- 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
So how do all you moon landing deny imbeciles like your crow?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:15 am
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:15 am
Baked, fried, BBQ or stewed?
31
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:17 am to TigerGman
There was a moon landing?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:22 am to TigerGman
quote:
So how do all you moon landing deny imbeciles like your crow?
Literally no point in engaging them. I think a poster said it best here.
quote:
They wouldnt believe if they were paragliding behind the capsule.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:29 am to TigerGman
Don’t underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:30 am to TigerGman
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:30 am to High C
quote:
There was a moon landing?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:39 am to TigerGman
What does Artemis II orbiting the moon have to do with proof of moon landing?
Serious question, I haven’t heard of any proofs they’ve shared granted I haven’t looked at social media or turned on the tv hardly at all since this weekend
Serious question, I haven’t heard of any proofs they’ve shared granted I haven’t looked at social media or turned on the tv hardly at all since this weekend
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:43 am to Who_Dat_Tiger
quote:
What does Artemis II orbiting the moon have to do with proof of moon landing?
Artemis II didn't orbit the moon - it was a flyby on a free return trajectory.
But, to your question, one of the main arguments the Moon hoax proponents have is that humans can't really survive the transit of the Van Allen radiation belts. If you accept that Artemis II carried a crew of 4 on a flyby of the Moon, then that argument is gone.
(The fact we have now sent, now, 10 manned missions containing 31 humans, successfully, to the vicinity of the Moon, well beyond LEO, is only proof to folks who will accept proof - many of the Moon hoax folks will not accept any proof, at all, as it is a quasi-religious belief.)
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:44 am to Who_Dat_Tiger
quote:
What does Artemis II orbiting the moon have to do with proof of moon landing?
One of the pet talking points is it's impossible to travel through the Van Allen belts.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:44 am to TigerGman
It’s AI
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:46 am to Ace Midnight
quote:in their defense however I wouldn’t call having the tech to get past the van allen radiation belt in 2026 to do a lunar flyby a proof of doing the same nearly 60 years earlier and also landing on the moon. Thought OP had something definitive from this mission he was sharing I hadn’t heard of
to your question, one of the main arguments the Moon hoax proponents have is that humans can't really survive the transit of the Van Allen radiation belts. If you accept that Artemis II carried a crew of 4 on a flyby of the Moon, then that argument is gone.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:48 am to TigerGman
I look at it like this.... How does it affect my life one way or another? If we landed, didn't land, whatever.... My life changes none. If Artemis 7 or 8 or whatever Artemis lands on the moon.... my life won't change. I still have to go to work today. And tomorrow.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:48 am to Boss13
quote:
Literally no point in engaging them. I think a poster said it best here.quote:
They wouldnt believe if they were paragliding behind the capsule.
I can't understand how someone can be so desperate to be right on something like this can lead them to continually deny reality. It's like they've made this interesting -but largely irrelevant in the day-to-day lives of most people- fact an intrinsic part of their identity.
Either that or they are just trolling (which then makes them pathetic).
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:50 am to Who_Dat_Tiger
quote:
in their defense however I wouldn’t call having the tech to get past the van allen radiation belt in 2026 to do a lunar flyby a proof of doing the same nearly 60 years earlier and also landing on the moon.
Ah, so you're one of those folks. I don't keep a running list.
Thanks.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:51 am to Ace Midnight
Sorry I was born about 40 years after the moon landing
I wasn’t around to see it myself and I’m an open minded person. I never said we never landed on the moon I’m just not close minded
I wasn’t around to see it myself and I’m an open minded person. I never said we never landed on the moon I’m just not close minded
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:52 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
many of the Moon hoax folks will not accept any proof, at all, as it is a quasi-religious belief.)
Most of these hard lined conspiracy theorists are easy to explain. Deeply insecure about their own capabilities, probably well aware they are a little slower than most, so they cling to ideas that make them feel smarter than everyone else, provide them with some superiority. At it’s core, holding so tightly to those ideas is a coping mechanism.
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:53 am to Who_Dat_Tiger
quote:
I wouldn’t call having the tech to get past the van allen radiation belt in 2026
You know that "speed" is the answer to that, right? The "tech" is literally "speed" (i.e. velocity). And that the Apollo ships weren't any slower than Artemis, right?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 7:54 am to TigerGman
Why didn’t we return to the moon this time?
Posted on 4/7/26 at 8:00 am to Eightballjacket
quote:
Why didn’t we return to the moon this time?
We did return to the Moon - just didn't land. Landing missions are coming.
They are testing out this spacecraft. This is ALWAYS done in phases.
Page 1 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News