1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

So, we didn't go to the moon then

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Deleted Account, Jul 26, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Nick1918

    Nick1918 Fapstronaut

    92
    77
    18
    not christmas.jpg ok so any one who believes we went to the moon is an an obvious brain washed moron. But back to the Christmas thing here from amazon are the festive gift cards you can buy rigjt now yet just below " the "holliday" one you can buy a hankuhhabulak card check it out. It is right there on amazon.
     
  2. Nick1918

    Nick1918 Fapstronaut

    92
    77
    18
    In a nutshell the Jews hate Christmas not only the word but every aspect of it and as they now refer to the USA as " Israel west" ca c'est ca
     
  3. [​IMG]
     
    Nick1918 and Gotham Outlaw like this.
  4. Trust me, I'm as lost as you are.
     
  5. Christian Fox

    Christian Fox Fapstronaut

    Sorry for being late on this one, I've really just seen it. But it looked interesting, so here's my take on it...
    Hello antisemitism, my old fiend...
    But before I get drawn into an argument about the jewish world conspiracy, let me contribute to the original topic of this discussion:
    [​IMG]

    Obviously true.

    Actually, none of these presuppositions is needed to come to the conclusions of Jason_Tesla_19.

    A: The heat isn't created in a vacuum. It is created in a stream of gas flowing from the rocket's tank into space.

    B: The gas isn't created. It was created (if that's the term you want to use) on earth, fueled into the rocket and then sent to space. It is released as a liquid from the rocket's tank and then expands and becomes a gas. Of course it can expand in a vacuum. That's what vacuum does to matter. It gets ripped apart. This is what we call 'expand'. It starts as a liquid with a volume of V, but then, due to underpressure, it expands, boils and then becomes a gas which will continue to expand and, during this phase, be kindled. Then, because the nozzle is constructed in a particular way, it has only one way of escape, this being the opposite of the direction of travel. So it leaves in this direction, creating an equal force in the opposite direction (the direction of travel), according to Newton's third law, as has been stated above. So in order to escape and be 'sucked into the infinite void', it has to accelerate the rocket in the exact opposite direction.

    C: This is actually possible. Halt for a second. Breathe. What are you breathing? Air. Why is that air there? Why is there air pressure? Isn't the earth floating in the infinite void of space? There you have it. Pressure in a vacuum. Another way of arguing could be as follows: Pressure is purely positively defined. As soon as your vacuum isn't perfect any more, there is pressure, however small.

    The guys in the ISS will not die instantly if they open up a window. They will die in seconds, but not instantly. And that's the point. The fuel of the rocket doesn't just vanish, it actually moves through time and space from a location to another one. To do that it takes physical force and now we've reached a point where we've been before.

    But if you're travelling the space between the Earth and the Moon there's no third object whose gravity could make you fall down. If you were hopping from one airplane to another in a vacuum without gravity, that would be no problem (assuming you have protective gear to save you from choking or exploding in seconds).

    As you are so fond explaining how your discussing partners are using the ad hominem fallacy, I will point out that you are here committing two other fallacies. Firstly, appeal to authority. Just because Einstein says something, that doesn't mean it's correct. Especially not if he's talking about a topic which is not his field of expertise. He was a physicist, not a psychologist. Your second fallacy is personal incredulity. You assume that, just because you cannot follow Jason_Tesla_19's argument, it is necessarily wrong until he proves otherwise. But that's not scientific thinking, that's just nonsense.
    I've just found another one: the burden of proof. Because it is you making the claim, it should be your job to disprove the moon landing with compelling arguments, not let us prove what's generally held to be true. That's the way science (and logic) works: you start from the known and progress to the unknown. The known in this case is that the Apollo 11 mission landed on the moon on the 21st of July in the year 1969 A.D.. Now you should be proving this wrong. But for the sake of argument we can continue as it has been going up to now. Proving something has happened is much easier than proving that something hasn't.
    Just to make this sure: by writing this I'm not committing the fallacy fallacy, because I am only pointing out weaknesses in your argumentation, not building my own upon them. The last paragraph is not the basis of my argument, it's only purpose is to make you aware of your own fallacies, so that you can avoid them when replying to me.

    P.S. I doubt that you're a flat-earther, but just so you know: the flat-earth theory has been debunked somewhere around 500 - 700 B.C.
     
