Steph Curry says moon landing is a hoax

[Hackenberg - Banned]

1 hour ago, Peace Frog said:

Apparently if you’ve never driven from Long Island to Staten Island, it can’t be driven. 

I grew up on Long Island and 2 of my sisters went to Wagner so I know to a certitude that it can be driven. 

But most people can’t prove it. 

You physically  drove it. You can't prove anything about Nasa,  no matter how hard you try.

What's  so difficult to understand? 

 

 

[Villain The Foe]

4 hours ago, TeddEY said:

So, distance matters?  How much distance matters?  What specific ratio did you use?  What formula?  Did you factor in the type of lens on the camera?  Show your work, pls.

This is what happens when ridiculous 2nd grade science projects get exposed. You receive a bunch of emotional 2nd grade level questions. 

Ill pass.

[Villain The Foe]

8 hours ago, TeddEY said:

I also can’t prove that you didn’t grow up on a diet exclusively of your uncle’s semen, but I suspect you’d object to me arguing in the affirmative that you did.

 

8 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

Exactly my point. You can't prove anything so you resort to childishness. It's your only defense. 

There's absolutely  no legitimate way to prove 93 million miles away. It's  that simple. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Prove it.

Just saying it isn't isn't proof of anything. That's just you saying sh*t, which is extremely childish, by the way.

How about trying to make an actual scientific point using evidence rather than being an arrogant idiot?

 

8 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

Lol you're just contradicting me. Doesnt ' qualify as proof I'm wrong. 

I made  a scientific  fact= there is no way to prove the size of the sun or its distance. You have no clue what that is in the sky or where it comes from. 

Unless  you can know anything first hand.  You are relying on too many outside sources. It's not their job to tell you the truth. It's' their job to keep you dumb and amazed and misguided,  like a dog staring at chocolate  cake with a biscuit  on top.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Jesus, you're bad at this.

Actually, @Hackenberg showed to be quite good at this, while exposing the childishness from you guys for the purpose of kicks and laughs as well. This "schtuck" of calling him names as a way to support your disagreement isnt actual scientific fact as he very easily pointed out. Hackenberg saying that "there is no way for you to prove that 93 million mile measurement" is not childishness...its true. 

We know its true given the resort to childishness instead of the resort to the proof that Hackenberg had questioned.

Examples like this is why I don't even respond to folks who try so hard to bring up my stance on vaccines in a discussion about this moon hoax in this thread because of their continued saltiness from months ago that is so pervasive in them that when they were told congratulations on their wedding from me they couldnt even acknowledge the warm gesture. Talk about a childish mind. But that's someone elses problem. Their childishness and saltiness isnt proving anything...so why even entertain them? Maybe Hack should follow suit when interactions on a particular subject isnt going anywhere due to childishness.

There's no need to resort to childish behavior because of disagreements guys. What Hack said is right. You have no way of verifying that info...we just take it at face value and Hack is simply saying that maybe we should begin to start verifying what we think we know and for things that cant be proven or verified, reserve some space for questioning by others. That's a healthy, mature and rational position to have. Name calling when discussing things like this for kicks and popularity points is never rational...it's just childish. 

 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

yes, its ultimately a superficial, external topic.

not something you base a friendship on.

50/50, lets suppose its true.. true or not it doesnt even matter. The poor are still poor. it wont change a single persons life here.

if they made it in the 60s.. whats gotten better since then? everyones competing for less and less jobs. useless doctors havent cured one godam thing.

but hey, lets go in circles about uselessly flying around space... or not doing it lol.

as long as my fellow man is helpful and kind. I dont give a f--- what color he thinks the sky is.

 

 

 

[Hackenberg - Banned]

anything changed since this?

wheres those practical applications for cures of disease?

 

[ZachEY]

2 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

This is what happens when ridiculous 2nd grade science projects get exposed. You receive a bunch of emotional 2nd grade level questions. 

Ill pass.

Asking you to quantify your stance is 2nd grade level stuff?

You’ve written dissertations here on Mike Glennon, but when asked to back up the notion that the sun appears small because it’s far, but the earth should appear huge because it’s not far enough, with any kind of data, you refuse because it’s “childish.”

