UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
machine me a starter, please.
Last edited:
Is NASA stupid, or are they lying?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
machine me a starter, please.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
My chuck is 78 inches in diameter. I wouldnt even be able to mount the housing
Whats wrong with your starter?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I threw the box of cigs inthere for perspective
desert dude
Well-Known Member
What is it? It looks like a chess piece, bishop to be exact.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
It's a Butt plug.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
If that is what it is, poor choice in material. That would be very cold.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Jack Condon
Well-Known Member
I was going to start a thread on this topic but I did a search and found this thread. Here's some info I found that proves the moon missions were faked in a studio.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
Don't knock the hustle homie. Unlike most in here, the man does his homework, and gives complete, well thought out responses usually backed up with statistics. I know you idiots hate to read, but he always comes to the argument prepared. You should try it sometime.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
There is a tremendous return on investment with every dollar ever put until the space program.
Jack Condon
Well-Known Member
I got banned from the Clavius forum years ago. I snuck back in yesterday and did some posting. They knew it was me right away but I was able to do some serious posting before I got banned again and they didn't delete the stuff I posted. Here it is. I used the username "Scott".
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1146.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15
(reply #21)
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(reply #1
Read that last one until post #26. Jay Windley* destroyed his credibility again. Another pro-Apollo poster agreed with him in post #37. They also maintained that the Chinese spacewalk was real and tried to obfuscate those clear anomalies (see the fourth link). Those people are a joke.
*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1146.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=993.15
(reply #21)
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15
(reply #1
Read that last one until post #26. Jay Windley* destroyed his credibility again. Another pro-Apollo poster agreed with him in post #37. They also maintained that the Chinese spacewalk was real and tried to obfuscate those clear anomalies (see the fourth link). Those people are a joke.
*
http://www.clavius.org/about.html
Jack Condon
Well-Known Member
Look what I came across. This guy doesn't put forth any of the proof that the missions were faked but he shows very clearly that there's no proof that the missios were real.
Here's some of the proof that the missions were faked for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
-------------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
Dear sirs:
There can be many levels to an issue, and, unless you look at all of them, you cannot necessarily be said completely to understand it.
With the upcoming anniversary of the purported landing on the moon, it is understandable that there would be significant attention to that story, with replays of news broadcasts from that time and descriptions of improvements in space travel since then. But, in the way that handling of an event can be characteristic of its time, or perhaps should be approached so, discussion of the supposed landing of Apollo 11 today also includes reference to the wide-spread perception that it never took place.
Indeed, what is termed "The Moon Hoax" is a major topic on the internet, the "conspiracy theory" that the "moon landing" actually was staged. References to explanations by "conspiracy theorists" include items like the danger of traveling through the Van Allen radiation belts; the lack of stars in the sky in the photographs; the oddly intersecting or diverging shadows on the moon, suggesting mutliple light sources; and the "flapping" of the American flag set up there. Unfortunately, some "theorists" go too far afield, providing details, such as that the moon landing was filmed at Area 51, and those can and often are used to undermine the legitimacy of the inquiry.
And, to be sure, the standard points can be countered, if not definitively then at least somewhat convincingly. Actually, the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts is not so strong it can't be countered by adequate shielding. Cameras that were calibrated to expose only long enough to collect significant light sources could fail to obtain simultaneous images of dim stars in the background. The lunar surface was evidently irregular enough that fraction of an inch long shadows in a picture could appear to intersect when they were really parallel. And even when they erected it, the astronauts described the flag as having a cross bar so the pennant could stand out from the pole and, if jostled for any reason, even in a vacuum, a suspended cloth can flap if disturbed.
Those whose job it is to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" would declare from this case closed, but, in fact, it opens the issue.
Because it is a truism that, if you can control the essence of an argument, the meaning of terms, the items to be mentioned, the way things are to be approached, you can make anything say anything. And, in fact, "debunkers" have relied very heavily on this technique to deceive the public.
