- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Joe Rogan Podcast with Bart Sibrel - who here believes the Moon Landing was a hoax?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:32 pm to Hateradedrink
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:32 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Incredible you animals are allowed to breathe and vote
I don’t understand the hatred for those who have some skepticism. It’s almost like those who are hard core believers are intolerant of those that have some skepticism. It’s ok to question things without being demonized! What are you, a liberal Democrat?
4
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:34 pm to Asleepinthecove
This thread confirms this is the average OT’r questioning top PhDs
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:34 pm to Asleepinthecove
Skepticism of the moon landing means you’re a retard. You’re equivalent to a flat-earther. The United States would be a better place if your genes were eradicated from the pool.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:37 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Incredible you animals are allowed to breathe and vote
I agree 100%...those people who believe are idiots.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:39 pm to Asleepinthecove
quote:
I don’t understand the hatred for those who have some skepticism.
It's really strange how angry people can get when defending established narratives. It's almost as if they are religious tenets. I don't care either way. I simply want to know the truth. Our media and our government have proven to be untrustworthy, so it's not unreasonable to question everything.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:40 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Skepticism of the moon landing means you’re a retard. You’re equivalent to a flat-earther. The United States would be a better place if your genes were eradicated from the pool.
You sound angry! Maybe you should go protest with your kind on the Columbia campus! The earth is definitely round and you probably believe Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK!
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:41 pm to Keyser Sooieze
quote:Early in the podcast, Rogan asked him a simple question and he said "the answer is on Sibrel.com." was nice to see Rogan push back and say, "but you're right here"
Hmm. 30 minutes more and Sibrel has said you've got to read my book/stories about 10 times
quote:Best part was that he claims he escaped from the Feds custody. For the folks who haven't seen him on the pod, that dude ain't escaping from nobody lol.
Now on a story about the feds chasing him in ATL, then abducting him etc. He's losing direction.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:44 pm to saintsfan1977
quote:That's my biggest question.
If it was possible another country would have done it already
One poster tried, props to him for giving it a go. But no one has provided an explanation that makes logical sense as to why no other country has gone to the moon in the last 54 years.
There's a bunch of reasons why it would be beneficial to do so, so why haven't they done it?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:46 pm to Asleepinthecove
quote:A lot of the same folks who talk about the government's role in covid and a stolen election don't want anyone to ask any questions about anything, just trust your government. Funny how that works.
I don’t understand the hatred for those who have some skepticism. It’s almost like those who are hard core believers are intolerant of those that have some skepticism. It’s ok to question things without being demonized! What are you, a liberal Democrat?
Even if your of the thought it's real, if you can't acknowledge that there IS a lot of weird shite around it, then you aren't really trying much.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:46 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:See my point about not trying.
Skepticism of the moon landing means you’re a retard. You’re equivalent to a flat-earther
This guy is not trying.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 7:56 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Skepticism of the moon landing means you’re a retard. You’re equivalent to a flat-earther. The United States would be a better place if your genes were eradicated from the pool.
Skepticism is just a word for disagreement.
What's wrong with it? Right or wrong?
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:02 pm to Asleepinthecove
The only reason I ever thought about questioning it is because the US and USSR was trying to outdo each other. The USSR had sent aircrafts that landed on the moon so since they did it first, the US had to one up them and then put a man on the moon.
Look at all the missions to the moon, the first being in 1958. And look how many have failed.
wiki
I am asking this with limited knowledge of this, but with all of those failed missions, wouldn't it have been extremely risky at the time to do a mission to the moon with humans? And for what? Just to say we were the first to do it? It really is sad that you really have no idea what to believe anymore.
Look at all the missions to the moon, the first being in 1958. And look how many have failed.
wiki
I am asking this with limited knowledge of this, but with all of those failed missions, wouldn't it have been extremely risky at the time to do a mission to the moon with humans? And for what? Just to say we were the first to do it? It really is sad that you really have no idea what to believe anymore.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:11 pm to JodyPlauche
Look...a Dane Cook and Kevin Hart fan downvoted George Carlin.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:45 pm to shel311
quote:
Just saying "one more time" does not mean you sufficiently answered it the first time, you most certainly did not. You think you did, that's cool. But you did not actually do what you think you did.
In fact, the US is going back for reasons that are exactly what I said, that also run counter to what you said as reasons no one needed to go back
quote:
There aren't any, until modern China, and they are another 10 years out.
So we did it in 1969, and China won't have the technical resources and technological capabilities to do it until 2034? Or another way to put it, you're stating the US had better tech in 1969 than China does in 2024?
quote:
The fact that SpaceX can even attempt it is a testament to the advance of every technology aside from basic propulsion
So before you said there were basically no technological advancements that would make this easier today, and now you have a post stating the opposite.