Intellectually lazy, or afraid of “cognitive dissonance,” (a word you inappropriately overuse), yourself?

[Klecko73isGod]

1 hour ago, TeddEY said:

Asking you to quantify your stance is 2nd grade level stuff?

You’ve written dissertations here on Mike Glennon, but when asked to back up the notion that the sun appears small because it’s far, but the earth should appear huge because it’s not far enough, with any kind of data, you refuse because it’s “childish.”

Intellectually lazy, or afraid of “cognitive dissonance,” (a word you inappropriately overuse), yourself?

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

[Villain The Foe]

2 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Asking you to quantify your stance is 2nd grade level stuff?

(Deep breath)

Sure. Isnt that what you've deduced this to? You decided to respond to a previous quote of mine with what you called "2nd grade science class stuff" though the 2nd grade science experiment that you used to respond to what I was presenting didnt prove a thing outside of it's grade level. 

You're following that up with questions that have nothing to do with the initial topic and the response that I gave you regarding your 2nd grade science level experiment. 

You're asking me these questions "So, distance matters?  How much distance matters?  What specific ratio did you use?  What formula?  Did you factor in the type of lens on the camera?" about the Sun, relative to  where we're viewing the sun from, which is from earth. 

That has nothing to do with the photo of the earth and moon taken from 31 million miles away which shows scale of both objects relative to one another. These questions of yours serve no purpose outside of muddying the conversation and ignoring the response that I presented to you as a response to your 2nd grade science experiment. 

How about we just stay on topic. 

Quote

You’ve written dissertations here on Mike Glennon, but when asked to back up the notion that the sun appears small because it’s far, but the earth should appear huge because it’s not far enough, with any kind of data, you refuse because it’s “childish.”

Intellectually lazy, or afraid of “cognitive dissonance,” (a word you inappropriately overuse), yourself?

I've indeed written dissertations on Mike Glennon, but have decided not to write one on a subject that im not talking about. That's not difficult to understand. Im not talking about the Sun and Earth and the how we perceive the Sun while standing on earth. Im talking about the photo taken 31 million miles away from the earth and moon. 

What makes this position of yours childish however is the fact that the person who's calling this intellectually lazy is the same person who has mentioned the semen of Hackenberg's uncle, the incorrect use of 2nd grade level science (which is a grade level of a child), thinking that the only way someone can prove whether or not they're impenetrable to bullets is by shooting themselves in the head, the mention of Mike Glennon and most obvious, the continuous support by other childish people who simply cannot get themselves to hold this conversation without name calling. Example:

1 hour ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

 

So as you may not be able to see, but I have certainly displayed, this is indeed childish behavior from grown men, probably with children. 

 

Question. What's more intellectually lazy? Ignoring childishness, or responding to your disagreements by name calling, creating a diet based on the semen of someone's uncle, asking someone to shoot themselves in the head to prove something that can be easily proven in much safer ways and incorrectly using child level science? 

 

 

I dont mind talking about this topic, but you guys arent talking but trying to insult, and what's worse, it's the dame folks that you'll hear that "They'll bring you down to their level" yet its the level you and your pals are on that are resorting to name calling and semen diets. 

 

All I have for this is a slight shaking of the head and a smirk. Approach folks holding the discussion with some respect and you'll see how your questions will be answered to the best of my ability. Until then, you're just being childish 

[ZachEY]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

(Deep breath)

Sure. Isnt that what you've deduced this to? You decided to respond to a previous quote of mine with what you called "2nd grade science class stuff" though the 2nd grade science experiment that you used to respond to what I was presenting didnt prove a thing outside of it's grade level. 

You're following that up with questions that have nothing to do with the initial topic and the response that I gave you regarding your 2nd grade science level experiment. 

You're asking me these questions "So, distance matters?  How much distance matters?  What specific ratio did you use?  What formula?  Did you factor in the type of lens on the camera?" about the Sun, relative to  where we're viewing the sun from, which is from earth. 

That has nothing to do with the photo of the earth and moon taken from 31 million miles away which shows scale of both objects relative to one another. These questions of yours serve no purpose outside of muddying the conversation and ignoring the response that I presented to you as a response to your 2nd grade science experiment. 

