- 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: You Moon landing deniers are all complete idiots...
Posted on 12/29/25 at 4:55 pm to CAD703X
Posted on 12/29/25 at 4:55 pm to CAD703X
quote:
Instead I get; "well with DEI at NASA now we may not make it back this time but that doesn't mean we didn't do it before multiple times"
Much of the “lost technology” discussion seems to be more of an acknowledgement that some of the prior moon shots were more risky than we care to admit to ourselves. Since the moon shots we have landed a robot on an asteroid and landed robots on Mars, etc. We have significantly advanced tech. The wild card is being sure that the humans will survive.
We haven’t regressed technologically, we have become more risk averse when actual people are involved.
1
Posted on 12/29/25 at 4:56 pm to terriblegreen
quote:
I don’t really care. But I am positive the government lies to us on a regular basis. So I pretty much question everything government related.
Bingo. This is the only answer. They have lied to us before, and will lie to us again.
The "moon landing" has nothing for me, my family, or anyone that I know. whether we went or didn't literally has had 0 affect on my life.
TigerGman over here going to bat for the moon like he got his entire life savings riding on it
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:23 pm to ChestRockwell
quote:
Hey baw, why hasn't another human jumped out of a landed capsule, and walked it surface since? Wouldn't you think today's technology, is better and more advanced than 1969?
Signed,
Allegedly
No what I think is that you're another useful idiot. Your "logic" is if we went several times before, and we haven't been back, we never did go...
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:25 pm to TigerGman
If Panchos buffet was so good, how come they closed down? Get my drift?
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:26 pm to TigerGman
quote:
You Moon landing deniers are all complete idiots...
Ive been an idiot my whole life. Buddy.
Posted on 12/29/25 at 7:33 pm to CAD703X
quote:
and then 60 years after the "successful moon adventures" with all the gigantic technology leaps we've made nobody on this board is willing to go on the record saying our next visit will be successful.
I mean Elon is catching 50 story rockets with chopsticks and he's even like "well we still have some problems to solve to get there"
Seems like you should be taking a victory lap on poor dumb cad, Jody plauche and the other luddites in this thread asking questions.
Instead I get; "well with DEI at NASA now we may not make it back this time but that doesn't mean we didn't do it before multiple times"
What does our future success have anything to do with our past success?
Please explain in detail...
And I guess the fact that Musk is using an entirely different approach and vehicle to get to the Moon and Mars totally whizzes past your dullard brain.
I can hear the little hamster in the wheel powering your dim bulb crying, he's having a cardiac arrest he's trying so hard to make you stop humiliating yourself.
And if you think DEI can't screw up the future, and stop us from repeating past accomplishments, I got beach front property in Arizona I need to sell you.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:22 pm to JodyPlauche
quote:Another post that has me wondering if the 'deniers' are serious, trolling, or ?
They also communicated to Earth, from the Moon, in 1969, yet...in 2025, we can't get cell reception in certain areas and can't get DirecTV when it rains.
If you are serious, you'd do a modicum of research yourself, and question your own statements. As another poster replied, there is a massive difference between covering all areas with cell reception, and doing it at a monthly price people can afford, using a $200 receiver with a tiny internal omnidirectional antenna, versus getting signal from the moon.
So, if you are serious, do some research, and come back and explain to us the difference between the tiny omnidrectional antenna, and the kind of high gain antenna used for Apollo communications. That would be a start to you understanding that your 'gothchas' are not.
Hint: The Apollo mission land based antennas will not fit in your pocket. It's like saying that since a John Deere garden tractor can only go 5 mph, that the Bugatti Chiron can't possibly exist. They are just very different things, with different design goals and budgets.
I'll await your reply.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:26 pm to MidWestGuy
quote:
I'll await your reply.
This probably won’t go the way you think it will. You’re asking crazy people to have rational discussions. It just doesn’t work.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:30 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
I don’t know how much clearer I can be about this, I don’t think they faked the moon landing. What’s not getting through to you about that?
I’m simply stating that I would not put it past the government to lie about it.
It's fine to be skeptical. It's fine to think the government *could* want to lie about it.