I see your reading comprehension matches your IQ. I did provide an answer you can't refute, and you won't admit it, which moves you from the "ignorant" camp to the unfixable one. Sorry for your offspring, if any.
Have you ever been to China? I have. Get outside of metro Shanghai or Beijing, and it makes the Appalachians look like NYC for civilization. Ever buy anything from Harbor Freight even 15 years ago? It has only been in the last 25 years that they emerged from being a 3rd world hole. So you're saying a 3rd world country could match 1st world USA in the 1970's, 1980's, or 1990's? Or a 2nd world country in the 2-aughts? Nope, not gonna fly. And it didn't. Literally. Look up the Xichang Disaster and educate yourself. LINK Not quite as bad as the USSR's disaster on the pad in '69, but a hundred or so locals wish they were here to argue the point.
WRT to technology advance, again your reading comprehension fails you. I said that basic propulsion tech has not changed at all, and it hasn't. We still use chemical rockets with a pretty narrow selection of chemistries, and the same general combustion chamber and bell profiles. What has changed is CAD, CAM, CAE, test gear, controls, and a bunch of peripheral items that make it cheaper, if not faster - compare SpaceX's timeline to NASA - to go through the learning curve to build a moon-capable rocket.
And yes, 1969 USA did have better propulsion technology and space infrastructure technology than modern China, or Japan, or Europe, or anyone else. TO THIS DAY, the Saturn F-1 engine remains the most reliable, most powerful rocket engine EVER built. It is literally in a class by itself. All modern rockets seek to take a cheaper route that requires less reliability than the F-1, so they use more smaller engines, an approach with several tradeoffs that reduces the chances of spectacular test stand explosions and other kinetic events. Scoreboard, homie.
This post was edited on 4/26/24 at 8:48 pm
Posted on 4/26/24 at 8:50 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
You can, for example, take a US Timken or Japanese NSK bearing, and run them to failure vs the best Chinese knockoff, and you will find that despite being identical in every measurable respect, the Chinese/Russian/Whatever bearing will last maybe 1/3rd as long.
The Chinese can't even make a flat tappet cam/lifters that will last much beyond break in anymore.
A lot of engine builders won't do anything but roller cams now.
It's really surprising just how bad some Chinese stuff is when one would think it should be pretty simple considering we were doing it 70+ years ago.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:02 pm to TigerHornII
quote:lol good one. Sucks that you're wrong and now getting cocky.
I see your reading comprehension matches your IQ. I did provide an answer you can't refute, and you won't admit it, which moves you from the "ignorant" camp to the unfixable one. Sorry for your offspring, if any
You said no one has gone back because there's no reason to politically. And yet the US is planning to go back for many reasons, one being geopolitical. So yes you answered, you just gave an incorrect answer. Weird that you're getting cocky when you were factually incorrect, but you do you.
quote:China wasn't a 3rd world country around 2000
It has only been in the last 25 years that they emerged from being a 3rd world hole. So you're saying a 3rd world country
. Now you're either lying to yourself or just clueless. It can only be one, but factually speaking, it IS one. I'll let you figure out which one it is.
quote:Nope, you said more than that. Now you're focusing on one thing you said while trying to pretend toy didn't make a follow up comment that contradicted your previous comment. So basically, you're lying again. You said the 2nd comment, the least you can do is own it, don't pretend it didn't happen.
again your reading comprehension fails you. I said that basic propulsion tech has not changed at all, and it hasn't
quote:I lost track of the amount of times you've lied and pretended you didn't say things you did say, so thanks, a scoreboard to keep track of that would b helpful for me. Good looking out!
Scoreboard, homie.
2 things can be true here. You know more than me on this subject, certainly. But also, you can't and haven't provided logical answers to some of my questions and me pointing that out has made you angry, and so you're now lashing out and taking shots at me. That's 100% a sign of weakness, something you're doing because YOU know you haven't sufficiently done what I asked. It is what it is.
Posted on 4/26/24 at 9:04 pm to TigerHornII
quote:
And yes, 1969 USA did have better propulsion technology and space infrastructure technology than modern China, or Japan, or Europe, or anyone else. TO THIS DAY, the Saturn F-1 engine remains the most reliable, most powerful rocket engine EVER built. It is literally in a class by itself. All modern rockets seek to take a cheaper route that requires less reliability than the F-1, so they use more smaller engines, an approach with several tradeoffs that reduces the chances of spectacular test stand explosions and other kinetic events. Scoreboard, homie.
F1s got us up off the ground, J2s got us to the moon, and had to be able to fire up a 2nd time, deep in space. Rocketdyne really did some incredible work back in the day. I couldn't imagine the tension of getting ready to fire the 3rd stage for its 2nd burn
Page 9 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News