How about we just stay on topic. 

I've indeed written dissertations on Mike Glennon, but have decided not to write one on a subject that im not talking about. That's not difficult to understand. Im not talking about the Sun and Earth and the how we perceive the Sun while standing on earth. Im talking about the photo taken 31 million miles away from the earth and moon. 

What makes this position of yours childish however is the fact that the person who's calling this intellectually lazy is the same person who has mentioned the semen of Hackenberg's uncle, the incorrect use of 2nd grade level science (which is a grade level of a child), thinking that the only way someone can prove whether or not their impenetrable to bullets is by shooting themselves in the head, the mention of Mike Glennon and most obvious, the continuous support by other childish people who simply cannot get themselves to hold this conversation without name calling. Example:

 

So as you may not be able to see, but I have certainly displayed, this is indeed childish behavior from grown men, probably with children. 

 

What's more intellectually lazy, ignoring childishness or responding to disagreements to name calling, creating a diet based on the semen of someone's uncle and incorrectly using child level science? 

 

 

I dont mind talking about this topic, but you guys arent talking but trying to insult, and what's worse you hear about how "They'll bring you down to their level" yet its the level you and your pals are on that are resorting to name calling and semen diets. 

 

All I have for this is a slight shaking of the head and a smirk. Approach folks holding the discussion with some respect and you'll see how your questions will be answered to the best of my ability. Until then, you're just being childish 

Many words... No math... Not surprised.

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Many words... No math... Not surprised.

^^^Few words, unless talking about the semen of other men...then many words. 

 

not surprised. 

[Villain The Foe]

5 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Many words... No math... Not surprised.

My bad. I didnt address the bolded. 

10 divided by 2 = 5. 

 

2nd grade level division.

[ZachEY]

 

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

^^^Few words, unless talking about the semen of other men...then many words. 

 

not surprised. 

Cute.  Except the purpose of the absurdist example was well understood by all those who didn’t have to hide in their fee fees because they can’t accept the point and then well explained to those who didn’t.  I could have said anything ridiculous to refute Hackenberg’s thesis that we should reject (not treat with skepticism, which would be fair) anything that we ourselves can’t prove.  I could have said that I can’t prove that Australia isn’t made of clementines, so it’s reasonable to think that it is.  Would that be more palatable to your delicate sensitivities?

1 hour ago, Villain The Foe said:

My bad. I didnt address the bolded. 

10 divided by 2 = 5. 

 

2nd grade level division.

Here’s the thing, you can’t show your work, because you haven’t done it, and any attempt to would quickly prove you wrong... That much is obvious.  Just like you spoke endlessly about vaccinations without actually knowing what polio was.  You pretend to be an expert because you watch YouTube videos and read conspiracy websites, but never actually dare venture into the weeds of how things actually work.  Likely because, confirmation bias, but also because that would actually be hard and require actual learning.

Last try... If I take a picture of a picture of a bus, from 15 feet away, the bus is much more than 4x me and the camera, why can I also see the street, the buildings behind it, the trees, and the sky?

[Jetsfan80]

After a day of reflection, I must say that Hackenberg's excuse for not reading books is one of the better ones I've heard in some time.  The "we're in the matrix and nothing is real unless I see it happen" argument is far better than the usual excuses for not reading:  Laziness, preferring TV, boredom, wanting to avoid seeming nerdy, etc.

[ZachEY]

5 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

yes, its ultimately a superficial, external topic.

not something you base a friendship on.

50/50, lets suppose its true.. true or not it doesnt even matter. The poor are still poor. it wont change a single persons life here.

if they made it in the 60s.. whats gotten better since then? everyones competing for less and less jobs. useless doctors havent cured one godam thing.

but hey, lets go in circles about uselessly flying around space... or not doing it lol.

as long as my fellow man is helpful and kind. I dont give a f--- what color he thinks the sky is.

 

 

 

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.

[Klecko73isGod]

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

After a day of reflection, I must say that Hackenberg's excuse for not reading books is one of the better ones I've heard in some time.  The "we're in the matrix and nothing is real unless I see it happen" argument is far better than the usual excuses for not reading:  Laziness, preferring TV, boredom, wanting to avoid seeming nerdy, etc.

