Once you stop drinking both the globe Earth & NASA Kool-Aid, which is almost impossible to do since you have been indoctrinated since birth, you will begin to see the world differently.
1. We all thought the Earth was a globe in an infinite universe
2. We all thought that Flat Earth was a joke
3. We all have done in-depth research on this topic
4. We all agree that once you go flat, you can never go back
There is no observable scientific evidence saying it’s a ball. I don’t care about your appeal to authority. More & more people are believing in the flat earth.
The Earth is flat & stationary. We live under a dome (firmament), we never landed on the Moon & we are the center of God's creation.
So newton's laws are a conspiracy too? Strange that they describe reality so well despite being fake
To me, the most interesting thing about conspiracy theorists is how they only target specific scientific disciplines. Even though all of the scientific disciplines are deeply interconnected by congruence of physical laws, some areas of scientific research do not attract dispute. Laypeople who have never studied physics claim to have proven that Copernicus and Newton were wrong about gravity and the structure of the solar system. Laypeople who have never studied biology claim that vaccines do nothing and that cancer can be cured with baking soda. But you never hear anyone claim that Mendelev's periodic table is a hoax or Curie's work on radioactive decay was falsified! No one ever disputes Kekule's benzene or Franklin's proposed structure of DNA. Conspiracy theorists seem curiously blind to chemistry even though the discontinuities they see in the status quo description of the universe should extend to chemistry as well. Chemistry directly impacts the way we interact with the world - you would think that its applicability to daily life and its inaccessibility to layperson research would make it a prime target for a big gubbamint mind control project. I think that its inaccessibility prevents it from being the target of conspiracy. Chemical theories are too abstract and opaque for conspiracy theorists to apply the Dunning-Krueger effect to them
Dude's not a conspiracy theorist. He's a troll getting his jollies. If this wasn't obvious WAY before now, it should certainly be obvious to all with that post you quoted.
Dude's not a conspiracy theorist. He's a troll getting his jollies. If this wasn't obvious WAY before now, it should certainly be obvious to all with that post you quoted.
sure, but these people do exist. Also I think troll bait is tasty
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
So newton's laws are a conspiracy too? Strange that they describe reality so well despite being fake
To me, the most interesting thing about conspiracy theorists is how they only target specific scientific disciplines. Even though all of the scientific disciplines are deeply interconnected by congruence of physical laws, some areas of scientific research do not attract dispute. Laypeople who have never studied physics claim to have proven that Copernicus and Newton were wrong about gravity and the structure of the solar system. Laypeople who have never studied biology claim that vaccines do nothing and that cancer can be cured with baking soda. But you never hear anyone claim that Mendelev's periodic table is a hoax or Curie's work on radioactive decay was falsified! No one ever disputes Kekule's benzene or Franklin's proposed structure of DNA. Conspiracy theorists seem curiously blind to chemistry even though the discontinuities they see in the status quo description of the universe should extend to chemistry as well. Chemistry directly impacts the way we interact with the world - you would think that its applicability to daily life and its inaccessibility to layperson research would make it a prime target for a big gubbamint mind control project. I think that its inaccessibility prevents it from being the target of conspiracy. Chemical theories are too abstract and opaque for conspiracy theorists to apply the Dunning-Krueger effect to them
Dude's not a conspiracy theorist. He's a troll getting his jollies. If this wasn't obvious WAY before now, it should certainly be obvious to all with that post you quoted.
Declassified CIA document with scientific analysis of the firmament & a flat non-rotating earth.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
If we had the ability to do this in 1969, you would think it would take less than 19 years from the genesis of this new “return to moon” program to be completed.
The first time all we needed was some tin foil, bendy straws, duct tape and some bottle rockets. Oh yeah, and a badass dune buggy.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
You already had half a century to wait. Artemis will inevitably fail. It is IMPOSSIBLE to land on the Moon. Know this. Accept this.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
"Anything before the 70s is totally unknowable" is not the sane take you seem to think it is.
It really, really isn't.
(Unless you're trolling like everybody else here, in which case: well done.)
Dude's not a conspiracy theorist. He's a troll getting his jollies. If this wasn't obvious WAY before now, it should certainly be obvious to all with that post you quoted.
Declassified CIA document with scientific analysis of the firmament & a flat non-rotating earth.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
...
Nonsense.
There will be both fools and trolls in the year 2090 who will say that anything that happened in the 2020s is unknowable and probably/obviously fake.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
"Anything before the 70s is totally unknowable" is not the sane take you seem to think it is.
It really, really isn't.
(Unless you're trolling like everybody else here, in which case: well done.)
1) I’m not trolling
2) Usually when you put things in quotation marks it’s in reference to a direct quote someone makes and what you put in quotation marks wasn’t said or even implied if you actually read and comprehended my post correctly (you didn’t).
