NASA admits there was no U.S. moon landing - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Theories and happenings too odd for the main forums.
#13098897
July 19, 2009


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.

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/m ... sites.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!"

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
User avatar
By Dr House
#13098931
tl;dr
By Aekos
#13098941
julianpenrod, are you ever going to learn the format of a message board? This isn't a fucking newspaper, there's no editor here.
By babilonian
#13099380
New digital video was just released over the landing. Great work for all man kind even though it did almost nothing for human kind.
User avatar
By Rojik of the Arctic
#13099472
Did you ever consider the propaganda value the USSR would have got out of disproving the moon landing? Funny that they didn't. Maybe because they couldn't. The flags, buggies and landers left behind might have given it away.
By julianpenrod
#13101899
Dr. House, things often tend to have a number of facets to them. Those who seek to swindle you will leave those things out, minimizing matters to a calculated but non-representative shell. You call my post "too long; didn't read", but isn't that so representative of what kept people from realizing that a ragtag group of dissidents would not launch attacks so massive they would call down full military reprisal; that, if Iraq had massive banned weapons systems, it would be reflected on a large scale in their infrastructure; that giving credit to people with proven bad histories was questionable in the extreme. Writing "tl;dr" may include you in the ranks of the internet trendy, but when the refusal to inform yourself of the multiple levels of things comes back to bite you, know that you have only yourself to blame.

Aekos, I already pointed out several times that these posts were letters to the editor I had sent to newspapers. In fact, I stated that in my very first post. Is it necessary for me to repeat that every time? I know how forums generally are run, but I also thought there was a degree of freedom of expression, so I placed the items after I sent out the letters to the editor so that you will know what's being sent to newspapers. I should also mention that there is no need for vulgarity. It's not even passable when there is a disagreement on a subject, but genuinely disreputable when used to describe the fact that I place letters to the editor here.

Rojik of the Arctic, your assessment that, if the Russians tried disproving the purported moon landing, "the flags, buggies and landers" would have "given it away" is still firmly demonstrative of the low standards of proof the majority of Americans maintain. How do you know there are flags up there? How do you know there are "buggies" up there? How do you know the landers are up there? Ask yourself, fully and deeply, how do you really know they are up there? They told you they are there, but how do you know they told you the truth? There is a proven record of government deceit of the people; after that, how can you accept that they told you the truth about the "moon landing"? They showed you pictures, but how do you know they weren't faked? Really, how do you know? As for the Russians disproving the "moon landing", consider, even now, after decades of provable lies, evidently, the majority still insist on suckling on the pretty falsehood, rather than assert their individuality and confront the deceit! How easy would it have been for "The Evil Empire", still in the days of the Cold War, to convince the public that NASA lied, before the first whiffs of Watergate emerged? Evidently, it was obivous even then what dullards most Americans have been cultivated to be.

Wisely, use this situation to find something out about how governments work, too. If Russia didn't call the tune on the moon landing fraud, maybe it's because, at the very highest levels, all govenments cooperate for the mutual profit of the rich and influential. Even if they could prove it, why would the powerful quislings in the USSR betray the powerful quislings in the U.S.?



Julian Penrod
User avatar
By Rojik of the Arctic
#13102026
Rojik of the Arctic, your assessment that, if the Russians tried disproving the purported moon landing, "the flags, buggies and landers" would have "given it away" is still firmly demonstrative of the low standards of proof the majority of Americans maintain.


Two things:

1) I said "might" not "would"

2) Don't make the assumption that I am an American. I'm not and it's insulting that you assume that. Then again it could be "firmly demonstrative of the low standards of proof the majority of Americans maintain".

Furthermore:

If Russia didn't call the tune on the moon landing fraud, maybe it's because, at the very highest levels, all govenments cooperate for the mutual profit of the rich and influential. Even if they could prove it, why would the powerful quislings in the USSR betray the powerful quislings in the U.S.?


Now it's not just a US government conspiracy. Now somehow the Soviets were in collusion. :eh: Maybe every other nation who has access to, say, telescopes are all part of a giant conspiracy.
By julianpenrod
#13105256
Rojik of the Arctic, I didn't say you were an American. I was saying that the perception you were trundling, that being shown pictures and ordered to believe is sufficient to "prove" the U.S. reached the moon is the wretched level of sensibility that the majority of Americans do ascribe to. You chide me for purportedly assuming you are American, in fact, it's you who assumed I was saying you were American! Not once did I say that. If, however, you are not American, that means that you taught yourself that bargain basement gullibility! Or you were so eager to attack what I said that you saw something where there wasn't! Your evident jump-the-gun, hair trigger willingness to accept a falsehood to make yourself feel superior or try to downgrade someone else is so very much in the vein of those who have unloaded bile against Muslims under the tutelage of Herr Bush! The very same tainted lot who bought the claim of a moon landing not becuase it was proved, but because they wanted to; who accepted that Iraq had banned weapons system, not because there was evidence but because they wanted to kill as many Muslims as they could! And, frankly, if you can bring yourself to buy into the moon landing story without validated evidence, you are an American, not in the good way. I asked, how do you know, really, undeniably know, there are flags, landers and rovers up there, and you haven't answered. The burden is on you, show what absolute, unquestionable proof you have that what NASA says is true or admit that the moon landing has not been proved! State any legitimate falsehoods you find in what I said, don't just imagine them because you want to besmirch me.

