[QUOTE. And then to use a Hollywood superhero movie as an example is just... [/QUOTE] Making a clear example of why you can't even trust what you see on tv these days.
Gotta agree with Erroneous -- that's one of the dumbest posts from top to bottom I've ever read, on so many levels. In keeping with the spirit of this thread -- Anyone who corrects other peoples grammar on a Blazers messageboard and acts like it reflects intelligence, one way or the other, is a complete moron.
I like how neither of you understand what I was trying to say with my OBVIOUSLY silly post. I can't imagine what either of you would have learned from it were you able to detect sarcasm.
Oh hell, I will just be as precise as I can. My point was that you cannot say with complete certainty that the moon landing happened. I will even say that there is a remote possibility that the people on the mission could have even been tricked into thinking they were on the moon when they were not. It is not OUTSIDE the realm of possibility. That doesn't make it likely or even slightly likely. It would be possible to frame someone for murder where there is no body found. The supposed victim could just disappear. People have been convicted of murder where no body is found. The jury could believe with all of their hearts that the person they convicted was guilty. IF I told someone on the jury that I didn't think the person was guilty and that juror called me a moron, what would that juror say when the supposed victim showed up alive? What is going to happen years from now when the internet is flooded with fake stories and photoshopped pictures or faked videos? Are people going to call others idiots when they don't buy some story? Just for further clarification.....I believe that man landed on the moon. I believe that Hitler killed six million jews. I believe that my great grandfather was a real man who impregnated my great grandmother.
So now even those who were there don't know for certain if it was a fake? Under your definition of "certainty", we technically may not even be alive. Maybe we're in the matrix! Unless we're God we don't know anything for certain! You can talk about fallen trees in the forrest, murder victims, faking pictures in 2009 and blah blah blah blah. But the fact is, with something like the holocaust or the moon landing, there is such a gigantic amount of evidence that points to it happening, and nothing but unsubstantiated speculation that it didn't happen, that the amount of doubt there is about the subject is for all intensive purposes, zero. Therefore we can use the word certainty.
You'd be surprised what a billion-dollar+ check can do to someone's scientific integrity. Oh wait, the peer-review process of science always works right? WRONG! http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/fish.html Yes, mythbusters is a perfect example of people practicing proper science, with controls, etc... Oh wait..... Someone needs to listen to pure truth, like Alex Jones.
If you are happy being a sheeple ignorant to the pure truth, that is your business. But don't expect me or REAL AMERICANS to play along. I can refute all the arguments of the coincidence nuts with one hand, while using the other hand to raid a village of Billiborks in WOW. Your brains would explode at that level of cognitive complexity.
So I'm a bit confused. There's tape of NASA locking the astronauts in the space capsule. There's tape of the blast-off and rocket going into space. There's telemetry following them to the moon. If they never went there, how did the 3 guys get back to give interviews? Are you saying that they orbited the moon, but never landed there?
The mirror on the moon should end this! http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
Repped. I agree 100%. I believe the moon landing was fake. Just like 9-11 was an inside job. People believe anything the government tells them.
Great. Now man is fucking up the moon's ecology. In any case: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Above: The Apollo 17 moon buggy, circled, waits to film the departure of its mothership, Challenger. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Apollo landing sites. [More][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The spacecraft's high-resolution camera, called "LROC," short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, has a resolution of about half a meter. That means that a half-meter square on the Moon's surface would fill a single pixel in its digital images. [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Apollo moon buggies are about 2 meters wide and 3 meters long. So in the LROC images, those abandoned vehicles will fill about 4 by 6 pixels. [/FONT]