3) Even taking into account a timeframe, there is obviously a scale or spectrum to anything we are asked to believe and if we do or not. Let me explain this fundamental principal. If a friend of yours came home today and said “hey guess what I rode my bike a mile” you have a choice to believe him or not. If the same friend came home and said “hey guess what I flew a flying bike a mile today” you have fundamentally the same crossroads choice to believe him or not. You saw him do neither alleged act but but because you see people riding bikes everyday and probably in your life have ridden a bike, you have no reason not to believe him. On the flip side you’ve never seen someone flying a bike a mile except in the movie ET, so chances are you probably wouldn’t believe.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence we went to the moon OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, NASAs word and the images/footage of it happening that NASA provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
The more I read and re-read your post it actually makes no sense to me. You tried to combine two different narratives of the same topic but not dependent on each other to drive your own narrative which is a classic ploy for people who think they are smart and making great counterpoints but aren’t. Kind of like politicians in this country. So nice try but ultimately a fail.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
In all these non-running threads (vaccines etc.) it’s the same thing…
One side has mountains of evidence. One side has little bits of uncertainty and doubt. Side A is confident but side B says well it’s NOT PROOF; how can you KNOW it for sure.
It’s an argument about evidentiary thresholds for belief. Which has nothing to do with the subject matters at hand. And one side will always move the threshold higher because… they are 1) dogmatic 2) love arguing. So just embrace it for what it is - an argument for arguments sake.
"Anything before the 70s is totally unknowable" is not the sane take you seem to think it is.
It really, really isn't.
(Unless you're trolling like everybody else here, in which case: well done.)
1) I’m not trolling
2) Usually when you put things in quotation marks it’s in reference to a direct quote someone makes and what you put in quotation marks wasn’t said or even implied if you actually read and comprehended my post correctly (you didn’t).
3) Even taking into account a timeframe, there is obviously a scale or spectrum to anything we are asked to believe and if we do or not. Let me explain this fundamental principal. If a friend of yours came home today and said “hey guess what I rode my bike a mile” you have a choice to believe him or not. If the same friend came home and said “hey guess what I flew a flying bike a mile today” you have fundamentally the same crossroads choice to believe him or not. You saw him do neither alleged act but but because you see people riding bikes everyday and probably in your life have ridden a bike, you have no reason not to believe him. On the flip side you’ve never seen someone flying a bike a mile except in the movie ET, so chances are you probably wouldn’t believe.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence we went to the moon OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, NASAs word and the images/footage of it happening that NASA provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
The more I read and re-read your post it actually makes no sense to me. You tried to combine two different narratives of the same topic but not dependent on each other to drive your own narrative which is a classic ploy for people who think they are smart and making great counterpoints but aren’t. Kind of like politicians in this country. So nice try but ultimately a fail.
1) Bro you gotta stop with the distance stuff. It’s non linear energies required. Read the Holman Transfer wiki page I posted. It does not take 1000X more energy to go from low earth orbit to the moon even though it’s 1000X the distance. Your insistence on the bike analogy is hurting your case. Think of it as (not perfect analogy): low earth orbit is 2/3 way up a big hill, then just need a little more and you can coast all the way to the moon. It doesn’t require much more energy.
2) There’s evidence from India, China, and Japan of the landing sites on the moon.
If you’re going to make claims to “settle the disagreement” they should be agreeable.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
The simple reality is that none of us here either just reading each others opinions or getting fired up defending either side of this truly know, do we? A lot of us weren't even born when this happened and if we were we were so young that applying any kind of critical thought process to it simply wasn't happening. The evidence any of have is simply what we have been told or think we have seen. And I'm not going either way right here - what we have been told and seen could be 100% real - it could be 100% BS, but we should all understand that.
So, where from here - well NASA has a well funded Moon mission program happening right now called Artemis, hoping to send the first woman and person(s) of color to the moon and I would assume it would be pretty hard to fake this in the year 2023 onwards.
If they do it, then we know it's absolutely feasible and then we need to make a judgement on if, all things relative between now and the late 60's, we believe that it would have been possible back then too. Many would argue and defend that if the above happens there is no reason to doubt the original series of moon missions and landings. I'm fine with that.
However, if in this era - with the infinite technological, metallurgical, mechanical advantages and advances we have since the 60's, NASA was not able to do this - then I don't even understand how the most irrational and illogical human mind could still sit there and believe what happened in '69. Because it's not like you are hunting for the recipe to do this - if you did what 7 times with 12 men already walking the surface of the moon, you surely have a pretty good idea on to execute this. It would be akin to climbing Mt Everest back in the 1950's with all the crappy equipment they had and then not even knowing the climbing route in the year 2020. Simply implausible.
