars, the earth, from the moon, is extremely bright.  Stars are much further away and therefore much dimmer.  Should we wish to take a high quality photograph of the earth, we would set our cameras with a fast exposure time and a narrow aperture.  If you wanted to include the much dimmer stars, you'd need to open your aperture and slow down your exposure time.  This would produce an image with all the stars needed.  However, it would also over-expose the earth, turning it largely into a what ball of light with little details.  You see, cameras and your eyes both see things, and they do so in similar ways, but not in identical ways.  You could also use a DSLR and experiment with this too, if you wanted see first hand why the stars aren't in photos.

cc: @Jetsfan80; @Klecko73isGod

That's gold, Jerry. Gold!

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Villain.  Just another instance of someone who always thinks he's the smartest in the room, then gets all defensive when someone else shows he clearly isn't. 

The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, the 6 moon landings....they happened, buddy.  I know its crazy to think that something amazing could happen without an alternate, cynical explanation.  But they did.  Find yourself another conspiracy to latch onto.  Conspiracies can definitely be real things but this isn't one of them.  Nor was the vaccines cause autism one that you spent hours of your life arguing about.  Boy what a great use of one's time. 

Stay in your lane, Villain.  Stay in your lane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Men's philosophies masquerading as science. 

Folks cant even fake land on quarters they hold in their pocket, yet call it science. Lol. 

This world is f'ed. 

Sometimes when you're the smartest man in the room, its an indication that you need to find an even better room. 

 

I'm lost. Is this whole thing schtick or are you really this stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We see what happens when a persons extreme irrational beliefs, even delusions, are threatened.  Objective reality must be dismissed outright.  You can never win an argument with the delusional, their belief is to fundamental to their core being, change would be too devastating.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

We see what happens when a persons extreme irrational beliefs, even delusions, are threatened.  Objective reality must be dismissed outright.  You can never win an argument with the delusional, their belief is to fundamental to their core being, change would be too devastating. 

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 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. 

Lots of childish mockery with absolutely  no ability  to prove any moon landing ever happened. A you'e able  to do is believe your tv screen.

If you were intellectually  honest with yourself. You'd realize you have no answers  for whst you're  looking at.

Materials  were invented to keep people from dying in space? Normal film could be used?  The common man can't  think for himself. He relies on tv to tell him what to think. 

The fact that nasa said they lost how to do it and you're still childishly making fun of doubters. Speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence.

You can't  tangibly point at one single thing that proves me wrong. Pointing  st your tv  and saying "look, that's  proof. Is not how it works. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Amazing how actual science can disprove things like the 9/11, moon landing and vaccine conspiracies, isn't it? 

Your quote is meaningless. Nothing in actual science proved any of it. An entire building is destroyed..but yeah, we found  their passports....

Where is the poster at the pharmacy,  with all the ingredients in a vaccine? There's  no transparency.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Lots of childish mockery with absolutely  no ability  to prove any moon landing ever happened. A you'e able  to do is believe your tv screen.

If you were intellectually  honest with yourself. You'd realize you have no answers  for whst you're  looking at.

Materials  were invented to keep people from dying in space? Normal film could be used?  The common man can't  think for himself. He relies on tv to tell him what to think. 

The fact that nasa said they lost how to do it and you're still childishly making fun of doubters. Speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence.

You can't  tangibly point at one single thing that proves me wrong. Pointing  st your tv  and saying "look, that's  proof. Is not how it works. 

 

 

 

Maybe read beyond a headline...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/12/11/how-we-lost-the-ability-to-travel-to-the-moon/#6ca7d5301f48

 

Answer by Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller atNASA , on Quora.

Why does it take three years to develop a new car, when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model? Why does it take six years to develop a new airplane when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model?

 

 

 

The answer is that they are complex devices. A launch vehicle and spacecraft destined to go to the moon is much more complex and operates at the edge of the envelope where there is little tolerance for imprecision and error.

When operating on the edge of the envelope, thousands and thousands of hours go into testing and tweaking. The development and operations teams acquire expertise that no one else on the planet has. The vehicle cannot be built or operated without that expertise.

Operating a space mission involves reams of paper in the forms of flight rules and operational procedures. Those rules and procedures are drafted over thousands of hours of test and simulations. A change in the vehicle can send ripples of changes through those documents.

The Saturn V rocket had over three million parts. The command and service modules and lunar module were composed of millions of additional parts. An individual person cannot contemplate the scale of detail needed to assemble and operate those vehicles.

So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down. The jigs were disassembled. The molds were destroyed.  The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs. Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.

If we, today, said - "Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!" it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.

We don't have the factories or tools. We don't have the materials. We don't have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings. We don't have the expertise to operate the vehicle.

We would have to substitute modern materials. That changes the vehicle. It changes the mass, it changes the stresses and strains, it changes the interactions. It changes the possible malfunctions. It changes the capabilities of the vehicle.

We would have to spend a few years re-developing the expertise. We would have to conduct new tests and simulations. We would have to draft new flight rules and procedures. We would have to certify new flight controllers and crew.

We would essentially be building a new vehicle.

And that's what we are doing. As similar as Orion looks to an Apollo Command Module, as much as we think we understand heat shields and parachute deploy systems - we have to understand these specific heat shields and parachute deploy systems. NASA has people doing these tests, every day.

Ars Technica did an excellent story on the work NASA needed to do to reconstruct the F-1 engine from the Saturn V for use on the SLS. Take a look at it, here: How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 “moon rocket” engine back to life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Maybe read beyond a headline...

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/12/11/how-we-lost-the-ability-to-travel-to-the-moon/#6ca7d5301f48

 

Answer by Robert Frost, Instructor and Flight Controller atNASA , on Quora.

Why does it take three years to develop a new car, when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model? Why does it take six years to develop a new airplane when it shares 90% of its "DNA" with the previous model?

 

 

 

The answer is that they are complex devices. A launch vehicle and spacecraft destined to go to the moon is much more complex and operates at the edge of the envelope where there is little tolerance for imprecision and error.

When operating on the edge of the envelope, thousands and thousands of hours go into testing and tweaking. The development and operations teams acquire expertise that no one else on the planet has. The vehicle cannot be built or operated without that expertise.

Operating a space mission involves reams of paper in the forms of flight rules and operational procedures. Those rules and procedures are drafted over thousands of hours of test and simulations. A change in the vehicle can send ripples of changes through those documents.

The Saturn V rocket had over three million parts. The command and service modules and lunar module were composed of millions of additional parts. An individual person cannot contemplate the scale of detail needed to assemble and operate those vehicles.

So, when the Apollo program ended, the factories that assembled those vehicles were retasked or shut down. The jigs were disassembled. The molds were destroyed.  The technicians, engineers, scientists, and flight controllers moved onto other jobs. Over time, some of the materials used became obsolete.

If we, today, said - "Let us build another Saturn V rocket and Apollo CSM/LEM and go to the moon!" it would not be a simple task of pulling out the blueprints and bending and cutting metal.

We don't have the factories or tools. We don't have the materials. We don't have the expertise to understand how the real vehicle differed from the drawings. We don't have the expertise to operate the vehicle.

We would have to substitute modern materials. That changes the vehicle. It changes the mass, it changes the stresses and strains, it changes the interactions. It changes the possible malfunctions. It changes the capabilities of the vehicle.

We would have to spend a few years re-developing the expertise. We would have to conduct new tests and simulations. We would have to draft new flight rules and procedures. We would have to certify new flight controllers and crew.

We would essentially be building a new vehicle.

And that's what we are doing. As similar as Orion looks to an Apollo Command Module, as much as we think we understand heat shields and parachute deploy systems - we have to understand these specific heat shields and parachute deploy systems. NASA has people doing these tests, every day.

Ars Technica did an excellent story on the work NASA needed to do to reconstruct the F-1 engine from the Saturn V for use on the SLS. Take a look at it, here: How NASA brought the monstrous F-1 “moon rocket” engine back to life

Um..what part of- this is called  propaganda - don't you get?

This is called excuses. Millions of dollars worth of excuses. You redundantly prove my point. You need to rely on media to tell you what you what to think.

You can't say you lost the instructions...and then be able to  send rovers to mars. It's  just pseudo/fake intellectual stupidity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hackenberg said:

Um..what part of- this is called  propaganda - don't you get?

This is called excuses. Millions of dollars worth of excuses. You redundantly prove my point. You need to rely on media to tell you what you what to think.

You can't say you lost the instructions...and then be able to  send rovers to mars. It's  just pseudo/fake intellectual stupidity. 