  6. Well, this is a first. An argument I thought was finished starts up again, only the opposition has changed. Alrighty.

    I'm beginning to think people that advocate the existence of the moon landing (or space travel in your case) don't know how to do anything other than create what you'd call "word salads". You've said "a lot" without actually saying anything substantial. You didn't address what the rockets are pushing off of to move and expansion doesn't explain it.

    Nobody here is arguing that expansion doesn't happen in a vacuum, the problem is what that expansion is pushing off of. And by definition, in a vacuum, it's nothing.

    Newton's Third Law keeps getting brought up, so let's get into detail with the B section of your post.

    This completely contradicts what modern-day rocketry science is stating. Even by their explanation of how rockets operate, you're wrong. But hey, I'll put this one aside for now just for the sake of argument.

    This is a red-herring. Why are you stating the obvious? This part of your post wasn't necessary to even write out, which makes me wonder why you chose to write it out in the first place.

    "Creating an equal force"

    What? An equal force? An equal force to what? There's nothing in the vacuum for the rocket to generate any kind of equal force whatsoever.

    If I took a balloon with air trapped inside and let it go all around my house, it will fly arround wildly because there is air for it to push off of, generating your "equal force". In a vacuum, there is no air for any kind of force to be generated whatsoever.

    I find it amusing you say this as not only is this a logical fallacy, you'd have to be able to explain to me how the hell can you have a pressurized system next to a vacuum with NO physical barrier.

    Damn, man, I'd rather argue with Jason_Tesla_19 again. These arguments are even worse.

    You're correct when you say that just because Einstein states something, that does not mean it's correct, but you should've said just that. You started off stating the truth, but then immediately proceeded to shoot yourself in the foot.

    I will admit that the whole "recognized as an authority by many" statement in my argument was not necessary, however I want to make it clear that I do not advocate Einstein as an authority. Moving on.

    You shoot yourself in the foot by making the fallacy that because Einstein was not a psychologist, that what he stated there could not be correct. I don't have to be a professional web designer to know for a fact that this website was written in HTML code.

    You're assuming I couldn't follow the argument at all, which if I couldn't, he would've come out on top. The point of arguing against jargon was not so that I could understand it, but that he understood what he was talking about since the claim was made of taking mechanical engineering and astrophysics classes. Anybody can find jargon online. I could state right now that I've taken mechanical engineering, astronomy, and astrophysics classes and that I was the top in all of these classes. All I wanted was to see whether or not my opposition had an enhanced and superior understanding of a specific topic because the claim was made that he probably did or didn't.

    What are you talking about? The original claim that kicked off the argument in the first place was that the moon landing was completely plausible and said claim was challenged by myself. There's no problem there.

    See, I don't think you know what the burden of proof actually means. It's NOT my job to disprove the moon landing because you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim, such as NASA. Since it's NASA's job to supposedly expand our understanding of our reality, it's my job as an individual who doesn't have all the answers to determine whether or not their evidence for the claims they make (as well as those that advocate those claims) are valid, logical, and reasonable.

    They're not. Instead, they're filled with missing and shoddy evidence which is why the moon landing hoax is one of the most well known hoaxes out there because so many people have more than just a few issues with it and thus, have little reason to believe (emphasis on "believe") that it happened the way we were told it happened.

    In other words, I don't have to disprove a goddamn thing because I literally can't. Those that state the moon landing happened have to prove to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it did happen exactly the way we were told it was. All I can do is try to place seeds of doubt.

    I think you're struggling to provide something substantial when all I've read so far are word salads and logical fallacies. Why did you say anything in the first place?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2018
  7. Christian Fox

    Christian Fox Fapstronaut

    Disclaimer: I am not a native speaker of English and have not learnt physical terminology in English, but in German. Thus, if I use the wrong words, try and get at the meaning.
    Secondly, I don't pretend to have studied physics of any kind, but as far as I can see the argument revolves around Newton's Laws, and these I know.
    Now let's get to it.

    I guess I found myself with a lot of free time at the end of the day and then found this discussion. It sounded interesting, so I decided to participate.

    I did not assume that. Read my post again, I did only state that he's not automatically correct. I personally do believe he's wrong, but I did not and will not use this reasoning of which you accuse me as an argument.

