Started By
Message

re: Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?

Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:10 pm to
Posted by Tigers_Saints
Member since Jun 2016
949 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:10 pm to
quote:

Yes, flags flutter in the non-existent lunar breeze.



You mean the flag with a rod on top?

The flag that gained movement from when, idk, it was put into the ground?



LINK

Derp

quote:

Notice how, in the video above, the longer we wait after the flag was planted in the lunar surface, the less "wind" there seems to be.


quote:

This shows the danger of saying something's impossible without having a lot of experience with it. If we want to test a hypothesis, we have to investigate both sides of it: not just that an object behaves one way in one environment, but we also have to know, rather than simply assume, that something equivalent doesn't happen in the other environment. When it comes to conspiracy theories, I often find that people are only investigating one side of it. The arguments used involve a lot of intuition and assumptions. This is a mental shortcuts our brains are prone to taking, and it usually works out pretty well under ordinary circumstances, but extraordinary circumstances show the flaws of this style of thinking.


This post was edited on 7/20/16 at 3:13 pm
Posted by The Nino
Member since Jan 2010
21801 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:11 pm to
quote:

Three Mile Island, did that happen?
Yes, but it was mostly Deadpool's fault



...the shitty version of Deadpool
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
94674 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:11 pm to
quote:

Yes, flags flutter in the non-existent lunar breeze.


Well, just to help you out with some knowledge, recent photos confirm they're still up there, breeze or no.

Apollo Flags
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
94674 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:12 pm to
quote:

I would say 40% chance we did not land on the moon at any time.


So you agree then, it is more likely than not that we did land on the moon, at least once right?

And what do you think of the chances we made 6 manned landings? Same 60%?
Posted by 1BamaRTR
In Your Head Blvd
Member since Apr 2015
24388 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:13 pm to
quote:


I would say 40% chance we did not land on the moon at any time.



I'd say there's a 100% chance you came up with that "40% chance".

We landed on the moon. There's no "maybe we didn't" about it.
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
34508 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:13 pm to
quote:

I have knowledge that there is a decent chance


This fragment doesn't even make sense! I don't even need to read what the back half of the sentence is to know that whatever is coming should be dismissed.

Do you realize how ridiculous the above quote sounds? In or out of context, it doesn't make a difference.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25424 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:16 pm to
quote:

Do you realize how ridiculous the above quote sounds? In or out of context, it doesn't make a difference.




Of course he does. He's trolling you. It's purposely an annoying phrasing that makes you want to respond.
This post was edited on 7/20/16 at 3:17 pm
Posted by rt3
now in the piney woods of Pineville
Member since Apr 2011
146230 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:16 pm to
Posted by bendellee
Member since Aug 2006
2430 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:19 pm to
quote:


Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
I would say 40% chance we did not land on the moon at any time.

So you cite all the "evidence" that we didn't land on the the moon as support for your theory that we probably did?
Posted by yoga girl
Member since Dec 2015
3691 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:21 pm to
quote:


Do you realize how ridiculous the above quote sounds? In or out of context, it doesn't make a difference.


It is not ridiculous at all and it makes perfect sense. I've not made up my mind one way or the other, I'm just acknowledging the substantial evidence that the moon landings were faked. Whether the evidence can be debunked we'll just have to wait and see.
Posted by ALWho
Earth
Member since Oct 2014
612 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:26 pm to
quote:

We went 6 times.





That is the number manned landings, there were many other trips and unmanned landings.

Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
34508 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:26 pm to
quote:

It is not ridiculous at all and it makes perfect sense. I've not made up my mind one way or the other, I'm just acknowledging the substantial evidence that the moon landings were faked. Whether the evidence can be debunked we'll just have to wait and see.



So you choose to believe the absurd on the farce that it's a scam unless the scrap of laughable "evidence" you have knowledge of is debunked, despite the overwhelming mass of evidence that it is true?

Let's just ignore the giant gaping hole in the side of the boat and party on because the room we are in doesn't look like it is filling with water. We aren't sinking! Look at this room! (the moon landing is fake!! Look at the flag!!!)
Posted by Count Chocula
Tier 5 and proud
Member since Feb 2009
63908 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:26 pm to
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25424 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:27 pm to
Relevent. Flat earth for life.

quote:


The Lunar Eclipse

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.

A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.

Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of a Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

There is also a possibility that the Shadow Object is a known celestial body which orbits the sun; but more study would be needed to track the positions of Mercury, Venus and the sun's asteroid satellites and correlate them with the equations for the lunar eclipse before any conclusion could be drawn.
Posted by OMLandshark
Member since Apr 2009
119977 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:28 pm to
quote:

I would say 40% chance we did not land on the moon at any time.


And how has no one squealed yet out of the thousands that would be involved?

But then again, you think that all commercial airline pilots are directly poisoning the populace, so this may be moot for you.
Posted by larry289
Holiday Island, AR
Member since Nov 2009
3858 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:28 pm to
nichlastiger

You do know your fan idea wouldn't work, right?
Posted by yoga girl
Member since Dec 2015
3691 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:30 pm to
List of reasons:

Waving flag
Lack of impact crater
Multiple light sources
C Rock
Hidden Cables
No Stars

Among other reasons - yes, no need to be skeptical.

The shadows don't match also.

There is suspicious reflection in the helmet.
This post was edited on 7/20/16 at 3:32 pm
Posted by SidewalkDawg
Chair
Member since Nov 2012
10198 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:32 pm to
quote:

List of reasons:

Waving flag
Lack of impact crater
Multiple light sources
C Rock
Hidden Cables
No Stars

Among other reasons - yes, no need to be skeptical.


I bet you're easy to talk into sex.
Posted by Peazey
Metry
Member since Apr 2012
25424 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:33 pm to
quote:

In the most popular Flat Earth Model, the outer edge of the Earth? is bounded by an 'Ice Wall'. This wall prevents the oceans from spilling over the side of the Earth, and may perform the same function for the atmolayer. The exact size of the Ice Wall varies between different Flat Earth Models.

The traditional view is that the Ice Wall rises approximately 150 feet above sea level, preventing the ocean from spilling over the edge of the Earth. In this model, the atmolayer is either contained by another means or universal. This view of the Ice Wall is generally agreed to correspond to the coastline of Antarctica in the Round Earth Model.


quote:

It is unknown whether the ice extends outward forever or there is an actual boundary to the plane upon which the Earth resides.

Others believe the Ice Wall to be much larger. In this model, there is an impenetrable boundary of ice further outward around the edges of the Earth, generally estimated to be 40,000 - 50,000 feet high to hold the atmolayer in place. This Ice Wall is considered to mark the outer edge of the earth by those who believe it exists, although what truly lies beyond it remains a matter of speculation.

Samuel Rowbotham had this to say about the Ice Wall:

How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

It should be noted that, in both views, the Ice Wall is a naturally formed structure, a mountain range merely covered in ice and snow. Thus, it is irregular in shape, size, and appearance. It is a wall only in the sense that it walls the earth’s oceans.

In a minority of Flat Earth Models, the Ice Wall is very difficult to reach and may be guarded by groups conspiring to maintain the commonly accepted Round Earth Model?.
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
34508 posts
Posted on 7/20/16 at 3:34 pm to
I just can't do this. I understand how her dad feels.
Jump to page
Page First 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 17Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram