# Lunar Landing Hoax?



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

Do you believe?

I did a quick Google and came up with this link.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

gee of course its fake! Everyone knows you can't land on the moon cause it's made of cheese!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I always thought the man on the Moon was a Newfie! Maybe that's a little goofy?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Out of all the conspiracy theories out there, the moon landing one takes the cake as the funniest.........


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Out of all the conspiracy theories out there, the moon landing one takes the cake as the funniest.........


I disagree. WMD in Iraq was the funniest theory.

Next is that an actual jetliner, flown by an incompetant terrorist pilot, flown at full speed, 20 feet off the ground and into the Pentagon.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

People tend to believe what they want to/are told to believe.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

WMD in Iraq wasnt a conspiracy. If they planted them and said "Aha, WMDs!" then maybe there would have been one............


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

It was great when Buzz did that. I also once heard a radio show when some 9/11 survivors confronted the Loose Change guy. It was hilarious as well. Too bad it wasnt TV.............


----------



## jcayer (Mar 25, 2007)

jroberts said:


> Ever seen the clip of Buzz Aldrin punching out one of those conspiracy guys...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo



Thank you for that. I've never heard of it :smile:


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> WMD in Iraq wasnt a conspiracy. If they planted them and said "Aha, WMDs!" then maybe there would have been one............


When the 'Coaltion of the Willing' uses it as their main selling point to propagate war, well, by definition, I would argue that it is a conspiracy. People were fed the propaganda in order to rally the war cry.

Oh, I forgot, they also wanted to stop them 'over there' before they came 'over here'.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Yes we are mixing "Conspiracy" with "Conspiracy theory." WMD to start a war is a conspiracy, planted WMD to start a war would be a conspiracy theory..........


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

Paul said:


> Here is a list:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
> 
> Do we attack one per day in order, or randomly beat them to death???


Good one! May I suggest that we stop when the topic boils down to either Hitler, Vatican complicity in WW II or American expansionism?


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> WMD in Iraq wasnt a conspiracy. If they planted them and said "Aha, WMDs!" then maybe there would have been one............


I wasn't a conspiracy cause the American's still had the reciept!! LOL!


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Of course it's a hoax. Someone even leaked at Top Secret film that shows how they did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0


:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2008)

If we never landed on the moon, how did all that man-made equipment get up there?


How did we bring back, for example, samples of glass spherals, dated so old there's no WAY they could have come from Earth?


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> If we never landed on the moon, how did all that man-made equipment get up there?
> 
> 
> How did we bring back, for example, samples of glass spherals, dated so old there's no WAY they could have come from Earth?


The point is that a US Gov't agency, NASA, is telling the world that the equipment is there. Photographs are notoriously touched up as well. Unless you have carbon dating equipment in your back pocket, those glass spherals may be as young as your own spherals. Myself, I don't dig too deep into these things because they don't really affect my life, but as I get older, I've learned to be more analytical and skeptical of information presented to me. I also have a good handle on high level mathematics and physics as I took engineering at university.

During the era of the space race, the US was fighting a war in Vietnam which was directly linked to their Cold War with the USSR who btw had already put a man into orbit. The US had no choice but to 'put' a man on the moon in order to 'one up' the USSR and to distract the public with their pending and miserable failure in Vietnam. So given the choice to actually put a man on the moon or to choose a more cost effective option of making a Kubrick movie about it, well, we can let people decide for themselves.

Look how much is involved in actually putting todays' orbiter into a simple orbit and the constant delays; even with the technology which is more advanced than the 60's. The lunar landing was incredibly more complicated (argueably impossible from a physics point of view), but somehow it was done faster and with less technology. The public believed in it because they were told to believe and they wanted to believe.

There are an incredible amount of lies and deceipt circulating throughout the world, mostly propagated by the modern, superpower states. All done to control the general public and much akin to the Church in the Dark Ages.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2008)

"The point is that a US Gov't agency, NASA, is telling the world that the equipment is there."
And anybody else with a telescope, or a laser receiver.... There are too many people looking at the moon for it to be even REMOTELY possibly a hoax... 

"Unless you have carbon dating equipment in your back pocket, those glass spherals may be as young as your own spherals."
Carbon has nothing to do with it.... But I'll forgive your mistake, and respond to what you're getting at.... So, what, everyone who's ever independently dated lunar spherals is lying?!?! And that's harder to believe than the FACT that we (The human race) landed on the moon in the late 60s???? Sure it is.... 

Can I ask you something... Your tinfoil hat... Is it shiny side up, or shiny side down? ,-)

"There are an incredible amount of lies and deceipt circulating throughout the world, mostly propagated by the modern, superpower states."
There might be, but the lunar landing is NOT one of them. The FACTS say that loud and clear for anyone whose mind isn't addled by paranoia and 'half-knowledge'....


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "The point is that a US Gov't agency, NASA, is telling the world that the equipment is there."
> And anybody else with a telescope, or a laser receiver.... There are too many people looking at the moon for it to be even REMOTELY possibly a hoax...
> 
> "Unless you have carbon dating equipment in your back pocket, those glass spherals may be as young as your own spherals."
> ...



That's incredibly rude...and yet I can't stop laughing.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

> That's incredibly rude...and yet I can't stop laughing.


yup - im glad hes back:smile:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Actually I have no real proof that the moon exists.

We're led to believe that the tides are caused by the tug of the moon's gravity on the oceans.

I think the tides are caused by Argentina.

I think the moon is a hoax and is a projected image.


(probably by Bill Gates)


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

jroberts said:


> Actually, _I_ cause the tides.
> 
> Just try to prove that I don't. You can't! Ha!


Damn, you were my second choice. It was Argentina then Roberts.:bow:


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Can I ask you something... Your tinfoil hat... Is it shiny side up, or shiny side down? ,-)


Tinfoil hats.....har! Sorry, I'm not into suits of armour. :wink:

I'm trying to point out that there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda generated by governments. Especially the US government.

Not paranoid; just very analytical.

I do understand people like you though; interesting types.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

jroberts said:


> Actually, _I_ cause the tides.
> 
> Just try to prove that I don't. You can't! Ha!


Actually, the burden of proof rests on you.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

djem said:


> Tinfoil hats.....har! Sorry, I'm not into suits of armour. :wink:
> *
> I'm trying to point out that there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda generated by governments. Especially the US government.*
> 
> ...


You're poisoning the well. Show me evidence that the moon landing was faked, instead.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> You're poisoning the well. Show me evidence that the moon landing was faked, instead.


Go back and follow the link I posted.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

If you're so 'analytical' then let's see a SINGLE shred of evidence that the moon landing was faked... Not speculation.. not rabid paranoia... HARD evidence.

This is a picture of me, NOT holding my breath.

You wiki link has ZERO evidence... Wiki is NOT a source of information that can be accepted as anyone can write anything they want on it.


The link in the original post is even worse... All it says over and over again is "Something happened that I personally (meaning whoever wrote the page) don't understand therefore it MUST be a GLOBAL conspiracy."

You would have to be devoid of any and all reason or rational to even remotely begin to 'believe' any such hogswallop... and the fact that you're willing to spread such nonsense around is an insult to human intelligence and progress.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

djem said:


> Go back and follow the link I posted.


I have and all I see are misinterpretations of pictures that were taken on the moon (red herrings) and attempts at poisoning the well. 

This is what I mean by evidence...


http://www.clavius.org/


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Double post. Sorry.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Conspiracy theories are always theories because they dont have any evidence to back them up. They use real facts to draw you in, misinterpretted facts to try to sway you, and even made up "facts" to try and convience people they have a true explanation, but they never ever have real evidence. If they did have evidence, they wouldnt be a theory.................


----------



## The Kicker Of Elves (Jul 20, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> Conspiracy theories are always theories because they dont have any evidence to back them up. They use real facts to draw you in, misinterpretted facts to try to sway you, and even made up "facts" to try and convience people they have a true explanation, but they never ever have real evidence. If they did have evidence, they wouldnt be a theory.................


Nod.

Not to confuse the word "theory" with the definition as used in Science of course.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> I have and all I see are misinterpretations of pictures that were taken on the moon (red herrings) and attempts at poisoning the well.
> 
> This is what I mean by evidence...
> 
> ...


There we go, thread back on track. Good link.

Regarding evidence to support or dispute the landing, it's subjective whether or not people want to believe it or not. In order to understand things of highly technical nature, a strong knowledge of engineering, physics, mathematics, etc. is required. Otherwise, one is basing there decision on what others are telling them has happened. How else can you justify your position other than relying on others doing it for you?

This is the subtext of this thread; more important than the Lunar Landing itself.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

"it's subjective whether or not people want to believe it or not"
Facts don't care if you 'believe' in them or not... They are still facts, independent of what you 'believe' (Or think you believe) For instance, the world didn't change shape to be flat when people 'believed' that it was, any more than it moved to be the centre of the universe when people 'believed' that's where it sat.... A fact is a fact... 

And the fact is, 'we' (meaning the human race) landed on the moon in the late 60s. Your 'belief' in it or not is irrelevant.

I've invited you to provide any evidence that the moon landing was faked, and you've been unable (Or unwilling) to do so.... That tells me you're on pretty shaky ground to begin with.... Trying now to change the 'focus' of the thread doesn't do your 'side' any good either....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "it's subjective whether or not people want to believe it or not"
> Facts don't care if you 'believe' in them or not... They are still facts, independent of what you 'believe' (Or think you believe) For instance, the world didn't change shape to be flat when people 'believed' that it was, any more than it moved to be the centre of the universe when people 'believed' that's where it sat.... A fact is a fact.......




...wow, i had no idea. thanks for clearing that up, leslie.

-dh

hammond! i meant hammond.

a b3 and two leslies.

to go.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> And the fact is, 'we' (meaning the human race) landed on the moon in the late 60s. Your 'belief' in it or not is irrelevant.


The fact is that you choose to believe what others tell you. Then you run with it. Loudly.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

I chose to listen to what credible people tell me.... (Actually, I'll listen to what people who are not credible have to say too.... I just won't lend it any creedence. There's a guy in the "home" across the street who says that the ghosts of pirates visit him in the night and take him flying around the galaxy in their spaceship.... I'll listen... but will I even consider for ONE second that it might be a fact? Not on your life.)

Or, do I have to GO to China to know that there IS a China?

A fact remains a fact. You continuing to try to change the subject says way more about how weak your case is than I ever could.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> A fact remains a fact. You continuing to try to change the subject says way more about how weak your case is than I ever could.


Fact can change. I think Pluto is no longer considered a planet? Or is that Uranus?


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> A fact remains a fact. You continuing to try to change the subject says way more about how weak your case is than I ever could.


Disagree. I had thanked NB-SK who posted a good link that countered the conspiracy theorist thus bringing the discussion back to the initial question of 'do you believe?'

Why are you so angry? If you don't like this thread you can leave as you have made you POV evident.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

djem said:


> Why are you so angry?


Read his performance reviews on his web page. It's just the way he is!


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

"Fact can change. I think Pluto is no longer considered a planet?"
Nothing to do with the definition of "fact" (not as used in this thread at any rate) All that happened with Pluto is that astronomers redrew their arbitrary lines of definition of the sizes and categories of celestial bodies. 

If someone was, for instance, trying to state that there now was NO Pluto, that would be an attempt to change the kind of 'fact' this thread is discussing.

I'm not angry in the least.... but such conspiratorial bullflop is insulting to human achievement. My response is akin to Stans handling of John Edwards in the South Park episode "Biggest Douche In The Universe".

"... you're slowing down the progress of all mankind..."

Plus all the other stuff Stan said.

"bringing the discussion back to the initial question of 'do you believe?'"
Belief remains irrelevant.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> Belief remains irrelevant.


We should all be grateful to have you here to readjust thread topics to your liking.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Descartes was a great scientist, mathemetician, and philosopher. In his pursuits he arrived at the conclusion that there was one and only one indisputible fact. Anybody remember where that got him?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

djem said:


> We should all be grateful to have you here to readjust thread topics to your liking.




...and the award for "zinger of the day" goes to...!

-dh


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

I really don't think that's what "*allthumbs56*" was getting at...
,-)


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> I really don't think that's what "*allthumbs56*" was getting at...
> ,-)


Not exactly. But I do accept Paul's answer as a fact.

(That is unless someone with sufficient credibility has seen him at the 7-11 with Elvis recently :smile


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

Paul said:


> Then out of curiosity, what were you getting at? Descartes wore a lot of hats.
> 
> FWIW, there are over 20 registered Elvis Tribute Artists in Brant County. I don't think we have a 7-11 anymore.


I think what happened was that someone asked Descartes if he believed in the Lunar Landing.

He replied, "I think not!"

He disappeared.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

And that's about as much consideration as Lunar Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theories deserve... Equal to that of a lame joke.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> And that's about as much consideration as Lunar Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theories deserve... Equal to that of a lame joke.



Fact: you've made your point.

Leave.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

If you don't like it, you leave. 

I have no problem being here... You evidently do have a problem taking part in this thread.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Theres never going to be much of a discussion in this thread. In terms of conspiracy theories, the moon landing one is about as good as having one that claimed Columbus never reached the New World. When humans live only an average of 70 years they tend to be somewhat selective with their time. Given the popularity of TV, they arent very selective, but selective nonetheless..........


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

"claimed Columbus never reached the New World"
Is there REALLY anyone trying to make such a ridiculous claim?!?!?!

That's one I've never heard. 

LOL 

"Theres never going to be much of a discussion in this thread."
But that's the basic nature of so-called "Conspiracy Theories". There's no way TO discuss them. The people who "Believe" them are not interested in evidence, or facts or in hearing their 'beliefs' disassembled and shown for the hogswallop they really are. It sure seems to me that "Conspiracy Theorists" are only interested in heads, bobbing vacantly in agreement with them.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

The theory is so assinine, and everyone who makes stoopid webpages about it hopes that no one who reads it has never heard of the ranging that became possible in 1969, after the US went to the moon..............

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060713-9999-lz1c13laser.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2008)

Oh but that's all part of the lie isn't it???


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> If you don't like it, you leave.
> 
> I have no problem being here... You evidently do have a problem taking part in this thread.


I have no problem taking part in this thread. I started it. I asked a simple question and continue to get your overstated, self-righteous and rude retorts. Is there a pending giveaway that I don't know about?

We are all quite aware of your position Clint, no need to go any further. So, if you don't have anything valuable to contribute, leave. Your rhetoric is tiring and actually counterproductive. I realize that bullying into conversations is your style and I'm asking for you to move on.

I regret not making this a poll.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

"I have no problem taking part in this thread."
Provided people are just nodding their heads, vacantly in agreement with you... Should anyone call your 'conspiracy theory' what it is, then you have plenty of issue with it.

"if you don't have anything valuable to contribute"
I've shot down the whole idea of a conspiracy theory at every turn.... Which is invaluable.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

djem said:


> I have no problem taking part in this thread. I started it. I asked a simple question and continue to get your overstated, self-righteous and rude retorts. Is there a pending giveaway that I don't know about?
> 
> We are all quite aware of your position Clint, no need to go any further. So, if you don't have anything valuable to contribute, leave. Your rhetoric is tiring and actually counterproductive. I realize that bullying into conversations is your style and I'm asking for you to move on.
> 
> I regret not making this a poll.


clinton has something valuable to contribute- the truth, and its only an issue because on page 2 of this thread you engaged him by suggesting that nasa made it all up- 



> The point is that a US Gov't agency, NASA, is telling the world that the equipment is there. Photographs are notoriously touched up as well. Unless you have carbon dating equipment in your back pocket, those glass spherals may be as young as your own spherals.


and that begs for a retort. 
really.
and telling him to "leave" is not cool, he is participating in an intelligent and entertaining manner. you invited his opinion, and you can just ignore him.
sure he is "overstated, self-righteous and rude", but theres all kinds of worse folks on the internet man, all kinds.

anyway, my opinion, the thought that the lunar landings were staged is ludicrous. just a convenient way to make the u.s.a look bad, and gain personal attention for the theorists. just do a quick study on the development of space power from 1946 onwards, its all clear.
todays technology and the costs involved are far more difficult to deal with then it was at the time of the moon shots- thats why we cant just go back there next week.


----------



## djem (Sep 14, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> "I have no problem taking part in this thread."
> Provided people are just nodding their heads, vacantly in agreement with you... Should anyone call your 'conspiracy theory' what it is, then you have plenty of issue with it.
> 
> "if you don't have anything valuable to contribute"
> I've shot down the whole idea of a conspiracy theory at every turn.... Which is invaluable.



A recap........

-I started the thread.
-I posted a link and asked a question. Not my link, not my theory. Somehow in your delusion, you assumed these to be mine.
-Later I suggested why this conspiracy stuff may have been plausible due to timing of Vietnam war. Just a comment. 
-then you kick in.

I never asked anyone to agree. Personally, I don't care.

The one observation I have made is that you have a habit of dissecting posts and hammering away at the minutiae, derailing the thread simply because you don't agree with it. Why can't you be civilized about it? Instead, you choose to spew your rhetoric.

As I mentioned before, thanks for changing the topic of this thread to something that suits your liking.

If you disagree, make your point, make it clearly, then move on.

So, please, move on.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

ClintonHammond said:


> "it's subjective whether or not people want to believe it or not"
> Facts don't care if you 'believe' in them or not... They are still facts, independent of what you 'believe' (Or think you believe) For instance, the world didn't change shape to be flat when people 'believed' that it was, any more than it moved to be the centre of the universe when people 'believed' that's where it sat.... A fact is a fact...
> 
> And the fact is, 'we' (meaning the human race) landed on the moon in the late 60s. Your 'belief' in it or not is irrelevant.
> ...


Yes, exactly. Some people still believe that Earth is flat and only 6000 years old...Although they are entitled to believe whatever they want, it doesn't change the fact that Earth isn't flat nor 6000 years old.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

djem said:


> We should all be grateful to have you here to readjust thread topics to your liking.


Ad hominem? That's it. When you can't beat an argument, attack the person.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Descartes was a great scientist, mathemetician, and philosopher. In his pursuits he arrived at the conclusion that there was one and only one indisputible fact. Anybody remember where that got him?


I think you misunderstood Descartes. He extensively wrote about dualism (fact and/or faith). He was not an atheist, as many people wrongly believe. Where it got him? The royal court of Sweden.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

"Personally, I don't care."
Post and post of yours here say you DO care... and that you're personally hurt when someone show's your 'theories' up for the tripe they are. There is ZERO evidence that the lunar landings were faked, regardless of what get posted on some crackpot website.

I will invite you once again, to provide ANY CREDIBLE evidence for your claim that the moon landings were faked... But you won't, in part because there isn't any, and in part, because of that, you need to keep making this about me instead.... I haven't changed the topic of tis thread in the least. I'm more than willing to keep pointing out the flaws in the 'conspiracy theory'... They start with the FACT that there was no conspiracy. 

"clinton has something valuable to contribute- the truth"
Not truth... it's fact.... as my favourite archaeologist once said.... "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." ,-) Since "Loose Change" and other 9/11 conspiracy nutters, I'm loath to use the word 'truth' as they have corrupted it beyond all meaning. (The same can be said of the Young Earth/Creationist Fundies)


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

fraser said:


> clinton has something valuable to contribute- the truth....



...absolutely. i agree with practically everything that the lovely or talented clint hammond has to say.

however:

his grandiose proclamations of "the truth", as if only he is privy to "the truth", i find a little tiring, but maybe that's just me.

his smug, sanctimonious demeanour i find a little tiring, but maybe that's just me.

the fact that he constantly states the bleeding obvious, as if it was his idea and is obvious only to him because the rest of us are just too stupid to see it, can also be a little tiring, but maybe that's just me.

his obsession with attacking literally very sentence posted on this forum also tends to be pretty tiring, but maybe that's just me.

other than that, i genuinely like the guy. 

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...absolutely. i agree with practically everything that the lovely or talented clint hammond has to say.
> 
> his smug, sanctimonious demeanour i find a little tiring, but maybe that's just me.
> 
> ...



It's not just you.

Sometimes it's not what you say, it's how you say it. The older I get, the smarter others around me seem to get ;-).


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

So use your ignore lists, the both of you.

"i find a little tiring"
Awww... muffin....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ClintonHammond said:


> So use your ignore lists, the both of you....


...and miss your daily litany of sanctimonious proclamations?



besides, old sod, that is just plain cowardly. i think if you're going to dish it out, you had better be able to take it, as well. don't you? oh...nevermind...i'm number one on your ignore list.

no irony there. nope.

-dh


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Okay. I get it. You can't help but love the guy. 


So, where's the evidence that there weren't moon landings?


I wonder how conspiracy theorists explain this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

It seems pretty obvious that if US hadn't successfully landed on the moon, the Soviets would have called them up on it. Oh, right. They are also part of the conspiracy.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Okay. I get it. You can't help but love the guy. 


So, where's the evidence that there weren't moon landings?


I wonder how conspiracy theorists explain this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

It seems pretty obvious that if US hadn't successfully landed on the moon, the Soviets would have called them up on it. Oh, right. They are also part of the conspiracy. 


BTW, Flat Earth Society, which uses Bible scripture to argue that Earth is flat, claimed in the 50's that satellite picture were fake because they presented a spherical Earth. They also claimed that the Apollo moon landing was based on an Arthur C. Clarke novel and had been staged in a Hollywood studio (sound familiar). Yup, the conspiracy theory originated from a religion group that claims that Earth is flat. 

Read up. Good times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

NB-SK said:


> Okay. I get it. You can't help but love the guy.
> 
> 
> So, where's the evidence that there weren't moon landings?
> ...


LOL! good reading for a Friday! Thanks for that. Wonder what those crackpots think of UFO's???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufo


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...my favourite conspiracy theory of all time is the one that goes: "global warming is a left wing conspiracy."

totally brilliant. i wonder who came up with that one....

...anyone?

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...and miss your daily litany of sanctimonious proclamations?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do use the ignore list. Sadly others do not and the posts are visible in that way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2008)

"Sadly others do not and the posts are visible in that way."
+1.... I'll never understand why people feel the need to quote entire posts just so they can respond to one small point..... Or why people think they have to use the quote feature when it's just as easy to C&P......

"Wonder what those crackpots think of UFO's?"
I'd be afraid to even ask, for fear their stupidity might be contagious.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

NB-SK said:


> I think you misunderstood Descartes. He extensively wrote about dualism (fact and/or faith). He was not an atheist, as many people wrongly believe. Where it got him? The royal court of Sweden.


As I understand it, he ended up a tad loony and was given a last home by the Queen of Sweden (every royal court of the time wanted a nutty philosopher as a pet).

His quote "I think therefore I am" (or "doubt") was the product of his reducing all things that could be doubted down to to the last truth that could not be denied - the act of thinking/doubting/questioning was proof that he existed in some form.

Given that he believed firmly in God he then starting incorporating things that he could safely assume that God would not deceive him with (ie. his senses).

Very, very smart man. The difficult mental journey he chose would make any of us wacko and want to stay in bed.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> As I understand it, he ended up a tad loony and was given a last home by the Queen of Sweden (every royal court of the time wanted a nutty philosopher as a pet).
> 
> His quote "I think therefore I am" (or "doubt") was the product of his reducing all things that could be doubted down to to the last truth that could not be denied - the act of thinking/doubting/questioning was proof that he existed in some form.
> 
> ...


I know. Was he really mentally frail, or is it a Catholic smear tactic? After all, Sweden was mainly a protestant kingdom. It would be disingenuous to attempt to discredit his earlier work because of his mental state in the years before his death.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Starbuck50 said:


> LOL! good reading for a Friday! Thanks for that. Wonder what those crackpots think of UFO's???
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufo


I don't think that's necessary. That Wikipedia entry has crackpot written all over it.

"Many sightings may remain unreported due to fear of public ridicule because of the social stigma surrounding the subject of UFOs and because most nations lack any officially sanctioned authority to receive and evaluate UFO reports."

If I see weird lights in the sky, I know they are fricking reflections from lights on the ground or some other atmospheric phenomena. So, why in the hell would I want my taxes to be wasted on that? So that the ufologists can manipulate the data to validate their claims that aliens from outer space are watching us? Yeah, right.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2008)

david henman said:


> the fact that he constantly states the bleeding obvious, as if it was his idea and is obvious only to him because the rest of us are just too stupid to see it, can also be a little tiring, but maybe that's just me.


Kinda like this guy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2008)

"the rest of us are just too stupid to see it"

Only some....


----------

