NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

@Fenster is that your writing it’s good

https://goo.gl/images/uVWfVM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

@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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

---

Do u think it was only being transmitted via landline

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

---

Do u think it was only being transmitted via landline

---

Are you just going to keep asking me questions, but not answer any yourself. I always answer a question when asked, check my posts, anyone asks me something, if I see it obviously, I will answer. No problem.

I could speculate that it could have been transmitted by satellite link or something like that. I don't believe that. But your missing the point.

Walrus actually makes a good point that applies to most conspiracy theories, especially something like 911. There is never anyone credible who was “allegedly” part of it that comes out even hinting at a hoax. Now think about how many people would have had to be directly involved, much less privy to it happening, in order to make something like that work. You don’t think there would be so much as a deathbed confession? They would all go to the grave too afraid of “them”? No offence but you’re posting like a stoned teenager. You haven’t answered questions or cited any of your own evidence to the contrary, and it’s you’re*, ffs.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Walrus actually makes a good point that applies to most conspiracy theories, especially something like 911. There is never anyone credible who was “allegedly” part of it that comes out even hinting at a hoax. Now think about how many people would have had to be directly involved, much less privy to it happening, in order to make something like that work. You don’t think there would be so much as a deathbed confession? They would all go to the grave too afraid of “them”? No offence but you’re posting like a stoned teenager. You haven’t answered questions or cited any of your own evidence to the contrary, and it’s you’re*, ffs.....

---

Come on mate, don't worry about the spelling. That's weak.

Just saying there are no confessions, is not proof that the moon landings are real. In no way does it prove the authenticity.

What questions haven't I answered?

I like to use stuff I am familiar with, no base my ideas on photo shopped images or fake films.

I am familiar with phones, we all are. We are all familiar with cell phones right?

Now in 2018 just walking into another room on my phone, my reception can drop out. We all have experience with this. We all know it wouldn't be possible to have a cable from earth to the moon, so the president could talk on a landline to the guys on the moon.

But that's the story they sold you. I didn't make that video. They did. So I ask myself, why would they be selling me this story that I know can't be real. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Then you look into everything else and it is comically how brain washed we are. Believing film, images and stories, rather than your own common sense, when it's obvious to see that they are lying to you.

And I can provide you any evidence you want, they supplied the images that you can examine for yourself and see they have been altered or have no noise.

You can look up the official logs and compare them. The story about traveling through the Van Allan belts as safely as possible, completely contradict their official logs.

It’s not spelling, you’re using the wrong word and it makes you sound like a kid. Saying there were no confessions would be using the common sense you like to bang on about, it would be very very hard to believe nobody either involved or with credentials in anything related to space travel or astrophysics ever came out to support your claims. The vast majority of early unmanned attempts to land on the moon over nearly two decades failed. Were they all a hoax too? There have been numerous 3rd party investigations by neutral countries with their own space programs in later years which have photographed the site of and confirmed the moon landing, fact. If you listen to Nixon’s conversation unedited, there was well over a 2 second pause in most of the exchanges, as it was made via a radio call that had to be relayed from numerous satellites and then from Houston. Sometimes the “story” we are told is just what happened, otherwise people a hell of a lot smarter than we are could have come up with something of substance to refute it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

It’s not spelling, you’re using the wrong word and it makes you sound like a kid. Saying there were no confessions would be using the common sense you like to bang on about, it would be very very hard to believe nobody either involved or with credentials in anything related to space travel or astrophysics ever came out to support your claims. The vast majority of early unmanned attempts to land on the moon over nearly two decades failed. Were they all a hoax too? There have been numerous 3rd party investigations by neutral countries with their own space programs in later years which have photographed the site of and confirmed the moon landing, fact. If you listen to Nixon’s conversation unedited, there was well over a 2 second pause in most of the exchanges, as it was made via a radio call that had to be relayed from numerous satellites and then from Houston. Sometimes the “story” we are told is just what happened, otherwise people a hell of a lot smarter than we are could have come up with something of substance to refute it.

---

We're in a boxing forum bud, take a break. Sometimes auto correct changes sh-t, and I don't really care to go back and proof read.

