Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.

by The Rebel 579 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BU2B

  “Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.” (g2000 6/22 p.6)
• 

  DJS

  BU2B,

  Please provide your level of education, your advanced degrees and the experience you have that enables you to make such definitive statements about technical and scientific issues.
• 

  The Rebel

  Thanks for the replys.

  Witness My Fury, your Link gave some very convincing arguments in favour of man landing on the moon in 1969.

  adjusted knowledge your point about the number of people involved to fake the moon theory was once an irrefutable objection for me . However I now believe that the amount of people needed to be involved to fake the moon landing were very few. However the majority of people involved in the project would have needed to have been fooled, and that is not beyond reason.

  Personally I think give it 10 years and if man hasn't gone back to the moon the conspiracy theory looks strong. Give it 50 years and if man hasn't gone back to the moon I think " conspiracy theorists" have an extremely strong case.

  The Rebel
• 

  sir82

  SMH.

  This is why we can't have nice things.
  
• 

  BU2B

  for any interested look up proven declassified now conspiracy factsoperation Northwoods, Ajax, Gulfof Tonkin, the sinking of the USS liberty, Operation Gladio. Also consider NSA spying. 10 years ago any who said the NSA was spying was a kook. Now it's just accepted as common knowledge. At one time if you said cigarettes were bad forgot they would have said, "my doctor says cigs are safe, and he smokes them and after all he is educated, smart, and wears a white lab coat. Who are you to question him? Where did you go to med school?" None of that would have stopped you from being right and him wrong.
• 

  BU2B

  DJS by the looks of things you are readying yourself for an old fashioned "ad hominem" attack. Attack the person not the issues.
• 

  BU2B

  http://householdname.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/04/when-smoking-was-good-for-you.html
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  @BU2B

  The issue here is the 1969 moon landing, not smoking or the sinking of USS Liberty.

  Of course, some situations will turn out to be conspiracies but please try to stay on-topic.
• 

  cappytan

  I have examined the supposed "evidence" for the conspiracy theories about the landing.

  There is no plausible evidence to suggest that man did not land on the moon.

  Especially the blowing flag argument.

  Air resistance is not needed to see a flag "flutter." All that is needed is the motion of the astronauts setting up the flag. It's a simple concept called "inertia."
• 

  Giordano

  • 1
    These Two Pictures Match
    
    In 2008 the Japanese Selene probe obtained photographic evidence of the Moon landings, by comparing the image on the left (from the Apollo 15 landing) taken in July 1971 to its own 3D terrain camera images. They were exactly the same.
    The Lunar landings have been spotted by China's Chang'e 2 lunar probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, and various other independent (non NASA-funded) space agencies.
    One claim made by Apollo 11 conspiracy theorists is that the American flag was seen 'flapping' on the surface of the Moon. Fact is, that's totally expected. No, there isn't any wind on the Moon - but there is momentum and inertia. The fabric of the flag was moved around while being set in position, and naturally waved as it was being set up. It also has a pole along the top to keep it in position - otherwise it would hang straight down.