But any serious review of the information makes it clear that it was not faked. At that point, give up the skepticism. Why keep up they "they could", when it's clear they didn't?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:33 pm to TigerGman
More to the point, why would the Soviets agree to tell the same lie? Because if we didn't go, they'd have to know that. It would have been howls of laughter and derision from them to this day.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:37 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
More to the point, why would the Soviets agree to tell the same lie? Because if we didn't go, they'd have to know that. It would have been howls of laughter and derision from them to this day.
Nah man, they needed corn or okra or some other shite.*
*Source: trust me bro.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:39 pm to Captain Rumbeard
Détente
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:44 pm to Heyes
quote:
All it would take to convince me we can go would be to send a life ( dog , cat , rat , mouse whatever , into the radiation belt and back to earth. If that animal is still alive , I would be more inclined to at least believe we CAN go .
Ummm, help me jump across the massive logical gap you just presented.
A) You don't believe that any astronauts made it out of low Earth orbit.
B) But you are willing to believe that it can be done if we sent some animals?
Why wouldn't you claim the animal mission was fake?
Would you believe that the Soviets sent animals:
LINK
quote:
In September 1968 Zond 5 carried the first Earth lifeforms, including two tortoises, to travel around the Moon and return safely.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:49 pm to Koach K
Detente my arse. This was at the height of the cold war.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:07 pm to CAD703X
quote:
Instead I get; "well with DEI at NASA now we may not make it back this time but that doesn't mean we didn't do it before multiple times"
Ok. Since you never responded to why NASA's DEI initiative is potentially a huge issue for Artemis making it to the Moon and back, I guess I have to dumb it down for you...
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:42 pm to TigerGman
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:05 pm to ChestRockwell
[quote]Hey baw, why hasn't another human jumped out of a landed capsule, and walked it surface since? Wouldn't you think today's technology, is better and more advanced than 1969?
Signed,
Allegedly{quote}
I'm going to take a wild guess that neither you nor any of the other 300M hard working taxpayers are willing to devote the money it would take to fund that useless mission, which accomplishes nothing more than shutting up the idiots who think we faked it the first time. (Assuming they would believe we're not just faking it again) The first time it cost us ~5% of the US economy to do it. I'm sure today's technology probably wouldn't be quite that expensive, but why?????
Signed,
Allegedly{quote}
I'm going to take a wild guess that neither you nor any of the other 300M hard working taxpayers are willing to devote the money it would take to fund that useless mission, which accomplishes nothing more than shutting up the idiots who think we faked it the first time. (Assuming they would believe we're not just faking it again) The first time it cost us ~5% of the US economy to do it. I'm sure today's technology probably wouldn't be quite that expensive, but why?????
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:24 pm to flyingtexastiger
The temperature on the moon can reach a blistering 250° Fahrenheit (120° Celsius or 400 Kelvin) during lunar daytime at the moon's equator, and plummet to -208 degrees F (-130° C, 140 K) at night.
In certain spots near the moon's poles temperatures can drop even further, reaching - 424° F (- 253°C or 20 K) according to NASA.
In certain spots near the moon's poles temperatures can drop even further, reaching - 424° F (- 253°C or 20 K) according to NASA.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:29 pm to rickyh
There are however other sources of radiation that being on the Moon would expose you to, which you are protected from on Earth due to the planet’s magnetic field. These include galactic cosmic rays, energetic particles from the Sun, and neutrons and gamma rays from interactions between radiation and the lunar soil.
An estimate of the average maximum dose of all these sources of radiation is more than 400 millisieverts per year. This could be much higher following extremely energetic solar flares.
So, although the Moon has a very low level of natural radioactivity, it’s a harsh environment when considering all sources of ionising radiation.
An estimate of the average maximum dose of all these sources of radiation is more than 400 millisieverts per year. This could be much higher following extremely energetic solar flares.
So, although the Moon has a very low level of natural radioactivity, it’s a harsh environment when considering all sources of ionising radiation.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:39 pm to flyingtexastiger
You're old lady's orgasams are as fake as the moon landing
Page 21 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News