The evidence is there. How easy is it to blackmail people? Threaten you or your loved ones lives? Destroy you're credibility? NASA was getting millions a day. People are easy to control. This is shown everyday in TV and films, it's not beyond the realm of impossibility.

Again you're taking the word of all these agencies and their images and films. They all have an agenda.

The evidence is there for everyone to see if they look into it. No ones hiding it.

I haven’t had a lot to say recently on this , and that’s only because @Alpha is saying it so much better than I could . #team@Alpha

Thanks Primo, I feel alone out here. Just a bit on the claim they transmitted the Nixon call by radio. A radio wave can most certainly reach much further than the moon if it is propagated correctly and has enough strength . The delay is the only problem , as it would take about 4.34 seconds, sunlight takes 9 min. 20 sec. to reach us btw , and light or radio waves travel the same speed in a vacuum. Nothing wrong with a well - meaning publicity stunt , I guess.

I take it p4pking watched the Nixon call I'm taking about. Forget the fake delays you hear. Towards the end when Nixon says something about seeing them on the Hornet or something. Check the delay, probably less than 2 seconds. Hmmmm

Alpha I was asking about a Snowden type man in the Apollo program as I never checked to see if there was one. I don’t think there was but if there was I’m sure you would know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walrus

Alpha I was asking about a Snowden type man in the Apollo program as I never checked to see if there was one. I don’t think there was but if there was I’m sure you would know

---

Like I said NASA and the moon landings aren't my thing, although I believe they are fake, so I couldn't tell you truthfully. I question Snowden's authenticity as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

It’s not spelling, you’re using the wrong word and it makes you sound like a kid. Saying there were no confessions would be using the common sense you like to bang on about, it would be very very hard to believe nobody either involved or with credentials in anything related to space travel or astrophysics ever came out to support your claims. The vast majority of early unmanned attempts to land on the moon over nearly two decades failed. Were they all a hoax too? There have been numerous 3rd party investigations by neutral countries with their own space programs in later years which have photographed the site of and confirmed the moon landing, fact. If you listen to Nixon’s conversation unedited, there was well over a 2 second pause in most of the exchanges, as it was made via a radio call that had to be relayed from numerous satellites and then from Houston. Sometimes the “story” we are told is just what happened, otherwise people a hell of a lot smarter than we are could have come up with something of substance to refute it.

---

We're in a boxing forum bud, take a break. Sometimes auto correct changes sh-t, and I don't really care to go back and proof read.

The evidence is there. How easy is it to blackmail people? Threaten you or your loved ones lives? Destroy you're credibility? NASA was getting millions a day. People are easy to control. This is shown everyday in TV and films, it's not beyond the realm of impossibility.

Again you're taking the word of all these agencies and their images and films. They all have an agenda.

The evidence is there for everyone to see if they look into it. No ones hiding it.

---

Auto correct never changes you’re to your, and you kept doing it without exception. The evidence is there, you’re free to look into it :p why would neutral countries decades later again conduct elaborate hoaxes to support a conspiracy that would be so outdated? You think there are agencies with that kind of worldwide pull and threat? I just think it would’ve been easier to land on the moon than it would be to fake it, conduct such elaborate cover up stories and maintain them for decades around the world, keeping so many people quiet, etc. The irony is, in calling “them” fraudulent, you actually give all these outfits far too much credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

It’s not spelling, you’re using the wrong word and it makes you sound like a kid. Saying there were no confessions would be using the common sense you like to bang on about, it would be very very hard to believe nobody either involved or with credentials in anything related to space travel or astrophysics ever came out to support your claims. The vast majority of early unmanned attempts to land on the moon over nearly two decades failed. Were they all a hoax too? There have been numerous 3rd party investigations by neutral countries with their own space programs in later years which have photographed the site of and confirmed the moon landing, fact. If you listen to Nixon’s conversation unedited, there was well over a 2 second pause in most of the exchanges, as it was made via a radio call that had to be relayed from numerous satellites and then from Houston. Sometimes the “story” we are told is just what happened, otherwise people a hell of a lot smarter than we are could have come up with something of substance to refute it.