And, let's be frank, as regards the attack on the description of all governments conspiring against the people, at the very highest levels, all the rich and powerful do collude. It is all one gigantic "good ole boy" network. They don't let "the rabble" come to any of their parties, even though they're paid for with the public's taxes. They don't let anyone into positions of even middling political power unless they have respectable income and connections. They control the elections, letting only those they want in office in and telling the public they were the ones who voted the crooks into power. Oh, yes, once in a blue moon, to keep the swindle fresh, they let a clandestine golden boy in, posing as a "regular guy", but immediately afterward, and until the next blue moon, it's still business as usual! There would be a deluge of accusations by various governments over provable CIA destabilization programs, exposees of verifiable conspiracies by the U.S., Britain, Israel and others, but they're bound by that rule of the crooked, "Don't queer the other guy's scam and he won't queer yours."



Julian Penrod
User avatar
By Rojik of the Arctic
#13107307
The burden is on you, show what absolute, unquestionable proof you have that what NASA says is true or admit that the moon landing has not been proved


The onus of proof is on you. Not me. You raised the claim that it is not true and you therefore need to prove that it did not happen. I am happy to take the heresay of a multitude of scientists, government officials and media reps until it is proven otherwise.

As for this:

And, let's be frank, as regards the attack on the description of all governments conspiring against the people, at the very highest levels, all the rich and powerful do collude. It is all one gigantic "good ole boy" network. They don't let "the rabble" come to any of their parties, even though they're paid for with the public's taxes. They don't let anyone into positions of even middling political power unless they have respectable income and connections. They control the elections, letting only those they want in office in and telling the public they were the ones who voted the crooks into power. Oh, yes, once in a blue moon, to keep the swindle fresh, they let a clandestine golden boy in, posing as a "regular guy", but immediately afterward, and until the next blue moon, it's still business as usual! There would be a deluge of accusations by various governments over provable CIA destabilization programs, exposees of verifiable conspiracies by the U.S., Britain, Israel and others, but they're bound by that rule of the crooked, "Don't queer the other guy's scam and he won't queer yours."


That is purely your opinion. There is not one ounce of fact anywhere.
By julianpenrod
#13113337
Rojik of the Arctic, the onus is on anyone who makes an assertion, even if just by failing to oppose a statement. You spoke of the "flags, buggies and landers left behind" indicating that you do accept that the moon landing occurred. Saying, however, "I am happy to take the heresay of a multitude of scientists, government officials and media reps" is invalid and illegitimate. Proof is something that is acceptable and compelling for all. To reel out what it is that you are satisfied to accept is not proof, since not everyone will have your level of standards.

Incidentally, you misspelled "hearsay". If you cannot handle something that small, how really can you or anyone trust your instincts in anything major?

And, actually, if you took the time to look, you will notice that I did not say that the moon landing never occurred! I said the "evidence" provided does not meet the test of actual, incontrovertible proof. And it doesn't. No matter how willing you may be to let yourself be gulled by someone telling you to believe that the U.S. reached the moon, someone ordering that does not constitute definitive proof. In the same way, fuzzy pictures and moon rocks that could have been manufactured by laboratories on earth, but that aren't opened to public scrutiny, anyway, are not proof.

So you can't be trusted to spell "hearsay" correctly, you said I said the moon landing didn't take place and I only said the evidence does not fit the standard for evidence, and you accused me of saying you were an American when I only made a relationship between the gullibility you displayed and the low level of accountability Washington demands of the dullards.

And Roger Launier did say, concerning the claim that the U.S. did not reach the moon that NASA is not required to do any proving since "you can't prove a negative". But, if the U.S. reached the moon, it would be proving a positive! His own words suggest that his claims cannot be taken for granted as legitimate.

And, for that matter, in the last post, among other things, I did not challenge you to prove the U.S. reached the moon. I said for you to prove that their "evidence" of second hand accounts and easily fabricated photographs meets the standards for compelling evidence, as provided by those who denounce all Bigfoot and UFO evidence. And that, you did not do. To display the low level of discrimination by accepting everything that American officials tell you, sight unseen, does not make that a legitimate form of evidence. To be so willing to trust these officials would indicate that you have a reason to trust, them, but you declined to provide that. Your words suggest that you are willing to trust them without requiring them to prove their trustworthiness.

