The moon landing: ridiculous

I like how you act like your hunch is some kind of fact. You wouldn't know. Nobody would. It's a ridiculous generalization anyway.

 

I am amazed that none of the, 'NASA said so, therefore it must be true' crowd have not jumped all over my previous post. Perhaps when faced with concrete evidence, by a renowned scientific group, of gross scientific fraud by NASA they are rethinking their dogma?

 

No one jumped on your post because it's absolutely fucking retarded. BCC Meteriorites is not a renowned scientific group and just because their flimsy-ass group doesn't have what they consider to be undeniable evidence of something does not mean that it didn't fucking happen.

Take a look at this:
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/everything/moon/missions.html

But you must be right.

 

You do know that BCC data is used for almost all meteorite analysis by the USGS and the US State Department right?

I looked at your link, and I saw this ->
Sources: Grant Heikan, David Vaniman, and Bevan M. French; Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) p. 7; NASA, NASA Pocket Statistics (Washington, D.C.: NASA, 1994) pp. B72 - B78, B94 - B100; "Muses-A Ends Three-Year Mission, Crashes on Moon," Space News (Apr. 19-25, 1993) p. 17; Andrew Wilson, Solar System Log (London: JaneUs, 1987).

More dogma?

I did try to offer good solid evidence against NASA claims, and I have never disputed the lunar landing, but it would seem that people like you(although I love you) have a real hard time in presenting conflicting evidence to a claim such as this. The link you gave me was a bunch of NASA dates and not relivant to my presentation, the link I gave was a load of mineral tests on items NASA claimed where from the moon. NASA are liars(unless BCC can be proven wrong, which NASA have not done), that does not mean everything they do is a lie, but they where caught out in this case.
I gave you guys a scientific paper, read it all and you will see that BCC took allot of time to dispute the claims of one of their previous scientists who claimed that the whole lunar thing was a hoax.

I want you to offer better data on this issue of NASA fraud than I have, rather than suggest I am am quoting from retarded science. Unless you can do that, this is your religious dogma and I am a skeptic to your creed. Prove me wrong.

 

Everything is a conspiracy. We are not even real. We are just the imaginations of ourselves.

 

As an occultist I must agree with you and destroy all traces of you.

 

I swear I've felt exactly the same way about a hamburger before.

 

As you failed to mention your guilt when consuming that thing you call a hamburger it can only be assumed that you Sir are the Devil, and may NASA/PETA prepare your Lunatic grave. Failing that I would imagine that you could get a great retirement home in Florida. Sadly I would not know as I am an insane retarded spaceman and my time is mostly spent in compressing eels into ill fitting jars. I do enjoy ping pong and wax.

 

I wish they would ship my body to the moon when I die.

 

Pffft I could never do that, I would have to be shipped to the Sun

 

Nah, I'd rather be discovered by the next species smart enough to make it to the moon, and have them wondering "OHH.. EMM.. GEE.. WTF IS IT?!"

 

IT'S SO UGLY~~~~

 

Though I LOL at your conversation, please be mindful that this is a serious debate.

 

lol!@crazytuna

@Cahos Rahne Veloza; Fair enough, you are right. I apologize. lol

 

BCC = SCIENTIFIC GROUP
JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING ISNT PROVEN DOES NOT MEAN IT'S DISPROVED IN SCIENCE.

US DEPARMENT OF STATE = US FEDERAL AGENCY
NASA = US FEDERAL AGENCY

IF BCC IS AUTOMATICALLY AN ALL KNOWING DEITY BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION TO A FEDERAL AGENCY, WHAT IS A FEDERAL AGENCY?

NASA > BCC

IT'S NOT THAT BCC IS WRONG, IT'S THAT YOU'RE MISINTERPRETING WHAT 95% OF THE MORE INTELLIGENT POPULATION WOULD INTERPRET ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY. YOU SIR, ARE THE DUMBEST PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN POST ON THIS FORUM, AND I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO PATRONIZE YOU HERE BY REPLYING TO THE REST OF THE ILLOGICAL BULLSHIT YOU POST.

GOOD DAY TO YOU, SIR.

Edit: Also, provide some evidence of your claims you twat. I've been kind in complying with the notion that the BCC provides information to the US DoS.

 

Name calling is often used when people have no counter-argument.

You do no service to science or yourself.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

Name calling is often used as an expression to show irritability with a difficult person, too.

You do no service to common sense or to anyone around you.

Enjoy eating Cap'n Crunch out of the box in your parent's basement.

Edit: One more thing; throwing the word "dogma" around loosely in no way justifies an irrational following of any skepticism. It's a shitty biased word and does not credit that fact that you'll believe anything thrown at you if you feel it will add the excitement to your life that you fail to obtain elsewhere. The moon conspiracy is not true. Give up.

 

Yeah, I think the Moon landing was definitely faked. There's too much evidence to say that it wasn't.

 

Reinforcing the fact that their entire conversation was serious? i dont understand, i see nothing funny

Jesus landed on the moon once, and thus the mormon religion was created.

 

So if we didn't land on the moon after 1969, but DID land on the moon in 1969, why was so much money spent on building identical Saturn Vs when all they were going to do was hang around in space? The launch in 1969 was the only one that need have been faked - after all, a large factor in the development of aerospace technologies in the 50s and 60s was to prove superiority to the Soviet Union. Is someone going to now refute that the Saturn V launches after Apollo 11 were real, too?

That's what they are essentially saying in this quote. Furthermore, claim B is only valid as an argument if BCC has access to all evidence available on the subject of further Apollo missions, in which case they would be able to prove whether or not these missions took place in the first place. It follows, then, that claim B is a fallacy and you by extension are guilty of argumentum ad ignoratiam - claiming the premise of the moon landing is false because your unreliable source lacks sufficient evidence to definitively prove otherwise.

In addition, your own so-called "evidence" is simply a textbook case of argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged. In addition, you have also committed argumentum ad verecundiam in attempting to prove that this source is reliable by noting that it supplies data to federal agencies. So? This is apparently a source on meteorites, not US lunar operations.

If you're going to take the pedantic high moral ground, at least do it properly.