---

We're in a boxing forum bud, take a break. Sometimes auto correct changes sh-t, and I don't really care to go back and proof read.

The evidence is there. How easy is it to blackmail people? Threaten you or your loved ones lives? Destroy you're credibility? NASA was getting millions a day. People are easy to control. This is shown everyday in TV and films, it's not beyond the realm of impossibility.

Again you're taking the word of all these agencies and their images and films. They all have an agenda.

The evidence is there for everyone to see if they look into it. No ones hiding it.

---

Auto correct never changes you’re to your, and you kept doing it without exception. The evidence is there, you’re free to look into it :p why would neutral countries decades later again conduct elaborate hoaxes to support a conspiracy that would be so outdated? You think there are agencies with that kind of worldwide pull and threat? I just think it would’ve been easier to land on the moon than it would be to fake it, conduct such elaborate cover up stories and maintain them for decades around the world, keeping so many people quiet, etc. The irony is, in calling “them” fraudulent, you actually give all these outfits far too much credit.

---

If I type Yo on my phone it gives me a selection of You Your and You're at the top of the key board. So the words are already filled out, I just click the one I want, my bad, probably wasn't paying attention, and don't go back to proof read my posts. Sue me, I don't really care. I know the difference in the word. It's not really relevant, you still understand what I'm saying right? Go back and have a look through my other post over the last couple of years, I'm sure I've used it correctly at some point.

Yes I do believe there are agencies working together. But just because you think it would have been easier is not proof against the evidence.

You don't have to take my word for it, debunk it yourself, then you'll find out how much you've been fooled.

I was just bugging you, I don’t take much seriously enough. I do think people who buy into every conspiracy theory aren’t any more aware than people who dont think critically about anything, a lot of the time. To be honest, I read as much about the moon landing today than I maybe ever have, because I just felt like arguing with you and I’m bored. I haven’t “been fooled”, as its nothing I’ve ever felt strongly about and really makes no difference to me what the truth is, was all well before my time anyways. Plus I’m Canadian and therefore have no claim to anything besides being polite, and I can’t even pull that off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I was just bugging you, I don’t take much seriously enough. I do think people who buy into every conspiracy theory aren’t any more aware than people who dont think critically about anything, a lot of the time. To be honest, I read as much about the moon landing today than I maybe ever have, because I just felt like arguing with you and I’m bored. I haven’t “been fooled”, as its nothing I’ve ever felt strongly about and really makes no difference to me what the truth is, was all well before my time anyways. Plus I’m Canadian and therefore have no claim to anything besides being polite, and I can’t even pull that off.

---

You sure can’t you are a complete dickwad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I was just bugging you, I don’t take much seriously enough. I do think people who buy into every conspiracy theory aren’t any more aware than people who dont think critically about anything, a lot of the time. To be honest, I read as much about the moon landing today than I maybe ever have, because I just felt like arguing with you and I’m bored. I haven’t “been fooled”, as its nothing I’ve ever felt strongly about and really makes no difference to me what the truth is, was all well before my time anyways. Plus I’m Canadian and therefore have no claim to anything besides being polite, and I can’t even pull that off.

---

All good buddy, I've never professed to being smart.

I look at it like the matrix with the red and blue pills. You have the choice.

I'm not claiming to be more aware than anyone else, but look at how quick the evolutionists left the thread when challenged on the belief in a theory. Believing an unproven theory so strongly, with no observable evidence, is the same as believing the bible. Blind faith.

Thing is this thread started over talk about going to Mars. That's happening now. Not in the past.

Hey c'mon guys.... it's a bonafide argument, being carried out more civilly than 99% of the arguments on the forum lately. That in as of itself is refreshing to see.