If you had actually read my post you'd understand that when they said they lost the plans it doesn't mean they physically lost the plans.

Read past a headline. Maybe you will learn something.

You're not enlightened, you're not smarter than anyone. Ignorance and arrogance are a terrible combination, son.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

If you had actually read my post you'd understand that when they said they lost the plans it doesn't mean they physically lost the plans.

Read past a headline. Maybe you will learn something.

You're not enlightened, you're not smarter than anyone. Ignorance and arrogance are a terrible combination, son.

You cant' prove who wrote the article, or if anything they said is remotely  true.

 

Believing what you read, doesn' make what you read a fact.

Lol saying the lost the plans doesn't  mean they lost the plans....? 

The common man is so stupid, he falls for 3rd grade level double talk lol.

Right,  they never lost  them because  they never had any in the first place.

I don't  need to read beyond a few bullet points because  I know  the film  i'm watching on tv is bullsh*t.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

You cant' prove who wrote the article, or if anything they said is remotely  true.

 

Believing what you read, doesn' make what you read a fact.

Lol saying the lost the plans doesn't  mean they lost the plans....? 

The common man is so stupid, he falls for 3rd grade level double talk lol.

Right,  they never lost  them because  they never had any in the first place.

I don't  need to read beyond a few bullet points because  I know  the film  i'm watching on tv is bullsh*t.

 

 

 

 

If I had read you were from Oregon before this all would have been crystal clear.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

You cant' prove who wrote the article, or if anything they said is remotely  true.

 

Believing what you read, doesn' make what you read a fact.

Lol saying the lost the plans doesn't  mean they lost the plans....? 

The common man is so stupid, he falls for 3rd grade level double talk lol.

Right,  they never lost  them because  they never had any in the first place.

I don't  need to read beyond a few bullet points because  I know  the film  i'm watching on tv is bullsh*t.

 

 

 

 

So you admit to wallowing in your ignorance because you are afraid of learning something that might upset your worldview.

That's not free thinking. That's not enlightenment.

That, son, is stupidity.

Intelligent people embrace their ignorance and try to learn so they can eliminate it. They don't turn their minds off to new information.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moon landings are obviously not fake. I believe you can actually see the Flag on the moon with a big enough telescope. However, what keeps these rumors alive is that some of the pictures are almost definitely fake and staged. Remember this was part of the cold war so they needed perfect pics to send the message over to USSR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

If I had read you were from Oregon before this all would have been crystal clear.  

Another example  of inability  to do research. I moved to Oregon in 2015.

I'm from Pasadena  Ca./ parts of So. Cal.

None of that proves any moon landing happened. You need to resort  to insults to deflect

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hackenberg said:

Another example  of inability  to do research. I moved to Oregon in 2015.

I'm from Pasadena  Ca./ parts of So. Cal.

None of that proves any moon landing happened. You need to resort  to insults to deflect

 

 

And you've done nothing to disprove it.

All you're doing is making arrogant pronouncements. 

Ignorance and arrogance don't work together, kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

So you admit to wallowing in your ignorance because you are afraid of learning something that might upset your worldview.

That's not free thinking. That's not enlightenment.

That, son, is stupidity.

Intelligent people embrace their ignorance and try to learn so they can eliminate it. They don't turn their minds off to new information.

You'e just babbling now. I said= believing what  you read, does not qualify as facts.  You are reading pro moon landing propaganda. You can' prove a single quote in the article is real or true. I said I read enough to know  what I'm reading.

Yes, intelligent  people embrace their ignorance. I realized 4 years ago  that media lies, govt lies. That's how I realized I knew nothing and grew from there. 

You, on the other hand,  believe everything you are told. You do not know the difference  between proof and belief.

We, in no way shape or form, designed anything that can survive in a vacuum of anti gravity. Nor did we design a battery that can sustain a cooling system in a suit for hours.. nor did we design a way to poop  into a suit without making a mess. Nor did we design a ship, that when the astronaut opens the door to go on the moon, to be able to recirculation the air, to push the bad  air out.

 hole after hole in the entire thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

And you've done nothing to disprove it.

All you're doing is making arrogant pronouncements. 

Ignorance and arrogance don't work together, kid.

Yes,  I did disprove  it.

This is how : I pointed out that you cant'

 Prove anything you quoted to be true.

Believing what you read doesn't prove anything. 

It's the same as if I said, the orange dragon defeated the purple cloud. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...