If you believe we're not allowed to question everything, including the moon landing as we've been taught all these years, you do not belong on these boards.
Feel free to question those questioning the Moon landings and their 'evidence', as well.
Houston Control was full of brilliant men who worked as a team to put incredibly brave men in space.
They weren't a collection of crisis actors and bullshit artists.
Edit: Be sure to hit that downvote button, hypocrites. lol Comes in handy when you cannot support your theories with reason and intellect. Make the case and bring the proofs. That's what makes a reasoned debate.
I actually leave room for the Moon landings being faked. The rants and unsupported evidence come up way short, however.
Certainly can make the case that the entire counter Psyop to the Space Program and Space X being fake and CGI is actually designed to shit all over the accomplishments of White Americans and sow total doubt of EVERYTHING.
Having watched the full footage, overlaid upon the curiosity I always had about how a tinfoil lined go-kart was able to deal with the “infinite vacuum of space”, the moon landings were almost certainly faked, but that doesn’t equate to “flat earth” or space being fake.
Space is 50/50.
It’s quite obvious something is going on in the sky.
NASA being Hebrew for “to deceive” (“Nasha”) and originally run by a Prussian Nazi doesn’t help anything.
Them being so weird about Antarctica doesn’t help anything, either.
There are legitimate appearing stories fitting both narratives that I can’t fully evaluate.
Even if they’re just getting rockets up really high with long-term floating / camouflaged payloads that don’t crash into the ground all the time, that’s still fairly impressive.
Firm (solid) ament (the thing that participated in the act of)
Plane -t (diminutive)
Uni- (one) -verse (turn of the plow, or furrow)
Radia (spoke of a wheel)
Di (two) mensio (thoughts) / dimensare (measurements)
Meter (a scheme in verse)
Metric (science of versification) (deals with time)
Allen is associated with 6s. Van (from)
Why have the wizenards of the divided knowledge cast these words among our spellings?
Your dad worked for NASA and now you can't believe his work was BS, that's the only logical explanation for this unquestionable worship of something satanic.
I believe the moon landings were real, but I believe the footage to prove that there was the moon landing, was fake. There’s a huge difference. Yes, I believe we went to the moon, because my dad was part of the team. He was not a crisis actor, he was a legitimate rocket scientist. And I have notebooks up on notebooks to prove what he did for a living!
Not that I necessarily take your word on it being real, but the footage was fake, not the landing. A more accurate statement from my stancepoint would be that I don’t know what the landing looked like, or if it happened or not, but the footage was fake, not the landing.
I recently saw a video by the YouTube channel called The Why Files entitled: "The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film | How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World"
The video sets forth the points people make as to why it was hoaxed, as well as the very valid incentives why there would be a reason to fake it since the USA was in a race to demoralize the USSR. Then it shows evidence to disprove much of it. It does leave questions unexplained, like why astronauts are today talking about in the future it may be possible to travel further than lower orbit, etc. One of the points people make is that you cannot see stars in the photos taken on the moon. But having studied photography, I know that the aperture would have be small, otherwise everything would be a big white blur just to capture the stars in a photo. It also shows how that interview with Stanley Kubrick was actually an actor faking it. There are still many questions remaining though, and the one thing the video mentions at the end is that whistleblower who saw stuff on the far side of the moon.
One of the weirdest discoveries in Wikileaks is the unclassified communication regarding a Soviet attack on a US moonbase in the '70s. Wild stuff.
Nice aggressive responses on multiple threads, “Vengeance”.
Having seen many debates between GE’s and FE’s, it’s worth noting that the FE’s usually win (in my opinion).
Doesn’t mean their position is correct. Doesn’t mean their arguments were correct.
Means they had better refutations and points. I’m just a layman with no pony in this race, it’s the debater’s job to convince me.
As far as “losing the plot”, if you can tell me ONE point where having the wrong opinion on this subject would functionally and pragmatically affect my day-to-day life in any way other than potential loss of social opinion, I’m all ears.
Note that I do not professionally launch rockets or chart global navigation routes.
The best argument for not pushing FE is that it can dissuade normies from looking into other posited dissenting evidences. It came from here, and it’s a very good point.
Outside of that, the subject as a whole is an interesting dive into epistemology and how people rationalize and engage with both reality and intellectual propositions.
Regarding "round earth" proofs, an easy proof is to triangulate the position of the sun from at least 3 different positions on the globe simultaneously. Cell phones can be useful. The further apart these locations are, the more effective the triangulation will be (at least, it'll be easier to work with in the proof).
Doing this will prove that the surface of the earth MUST be curved in order for each reference of triangulation to be pointing at the same source. If the earth were flat, the triangulation wouldn't match up, as though each reference were pointing to a completely different point in the sky.
There are tons of proofs as to why the "flat earth model" can't exist. Not many proofs are presented as to why the earth is round. But the above-mentioned proof is one. And it's easily testable too without having to figure out how to launch a flat-earther into space to personally "witness" the curvature of the earth.
To take it a step further, FE/GE is notably Hegelian.
The earth could also be rounded or curved without being a sphere floating in space, with us occupying a smaller plane within a larger one, or an object that simply isn’t flat. There may be other options, too.
I’m not good enough at the equations to verify the math portions, myself. If the FE equations are off, it would certainly be a great point of attack for GE/NFE to go after, but I haven’t seen it in debates. Not clearly, at least.
That’s why I say I’ve seen debates lost, not one or the other proven or disproven, and that my interest in this race is in how people approach information, and not necessarily in which point is true.
If you believe we're not allowed to question everything, including the moon landing as we've been taught all these years, you do not belong on these boards.
agree. I question Everything, even my own family. only Trust God, and yourself.
Yep! If you need to question your God you need a new one!
May I recommend Jesus Christ!
Yep..
Feel free to question those questioning the Moon landings and their 'evidence', as well.
Houston Control was full of brilliant men who worked as a team to put incredibly brave men in space.
They weren't a collection of crisis actors and bullshit artists.
Edit: Be sure to hit that downvote button, hypocrites. lol Comes in handy when you cannot support your theories with reason and intellect. Make the case and bring the proofs. That's what makes a reasoned debate.
I’ve been increasingly leaning firmament, if only out of spite, but I’ll updoot your legitimate counter-counterpoint!
Stay skeptic and critical thinking of all, frens!
Same. Tho mentioning that here usually brings out the hordes and potential banning.
I actually leave room for the Moon landings being faked. The rants and unsupported evidence come up way short, however.
Certainly can make the case that the entire counter Psyop to the Space Program and Space X being fake and CGI is actually designed to shit all over the accomplishments of White Americans and sow total doubt of EVERYTHING.
Having watched the full footage, overlaid upon the curiosity I always had about how a tinfoil lined go-kart was able to deal with the “infinite vacuum of space”, the moon landings were almost certainly faked, but that doesn’t equate to “flat earth” or space being fake.
Space is 50/50. It’s quite obvious something is going on in the sky. NASA being Hebrew for “to deceive” (“Nasha”) and originally run by a Prussian Nazi doesn’t help anything. Them being so weird about Antarctica doesn’t help anything, either. There are legitimate appearing stories fitting both narratives that I can’t fully evaluate.
Even if they’re just getting rockets up really high with long-term floating / camouflaged payloads that don’t crash into the ground all the time, that’s still fairly impressive.
You have a lot to learn.
Do we not have a terrestrial telescope powerful enough to view the landing site?
The words for these things are interesting:
Firm (solid) ament (the thing that participated in the act of) Plane -t (diminutive) Uni- (one) -verse (turn of the plow, or furrow) Radia (spoke of a wheel) Di (two) mensio (thoughts) / dimensare (measurements) Meter (a scheme in verse) Metric (science of versification) (deals with time) Allen is associated with 6s. Van (from)
Why have the wizenards of the divided knowledge cast these words among our spellings?
Does this help to lock us into war, somehow?
It suffices that light speed is so darn slow. That's God's way of isolating planets in our universe.
Your dad worked for NASA and now you can't believe his work was BS, that's the only logical explanation for this unquestionable worship of something satanic.
Now you're just talking out your ass....
you're blinded and lied to
A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images
http://archive.is/XTfJg
I believe the moon landings were real, but I believe the footage to prove that there was the moon landing, was fake. There’s a huge difference. Yes, I believe we went to the moon, because my dad was part of the team. He was not a crisis actor, he was a legitimate rocket scientist. And I have notebooks up on notebooks to prove what he did for a living!
Great clarification, agreed!
Not that I necessarily take your word on it being real, but the footage was fake, not the landing. A more accurate statement from my stancepoint would be that I don’t know what the landing looked like, or if it happened or not, but the footage was fake, not the landing.
I recently saw a video by the YouTube channel called The Why Files entitled: "The Moon Landing: Stanley Kubrick's Greatest Film | How NASA and Hollywood Fooled the World"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM
The video sets forth the points people make as to why it was hoaxed, as well as the very valid incentives why there would be a reason to fake it since the USA was in a race to demoralize the USSR. Then it shows evidence to disprove much of it. It does leave questions unexplained, like why astronauts are today talking about in the future it may be possible to travel further than lower orbit, etc. One of the points people make is that you cannot see stars in the photos taken on the moon. But having studied photography, I know that the aperture would have be small, otherwise everything would be a big white blur just to capture the stars in a photo. It also shows how that interview with Stanley Kubrick was actually an actor faking it. There are still many questions remaining though, and the one thing the video mentions at the end is that whistleblower who saw stuff on the far side of the moon.
One of the weirdest discoveries in Wikileaks is the unclassified communication regarding a Soviet attack on a US moonbase in the '70s. Wild stuff.
Nice aggressive responses on multiple threads, “Vengeance”.
Having seen many debates between GE’s and FE’s, it’s worth noting that the FE’s usually win (in my opinion). Doesn’t mean their position is correct. Doesn’t mean their arguments were correct. Means they had better refutations and points. I’m just a layman with no pony in this race, it’s the debater’s job to convince me.
As far as “losing the plot”, if you can tell me ONE point where having the wrong opinion on this subject would functionally and pragmatically affect my day-to-day life in any way other than potential loss of social opinion, I’m all ears.
Note that I do not professionally launch rockets or chart global navigation routes.
The best argument for not pushing FE is that it can dissuade normies from looking into other posited dissenting evidences. It came from here, and it’s a very good point.
Outside of that, the subject as a whole is an interesting dive into epistemology and how people rationalize and engage with both reality and intellectual propositions.
Regarding "round earth" proofs, an easy proof is to triangulate the position of the sun from at least 3 different positions on the globe simultaneously. Cell phones can be useful. The further apart these locations are, the more effective the triangulation will be (at least, it'll be easier to work with in the proof).
Doing this will prove that the surface of the earth MUST be curved in order for each reference of triangulation to be pointing at the same source. If the earth were flat, the triangulation wouldn't match up, as though each reference were pointing to a completely different point in the sky.
There are tons of proofs as to why the "flat earth model" can't exist. Not many proofs are presented as to why the earth is round. But the above-mentioned proof is one. And it's easily testable too without having to figure out how to launch a flat-earther into space to personally "witness" the curvature of the earth.
To take it a step further, FE/GE is notably Hegelian.
The earth could also be rounded or curved without being a sphere floating in space, with us occupying a smaller plane within a larger one, or an object that simply isn’t flat. There may be other options, too.
I’m not good enough at the equations to verify the math portions, myself. If the FE equations are off, it would certainly be a great point of attack for GE/NFE to go after, but I haven’t seen it in debates. Not clearly, at least.
That’s why I say I’ve seen debates lost, not one or the other proven or disproven, and that my interest in this race is in how people approach information, and not necessarily in which point is true.
They usually tie the two together, instead of just addressing the points made by one or the other
Yes also all the people believing in the simulator theory have the same attitude.