On the topic itself, I'll just put it this way. The moon landing conspiracy theory, for lack of a better description, hasn't really taken off until relatively recently (I believe), at least as compared to the timeframe of the moon landings themselves. In other words.... the hoax claim didn't come out right off the bat after the landings. Thus, for many years, the vast majority of people were content with believing what they were seeing, hearing, and reading. That majority would include me. I never found it necessary to go back and dig deep to find out whether the landings were a hoax or not. Surely the motives were there. The space race with the Russians..... the commitment from JFK that it would be done..... and just plain old national pride. But I'll say right off the bat..... I'm generally not a fan of conspiracy theories. It seems everything nowadays is a conspiracy. This all sort of blends in nauseatingly with the Fake News phenomenon made so popular nowadays by President Trump. It's mind-boggling to think that nothing's real anymore. Maybe we were too innocent back then. Maybe we needed to become more jaded and skeptical about everything. But boy, does it suck to live this way.

I'm not going to weigh in on the lunar landings, because honestly I haven't been moved to read about them till now..... and hadn't had any reason to question them before now. Obviously it's an important topic, but TBH I'm just not moved to dig deep to find the real answers. Enough of the fake news and bogus facts spewed regularly on this forum by agenda-driven people, for me to take on yet another "truth that isn't really true."

It's all a bit sad, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I was just bugging you, I don’t take much seriously enough. I do think people who buy into every conspiracy theory aren’t any more aware than people who dont think critically about anything, a lot of the time. To be honest, I read as much about the moon landing today than I maybe ever have, because I just felt like arguing with you and I’m bored. I haven’t “been fooled”, as its nothing I’ve ever felt strongly about and really makes no difference to me what the truth is, was all well before my time anyways. Plus I’m Canadian and therefore have no claim to anything besides being polite, and I can’t even pull that off.

---

All good buddy, I've never professed to being smart.

I look at it like the matrix with the red and blue pills. You have the choice.

I'm not claiming to be more aware than anyone else, but look at how quick the evolutionists left the thread when challenged on the belief in a theory. Believing an unproven theory so strongly, with no observable evidence, is the same as believing the bible. Blind faith.

Thing is this thread started over talk about going to Mars. That's happening now. Not in the past.

---

I’d say regarding evolution, if Anyone disappeared it’s because it’s not really possible to argue with someone who just wont accept any evidence that is or can be presented. I agree with Fensters take there. Obviously there is a lot man doesn’t know, and I doubt we have any biologists posting in the thread, so what do you expect. I’ll assume you don’t believe the mars rover landed either? No offence at all, but it’s just kind of a headache to have these arguments. If you like, call it a matter of predisposition, as neither of us knows enough about the subject to provide anything worth debating. You think it’s comical how fooled I’ve been, my guess is there are plenty of people who’ve worked at NASA that think the same about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

I was just bugging you, I don’t take much seriously enough. I do think people who buy into every conspiracy theory aren’t any more aware than people who dont think critically about anything, a lot of the time. To be honest, I read as much about the moon landing today than I maybe ever have, because I just felt like arguing with you and I’m bored. I haven’t “been fooled”, as its nothing I’ve ever felt strongly about and really makes no difference to me what the truth is, was all well before my time anyways. Plus I’m Canadian and therefore have no claim to anything besides being polite, and I can’t even pull that off.

---

All good buddy, I've never professed to being smart.

I look at it like the matrix with the red and blue pills. You have the choice.

I'm not claiming to be more aware than anyone else, but look at how quick the evolutionists left the thread when challenged on the belief in a theory. Believing an unproven theory so strongly, with no observable evidence, is the same as believing the bible. Blind faith.

Thing is this thread started over talk about going to Mars. That's happening now. Not in the past.

---

I’d say regarding evolution, if Anyone disappeared it’s because it’s not really possible to argue with someone who just wont accept any evidence that is or can be presented. I agree with Fensters take there. Obviously there is a lot man doesn’t know, and I doubt we have any biologists posting in the thread, so what do you expect. I’ll assume you don’t believe the mars rover landed either? No offence at all, but it’s just kind of a headache to have these arguments. If you like, call it a matter of predisposition, as neither of us knows enough about the subject to provide anything worth debating. You think it’s comical how fooled I’ve been, my guess is there are plenty of people who’ve worked at NASA that think the same about you.

