| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> facts.... | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: facts.... |
| Posted By: ben Posted On: Sep 19, 2006 Views: 1332 | facts.... your site does have almost as many facts... but you stoop to derogitry comments about the peaple who say that people diddnt land on the moon leading me to discredit you... if you want to sway peaple to believe your point of view you will need an un biased view on the topic for which you dont have! as for the "small" number of people believing this... have a look at your own poll! and it is ridicules to say that peple who believe this are stupid in any way.... sure some who just watched a movie and made thier mind up may be but i think that it takes a higher level of thinking to question what the media tells us then to blindly follow it! thankyou Ben FIsher |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Sep 19, 2006 Views: 1331 | RE: facts.... How is it possible to be biased when talking about facts? Would you call me biased for saying the world isn't flat but is a globe? Likwise I am not biased when I say the moon landings happened, it is a historical fact, not some theory that can be disputed! All those that think the landings never happened argue their case out of ignorance, and that's another fact. |
| Posted By: Ken Lee Tompson Posted On: Sep 19, 2006 Views: 1328 | RE: facts.... I agree with keith. And if for some reason that the fact that we went to the moon is false, then my name isn't Ken Lee Johnson. |
| Posted By: tony clifton Posted On: Sep 20, 2006 Views: 1320 | RE: facts.... shut up ben u muppet |
| Posted By: kesh Posted On: Sep 20, 2006 Views: 1312 | RE: facts.... i also agree with keith, and yes, shut up BEN, you are talking crap. |
| Posted By: johnny Posted On: Dec 30, 2006 Views: 1274 | RE: facts.... this site is very interesting and it does offer a large amount of information, but keith...you're doing exactly what you're saying the conspiracy theorists do; that is, you dismiss from starters many irefutabile arguments as being false, without giving another possible and eventually (that would we better)probable interpretation. All i'm wondering is...if we really did land on the moon in 1969, why didn't we do it again in these 37 years? You have no idea how many things NASA is hidding..no one does. You'll probably say that i'm a lunatic, but hey..everyone's entitled to an oppinion. respectfully, johnny |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 30, 2006 Views: 1272 | RE: facts.... jonny You say that, and I quote "..you dismiss from starters many irefutabile arguments as being false..." I consider I have taken the hoax believers' claims and painstakingly shown how they are wrong. Please give an example or two so we may discuss how I have dismissed an 'irrefutable argument'. Thank you |
| Posted By: johnny Posted On: Dec 30, 2006 Views: 1267 | RE: facts.... I asked you a question and you answer with another one...it's a classic. If we had the techonology to land on the moon in 1969, isn't it curious that we never tried it again? By gods, we should've had colonies there. And how come the soviets didn't even dare to make it their task? Regarding your so-called counter-arguments, they are exactly what you say the theorists' arguments are: bad science and ignorance. You say the stars couldn't appear in the pictures. Ok, i believe you. But why do they appear in the pictures taken in other space-missions? Were they less shy? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 30, 2006 Views: 1262 | RE: RE: facts.... Q. If we had the techonology to land on the moon in 1969, isn't it curious that we never tried it again? By gods, we should've had colonies there. A. To save me typing it all out again just read my main page. I have already answered this question. Please also note that Bush has decided we will go back. Plans are afoot as we speak. Q. And how come the soviets didn't even dare to make it their task? A. What on earth are you talking about? They tried very, very hard to put men on the moon. They lost some good men trying, and a lot of rockets. They gave up after the Americans landed because what was the point then? It was a race and they lost, game over. Q. Regarding your so-called counter-arguments, they are exactly what you say the theorists' arguments are: bad science and ignorance. A. Really? Please give examples where my science is wrong and I will admit to being stupid. Don't make wild claims you are unable to back up, it makes you look daft. Q. You say the stars couldn't appear in the pictures. Ok, i believe you. But why do they appear in the pictures taken in other space-missions? Were they less shy? A. I said the stars will not show up when taking photos on the lunar surface that includes the lunar surface because it is so bright it washes out the dim stars. On other space missions - not on the lunar surface but in the darkness of space - the stars are of course easily visible. Why do you have a problem with something that is so obvious? Now you can answer my question. What would it take to convince you? Tell me that and I will respond. BTW which of those above were your 'irrefutable evidence'? They were just very basic questions that have been answered time and time again. |
| Posted By: johnny Posted On: Dec 31, 2006 Views: 1252 | RE: facts.... ok, keith...seems i got a little carried away there. but then again, it happened to you too, when you attributed me the "qualities" of a daft. i studied your answers very carefully and i agree you might be right. as for those irefutable evidence, i guess you dismissed them all. although the fact that we never again sent men to the moon still raises some questions. i'm neither a believer, neither a skeptic. i'm only trying to get to the bottom of this. just to make you feel better, i don't believe the 9/11 atacks were a conspiracy...so i'm not the type of person who would believe "just about everything",to quote you. |