NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Gandalf]

Believing something because you see it in a video or diagrams defies logic.

Again it's blindly following a theory and trying to claim it as fact.

That's what fossil records are, they are a puzzle of the past being put back together. The pieces always appear to fit thus justifying the theory.

But no fossil's of these in between mutations?

Apparently the puzzle is being put together, but I have not seen the actual fossil record myself. I cannot be an expert on IQ, evolution, and space travel all at the same time.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...red-180963287/

You don't have to be an expert on anything, just tell me, in your experience, what happens to fish when they are out of water?

Well, a fully formed fish would die, but a creature that evolved over millions of years until it was finally able to leave the water for extended periods would perhaps have been a bit like this. I don't think a fish could ever just step onto land and have a fun time.

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060.../060403-7.html

Why do you think whales have lungs? Why not just have gills like other fish? Evolution explains it better than anything else.

[Alpha]

Again when they have a cover story it's really just hearsay.

But you can look at the images and film that is available and see quite clearly that stuff doesn't make sense.

The actornauts left quite deep footprints right? Seems a little strange as they were lighter due to the moons atmosphere. Oh but the lunar module didn't even make an indent. Or a blast creator of some sort when lifting back off.

Cross hairs etched into the camera lenses, but turning up behind images.

Actornauts being pulled up from his knees unnaturally, like a harness pulling him up.

Moon rocks turning out to be fake.

The list goes on and on.

I mean, if they have lied to you before, what makes you want to believe them so willingly now?

[Alpha]

Believing something because you see it in a video or diagrams defies logic.

Again it's blindly following a theory and trying to claim it as fact.

That's what fossil records are, they are a puzzle of the past being put back together. The pieces always appear to fit thus justifying the theory.

But no fossil's of these in between mutations?

Apparently the puzzle is being put together, but I have not seen the actual fossil record myself. I cannot be an expert on IQ, evolution, and space travel all at the same time.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...red-180963287/

You don't have to be an expert on anything, just tell me, in your experience, what happens to fish when they are out of water?

Well, a fully formed fish would die, but a creature that evolved over millions of years until it was finally able to leave the water for extended periods would perhaps have been a bit like this. I don't think a fish could ever just step onto land and have a fun time.

https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060.../060403-7.html

Why do you think whales have lungs? Why not just have gills like other fish? Evolution explains it better than anything else.

But your basing your belief on something your own logic tells you can't happen.

Every fish I have ever seen, dies out of water. But these magic evolution fish, that all started from an explosion, then from a single cell, that then multiplied, and mutated into fish (something that has never been proven, one species mutating into another type of species) who somehow managed to stay alive long enough to change their gills into lungs. Then these creatures mutated along through to apes, along to man.

And no where to be seen, one of these in between mutations, at any step of the way, there should be millions of them around. All this mutating going on.

[Alpha]

A scientific method must be observable and repeatable. Can you think of 1 piece observable evidence for Darwinism evolution?

Again it's blindly faith, following what you have been told and taught. No actual evidence.

[Fenster]

As I said, Alpha, you haven't started from an impartial position - "lets examine the evidence," you've already decided any explanation which refutes the conspiracy theory is invalid because the source is corrupt, so what is the point in asking questions in the first place?

Footprints? Answer - Particles of moon dust have a different size and shape from sand and don't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Try walking in spilt talcum powder

No Blast Crater? Answer - At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

From your starting point every possible explanation is dismissed with - corruption. It is the same with virtually all conspiracy theories.

[Alpha]

As I said, Alpha, you haven't started from an impartial position - "lets examine the evidence," you've already decided any explanation which refutes the conspiracy theory is invalid because the source is corrupt, so what is the point in asking questions in the first place?

Footprints? Answer - Particles of moon dust have a different size and shape from sand and don't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Try walking in spilt talcum powder

No Blast Crater? Answer - At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

From your starting point every possible explanation is dismissed with - corruption. It is the same with virtually all conspiracy theories.

Trust me I have said many times that I was brain washed and believed what they told me to be true.

The point I was making about the footprints is that the actornauts are heavy enough to leave footprints, but the module isn't? You can clearly see the pads resting on dirt/ sand/ dust whatever, with no dust settling on them after landing. Try jumping in talcum powder and not getting any dust on you.

The module being hoisted up.

Suspicious objects in visor reflections.

Watching the film in 2x speed just looks they are walking on earth.

Like I said, I could go on and on, and you could post the cover stories. But ask yourself, why would I want to deceive you? Have I ever been dishonest or have you caught me in a lie, the whole time I have been on this forum? I think I'm a pretty straight up guy. All I'm asking is that you think for yourself and then decide based on the actual evidence. But I guarantee that the government has lied and deceived you.

30 billion dollars and they lost all the data and audio tapes and destroyed the technology? Come on. And no one cares?

You can repeat everything they say and believe it, but like I said before if you look at the things that you might have some experience with, because neither of us will ever go to space, take the race example I used. You should have experience around something similar. So I win the race to the shop and you just quit?

Or you went somewhere for the first time in 1969 but are unable to go back there today.

Simple questions.

[walrus]

As I said, Alpha, you haven't started from an impartial position - "lets examine the evidence," you've already decided any explanation which refutes the conspiracy theory is invalid because the source is corrupt, so what is the point in asking questions in the first place?

Footprints? Answer - Particles of moon dust have a different size and shape from sand and don't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Try walking in spilt talcum powder

No Blast Crater? Answer - At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

From your starting point every possible explanation is dismissed with - corruption. It is the same with virtually all conspiracy theories.

@Fenster is that your writing it’s good

[p4pking]

https://goo.gl/images/uVWfVM

[Alpha]

As I said, Alpha, you haven't started from an impartial position - "lets examine the evidence," you've already decided any explanation which refutes the conspiracy theory is invalid because the source is corrupt, so what is the point in asking questions in the first place?