It really isn't because it is so much lazier.

Not to mention the intellectual inconsistency of telling someone they are a sheep for believing something they read in a reputable periodical while believing something you yourself read in a disreputable periodical.

I would say more about his lassitude but these ******* anchors ain't gonna sell themselves.

[Jetsfan80]

11 minutes ago, 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. 

And this is the exact reason why no one else has been to the Moon since 12 Americans did.  People think that since we got to the Moon 50 years ago that it's somehow an "easy" endeavor, and use that argument to suggest the landings didn't happen.  It's not "easy" at all.  It's costly, even today, and it's benefits to society were more technological than anything else, and such advancements don't require putting a person on another heavenly body to make them happen. 

And if you lose a man or woman in space, America's appetite for more space exploration is reduced significantly.  Had Apollo 13 not returned with the 3 astronauts alive, we would have only had 2 moon landings, not 6. 

[Villain The Foe]

38 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

 

Cute.  Except the purpose of the absurdist example was well understood by all those who didn’t have to hide in their fee fees because they can’t accept the point and then well explained to those who didn’t.  I could have said anything ridiculous to refute Hackenberg’s thesis that we should reject (not treat with skepticism, which would be fair) anything that we ourselves can’t prove.  I could have said that I can’t prove that Australia isn’t made of clementines, so it’s reasonable to think that it is.  Would that be more palatable to your delicate sensitivities?

Here’s the thing, you can’t show your work, because you haven’t done it, and any attempt to would quickly prove you wrong... That much is obvious.  Just like you spoke endlessly about vaccinations without actually knowing what polio was.  You pretend to be an expert because you watch YouTube videos and read conspiracy websites, but never actually dare venture into the weeds of how things actually work.  Likely because, confirmation bias, but also because that would actually be hard and require actual learning.

Last try... If I take a picture of a picture of a bus, from 15 feet away, the bus is much more than 4x me and the camera, why can I also see the street, the buildings behind it, the trees, and the sky?

 Why do you keep providing these poor examples? 

This isnt about backing away from a bus that is 4x the size of you and wondering why when backing away from the bus you can see what surrounds the bus. 

That has nothing to do with taking an alleged image of both the Earth and moon at a far enough distance away of 31 million Miles in order to see the scale of both objects related to one another. 

Look, dont do a "last try". It's clear that this is higher than 2nd grade.

I will accept the fact that though you don't understand what is being presented you still ultimately disagree. I can accept that you cannot accept something given that you dont understand what is being shown to you. 

We'll leave it here. 

 

Oh, I dont pretend to be an expert, you guys provide that pedestal and state that I havent achieved it. Im just a person who can understand what I want to present and how to explain my position on the subject without name calling, digging in the Mike Glennon crate, speaking about semen or bullet shots to the head. 

U talk about "fee fees" yet look how you've presented yourself. Who's in their feelings? Really?

You're spending all this time on low level 2nd grade nonsense because "folks around you understand what you mean when you talk about another man's semen" instead of holding off on such nonsense and reading/dealing with what was presented in a mature grown up way.

If you concentrated on doing that instead then you'd see that your constant 2nd grade experiment rebuttals are not capturing what it is that you're simply doing a poor job of responding to.

As I said, i have no problem holding the convo, but I responded to your 2nd grade experiment and you decided to change the subject and make a comparison that's irrelevant. Dont talk about dissertations when you're the one dismissing them when presented to you. 

Act your age  and then your followers will follow suit. 

[Klecko73isGod]

3 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

As as said, i have no problem holding the convo

Yes. You do. 

[Peace Frog]

8 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

You physically  drove it. You can't prove anything about Nasa,  no matter how hard you try.

What's  so difficult to understand? 

 

 

Again, if you can’t physically prove something it doesn’t exist?

I’ve never lived by the motto “never trust a fart” because I’ve never sharted myself. 

Now, because I can’t prove I’m not going to shart, looks like I need to stop trusting my farts. 

[Villain The Foe]

3 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Yes. You do. 