    To misquote the Gaffer Gamgee:
    "There isn't no call to go talking of pushing and pulling."

    You seem to not understand basic physics.
    You know what force is, right? Force is defined as mass * acceleration.
    F=m*a
    Of course a flow of hot gas out of a rocket's engine has force. The gas has a certain mass and it is accelerated to a high speed. Thus it has a certain physical force. Newton's third law states that every force creates an equal force in the opposite direction. So the burning gas accelerates the rocket in the opposite direction. It doesn't have to push off of anything.

    You're right, my bad. I explained the exact mechanism by which the rocket burns its fuel wrong. That makes me lose credibility, but it doesn't damage the argument.

    Please explain in what my logical fallacy lies.
    You can have a pressurised system next to a vacuum with no physical barrier in many ways. If you want a stable one, you need to have something that draws the gas in, like gravity. Our planet is a stable, pressurised system and there's no physical barrier between the atmosphere and space.
    But a rocket does have a physical barrier. The tank. When the gas is released from it, it doesn't need pressure anymore, it just needs acceleration and mass, and those it has without needing pressure.

    You are actually right, at least in the context of this discussion.

    This is impossible. It is in the past, and the past you cannot access anymore. This raises serious philosophical problems.
    But anyways, the nearest thing to a proof would be, if someone went there and found an American flag and a few moon rovers. But as no one seems to be going right now, this proof can't be done.
    Wait, there's another possibility. You can take a big laser and shoot at that mirror they planted there. If the light comes back, they were there.
    Or you can just believe people who did. But I forget, you don't believe. So you will have to try it yourself.

    You are right, this discussion is a waste of time. I'm out again.
     
  8. Engineers HATE him! Teenager used this 1 WEIRD TRICK to disprove physics!
     
    Themadfapper likes this.
  9. Your English is fine. I've no problem understanding you.

    Why do you believe he's wrong?

    You may want to look in the mirror, man.

    Newton's law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, first and foremost. In order for the rocket to generate force, it has to use a force to create an equal force with something else. Think of it like this:

    The pressure of gas needs molecules to be in contact with each other, constantly bouncing, causing millions of collisions per second. However, if you release gas into nothing but the vacuum of space, the first molecule that shoots out of the rocket's exhaust will fire off into the distance at a constant speed.

    We know that objects in a vacuum will fall at the same speed and rate. This same rule applies to the gas being fired out of the rocket. Every molecule of that gas will never catch up to the molecule fired after it because they're all being sprayed into an infinite void that's a vacuum. They'll do nothing but fly off into the abyss, hopelessly "attempting" to fill the vacuum.

    This makes the amount of gas you produce irrelevant because since space is supposed to be unimaginably vast, the pressure under a spaceship will never change. For a spaceship to be pushed (generate thrust), some form of locally high pressure has to be under it. But this is impossible, since in space, there is no pressure.

    The molecules of the gas leaving the combustion chamber (and don't even get me started on how combustion could occur in a vacuum) will never slow down, never COLLIDE with any outside objects, nor with each other. Newton's third law couldn't even occur! The force of the gas would always be moving forward and away from the ship. This makes it impossible for that same force to be returned to the ship, causing it to move. Instead, it gets flown off into the never-ending corners of space.

    This is known as Joule Expansion.

    Alright. Let's not take a 0 pressure system like space, then. Let's use a low pressure system.

    If it's possible to have a pressurised system right next to a vacuum because Earth apparently has that, then explain to me how explosive decompression works on an airplane. Why does an airplane, say, 25,000 feet up in the air lose all its pressure (i.e the air gets violently sucked out), but the pressurized system of the Earth is intact next to a zero-pressure system?

    It can't be one or the other, they're fundamentally contradictory.

    By that logic, we might as well doubt what happened a year ago because we "can't access the past". What the fuck, man?

    ...Uh, okay. :emoji_confused:
     
  10. They're not fundamentally contradictory, you fundamentally lack scale.

    Earth's pressure changes very slowly as you ascend in altitude. About one inch of mercury per thousand feet, as indicated by a baramotor (or one millibar every 30 feet for our European friends). This is know as the standard pressure lapse rate, and this change in pressure is how we calibrate altimeters in aircraft. At this extremely slow rate of change, the force generated by the changing pressure is not enough to contend with the gravitational force of earth. Since the nitrogen and oxygen which comprises our atmosphere has mass, it therefore has a gravitational force, and this force exceeds the force generated by a 1"mg pressure change seen in 1,000 feet.

    During an explosive decompression event, the pressure change is obviously more rapid. In your analogy, you said the airplane is 25,000 feet in the air. If we assume our aircraft is pressurized to 8,000 feet (standard for most airlines, airplanes aren't pressurized to sea level, that's why your ears still pop in an airliner), then in this event we have a pressure change of 17,000 feet, or 17"hg in just a few inches.

    In other words, your analogy just compared 1"hg of pressure change in 1,000 feet to 17"hg of pressure change in less than 12 inches, and then called them contradictory. i.e. you lack scale.

    I don't care if someone doesn't believe in the moon landing - I don't think it's a harmful view to hold like flat earth is. But if you're gonna bring aviation into this, I'm gonna shoot you down.
     
  11. Heh, I thought that'd get a reply out of you. Though you picked the worst time to suddenly join in on the discussion because you now have to dig yourself out of the hole my previous opposition dug earlier.

    Your entire post is based off of half-truths and assumptions. You never once explained how a pressurized system exists next to a vacuum with no physical barrier. What da hell does gravity have to do with it? Pressure systems move towards equalization here on our Earth in spite of "gravity". See air being released from a balloon and our weather. Gravity does NOT prevent the pressure changes in our weather, but you're trying to tell me it suddenly does in the atmosphere? That makes absolutely no sense.

    Why should we suddenly expect the same type of operation to work differently just because it's up in the atmosphere?

    This is admittedly getting a bit off topic, but I am curious as to why you think the things you're telling me.

     
  12. A better question would be why are you so insistent on trolling
     
  13. So instead of actually contributing something substantial and attempting to reconcile anything being stated, you proceed to state I'm "trolling" and heckle and I notice that's all you do in every thread I've seen you in which a debate occurs. You don't argue, you don't share. You just heckle.

    If I'm suddenly a troll for sharing a worldview you seem to disagree with, then by all means, I am such. An easy way to make it seem like I don't have any sort of valid reasoning or actual opinions worth considering is stating that I'm "trolling". As you've demonstrated.

    Hats off to you. You really got me there.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2018
    Deleted Account likes this.
  14. Before I reply I'd like to make 100% sure I clarify your points so I know I'm not misinterpreting your argument.

    What does this mean? Are you talking about local cyclonic pressure systems? And what does equalization mean in this context?
     
  15. I don't 'heckle' unless people troll or are being stupid beyond correction. You have my benefit of the doubt meaning I assume you don't really believe in the positions you've presented and are trolling and generating amusement on behalf of serious responders. Since I have nothing better to do today, I'm gonna feed the troll a bit and give you one serious response as well.

    About the Moon landing: the usual argument against conspiracy theories applies; a huge amount of people would have to keep their mouth shut. And that's not just the astronauts but a large part of NASA's staff on the ground along with involved parties from the US government. That's not the complete list though. Large part of the ships' flights were tracked by the Soviets and other observers, lunar stones brought back were analyzed at non-US universities and multiple observatories bounced laser signals off mirrors left behind by the astronauts. There is no doubt that Americans landed on the moon. Robotics at that time was not nearly developed enough to collect the rock samples and place those mirrors so those Americans must have been humans. Done.
    Verdict: If you don't believe in Moon landings, you're irrational. But that's okay since not everyone is perfect.

    About the rocket engine: there is an army. An army of very intelligent people who have spent their lives studying physics/engineering. Millions of man-hours spent to understand these subjects and not a single one warrior of the army has ever said, "Hey guys, the rocket engine is bullshit. It can't work". But you, a high-schooler, have figured it all out. Bravo. I guess nofap really grants superpowers. That's just the theoretical part though. As you know, scratching one's head and scribbling on paper is just the first phase of the discovery process that happens in physics. The supreme arbiter is the experiment. And the result of the experiment is that tens of successful rocket launches happen every year. Not just by the US, but by India, EU, China, Japan, Russia and non-governmental parties like SpaceX.
    Verdict: You have to be a drooling imbecile to believe rockets don't work. Since I don't think you're that, I assume you don't believe they don't work.

    UPDATE 1: The laser reflectors apparently still work and are being used for research all over the world.

    UPDATE 2: Demonstrating that a rocket engine doesn't work in principle doesn't require leaving the atmosphere. Anyone can build a vacuum chamber and a rocket model in their backyard. I think that's an opportunity you cannot pass.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2018
  16. This is perhaps the most damning evidence against the moon landing in my opinion. If the moon landing were a hoax, then the Soviets must have been in on it, as they acknowledged the landing. Hard pass.
     
    brilliantidiot and Gotham Outlaw like this.
  17. Intelli Gent

    Intelli Gent Fapstronaut

    77
    765
    83
    Why wouldn't we have gone to the moon?
     
    Gotham Outlaw likes this.
  18. Gotham Outlaw

    Gotham Outlaw Fapstronaut

    579
    3,902
    123
    If it was fake the Russians would have called bullshit immediately.
     
    brilliantidiot and Tannhauser like this.
  19. It's extremely simple. When you inflate a balloon and then keep the air inside trapped, you've created a low pressure environment inside that balloon. But because Earth is a naturally high pressure environment, the two have to reach equalization. When you release the balloon, you're introducing the low pressure inside the balloon to high pressure.

    This causes the air inside to rush out because low pressure cannot exist in harmony with high pressure. They have to equal out. The same can be observed in our weather. Normally, when one watches the weather channel, you'll hear the weatherman or woman say things like:

    "We have a high pressure system moving in."

    Which causes sunny and calm weather. But when a low pressure system moves in, high winds and storms take place, essentially "fucking up" the naturally high pressure environment of the Earth. There's no "gravity" involved here. Gravity literally has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. It doesn't prevent these changes from occuring, but you were attempting to tell me it somehow does in our atmosphere?

    Space is 0 pressure. It's not even low pressure, it's absolutely NO pressure. So explain to me how Earth, a naturally high pressure environment, how its air is intact existing right next to an infinite vacuum with no physical barrier.

    I regret complaining to you. Because what I've just read from you is so much worse. First off, this is your problem. You can't fathom people disagreeing with the moon landing actually happening, which is an extremely narrow view to take. You can't even believe that I'm completely serious and instead, revert to an ad-hominem stance (which only tells me you can't argue your stance at all) by stating that I'm actually just a "troll" and by insinuating that I'm an imbecile for having an issue with how NASA tells us how rockets work.

    The fact that you are so against the idea that the moon landing never happened raises a BIG red flag to me, especially since your argument isn't even based in evidence!

    Anytime anyone (like you) refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever. Isn't this true science? Isn't this how people should pursue the truth? The Wright Brothers never would've made history and become pioneers of aviation by refusing to accept the idea that human beings could, one way or another, fly.

    Konrad Zuse never would've made one of the biggest technological achievements of mankind by refusing to consider the idea of an electronic device capable of storing and processing data.

    These people were likely told that their ideas were complete and utter bullshit, yet tell me, what happened?

    To repeat myself since you're making a similar case to someone else earlier in the thread: Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. Views that cannot be supported by evidence typically revert to ad-hominem stances, as you've just presented, by questioning or dismissing the person making the case based off a judgement of their character by said character's opposition rather than the positions presented.

    Oh. And look what you're doing. Dismissing the antithetical positions presented based off of your personal judgement on myself. That I'm a troll doing this for fun.

    You are right about one thing, though. I am having fun.

    You're clearly attempting to use bandwagon rationale to establish your position. Using words like "An army..." and "...Millions".

    This is absurd as large groups of people can believe absolutely inaccurate, false, and even foolish things like the moon landing. The popularity of an idea CANNOT be replaced by empirical study and critical analysis.

    You're also being naive to think that in order for a misconception to be widely held, it also must be a conspiracy widely held. I wouldn't say everyone at NASA is somehow a liar, in fact, I'd say most of them are just as mislead as you are. You're also being naive to think that a large group of people can't keep a secret.

    As individuals with foxed answers to questions about the celestial mechanisms that govern our reality, these questions having very little defined answers, we have to go where the evidence leads us. And in this case, said evidence destroys two assumptions:

    1. That NASA went to the moon.
    2. That large groups couldn't cover it up.
    For number 2, clearly, it wouldn't even have to be that hard. Simply tell people when they're children that the moon landing happened and in their education, have no proper medium for learning how to think logically and critically, and finally, let said people do whatever they want with their lives.

    Most people accept ideas based purely on faith or because of a personal bias, be it because the idea comforts them or because somebody they respected presented the idea because most people either do not want, do not care, or do not have time to sit down and research specific topics in the world. Reading something in a textbook is NOT research. For the organizations you've mentioned, what makes you think they're not as mislead as me and you?

    Hell, what makes you think that some of them within these organizations don't realize any of this at all? Some actually might, but may be too afraid to speak up about it for fear of losing their job.

    You're also appealing to authority by insinuating that these "intelligent people" understand more about our reality than me or you do. To quote a man:

    “If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.”

    -Leonardo da Vinci.

    I don't give a fuck about what these individuals say as what I've found contradicts what they say. But no, instead of reconciling anything I've said here:

    "Newton's law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, first and foremost. In order for the rocket to generate force, it has to use a force to create an equal force with something else. Think of it like this:

    The pressure of gas needs molecules to be in contact with each other, constantly bouncing, causing millions of collisions per second. However, if you release gas into nothing but the vacuum of space, the first molecule that shoots out of the rocket's exhaust will fire off into the distance at a constant speed.

    We know that objects in a vacuum will fall at the same speed and rate. This same rule applies to the gas being fired out of the rocket. Every molecule of that gas will never catch up to the molecule fired after it because they're all being sprayed into an infinite void that's a vacuum. They'll do nothing but fly off into the abyss, hopelessly "attempting" to fill the vacuum.

    This makes the amount of gas you produce irrelevant because since space is supposed to be unimaginably vast, the pressure under a spaceship will never change. For a spaceship to be pushed (generate thrust), some form of locally high pressure has to be under it. But this is impossible, since in space, there is no pressure.

    The molecules of the gas leaving the combustion chamber (and don't even get me started on how combustion could occur in a vacuum) will never slow down, never COLLIDE with any outside objects, nor with each other. Newton's third law couldn't even occur! The force of the gas would always be moving forward and away from the ship. This makes it impossible for that same force to be returned to the ship, causing it to move. Instead, it gets flown off into the never-ending corners of space.

    This is known as Joule Expansion."


    You instead revert to blind faith that they clearly must know how rockets work "becauz they're so smartzzzz".

    The fuck kind of logic is that?

    You even seem to think that there's a lot of research at all. For the original moon landing, you do know that all the data for it went missing, right?

    Following Freedom Of Information requests in America, NASA admitted it had lost all their original video footage of the Apollo Missions. Also allegedly beamed back from the moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All this date was about 13,000 reels and literally ALL of them are "missing".

    Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the spacesuits and lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

    Explain to me how it's easier to believe that NASA royally screwed up SO BAD to have lost the entire alleged record of the moon landings rather than think that the data never existed at all.

    What if the Catholic Church said:

    "We had undeniable proof and data of God on 13,000 reels. But we lost it."

    13,000 reels of data is about 900 (or perhaps 2,600) boxes. How does a large organization lose literally EVERY single box?

    You, with a sound mind in this scenario, would immediately jump to the conclusion that they never had this data in the first place. Why is the Moon Landing an exception?

    Not only that, but check this out:



    Don't want to watch it? I'll make you read it, then.

    "I'd go to the Moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again."

    So instead of keeping the technology to go back again and hey, probably get more useful shit, right? They randomly "destroyed" it without bothering to tell anybody in any official capacity.

    I could go on, if you like. Like why is the Earth so small from their photos of Earth from the moon, how the fuck did Nixon call them, why would the government play it live when there was still a chance that three men were going to die horrible deaths, why is there no blast crater, why were the astronauts that came back look miserable and why two of them turned to going into hiding and alchohol, why the fuck did Armstrong refuse to swear on the Bible that they went to the moon, etc, etc, etc.

    I could do this for weeks.

    But no, I'll wait for you to call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, a troll, and an imbecile. Which would only reinforce my opinion that advocating the moon landing is not a valid viewpoint at all.

    Prove me wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2018

Share This Page