Individuals you never met, individuals whose reliability is questionable at best, individuals who have never displayed any degree of the respect for the "rank and file" that would lead them to tell the truth to the "rank and file" you trust implicitly. Individuals, incidentally, cut from the same cloth as those who said Iraq had hidden caches of banned weapons; who insisted that Saddam Hussein met with Osama bin Laden; who said "winning" in Iraq would be a cakewalk; who said the economy was "stable" and "secure".

And you challenge me with respect to my description of all those in power acting like one gigantic "good ole boy network" by saying, "there is not one ounce of fact anywhere". I said the rich never invite the "rank and file" to their parties. You must be saying then that you have access to a wealth of cases where the middle class have gone on one of the rich's yacht parties outside the 12-mile limit, where any of a variety of illegal activities are less punishable. Where is that evidence? You say it's not true that the rich and powerful control all the elections. If that were true, then, sooner or later, there would have to be someone decent come into power. And no one has, Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. And that's provable. Among other things, politicians are a lot closer to each other than the "rank and file" are to them, yet the "rank and file" were right hundreds of times over when they felt a politico was unscrupulous. If any politician were honorable, they would have spilled the beans on their criminal cohorts long befopre this, and they would have had more than enough evidence to do so. None ever did. And ask yourself, since when would the rich take the chance of their swindles being called off after four or eight years when the administration changed? They need to rely on their scams lasting longer, and that is accomplished by the germ they want being put in power. Face it, there has been no "democratic revolution", either after the take-over of Congress or the inauguration of Obama! And, no, not even Chavez, Ahmadinejad or Kim have accused the CIA of destabilizing operations, and the CIA even bragged about having covert regime change operations in at least Iran! But, Rojik of the Arctic, if you have evidence that high governments do not act like one "good ole boy network", tell us what it is. And don't say "you can't prove a negative". If you are willing to trust them they way you said, that means you must have some proof they can be trusted! What is that proof? There are people who would like to have some evidence that government isn't out to rape them!

There may be those who will try to call this "trolling", but that fact is, visiting numerous other forums and blogs, I've seen Rojik of the Arctic's type before. There's a perennial breed of malcontent and generally contrary type of individual you see invading threads all over the internet. Invariably, they say the same things, trundling both rabidly Fascist GOP rhetoric, promoting the principle that the rich have all the rights and the non-rich have none, and denying the validity of any conceptualizations that go against "the official story" in anything. They inevitably write ungrammatically and/or illiterately. Their posts are full of errors, yet they never admit them. On one website, one of these "nay-sayers" made an obvious mistake in math and I caught them on it and mentioned it. They went back and changed it, then accused me of lying about them! Fortunately, I had a photograph of the web page with the error on it. I put that and a photograph of their edited post together in a single picture and uploaded it. Of course, they still never even touched the subject. Just as Rojik of the Arctic refused to address the fact that they displayed illegitimate "reasoning" when they accused me of calling them an American. They also always made it a point of answering all posts, even with dutiful if mindless repetitions of their not being convinced. In this way, they hope to convert at least those dim-witted enough to think that just answering back automatically proves that they know more. And, it has to be mentioned, when I encountered these individuals on forums and blogs before, they often if not usually took on the form of inveterate drunkards, lashing out at those around them. And Rojik of the Arctic's descrition of their "location" doesn't dispel this perception. Rojik of the Arctic describes themselves as "Drinking beer and watching the show". That sounds so much like a booze hound maliciously trying to stir up trouble then sitting back and enjoying watching any consternation they cause. Many people have found themselves betrayed by trusting the vicious machinations of this type. Which is why it is best to be careful reading posts on websites such as this.



Julian Penrod
User avatar
By Rojik of the Arctic
#13113342
I'll probably get carded for this but I think it will be worth it: You, sir, are a fuckwit. I will now leave you to your tinfoil hat and dreams of anal probing and bid you good day.
By Aekos
#13113347
Incidentally, you misspelled "hearsay". If you cannot handle something that small, how really can you or anyone trust your instincts in anything major?


You're a raving conspiracy theorist. No one is really going to take anything you say seriously.
User avatar
By The Mighty Harashaw
#13113537
I hope you all enjoy getting punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin.
User avatar
By W01f
#13118478
julianpenrod, all you've given us is a repetitive wall of rhetoric arguing why we shouldn't believe everything we're told on blind faith and how easy it is to trick the public into believing a lie because none of us can prove unquestionably what they say is true. In this context you could very well be arguing that the Earth is flat and that there are no other planets in our solar system and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. In essence, you could be arguing any absurd thing at all with this same base argument. And that just doesn't cut it for me.