In articles strewn with references to "conspiracy theorists' as "loonies" or "idiots" or "crackpots", the "debunkers" have repeatedly trotted out the standard points, sprinkling in details such as the claim about being filmed at Area 51, to "convince" the naive and dull that the "conspiracy theory" about the untruthfulness of the moon landing doesn't hold water. All predictably the same. In the article "Could the moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", by Brandon Griggs, journalistic ethic is tossed by referring to Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker who has challenged the claims about landing on the moon, as "crazy" and describing those who doubt the landing as a "cult". Phil Plait, an astronomer and contributor to Discover magazine's web site terms refusing to believe that man landed on the moon "lunacy".
The fact is, such loaded language is an historic proof of an insincere agenda, promoting an illegitimate claim. A decent individual could opine the fact that craven connivers in government have made so many so distrustful that they don't place stock in anything government says. Those who are liars and criminals simply call those who refuse to be pushed around "crackpots"!
But these always approach the issue from the one direction, the standard points. Which suggests that that is the only way a presentation "debunking" the "conspiracy theory" can be made. As if approaching from any other angle would expose the inherent weaknesses of the claim the moon was reached. It can be helpful, then, to examine the claim of a moon landing from other approaches, as well. The verifiable is the same viewed from any angle, not just from one specific direction.
continued next post due to low character limit...
Here's some of the proof that the missions were faked for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
-------------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
Dear sirs:
There can be many levels to an issue, and, unless you look at all of them, you cannot necessarily be said completely to understand it.
With the upcoming anniversary of the purported landing on the moon, it is understandable that there would be significant attention to that story, with replays of news broadcasts from that time and descriptions of improvements in space travel since then. But, in the way that handling of an event can be characteristic of its time, or perhaps should be approached so, discussion of the supposed landing of Apollo 11 today also includes reference to the wide-spread perception that it never took place.
Indeed, what is termed "The Moon Hoax" is a major topic on the internet, the "conspiracy theory" that the "moon landing" actually was staged. References to explanations by "conspiracy theorists" include items like the danger of traveling through the Van Allen radiation belts; the lack of stars in the sky in the photographs; the oddly intersecting or diverging shadows on the moon, suggesting mutliple light sources; and the "flapping" of the American flag set up there. Unfortunately, some "theorists" go too far afield, providing details, such as that the moon landing was filmed at Area 51, and those can and often are used to undermine the legitimacy of the inquiry.
And, to be sure, the standard points can be countered, if not definitively then at least somewhat convincingly. Actually, the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts is not so strong it can't be countered by adequate shielding. Cameras that were calibrated to expose only long enough to collect significant light sources could fail to obtain simultaneous images of dim stars in the background. The lunar surface was evidently irregular enough that fraction of an inch long shadows in a picture could appear to intersect when they were really parallel. And even when they erected it, the astronauts described the flag as having a cross bar so the pennant could stand out from the pole and, if jostled for any reason, even in a vacuum, a suspended cloth can flap if disturbed.
Those whose job it is to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" would declare from this case closed, but, in fact, it opens the issue.
Because it is a truism that, if you can control the essence of an argument, the meaning of terms, the items to be mentioned, the way things are to be approached, you can make anything say anything. And, in fact, "debunkers" have relied very heavily on this technique to deceive the public.
In articles strewn with references to "conspiracy theorists' as "loonies" or "idiots" or "crackpots", the "debunkers" have repeatedly trotted out the standard points, sprinkling in details such as the claim about being filmed at Area 51, to "convince" the naive and dull that the "conspiracy theory" about the untruthfulness of the moon landing doesn't hold water. All predictably the same. In the article "Could the moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", by Brandon Griggs, journalistic ethic is tossed by referring to Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker who has challenged the claims about landing on the moon, as "crazy" and describing those who doubt the landing as a "cult". Phil Plait, an astronomer and contributor to Discover magazine's web site terms refusing to believe that man landed on the moon "lunacy".
The fact is, such loaded language is an historic proof of an insincere agenda, promoting an illegitimate claim. A decent individual could opine the fact that craven connivers in government have made so many so distrustful that they don't place stock in anything government says. Those who are liars and criminals simply call those who refuse to be pushed around "crackpots"!
But these always approach the issue from the one direction, the standard points. Which suggests that that is the only way a presentation "debunking" the "conspiracy theory" can be made. As if approaching from any other angle would expose the inherent weaknesses of the claim the moon was reached. It can be helpful, then, to examine the claim of a moon landing from other approaches, as well. The verifiable is the same viewed from any angle, not just from one specific direction.
continued next post due to low character limit...
Jack Condon
Well-Known Member
...continued
And there is a particularly significant direction to view the issue of the "moon landing".
Rather than deal with the standard arguments provided against the possibility of the "moon landing" being real, the question can be asked just how uncontestable is the "evidence" that a landing did take place?
The fact is, there is absolutely no "evidence" of a moon landing that is incontrovertible or unquestionable!
The convincingness of any "evidence" of a moon landing depends solely on the effective gullibility of the person listening! And the craven acceptance of many in the American public of the unproved claim of a "moon landing" display methods often used to swindle the dull and demonstrate the lackluster dim-wittedness of so many in the America population that has permitted equally pernicious frauds to be perpetrated!
Someone, for example, steps up to a podium and says, "We landed on the moon". If that person has enough media provided imprimatur and "official" backing, there are those in the public who will buy unquestioning, at face value, absolutely everything that person says! But Clinton stood up and said he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. George W. Bush said Iraq had massive banned weapon systems. George H.W. Bush said Iraqi soldiers pulled Kuwaiti infants from incubators and dropped them on the floor to die. Jimmy Carter said he was a nuclear engineer. Ronald Reagan said "trickle down" economics would benefit the "rank and file". If someone said they had talked to space aliens, "debunkers' would declare that just saying so doesn't make it true, but they are the first to insist that, just because someone in govenment said we reached the moon, you have no choice but to believe it! Just like they insist that al Qaeda and not the White House was behind the events of September 11, just because a White House authorized "translation" of an Osama bin Laden tape supposedly took credit for the attacks! The fact that nothing anyone is govenrment says can be trusted may inform the judgments of some regarding future events, but tragically few seem to have had the insight to apply this newfound realization retroactively, passing judgment on whether they were lied to in the past or not, as well!
If they feel the need to provide something purportedly more "substantial" than just claims, "debunkers" might point to the "moon rocks". They will say, "How could we have moon rocks if we didn't go to the moon?" Unfortunately, many who seek to promote the inquiry into the government's moon hoax are not bright enough not to be drawn in. Many say the moon rocks came from lunar probes that returned from the moon, at which point, the "debunkers" will say, "If we can send a probe and get it back, why can't we do it with humans?" In fact, the essence of that "argument" strays far from that track. Because, consider, did you ever see a "moon rock"? Did you ever hold a "moon rock" in your hands? If someone said they had a live Sasquatch but they refused to allow you to see it, how many wouldn't call that person a fake? Yet government has never allowed anyone to handle a "moon rock", but the people readily accept that as "proof" of a moon landing? True, the "debunkers" will assert, government did allow "moon rocks" to be seen, under glass and separated from the public, but if someone provided brown hairs under glass and said they were Sasquatch fur, they would be denounced in a second! And, let's be frank, even if they did allow an examination of a "moon rock", how many people know enough about geology to know they are from earth or not? And, besides, laboratories across the world have facilities for subjecting rocks to any number of different environments, meaning, they could manufacture a "moon rock" at will! Only the willingness to unquestioningly buy whatever you are told would lead someone to believe claims about "moon rocks"!
The "debunkers" bring up the films of astronauts supposedly on the moon. All fuzzy, grainy and over-exposed. Films of much higher quality are provided as proof of encounters with UFO's and Bigfoot, and routinely dismissed by "debunkers" as of "unacceptable quality to be credible". The fact that NASA seems to have managed to lose thousands of films from the moon landings doesn't add to their credibility!
