Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
YEA! AND WHY IS THE FLAG WAVING WHEN THERE IS NO WIND ON THE MOON AND WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE FLAG FROM EARTH WHEN WE CAN SEE STARS BILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!!11111
I found out something about my fiance and her family and I don't know what to do...
- Thread starter Casdawer
- Start date
YEA! AND WHY IS THE FLAG WAVING WHEN THERE IS NO WIND ON THE MOON AND WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE FLAG FROM EARTH WHEN WE CAN SEE STARS BILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!!11111
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,769
- Location
- Auckland
Starred and flagged :go USA!:
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 614
What's next....USA didn't invade Iraq for oil it was for all those WMD's they found.....oh wait
YEA! AND WHY IS THE FLAG WAVING WHEN THERE IS NO WIND ON THE MOON AND WHY CAN'T WE SEE THE FLAG FROM EARTH WHEN WE CAN SEE STARS BILLIONS OF MILES AWAY!!!11111
Lol, the post is so silly it has to be a joke, yet it looks like a legit CT nut post due to their posts being so silly. This is why we need sarcasm tags
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,709
- Location
- London
Just tell her that you also had doubts, until one day God came to you and told you that He had sent people to the moon to as a way to test those who truly believe in His power to gift the children of Earth with the desire for knowledge and self-advancement within His universe.
Google would probably help you, like he says it's been proven time and time again beyond all reasonable doubt. But if you're too lazy to do your own research then a very simple explanation of is that the CGI effects needed to fake it were only made possible in the last couple of years (Nvidia actually did the first ever full simulation of it less than a year ago to demonstrate the compute power of their new GPUs) and the technology needed to fake it without CGI doesn't exist yet, thus it would have been impossible to have faked it in the 20th century.
The old strawman argument, look they lied about A, so that means the totally unrelated B is also lies.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 614
Its OK....I don't have wiki links or images to prove it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,300
My friend OP, I opened your thread to read what horrendous secret ur in law family may have... I was expecting anything, but not even I could have imagined such a horrific situation my friend...... There is truly no worse a situation lol.... I'd sit them all down for an intervention with a slide show and see what happens, if it goes bad, dump her! Haha
lol.... I'd sit them all down for an intervention with a slide show and see what happens, if it goes bad, dump her! Haha
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Thanks for the awesome replies guys
I can assure you that I still love my fiancé very much and there will be no breaks up today. I will just make sure that I'm the one to educate the children and not her and her parents!
I think said children's mother will have some input into their education. Grandparents too, trust me. We grandparents are great for teaching kids things their parents don't or won't teach their kids.
not to mention that the Australians had to help with their radio telescopes to communicate with the Apollo astronauts as well
Troll post failure. Nowhere in his post did he get mad, in fact he quite politely suggested you do your own research (hint: it's what smart people do). Instead if intelligently rebutting his points you went full on childish "la la la la, I can't hear you". There is only one person having an intelligent and adult exchange of views between you and ubersonic, and it isn't you... bro.
lolz
u mad bro
rustled bro.
With such intelligent and logically reasoned rebuttals, I simply cannot understand why everyone doesn't just accept how right you are.
Note: the above paragraph was sarcasm.
Last edited:
If you're using the most restrictive meaning of the word "proof" then nothing can ever be proved apart from the (in)correctness of a piece of pure maths with no application to reality. By that definition, nobody can prove anything about anything. You can't prove that you're real. You can't prove that the Earth isn't fake.
Going by the more usual meaning of the word "proof":
1) You are suggesting that in the late 1960s the USA had computer technology generations ahead of anyone else, multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than anyone else, and that they had invented entirely new concepts for how to use computers...and that they never used that technology or knowledge for their own advantage except to fake moon landing videos. Also that the conspiracy of silence about it was and continues to be perfectly unbroken by any of the large number of people who would have to have been party to that knowledge (the inventors, the engineers, the programmers, etc). It would be slightly less implausible to suggest that they never used the technology for fear that it might get into the hands of the USSR, maybe, possibly, but your position requires them to have used it (for the CGI). The whole idea becomes even less believable when you consider the main point of the moon landings - to demonstrate the USA's technological superiority over the USSR. Which, obviously, could have been done far more convincingly by showing the vastly greater technological superiority of this alleged computer technology.
There is no evidence to support your position and it's extremely implausible, so in the usual usage of the word "proof" it can be reasonably be considered to be proven false.
2) They demonstrated the technology. They must therefore have spent the money necessary to invent it, develop it, build it and to carry out lunar missions (remember, the lunar ship was independently tracked by many people all over the world, including officials in the USSR).
3) The photos and videos are evidence. Since it's entirely possible that they are real and it's impossible that the videos are fake and there's no evidence that the photos are fake, it's reasonable to consider it proven (in the usual meaning of the word) that they are real.
The only explanation of them being faked that is consistent with itself and observable reality requires gods or wizards or aliens with far more advanced technology. Since the USA had the capability to do manned moon landings and had a great deal of reason to do them, the only thing that could have prevented the USA doing them would have been a significantly stronger power forbidding it. The only significantly stronger power would be gods, wizards or aliens with far more advanced technology, who could have used their magic or technology to fake the evidence and alter the minds of all the people involved to implant false memories.
But the global perfect conspiracy would have known what you were going to do, stolen the polygraph machine and replaced it with a perfect replica rigged to produce fake results.
Strictly speaking, that only proves that there were ships sent to the moon and back on the dates given for the manned missions. Strictly speaking, it doesn't prove that there were people in the ships. It would have been possible to put receivers and transmitters in unmanned ships, transmit the signals from Earth to the ships and have the ships retransmit the signals.
I think that the most compelling evidence is that they could have done it, wanted to do it, had people willing to do it, had no reason to fake doing it (not even money - faking it and doing unmanned missions would have been more expensive than doing manned missions) and had no known way of faking the evidence of it anyway even if they wanted to.