Wow, One of the rare comments without name calling. 

Progression

[Peace Frog]

8 hours ago, Hackenberg said:

You can't prove anything about Nasa,  no matter how hard you try.

 

 

Did any of those NASA space shuttles explode?

The wreckage they collected. 

The funerals?

All imagined?

[Jetsfan80]

15 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Did any of those NASA space shuttles explode?

The wreckage they collected. 

The funerals? 

All imagined? 

 

Not proof, because Hackenberg wasn't there to inspect any of the wreckage or attend the funerals. 

[ZachEY]

29 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Yes. You do. 

That’s it, unfortunately.  At this point, math, or shut up.

[Villain The Foe]

33 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Did any of those NASA space shuttles explode?

The wreckage they collected. 

The funerals?

All imagined?

Example. 

Remember the Challenger explosion? 

Here's a picture of the crew that manned the Challenger when it exploded on live television. 

The lady on the top right of that picture, here name is Astronaut Judith Resnik. She was stated to have died along with the rest of her crew on Challenger during the explosion. 

 

Here's Judith Resnik today. 

She's a "Professor of Law" currently on leave at Yale Law. 

Here's a link to Yale's website showing it. 

https://law.yale.edu/judith-resnik

 

Now, if this isnt enough, lets do this again. The gentleman on the bottom left on the picture, his name is Astronaut Michael J. Smith. He is said to have died with his crew on the challenger in 1986. 

 

Here's Michael J. Smith today

He's a "Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering" the College of Engineering at the university of Wisconsin Madison. 

Here's the school website link showing it. 

https://directory.engr.wisc.edu/ie/Faculty/Smith_Michael/

 

P.S. i know this isn't math EY....but still. 

 

You know who could explain this situation and make sense of it? @Jetsfan80

 

I'll pop back in later and see what mature response this comment inspires. 

 

Hopefully this helps with your question @Peace Frog

[Jetsfan80]

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

At this point, math, or shut up.

And of course we know he'll do neither. 

[ZachEY]

Well that proves it.  No possible way there is more than one... checks notes... Michael Smith.

[Klecko73isGod]

24 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Example. 

Remember the Challenger explosion? 

Here's a picture of the crew that manned the Challenger when it exploded on live television. 

The lady on the top right of that picture, here name is Astronaut Judith Resnik. She was stated to have died along with the rest of her crew on Challenger during the explosion. 

 

Here's Judith Resnik today. 

She's a "Professor of Law" currently on leave at Yale Law. 

Here's a link to Yale's website showing it. 

https://law.yale.edu/judith-resnik

 

Now, if this isnt enough, lets do this again. The gentleman on the bottom left on the picture, his name is Astronaut Michael J. Smith. He is said to have died with his crew on the challenger in 1986. 

 

Here's Michael J. Smith today

He's a "Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering" the College of Engineering at the university of Wisconsin Madison. 

Here's the school website link showing it. 

https://directory.engr.wisc.edu/ie/Faculty/Smith_Michael/

 

Something to think about the next time the television tells you something. 

P.S. i know this isn't math....but still. 

Yes... because when people fake their own deaths they would totally just go by the same name and not bother to create a new identity for themselves.

These are merely two people who share the same names as two of the deceased astronauts. 

Your theory is morbid and insulting to anyone with an IQ over 50.

Not to mention incredibly disrespectful to the astronauts and their families.

[Jetsfan80]

LOL.  Those 2 people look NOTHING like the 2 astronauts they're supposed to be.  Not even close. 

[NYs Stepchild]

1 hour ago, 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.

First of all, going to the moon again is pointless, unless of course China is going to put a permanent station there and claim it for themselves. Use your imagination and see how problematic that could become. 

Secondly, it is impossible to prove that we went to the moon. It's easier to prove that faking it would have been much harder than actually doing it in 1969. There was 143 minutes of live footage with no evidence of film being involved. Now faking that would have been impossible. 

[Peace Frog]

31 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Example. 

Remember the Challenger explosion? 

Here's a picture of the crew that manned the Challenger when it exploded on live television. 

The lady on the top right of that picture, here name is Astronaut Judith Resnik. She was stated to have died along with the rest of her crew on Challenger during the explosion. 

 

Here's Judith Resnik today. 

She's a "Professor of Law" currently on leave at Yale Law. 

Here's a link to Yale's website showing it. 

https://law.yale.edu/judith-resnik

 

Now, if this isnt enough, lets do this again. The gentleman on the bottom left on the picture, his name is Astronaut Michael J. Smith. He is said to have died with his crew on the challenger in 1986. 

 

Here's Michael J. Smith today

He's a "Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering" the College of Engineering at the university of Wisconsin Madison. 

Here's the school website link showing it. 

https://directory.engr.wisc.edu/ie/Faculty/Smith_Michael/

 

P.S. i know this isn't math EY....but still. 

 

You know who could explain this situation and make sense of it? @Jetsfan80

 

I'll pop back in later and see what mature response this comment inspires. 

 

Hopefully this helps with your question @Peace Frog

Holy sh*t.  So a law professor and and OSHA guy were astronauts earlier in their careers.  But don't mention it in their bios.

Are you f*cking kidding?

There are 16 Judith Resnik's on Linkedin.

Maybe one of those was the real astronaut.

You can't be this stupid.

Oh, wait.  

[Villain The Foe]

13 minutes ago, Peace Frog said:

Holy sh*t.  So a law professor and and OSHA guy were astronauts earlier in their careers.  But don't mention it in their bios.

Are you f*cking kidding?

There are 16 Judith Resnik's on Linkedin.

Maybe one of those was the real astronaut.

You can't be this stupid.

Oh, wait.  

Why would their careers as an astronaut be mentioned in their bio's when they both allegedly died as a result of an explosion of the rocket that they were on? lol.

 

The name calling only confirms why Im witnessing such lack of independent thought. 

 

But hey. 

Maybe the guy in the bottom middle of that group photo named Astronaut Francis Richard Scobee looks exactly like the "Richard Scobee" of Cows in Trees? Here's the comparison. 

Now here is "Richard Scobee's" Linkedin profile where this comparison picture comes from. Along with the same name and the same facial features. 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-scobee-23875418/de

 

Hey @Klecko73isGod This is now 3 people. Is this still considered a Morbid insulting theory? 

let me know. 

[Villain The Foe]

28 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

LOL.  Those 2 people look NOTHING like the 2 astronauts they're supposed to be.  Not even close. 

O'Rly????

 

 

Im going to dismiss myself from this room. It's clear that folks will deny any and everything to maintain that soon to shatter mental construct. 

 

I better not mess with that. 
 

You guys can all have the last word. I've presented some credible points, and didnt even need Math "EY". 

[#27TheDominator]

Every night I go to sleep thinking this thread can't get any wackier.   Every morning I wake up to find that you people did not disappoint.

[Peace Frog]

1 minute ago, Villain The Foe said:

 

Im going to dismiss myself from this room. 

Because your last few efforts have been embarrassingly moronic.

So, does astronaut Judith Resnik’s  real family visit her at Yale or are they also part of the conspiracy? Has the government given her a new family? And how much did they pay her old family to keep quiet?

Seriously. Peel back the onion for us. 

[Klecko73isGod]

7 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Why would their careers as an astronaut be mentioned in their bio's when they both allegedly died as a result of an explosion of the rocket that they were on? lol.

 

The name calling only confirms why Im witnessing such lack of independent thought. 

 

But hey. 

Maybe the guy in the bottom middle of that group photo named Astronaut Francis Richard Scobee looks exactly like the "Richard Scobee" of Cows in Trees? Here's the comparison. 

Now here is "Richard Scobee's" Linkedin profile where this comparison picture comes from. Along with the same name and the same facial features. 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-scobee-23875418/de

 

Hey @Klecko73isGod This is now 3 people. Is this still considered a Morbid insulting theory? 

let me know. 

Yes.

Please answer the most obvious question. Why would they keep the same names? 

They go to all this trouble to blow up a space shuttle, something that was witnessed live by thousands of pepeople on the ground and millions on television, and fake the deaths of 7 people, only to let them walk around with the same names for the next 30 years?

Your premise is dumb.