And, now, "debunkers" are crowing that the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter has "seen" the sites where the astronauts "landed". And they provide photographs to "prove" it. As if someone couldn't fabricate a moon surface and place tiny objects on it! To understand this situation, go to the web page. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html . The "photographs" from the orbiter are provided. To "prove" their "authenticity", they even single out a picture from Apollo 14 supposedly showing the astronauts' "tracks" in the lunar dust. Given the size of the lunar lander, however, their footprints would have to be six feet wide to be as visible as they are in the picture! More than that, every group of astronauts supposedly did a fair amount of walking around all their landers, but none of the other pictures show any tracks around the dot NASA claims is the orbiter! More than that, Apollos 15, 16 and 17 had motorized Lunar Rovers, supposedly, that allowed wide ranging missions, but none of those tracks are shown on the "photographs"! And the Lunar Rovers were far from small, themselves! They should be visible, too! A small package of scietific instruments is claimed visible on the picture for Apollo 14, the Lunar Rovers should be quite conspicuous spots on the photos!
There are those who point out long lasting, unnatural trails left behind by high flying jets as a government project to indoctrinate the enviornment with weather modifying chemicals. They term them "chemtrails". The "debunkers" predictably term them normal contrails. Chemtrail opponents point out that chemtrails were never reported before 1997; that normal contrails dissipate; that collections of ice crystals should not spread out the way chemtrails do; that the beginning of chemtrailing coincides with spectacular weather phenomena, like the beginning of the massive hurricane spate that included Katrina and the largest one year decline in Arctic sea ice; that government has embraced talking about "global warming" like never before, but because they are trying to avoid referring to the true cause of climate shift! But the "debunkers" constantly insist that not enough proof has been provided that chemtrails are anything more than normal contrails.
But the evidence for chemtrails is far and away more cogent and credible than the "evidence" in favor of the "moon landing"!
As is so often the case, however, it is the liars who are among the most potent enemies of their machinations.
In the article "Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", Brandon Griggs quotes Roger Launier, a "senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington". Launier's "explanation" for the suspicion of the "moon landings" is, "We love conspiracies. Going to the moon is hard to understand. And it's a lot easier for some people to accept the answer that, 'Well, maybe we didn't go to the moon.' A lot of it is naivete."
Of course he would try to downgrade the intelligence of those who question the "moon landings" by saying it's "hard to understand". Predictably, he would frame it as intellectual incapacity on their part, rather than a reaction to Washington's proven policy of universal deceit! But he defeats his own lies by tossing so many different ones out. Do those who disbelieve the "moon landing" do so because they like conspiracies, because they are feeble minded or because they are naive? Those three possibilities are not related! But because he didn't know what he was talking about and because he was talking just to savage them, Launier twisted about and discredited his own lies.
Incidentally, later on in the article, he also refutes his own statements, saying the numbers of those doubting NASA's "official story" are few in number. "These diehards are really vocal", he states, but they're really tiny." Again, a dig rather than a discussion. But, if people "love conspiracies" the way he states, why are there so few who supposedly believe the "moon landing" is a conspiracy?
Indeed, the entire organization NASA puts its name to doggerel which is a blatant attempt to get around the fact that there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence of a moon landing!
They are quoted in the article as saying in a statement, "Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative."
Again, conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that fits the bill and, instead, claiming a mental lack on the part of the doubters.
But even there, they lie.
Because it is not impossible to prove a negative!
The claim that "you can't prove a negative" is a dodge the liars in power have been hiding behind since segments of the public have become more vocal in denouncing the criminal gang that is Washington, D.C.! People provide their evidence that the events of September 11 do not conform to "Islamic 'terrorists'" piloting planes into the Twin Towers and bringing them down and confront the government to prove that George Bush didn't engineer the events. To that, the "debunkers" reply "you can't prove a negative!"
continued next post due to low character limit....
And there is a particularly significant direction to view the issue of the "moon landing".