So let's just hold tight, see how this Artemis thing plays out and honestly we should be starting to get a much clearer picture of this debate within the next 2-3 years.
In all these non-running threads (vaccines etc.) it’s the same thing…
One side has mountains of evidence. One side has little bits of uncertainty and doubt. Side A is confident but side B says well it’s NOT PROOF; how can you KNOW it for sure.
It’s an argument about evidentiary thresholds for belief. Which has nothing to do with the subject matters at hand. And one side will always move the threshold higher because… they are 1) dogmatic 2) love arguing. So just embrace it for what it is - an argument for arguments sake.
You say you have “little bits of uncertainty and doubt”, yet you refuse to produce any - except for those quickly debunked pics you linked. That was embarrassing.
2) Usually when you put things in quotation marks it’s in reference to a direct quote someone makes and what you put in quotation marks wasn’t said or even implied if you actually read and comprehended my post correctly (you didn’t).
3) Even taking into account a timeframe, there is obviously a scale or spectrum to anything we are asked to believe and if we do or not. Let me explain this fundamental principal. If a friend of yours came home today and said “hey guess what I rode my bike a mile” you have a choice to believe him or not. If the same friend came home and said “hey guess what I flew a flying bike a mile today” you have fundamentally the same crossroads choice to believe him or not. You saw him do neither alleged act but but because you see people riding bikes everyday and probably in your life have ridden a bike, you have no reason not to believe him. On the flip side you’ve never seen someone flying a bike a mile except in the movie ET, so chances are you probably wouldn’t believe.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence we went to the moon OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, NASAs word and the images/footage of it happening that NASA provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
The more I read and re-read your post it actually makes no sense to me. You tried to combine two different narratives of the same topic but not dependent on each other to drive your own narrative which is a classic ploy for people who think they are smart and making great counterpoints but aren’t. Kind of like politicians in this country. So nice try but ultimately a fail.
1) Bro you gotta stop with the distance stuff. It’s non linear energies required. Read the Holman Transfer wiki page I posted. It does not take 1000X more energy to go from low earth orbit to the moon even though it’s 1000X the distance. Your insistence on the bike analogy is hurting your case. Think of it as (not perfect analogy): low earth orbit is 2/3 way up a big hill, then just need a little more and you can coast all the way to the moon. It doesn’t require much more energy.
2) There’s evidence from India, China, and Japan of the landing sites in the moon.
If you’re going to make claims to “settle the disagreement” they should be agreeable.
Now you’re saying man landed IN the moon? The story just keeps getting better and better.
In all these non-running threads (vaccines etc.) it’s the same thing…
One side has mountains of evidence. One side has little bits of uncertainty and doubt. Side A is confident but side B says well it’s NOT PROOF; how can you KNOW it for sure.
It’s an argument about evidentiary thresholds for belief. Which has nothing to do with the subject matters at hand. And one side will always move the threshold higher because… they are 1) dogmatic 2) love arguing. So just embrace it for what it is - an argument for arguments sake.
You say you have “little bits of uncertainty and doubt”, yet you refuse to produce any - except for those quickly debunked pics you linked. That was embarrassing.
1) Apologies if I wasn’t clear. Your side is the one that just produces uncertainty and doubt and asserts the threshold for proof hasn’t been met! This is intellectually acceptable but doesn’t do anything to convince people of your side. It’s a moving target and suggests you are in this for the game and not reaching consensus - again, totally fine.
2) What’s wrong with the Japanese and Indian data. The China images are not public so I’ll withhold judgement.
Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about the Moon landings that does not come from either NASA or the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theoris...
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence we went to the moon OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, NASAs word and the images/footage of it happening that NASA provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence that atoms exist OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, Rutherford's word and the images/footage of it happening that Rutherford provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence that Pluto exists OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, Tombaugh's word and the images/footage of it happening that New Horizon provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
Let me ask you this simple question since you are masquerading as somebody intelligent here and let’s see if you can be honest answering it. Do you personally have any evidence that Antarctica exists OTHER than the same evidence we all have, which is, Scott's word and the images/footage of it happening that Scott provided? That’s the simple reality of this situation.
You say you have “little bits of uncertainty and doubt”, yet you refuse to produce any - except for those quickly debunked pics you linked. That was embarrassing.
1) Apologies if I wasn’t clear. Your side is the one that just produces uncertainty and doubt and asserts the threshold for proof hasn’t been met! This is intellectually acceptable but doesn’t do anything to convince people of your side. It’s a moving target and suggests you are in this for the game and not reaching consensus - again, totally fine.
2) What’s wrong with the Japanese and Indian data. The China images are not public so I’ll withhold judgement.