Show us what evidence you have that the moon landings never took place. Convince me, with unquestionable facts and indisputable scientific evidence, that it was a hoax. Until you can do so, you must understand that no clever rhetoric and no amount of skillfully worded arguments will ever be sufficient to convince me, or anyone else with a shred of intelligence.
By julianpenrod
#13123861
W01f, you accuse me of giving you only "a repetitive wall of rhetoric" to the effect that no one should believe everything they're told "on blind faith". There are two who hold to the "principle" of taking everything on blind faith, those who have been served by it and those quislings who want to swindle the rest. Nixon said, "I am not a crook." Reagan ran on the platform that his administration would make it possible for every American to seek their dream, then he undercut the unions and deregulated the corporations until people were having trouble just eating with the paychecks they were getting. Clinton insisted he had not had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Bush said the troops would be welcomed in Iraq "like liberators" and that stealing the country from its people would be "a cakewalk". He also said "the foundations of the economy are strong." The Democrats implied that, if they took control of Congress, the Bush Administration would be tried for war crimes. There seems hardly a one who hasn't felt the sting of those in power saying one thing and meaning something else. And none of them consider themselves served by the idea of taking everything on blind faith! Frankly, it has to be asked what level of human being would even ask others to accept absolutely everything without proof or even just compelling evidence! What level of compassion or concern for the potentially victimized is shown by exhorting people to take what is given and never ask questions? If someone says a car is in perfect condition, you should buy it without checking it out? If a product says it is the best on the market, you shouldn't check out what's being said about it? If someone tries to get a child to enter their car, saying they're going to take them to their parents, the child should go? Because that is exactly, in so many words, unequivocally, what you are recommending! You can deny it, but that would be a lie.

What kind of person are you that you would find fault with condemning taking everything on blind faith?

Incidentally, you say, if you don't accept whatever you're told to believe without question, if you require legitimate proof of whatever you're told, "you could be arguing any absurd thing at all." Demanding proof of what you're told would not lead you to start arguing that black is white or two plus two is five or that gold isn't yellow. To make this kind of statement, however, only displays how desperate you are to try to show me up.

But if your credibility is to be made an issue, you said, "Show us what evidence you have that the moon landings never took place. Convince me, with unquestionable facts and indesputable scientific evidence, that it was a hoax. Until you can do so, you must undertstand that no clever rhetoric and no amount of skillfully worded arguments will ever be sufficient to convince me, or anyone else with a shred of intelligence."

I never said there was no landing on the moon!

I said throughout the post that the "evidence" does not stand up to the standards of convincing proof!

Nowhere did I say the moon landing did not occur!

But the fact is, it has not been convincingly proved!

Is all your "reasoning" this faulty? Do others know how much your "arguments" are informed by the principle of believing everything people in authority tell you to believe, without proof?

I've said before that, if you are allowed to control the form of argument, to define terms the way you wish, to change the laws of reasoning, to allow certain forms of discussion and deny others, and to allow only certain facts to be considered, you can make anything you want appear true. This is precisely the tack that the "debunkers" and "skeptics" and "nay-sayers" take! Consider the program "Mythbusters" in their "tackling" the claim that America never reached the moon. One of the very first things they said was, "We're going to cherry pick the arguments we're going to deal with." At one point, they actually said, "Those who deny the U.S. landed on the moon said certain scenes could have all been photographed on a miniature, and we just did that. But that's not what we were trying to disprove!" You begin by attacking the idea of requiring proof of something before believing it. Then you go on to say that requiring proof will lead you to believe patently untruthful things! Then you challenge me to justify something that I didn't even say!

Anyone who trusts what you say, W01f, seems to be doing themselves a serious, and dangerous, disservice.



Julian Penrod
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13126396
It's quite possible that many of the "accomplishments" of the USA military-industrial complex have been lies.

This institution spends the GNP of Latin America on advertising and public perception. They are in the mirage industry
By alecd17
#13326789
julianpenrod:

I have a few simple questions I would like to ask you. If you do not wish to reply, do not feel obligated to do so. Thanks

1) Do you believe in God or in any superior being? (Religion)

2) Do you believe that the moon landing happened?

I am asking these out of curiosity. I am not trying to offend you in any way. I am sorry if I did.
User avatar
By Lightman
#13330466
Tl;dr, but I don't understand how you...theorists...believe that the US government is competent enough to blow up the WTC and get away with it but couldn't land a man on the moon.

September 16, Monday At Lexington, Missouri, Ma[…]

The Popular Vote...

No it doesn't. It works as it was designed. Stop[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1173496164[…]

Al Jazeera is indeed the most proper news source f[…]