Rather than deal with the standard arguments provided against the possibility of the "moon landing" being real, the question can be asked just how uncontestable is the "evidence" that a landing did take place?
The fact is, there is absolutely no "evidence" of a moon landing that is incontrovertible or unquestionable!
The convincingness of any "evidence" of a moon landing depends solely on the effective gullibility of the person listening! And the craven acceptance of many in the American public of the unproved claim of a "moon landing" display methods often used to swindle the dull and demonstrate the lackluster dim-wittedness of so many in the America population that has permitted equally pernicious frauds to be perpetrated!
Someone, for example, steps up to a podium and says, "We landed on the moon". If that person has enough media provided imprimatur and "official" backing, there are those in the public who will buy unquestioning, at face value, absolutely everything that person says! But Clinton stood up and said he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. George W. Bush said Iraq had massive banned weapon systems. George H.W. Bush said Iraqi soldiers pulled Kuwaiti infants from incubators and dropped them on the floor to die. Jimmy Carter said he was a nuclear engineer. Ronald Reagan said "trickle down" economics would benefit the "rank and file". If someone said they had talked to space aliens, "debunkers' would declare that just saying so doesn't make it true, but they are the first to insist that, just because someone in govenment said we reached the moon, you have no choice but to believe it! Just like they insist that al Qaeda and not the White House was behind the events of September 11, just because a White House authorized "translation" of an Osama bin Laden tape supposedly took credit for the attacks! The fact that nothing anyone is govenrment says can be trusted may inform the judgments of some regarding future events, but tragically few seem to have had the insight to apply this newfound realization retroactively, passing judgment on whether they were lied to in the past or not, as well!
If they feel the need to provide something purportedly more "substantial" than just claims, "debunkers" might point to the "moon rocks". They will say, "How could we have moon rocks if we didn't go to the moon?" Unfortunately, many who seek to promote the inquiry into the government's moon hoax are not bright enough not to be drawn in. Many say the moon rocks came from lunar probes that returned from the moon, at which point, the "debunkers" will say, "If we can send a probe and get it back, why can't we do it with humans?" In fact, the essence of that "argument" strays far from that track. Because, consider, did you ever see a "moon rock"? Did you ever hold a "moon rock" in your hands? If someone said they had a live Sasquatch but they refused to allow you to see it, how many wouldn't call that person a fake? Yet government has never allowed anyone to handle a "moon rock", but the people readily accept that as "proof" of a moon landing? True, the "debunkers" will assert, government did allow "moon rocks" to be seen, under glass and separated from the public, but if someone provided brown hairs under glass and said they were Sasquatch fur, they would be denounced in a second! And, let's be frank, even if they did allow an examination of a "moon rock", how many people know enough about geology to know they are from earth or not? And, besides, laboratories across the world have facilities for subjecting rocks to any number of different environments, meaning, they could manufacture a "moon rock" at will! Only the willingness to unquestioningly buy whatever you are told would lead someone to believe claims about "moon rocks"!
The "debunkers" bring up the films of astronauts supposedly on the moon. All fuzzy, grainy and over-exposed. Films of much higher quality are provided as proof of encounters with UFO's and Bigfoot, and routinely dismissed by "debunkers" as of "unacceptable quality to be credible". The fact that NASA seems to have managed to lose thousands of films from the moon landings doesn't add to their credibility!
And, now, "debunkers" are crowing that the Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter has "seen" the sites where the astronauts "landed". And they provide photographs to "prove" it. As if someone couldn't fabricate a moon surface and place tiny objects on it! To understand this situation, go to the web page. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html . The "photographs" from the orbiter are provided. To "prove" their "authenticity", they even single out a picture from Apollo 14 supposedly showing the astronauts' "tracks" in the lunar dust. Given the size of the lunar lander, however, their footprints would have to be six feet wide to be as visible as they are in the picture! More than that, every group of astronauts supposedly did a fair amount of walking around all their landers, but none of the other pictures show any tracks around the dot NASA claims is the orbiter! More than that, Apollos 15, 16 and 17 had motorized Lunar Rovers, supposedly, that allowed wide ranging missions, but none of those tracks are shown on the "photographs"! And the Lunar Rovers were far from small, themselves! They should be visible, too! A small package of scietific instruments is claimed visible on the picture for Apollo 14, the Lunar Rovers should be quite conspicuous spots on the photos!
There are those who point out long lasting, unnatural trails left behind by high flying jets as a government project to indoctrinate the enviornment with weather modifying chemicals. They term them "chemtrails". The "debunkers" predictably term them normal contrails. Chemtrail opponents point out that chemtrails were never reported before 1997; that normal contrails dissipate; that collections of ice crystals should not spread out the way chemtrails do; that the beginning of chemtrailing coincides with spectacular weather phenomena, like the beginning of the massive hurricane spate that included Katrina and the largest one year decline in Arctic sea ice; that government has embraced talking about "global warming" like never before, but because they are trying to avoid referring to the true cause of climate shift! But the "debunkers" constantly insist that not enough proof has been provided that chemtrails are anything more than normal contrails.
But the evidence for chemtrails is far and away more cogent and credible than the "evidence" in favor of the "moon landing"!
As is so often the case, however, it is the liars who are among the most potent enemies of their machinations.
In the article "Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", Brandon Griggs quotes Roger Launier, a "senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington". Launier's "explanation" for the suspicion of the "moon landings" is, "We love conspiracies. Going to the moon is hard to understand. And it's a lot easier for some people to accept the answer that, 'Well, maybe we didn't go to the moon.' A lot of it is naivete."
Of course he would try to downgrade the intelligence of those who question the "moon landings" by saying it's "hard to understand". Predictably, he would frame it as intellectual incapacity on their part, rather than a reaction to Washington's proven policy of universal deceit! But he defeats his own lies by tossing so many different ones out. Do those who disbelieve the "moon landing" do so because they like conspiracies, because they are feeble minded or because they are naive? Those three possibilities are not related! But because he didn't know what he was talking about and because he was talking just to savage them, Launier twisted about and discredited his own lies.
Incidentally, later on in the article, he also refutes his own statements, saying the numbers of those doubting NASA's "official story" are few in number. "These diehards are really vocal", he states, but they're really tiny." Again, a dig rather than a discussion. But, if people "love conspiracies" the way he states, why are there so few who supposedly believe the "moon landing" is a conspiracy?
Indeed, the entire organization NASA puts its name to doggerel which is a blatant attempt to get around the fact that there is not a single shred of verifiable evidence of a moon landing!
They are quoted in the article as saying in a statement, "Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative."
Again, conveniently ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that fits the bill and, instead, claiming a mental lack on the part of the doubters.
But even there, they lie.
Because it is not impossible to prove a negative!
The claim that "you can't prove a negative" is a dodge the liars in power have been hiding behind since segments of the public have become more vocal in denouncing the criminal gang that is Washington, D.C.! People provide their evidence that the events of September 11 do not conform to "Islamic 'terrorists'" piloting planes into the Twin Towers and bringing them down and confront the government to prove that George Bush didn't engineer the events. To that, the "debunkers" reply "you can't prove a negative!"
continued next post due to low character limit....
Jack Condon
Well-Known Member
...continued
But, in fact, it's always prossible to prove an untruth! Look at the man standing next to you in line. Does he have one billion dollars in pennies in his pocket? Is it impossible to prove he does not? Is a banana blue? Is it impossible to prove a banana is not blue? Is 2 plus 2 equal to 5? Is it equal to 6, or 7, or 8? When you prove 2 plus 2 is 4, you also prove 2 plus 2 is not equal to 5, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 6, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 7, and so on!
When you prove a positive of a statement, at the same time you prove the negative of every alternative to that statement!
But, for that matter, who's asking him to prove a negative?
If the U.S. reached the moon, he would be proving a positive!