---

So what evidence would you like to provide for evolution? I love that there's this idea that there's evidence for something that is still a theory. Can't really be called evidence tho can it. I'll gladly accept it. The scientific method says it MUST be observable and repeatable. Give me 1 piece of observable evidence.

I wasn't meaning you when I said it's comical. I was talking all of us. Programmed by the media, blindly following stories we have been told.

With space it seems the only time in history when we have gone backwards with technology.

Tito, you are OBLIVIOUS to facts. You deny them because you are like a creationist and believe despite the evidence that all men are created equal. Humans are very different and traits among certain groups exist in some more than in others, so bring your grudge out all you like, the fake news is your own. It need not be a terrible but to deny evidence is false.

Because there is so much fake news nowadays, I can understand why someone would be sceptical about the moon landings.

But I'm someone who was alive and watching TV when Armstrong took his historic step. Back in those days, most of the people who ran the news media had some honour and integrity, and most reporters were honest.

I'm pretty sure they took away Louis Armstrong's seven moon landings after he admitted taking drugs to get there.

Missing word was 'thing'...typo. There is likely far more research into IQ than that of the moon landings as we analyse people constantly. Many tests are a form of IQ test. We do not analyze the moon to the same degree as it is just a faraway rock (at least it certainly appears to be). Millions are being checked for intelligence every year. Even within America, which means people have similar access to education, IQ differences are clear. This really cannot be called bogus facts or fake news. The possibility of the moon landing being bogus is more likely than scientists making up IQ data. We have all the evidence for that and it grows yearly. It is important to be aware as we can then work on environmental factors. That is a positive thing and should be considered seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freedom

Because there is so much fake news nowadays, I can understand why someone would be sceptical about the moon landings.

But I'm someone who was alive and watching TV when Armstrong took his historic step. Back in those days, most of the people who ran the news media had some honour and integrity, and most reporters were honest.

---

So you believe it because you watched it on TV? And you believe the media was honest, who also watched it on TV.

Back when I believed the moon landings were real, I wasn't lying either, it was just my belief on what I had seen, been told or taught.

I'll put a question out there to see what people think.

So apparently the actors on the ISS (international Space Station) have the technology to turn their sweat, urine and condensation back into usable water. You can find footage of the actors saying this on the station.

Piss and urine? That's all they need?

Why isn't this type of technology being used on earth, in somewhere like Africa?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

I'll put a question out there to see what people think.

So apparently the actors on the ISS (international Space Station) have the technology to turn their sweat, urine and condensation back into usable water. You can find footage of the actors saying this on the station.

Piss and urine? That's all they need?

Why isn't this type of technology being used on earth, in somewhere like Africa?

---

Because they are not hooked into a multi billion dollar machine made for a handful of people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

So you believe it because you watched it on TV? And you believe the media was honest, who also watched it on TV.

Back when I believed the moon landings were real, I wasn't lying either, it was just my belief on what I had seen, been told or taught.

---

I had been following closely as the space program gradually progressed during the 1960s, searching the newspapers every day for information. I became especially interested during the Gemini missions, and being a child at the time I was very excited about it. However, I felt they wouldn't be able to do it after the tragic fire in early 1967 that killed the three Apollo astronauts. A Russian cosmonaut died in a crash that same year.

But I was amazed in December 1968 when Lovell and his crew went around the moon and back, then I knew it would be possible by the end of 1969 as JFK had promised.

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Nobody ran away from the evolution stuff, @Alpha, it's just that you seemed to be muddling up biology with physics. But then dismissed all the evidence for evolution and like with the testimony of thousands of scientists who debunk the moon conspiracy, you claim they are either wrong or bullshitters.

It's no different to flat earthers who end up claiming - all the evidence/pictures/science is fake.

---

So no observable evidence then?

Can you show me an example or an experiment so I can observe how the surface of water can bend?

You're asking for evidence you can actually observe even though you don't believe the science or sources.

If you had spent every single day for dozens and dozens of years observing an ape in a locked cage, then took a holiday and returned to find it replaced by a human in a three-piece suit, you wouldn't claim - "Blimey! They've been right all along. Evolution is kosher." You'd ask who's stole your bloody ape. :D