I found out something about my fiance and her family and I don't know what to do...
- Thread starter Casdawer
- Start date
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.
So just because someone doesn't follow the same views as you, you insult them? Well played sir.
I must be one of them "stupid" people then since I too have my doubts. Just because one doubts something doesn't make them stupid. Sure if the evidence was all 100% as you sure think it is and still didn't believe, maybe they would be a little stupid. But this isn't the case...
It is the case.
There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked. There are some things that some people think is evidence because they don't know enough about the subject and they have been misled.
If you think your doubts are based on evidence, then feel free to put forward that evidence. I (and probably various other people) will be able to explain why it doesn't mean what you have been misled into believing it means.
Insulting someone for not having the same views as you is not the same as insulting someone for believing something ridiculously implausible that has been repeatedly proven false. I try to avoid doing the latter on this subject because I try to take into account the fact that people have been deliberately misled by people who benefit from the deception, but I can understand why someone would be insulting after the first few dozen times they've heard the same false "evidence" and, even more often, a simple statement of unthinking faith in disbelief without any reason at all, not even the false "evidence".
It is not plausible that in the 1960s NASA secretly built an enclosed set the size of a town that was kept in a vacuum and had the same mavity as the surface of the moon.
Because key conditions on the surface of the moon (mavity, lack of atmosphere, etc) were known and so the way things would happen could be calculated. For example, it is possible to calculate the motion of a pendulum in a vacuum in any given mavity.
i) What reason do you have for thinking that?
ii) How do you think they faked the things that couldn't be faked with any human technology known to exist at the time?
iii) How do you think they got the USSR to co-operate in the "hoax" which existed almost entirely for the point of establishing that the USA's sociopolitical system was superior to the USSR's and thus swaying countries into not becoming communist?
That last sentence is even less believable than the evidence-free belief that the moon landings (incidentally, most believers are so ignorant of the subject that they don't even know there was more than one) were faked.
There is no evidence that the moon landings were faked but some people still think they were because they've been told to believe it and have been fed some disinformation. The truth is not always universally believed, especially when some people are skillfully spreading disinformation. Which can be a good thing, e.g. the Allies probably wouldn't have won the important victory at El Alamein without skillfully spreading disinformation on an epic scale (Operation Bertram).
Can you explain how and/or give me a link to an explanation? When I'm wrong, I like to know how I was wrong.
Anyone who has done any research into what would have been necessary.
Even today, we are not even close to being able to fake it physically. The technology still doesn't exist and might never exist. Even a theoretical explanation of how it might possibly be done doesn't exist. CGI would be the only way to fake it all. The most obvious example is the mavity. There's no way to create lunar mavity on Earth. You can partially fake it with wires and harnesses and messing with framerates, but that doesn't really work. It'll do for a film and an audience that's suspending disbelief, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,526
- Location
- ST4
Can we not just voteban anyone who claims to be serious about the Lunar landings being faked and provide them with a link to the David Icke forum, a magical place where their special sort of crazy is embraced and welcomed with open arms.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 41
Opinions are like *********, everyone has one and most of them stink!
I've come across plenty of apparently normal people who think the US government destroyed the World Trade Centre on 9/11, the Holocaust was faked or HIV does not cause AIDS etc. Don't waste your time arguing with such people. Most of them just enjoy holding controversial opinions.
You seemed to accept that Russia could track the mission while also hypothesizing that this still, in theory, left it open for a rocket to launch unmanned and (and presumably deploy and recover the moon lander) while acting as a sort of rebroadcast station. While putting aside the fact that this would represent an even bigger technical challenge (NASA creating two rather advanced drones) the rebroadcast bit itself is flawed. If you're accepting that Russia was monitoring the program, tracking it etc.. then there is rather a big difference in the radio traffic - in one scenario you've got radio traffic, including TV etc.. going up on one frequency and then being rebroadcast back down on another frequency - i.e. your hypothetical rocket acting as an unmanned drone + rebroadcast station vs the real scenario of voice comms going from NASA, separate vioce comms coming back from the rocket... on the same frequency and of course TV signals being sent from the rocket... one way.
Can you not accept some people do not buy into all of the so called facts you are presented with.
Is it not human to instinctively question what you doubt ?
Some people just don't fall for everything presented to them as so called fact, as they have an instinctive trait to question what ones own logical conclusions come to.
HIV was suppose to be a form of genetic control of the black/gay population.
Do I believe this? I very much doubt it, but how it came about is a little controversial.
911, Show me a jet fuel that burns at 2750F!
Gets coat for that subject.Holocaust, this was never mention in either Winston Churchills or Eisenhowers
memoirs. Gets coat again.
Just because some people question stuff don't make them nutters.
The basic attitude to people who think people are conspiracy nutters is...
They question everything but know sod all about anything.
The hypocrisy force is strong with this one though.
Quote "Opinions are like *********, everyone has one and most of them stink!"
Quote "Don't waste your time arguing with such people. Most of them just enjoy holding controversial opinions."
So is that not your opinion then ? Pmsl
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 41
Obviously, people should question what they are told, but there is a huge difference in believing a conspiracy theory instead of accepting a historical or scientific fact which is confirmed by many separate pieces of evidence from numerous unrelated sources. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, the Holocaust happened and HIV causes AIDS all fall into the category of facts supported by a wealth of other evidence.
Quote "Don't waste your time arguing with such people. Most of them just enjoy holding controversial opinions."
So is that not your opinion then ? Pmsl
No, it's the outcome of a lifetime's experience of dealing with people who believe conspiracy theories. None of them will accept properly documented facts or basic logic if it refutes their conspiracy claim. It is as if they WANT to believe it.
In theory, yes, just a ship to the moon and back. In this hypothetical scenario there wouldn't be a moon lander to deploy. In this hypothetical scenario, the whole thing was faked on Earth with the ship going to and from the moon being merely for rebroadcasting. I've already said I am sure that it was impossible at the time to fake the video on Earth (unless you bring magic or alien technology into it). The argument I was putting forward was solely that the existence of signals from a ship isn't by itself compelling proof of what the ship was doing, only of its position.
So the key question is this one: Would it have been impossible for the USA to transmit from Earth to the ship without the USSR being able to detect those signals? I'm thinking that detecting signals broadcast from the ship to large areas of Earth would have been a lot easier than detecting signals transmitted from Earth to the ship.
Conspiracy believers rarely if ever question stuff. They simply believe whatever they are told by whoever they accept as an authority, even when it directly contradicts the evidence.
You may have noticed that none of the people in this thread who think the moon landings were fake or even that they might have been faked have any evidence for their position. That's not questioning. That's the opposite of questioning.
I actually questioned the moon landings. Since I was actually questioning something, I looked at the evidence for answers. That's what real questioning is. Saying "I believe this with total disregard for evidence because someone said it's true" is not questioning it.
But when you try to get to the bottom of everything it all becomes so ambiguous.
How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? I been down many and come back with nothing but doubt and uncertainty.
Stopped digging a few years ago got my daughter to look after now.
Still have my personal opinion though!