So the moon landing was faked!

Notorious said:
one of the oldest crops cultivated for material and food was flax, according Wikipedia evidence that it was in use 30k year ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flax#History
Click to expand...

In use, maybe. That doesn't mean it was farmed. Plants have been growing on Earth for a very long time. Animals have been using plants in various ways (e.g. food, making nests) since long before humans started farming, or even existing. Humans 30,000 years ago were no doubt making use of whatever they could, with the same intelligence, dexterity and aptitude for tool use that we have now.

and there is archeological evidence that the transition of wheat from the wild variety to the type we used today happened around here Göbekli Tepe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe, which are 12k year old ruins.
Click to expand...

Hmm...maybe I fell foul of the BC dating confusion. I'd remembered that happening about 10,000 years ago. Maybe I'd read that it happened in about 10,000 BC.
 
Dimple said:
Maybe - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1768109.stm
Click to expand...

Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India could be over 9,000 years old.
Click to expand...


Not more than 12,000 years old, let alone the far older dates being bandied about (they go back at least as far as 38,000 years ago).

Also...maybe not. That news snippet was from 10 years ago. It's odd that such a major discovery would go unmentioned afterwards. It's also odd that the only named "expert" involved has a dubious background.

http://badarchaeology.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/bad-archaeology-reporting-lost-indian.html

So where's the evidence? The image shown in that BBC article certainly isn't of this alleged city. Who did the carbon dating? What was carbon dated? Is it clear that whatever was carbon dated was artificial? The only images are sonar or radar that doesn't show anything clearly.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
“Of course, that's not evidence of a global flood (which would be impossible anyway). It's evidence of many different floods, each of which would be a great flood to the local people.”
Click to expand...
No it is not, check your history sea levels change drastically over time. Sea levels have been as much as 300m lower then today and over 600m higher then today. Humans have seen an estimated 120meters change in sea levels. Even if you lower that massively to 50m you are still talking about a massive amount of land difference. If you look at the amount of land lost in the past timeframe of humans it explains the global flood story.

http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/appletTopo.php?lang=en&file=franceB
This is France and the bottom of England. Type in -120m Sea level or even just -50.

http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/appletTopo.php?lang=en&file=mondeB
Version of the whole world.

http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/appletTopo.php?lang=en&file=europe
EU.

I have no problem with you disagreeing about the technology level of humans at that time. But the fact is humans even if just hunter gathers lost a massive amount of land due to global flooding. This explains why so many people have old storys about large floods.



Angilion said:
“No, we can't.”
Click to expand...
Just saying something does not make it true. Yes we can as there are tons of photos, videos and expeditions from lots of counties.

What do you call these and all the sites explored by lots of people independently?

http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/images2/artifacts/cleopatra_underwater1.jpg
http://rabbithole2.com/presentation/ancient/images/24-alexandria-egypt-underwater-city1.jpg


Take Indai underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India two very large citys got found carbon dated to around 9000 years old. These are full city sites pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old all in the Ocean.

You can debate the age as much you like but you cannot debate that large parts of land with cities all over the world are now underwater. Sea levels have changed by around 120m while humans have been around.



Angilion said:
“Why not? “
Click to expand...
How else can you explain ancient maps showing land which we only recently discovered with modern technology scanning under the ice? The only way to know the land mass is either advanced technology or being there before it was covered in ice.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Out of his bottom like all the rest of it.
Click to expand...
Well you’re a nice person aren’t you and a little ignorant to top it off.

I think it’s something to do with Tectonic uplift/movement along with temperatures. When the planet warms up water absorbs more energy and so takes up more space in liquid form then colder liquids. That and Tectonic plates rising can the water above to overflow into near by landmass.

A lot of science and geological books talk about it but it but it is not something I read into. I think “A book about Coastal Science” by M. Schwartz was one book that explained it in detail.

EDIT: After some further reading “Estimates of sea level change currently suffer from significant of uncertainty, both in magnitude and in timing.” The range seems to be around between 200m to 400m depending on source but either way pretty much most sources say the minimum and maximum sea level compared to today changes by over 100m in both directions. Just a little uncertainly at the top range.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
No it is not, check your history sea levels change drastically over time. Sea levels have been as much as 300m lower then today and over 600m higher then today.
Click to expand...

There isn't enough water on Earth to account for that amount of variation in either direction let alone both.

Humans have seen an estimated 120meters change in sea levels. Even if you lower that massively to 50m you are still talking about a massive amount of land difference. If you look at the amount of land lost in the past timeframe of humans it explains the global flood story.
Click to expand...
I think it's worth noting that a change of 9m in 500 years is an extreme one modeled for the end of the last glacial period:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711134716.htm

While that would have a huge effect, it's not a sudden global flood that occured in days, lasted for a few weeks and then disappeared again.

Just saying something does not make it true.
Click to expand...
That was my point.

Take Indai underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India two very large citys got found carbon dated to around 9000 years old. These are full city sites pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old all in the Ocean.
Click to expand...
See my post just above, which provides a link showing that what some people have claimed about that site is not supported by evidence. You've added some extra claims as well, beyond those made by the initial person (who is not an expert in a relevant field and who puts his beliefs ahead of the evidence, to be polite).

How else can you explain ancient maps showing land which we only recently discovered with modern technology scanning under the ice? The only way to know the land mass is either advanced technology or being there before it was covered in ice.
Click to expand...
Ancient? 1531 is hardly ancient. Besides, the maps don't agree with either each other or modern maps.

I've just been looking on sites for believers, such as Ancient Destructions. There's a lot of "amazing" statements like this one:

Here is a summary of some of the most unusual findings about the map: Scrutiny of the map shows that the makers knew the accurate circumference of the Earth to within 50 miles.
Click to expand...
That's a claim about a map drawn in 1531. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth in about 250 BC. It was not unknown in 1531. If the claim is true (and I don't say that it is), it would only mean that the person who made the map was well educated for their time.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
[..]
I think it’s something to do with Tectonic uplift/movement along with temperatures. When the planet warms up water absorbs more energy and so takes up more space in liquid form then colder liquids. [..]
Click to expand...

Not by anywhere near enough. To get such a massive increase in volume from heating water, you'd need to boil it into steam.

Bear in mind that a global temperature increase of a few degrees is a big increase. If you heat a mug of water by a few degrees, does it expand so much that it explodes your microwave?
 
Last edited:

In the spirit of posting suspect YouTube evidence, here's what really happened at NASA before the moon landing.

Sorry if pearoast :o
 
Bill lives on a cat sancturary in a caravan, has lots and lots of cats. Claims the CIA have tried to kill him several times and failed. 400000 others were either duped or in on the conspiricy. Is he trying to live up to a stereotype or what?

Got through the video, nothing really new in it that hasn't been discussed ad nausium. What do the moon landing doubters think?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom