Did man really land on the Moon ?

[Dean Wormer]

Sure, whatever you want to believe. You still haven't addressed Facetious
and why NASA hasn't gone back, and why they don't have a moon base by now and why we have only explored 2% of the oceans.
Landing on the moon is plausible? But, exploring our own planet is not?

If we supposedly landed on the moon when we did, by now they should have a moon base. I might believe them if they had one, but they don't. :hatsoff:

Anyone who blindly listens to their television and any government agency are the true sheep.
The government has been caught in so many lies you can't take them seriously.

Also, people will believe a low-grade program like myth busters?

Two guys who look like 60's hippie burnouts?

When I was in elementary school many years ago I was told that by the beginning of the 21st century we would be using flying cars. We don't have them. Why is that?
Anyone who blindly listens to William Cooper are the true sheep.
Also, people will believe a low-grade person like William Cooper?
A man who sounds like L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[Will E Worm]

When I was in elementary school many years ago I was told that by the beginning of the 21st century we would be using flying cars. We don't have them. Why is that?
Anyone who blindly listens to William Cooper are the true sheep.
Also, people will believe a low-grade person like William Cooper?
A man who sounds like L. Ron Hubbard.

More nonsense from you? :tongue:

We don't have flying cars because they lie.

If we were so advanced we would and there would be a moon base
and they could explore the oceans.

Maybe, one day you will find out the truth. We can just agree to disagree.

 

[boobfan]

Sure, whatever you want to believe. You still haven't addressed Facetious
and why NASA hasn't gone back, and why they don't have a moon base by now and why we have only explored 2% of the oceans.
Landing on the moon is plausible? But, exploring our own planet is not?

If we supposedly landed on the moon when we did, by now they should have a moon base. I might believe them if they had one, but they don't. :hatsoff:

Anyone who blindly listens to their television and any government agency are the true sheep.
The government has been caught in so many lies you can't take them seriously.

Also, people will believe a low-grade program like myth busters?

Two guys who look like 60's hippie burnouts?

I watched one show and they had trouble trying to cut a pig/hog in two with a rope.
I forget, but I'm not watching that show again.

Well we have explored all of our planet the mapping of the ocean floors was completed in 1989, so again more excuses based on ignorance from the Cooper sheep.
Why no Base on the moon? What reason do we have for that taxpayer expense? The only reason to establish any kind of a base there would be mining but that is not done by our government because we are not a socialist country. If a private company wanted to spend the money to go to the moon build a base and start mining they could. The most optimistic cost projections put a return on the investment after 5 years of mining, those do not include insurance, or any losses due to accidents.

 

[bodie54]

A Moon Base would be cost prohibitive considering the negligible returns.

The explanation is so simple it amazes me that simpletons like Cooper just can't accept it. no air to provide any resistance in any direction, now remember newtons first law

Sir Isaac Newton. Ha ha! Nothing more than another 33rd degree Mason spreading misinformation!

 

[boobfan]

A moon base would be cost prohibitive considering the negligible returns.



Sir Isaac Newton. Ha ha! Nothing more than another 33rd degree Mason spreading misinformation!

Yea no company is going to lay out the kind of cash needed to do it without seeing a dime for 5 years (at best).
Yea, Sir Isaac Newton was providing misinformation about the moon landing some 240 years before it even happened!
I guess he traveled to the future and compaired notes with NASA to help.

 

[Facetious]

Looking at the moon tonight . . am I the only one who sees a rabbit silhouette ? :rofl:

What do you guys see ? :tongue:

 

[calpoon]

The reason that NASA doesn't have a moon base and continued explorations of the moon is the same reason that they don't excavate your backyard and exame the rocks that they find there.

The moon is a just a rock that is floating around the Earth. Once they examined it's physical properties and conditions they discovered everything that there is to know about it aside from waiting around to see if an alien showed up. There is no point in continuing research on it.

The only reason that they went there at all wasn't because of the shit that they learned, it was the same reason that people climb Mt. Everest- Because it's there and they wanted to see if they could do it.

What possible reason could they have had to NOT actually go to the moon, other than that you might argue it was a waste of time and money? That's what I want to know. I challenge the conspiracy theorists to prove to me why you think we would somehow lack the ability to get there or wouldn't go there if we did have the abilty to.

 

[Facetious]

If that giant spherical rock known to us as the Earth's moon ever somehow got knocked out of it's orbit or if it split in two perfect halves for that matter, would we all be jettisoned away from the surface of the earth (zero gravity condition) only to become a mass /mess of space junk ?


:jester:

 

[calpoon]

If that giant spherical rock known to us as the Earth's moon ever somehow got knocked out of it's orbit or if it split in two perfect halves for that matter, would we all be jettisoned away from the surface of the earth (zero gravity condition) only to become a mass /mess of space junk ?


:jester:

No.

 

[anomaly]

It has been estimated that there was 160,000 people in on the moon landing "hoax". With Watergate there was only 4 guys and we couldn't hold on to that secret. Let's get real people.

 

[Tofu]

I remember hearing a while back about a way to ultimately prove the landings.

Find the original flag that was planted.

With the insane power of our telescopes surely someone could have found this, right?

If this has already been done - please direct me to the site/book and put me on the "I believe we landed on the moon" list... If not, I'm still getting splinters in my ass. Fence sitting is hard sometimes!

 

[STDiva]

By now they should have at least a moon base.

srsly? A moon base?

Also, we have only explored 2% of our own oceans. We went to the moon and can't explore our own planet?

You're incorrect. :hatsoff:

 

[STDiva]

A moon base?

 

[Tofu]

It has been estimated that there was 160,000 people in on the moon landing "hoax". With Watergate there was only 4 guys and we couldn't hold on to that secret. Let's get real people.

The problem with that though is - 159,900 of them actually believed they were going to the moon... Sure, the missions definitely happened, so 150,000+ people were still involved, but what if instead of heading to the moon, once the craft was out of visual range NASA (or the hoaxers) used false data to trick those 150,000+ people into actually thinking they SAW the moon landings happen?

 

[STDiva]

Wait a minute. A...a moon base?

 

[Tofu]

Wait a minute. A...a moon base?

So we can study the moon cats fool!

It's just so simple!

 

[calpoon]

With the insane power of our telescopes surely someone could have found this, right?

Sure. The only problem is that the people that have such telescopes have better things to do with thier time.

 

[bodie54]

Find the original flag that was planted.

With the insane power of our telescopes surely someone could have found this, right?

You'd think, but that's not the case. No earthbound telescope can see the flag on the moon. The Hubble telescope can't either. For a detailed analysis of why ...... http://www.rocketroberts.com/astro/flag_on_moon.htm

 

[thebear247]

i say fake i mean with all the update stuff nasa has and all the money they blow how come they havnt ever been back ?

 

[calpoon]

rep to you bodie, that was a fascinating article, but I still don't really understand it.

Ok, so I get the point that the scale of the flag in proportion to the distance of the telescopes viewing radius is too small to provide a clear image resolution... but then how can we take pictures of large planets in other solar systems, which are light years away? that would have to make them at a scale millions if not billions of times smaller in comparison.