They never said you can't prove a positive! And, if the U.S. did reach the moon, then it should be possible to prove that statement!
In the end, though, it is a lie to say, "you cannot prove a negative"!
And everyone who has said it is a liar!
There is a rule in the law, "false in one, false in all". That means that, if you catch someone in a lie, you are not only allowed to disbelieve everything else they say, you are required to!
Phil Plait says, "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world." In fact, the "evidence" of the moon landing, from simply saying it's true and ordering you to believe it or you will be ridiculed; to providing things they order you to believe are "moon rocks", yet refuse to allow you to examine; to providing grainy and over-exposed film; to providing photographs that are not proved not to be fake; to lying that "you can't prove a negative" is not evidence at all!
There is not a single scrap of verifiable, legitimate evidence that the U.S. reached the moon!
If someone chooses to lie to you, that is their sin against you, but if you choose to believe it, it is your sin against yourself! If the public shows the willingness overall to subject government lies to the scrutiny of examination, the liars will constantly be thinking twice about acting with regard for the public's conscience. Demonstrate a wholesale disinterest in questioning deceit and government will do whatever they want, not even trying to maintain an appearance of propriety! There was a day when concern for public opinion would have kept a president from launching an unprovoked attack against an aggressor nation! No longer. And it is drooling public obsequiousness to demonstrably unproved claims like the moon landing that has provided the sieve, indicated to government just how willing the majority of Americans are to accept high placed lies! Quisling cravenness has already wreaked immeasurable damage on the planet; to prolong that abomination is to embrace ruining life on this planet utterly!
Julian Penrod
But, in fact, it's always prossible to prove an untruth! Look at the man standing next to you in line. Does he have one billion dollars in pennies in his pocket? Is it impossible to prove he does not? Is a banana blue? Is it impossible to prove a banana is not blue? Is 2 plus 2 equal to 5? Is it equal to 6, or 7, or 8? When you prove 2 plus 2 is 4, you also prove 2 plus 2 is not equal to 5, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 6, 2 plus 2 is not equal to 7, and so on!
When you prove a positive of a statement, at the same time you prove the negative of every alternative to that statement!
But, for that matter, who's asking him to prove a negative?
If the U.S. reached the moon, he would be proving a positive!
They never said you can't prove a positive! And, if the U.S. did reach the moon, then it should be possible to prove that statement!
In the end, though, it is a lie to say, "you cannot prove a negative"!
And everyone who has said it is a liar!
There is a rule in the law, "false in one, false in all". That means that, if you catch someone in a lie, you are not only allowed to disbelieve everything else they say, you are required to!
Phil Plait says, "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world." In fact, the "evidence" of the moon landing, from simply saying it's true and ordering you to believe it or you will be ridiculed; to providing things they order you to believe are "moon rocks", yet refuse to allow you to examine; to providing grainy and over-exposed film; to providing photographs that are not proved not to be fake; to lying that "you can't prove a negative" is not evidence at all!
There is not a single scrap of verifiable, legitimate evidence that the U.S. reached the moon!
If someone chooses to lie to you, that is their sin against you, but if you choose to believe it, it is your sin against yourself! If the public shows the willingness overall to subject government lies to the scrutiny of examination, the liars will constantly be thinking twice about acting with regard for the public's conscience. Demonstrate a wholesale disinterest in questioning deceit and government will do whatever they want, not even trying to maintain an appearance of propriety! There was a day when concern for public opinion would have kept a president from launching an unprovoked attack against an aggressor nation! No longer. And it is drooling public obsequiousness to demonstrably unproved claims like the moon landing that has provided the sieve, indicated to government just how willing the majority of Americans are to accept high placed lies! Quisling cravenness has already wreaked immeasurable damage on the planet; to prolong that abomination is to embrace ruining life on this planet utterly!
Julian Penrod
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Have you visited our "Flat Earth" Thread? It is in the Talk N Toke section. You would be a valuable participant.
One thing though - do you vape?
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Flat Earth does it for me much more.