Footprints? Answer - Particles of moon dust have a different size and shape from sand and don't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Try walking in spilt talcum powder

No Blast Crater? Answer - At first glance, conspiracy theorists have a point here. There should be a blast crater beneath the landing module - that is, if it were making its landing on Earth instead of a lower gravity environment. Landing on the Moon requires far less thrust than is necessary on Earth since there is far less gravitational pull.

Additionally, the landing module set down on solid rock and left no more of a crater than a 747 jet would on the runway at an airport. The lack of a crater actually supports the authenticity of the Moon landing, because if they were perpetuating a hoax, it stands to reason NASA would have also thought of a blast crater and made sure there was one in place to satisfy the critics. The fact of the matter is there was no crater created by the actual landing, and they did not feel compelled to dig one so that their landing would appear more authentic.

From your starting point every possible explanation is dismissed with - corruption. It is the same with virtually all conspiracy theories.

@Fenster is that your writing it’s good

If course its not, is someone else's story, which is just hearsay.

Let us analyse all the original data so we can see what actually went on. You lost it? All of it? Come on. Evidence please.

What about the space rocks that were brought back? Can we analyse those please? What they turning out to be fake?

How about another simple question. Remember Nixon on the landline talking to the actors in space in 1969? That's some connection. Even now with today's technology my reception cuts out all over the place. But they have perfect reception hours many thousands of miles away?

Start believing your own common sense, rather than stories.

[walrus]

Was there even one Snowden in the (fake moon landing) conspiracy? Anyone try to spill the beans in all these years

[Alpha]

Was there even one Snowden in the (fake moon landing) conspiracy? Anyone try to spill the beans in all these years

Gus Grissom was outspoken about NASA's capabilities, his team dies 2 weeks later.

But your all missing the obvious, like Nixon on the landline, does anyone here believe he was speaking to the actors on a landline? Then ask yourself why they were presenting that story to you.

If you truly believe that the moon landings were real, you have lost the virtue of discernment and I feel sorry for you.

They can make up any excuse they want about the Van Allen belts, but how many times did they confirm the radiation levels or check that the actors were ok while passing through? Never, seems odd. They'll tell you they had to make a northerly heading to avoid the most dangerous parts, but their logs don't show this, they actually contradict it, and show a heading just south of the equator.

Official NASA images when put into photo forensics show a square background behind images, like they have been pasted on. Also anyone with some photography knowledge knows about noise in photos. It basically means as you brighten an image the dark shadowed areas will also lighten up due to this noise. The NASA photo's don't display any of this noise in the shadowed parts. They remain completely black. This is basic stuff you can do yourself.

The truth never changes, but you have to keep adding to a lie.

[walrus]

Was there even one Snowden in the (fake moon landing) conspiracy? Anyone try to spill the beans in all these years

Gus Grissom was outspoken about NASA's capabilities, his team dies 2 weeks later.

But your all missing the obvious, like Nixon on the landline, does anyone here believe he was speaking to the actors on a landline? Then ask yourself why they were presenting that story to you.

If you truly believe that the moon landings were real, you have lost the virtue of discernment and I feel sorry for you.

They can make up any excuse they want about the Van Allen belts, but how many times did they confirm the radiation levels or check that the actors were ok while passing through? Never, seems odd. They'll tell you they had to make a northerly heading to avoid the most dangerous parts, but their logs don't show this, they actually contradict it, and show a heading just south of the equator.

Official NASA images when put into photo forensics show a square background behind images, like they have been pasted on. Also anyone with some photography knowledge knows about noise in photos. It basically means as you brighten an image the dark shadowed areas will also lighten up due to this noise. The NASA photo's don't display any of this noise in the shadowed parts. They remain completely black. This is basic stuff you can do yourself.

The truth never changes, but you have to keep adding to a lie.

ill ask again cause I never looked, was there even one ed Snowden spilling the beanz.

[walrus]

And alpha, u keep bringing up the landline. What are u saying, you think it was a direct line from the pole to outer space? You don’t think any other tech was involved? I don’t get your hang up with the land line

[Alpha]

Was there even one Snowden in the (fake moon landing) conspiracy? Anyone try to spill the beans in all these years

Gus Grissom was outspoken about NASA's capabilities, his team dies 2 weeks later.

But your all missing the obvious, like Nixon on the landline, does anyone here believe he was speaking to the actors on a landline? Then ask yourself why they were presenting that story to you.

If you truly believe that the moon landings were real, you have lost the virtue of discernment and I feel sorry for you.

They can make up any excuse they want about the Van Allen belts, but how many times did they confirm the radiation levels or check that the actors were ok while passing through? Never, seems odd. They'll tell you they had to make a northerly heading to avoid the most dangerous parts, but their logs don't show this, they actually contradict it, and show a heading just south of the equator.

Official NASA images when put into photo forensics show a square background behind images, like they have been pasted on. Also anyone with some photography knowledge knows about noise in photos. It basically means as you brighten an image the dark shadowed areas will also lighten up due to this noise. The NASA photo's don't display any of this noise in the shadowed parts. They remain completely black. This is basic stuff you can do yourself.

The truth never changes, but you have to keep adding to a lie.

ill ask again cause I never looked, was there even one ed Snowden spilling the beanz.

I can't tell ya, I do know there have been mystery NASA deaths. NASA and the moon landings aren't really my thing, but I am able to use common sense and it really is comical how fake this is.

[Alpha]

And alpha, u keep bringing up the landline. What are u saying, you think it was a direct line from the pole to outer space? You don’t think any other tech was involved? I don’t get your hang up with the land line

My hang up is: Do you believe the president was on a landline talking to the actors hundreds of thousands of miles away?