None of which is any more conclusive than NASA saying "look what we done did".
(Just for clarity, I don't think the moon landings were faked. I'm just saying that it would have been possible to do so.)
Can't take off my tin foil hat....
- Thread starter TMA17
- Start date
None of which is any more conclusive than NASA saying "look what we done did".
(Just for clarity, I don't think the moon landings were faked. I'm just saying that it would have been possible to do so.)
- Thread Starter
- #82
I had a friend that thought the moon landing was fake. I did for a short while until I looked into it further. I now believe we did land on the moon as 3rd party evidence suggests. The van allen belt was figured out among other obstacles that were brought up. 
I had a friend that thought the moon landing was fake. I did for a short while until I looked into it further. I now believe we did land on the moon as 3rd party evidence suggests. The van allen belt was figured out among other obstacles that were brought up.
If you actually want to believe the moon landings were faked, all the third party evidence can easily be put down to conspiracy.
Tracking can be spoofed, comms can be spoofed.
Everyone in the control room could be fooled - there would essentially only need be a handful of people who really know that everything was fake.
And if any of those tried to speak out, there's two foolproof solutions:
Weight of conflicting evidence, and
Well, accidents happen...
Right I mean you an question almost anything to the point where nothing is real...like this conversation and our understanding of reality is just an abstract part of the matrix.
Exactly.
I can't prove beyond a shadow of doubt that I'm real...
On the flip side, you can choose not to question it at all and just believe what you want.
Flat earth might be pushing it a bit though.
You've offered a what if piggybacking on another what if. We call that stoner talk where I'm from .
I'll take that - at least it means I'm still alive
Edit: The point is it's the same situation but reversed.
The majority of evidence you are prepared to accept falls firmly in favour of the moon landings being genuine so your conclusion is that it happened.
The majority of evidence you are prepared to accept falls contrary to the US government having alien artifacts in secret storage so your conclusion is that it's (very probably) false.
For both things, there is evidence of sorts that go against your conclusions. For whatever reason (conditioning, how you view the reliability of the sources) you choose to disregard that evidence as fictional.
Last edited:
jobo
Grandmaster
ok .
the star trek warp drive is fiction, though its theoretically possible, in that there is nothing in Einstein's equations that make a near light speed warp drive impossible, but it was fiction, it is fiction and it will remain fiction until someone builds one and proves it true. The writers speculated it will be invented, based on said equations, but the result of that speculation is FICTION
Last edited:
jobo
Grandmaster
but there is tons of evidence that the moon landings took place and non at all that they didn't, if by evidence you mean scientific data accepted by peer review as being accurate.I'll take that - at least it means I'm still alive
Edit: The point is it's the same situation but reversed.
The majority of evidence you are prepared to accept falls firmly in favour of the moon landings being genuine so your conclusion is that it happened.
The majority of evidence you are prepared to accept falls contrary to the US government having alien artifacts in secret storage so your conclusion is that it's (very probably) false.
For both things, there is evidence of sorts that go against your conclusions. For whatever reason (conditioning, how you view the reliability of the sources) you choose to disregard that evidence as fictional.
and there is no evidence at all of alien spaceships, ( same defintion of evidence)
Well, actually you're wrong...
Star Trek warp speed is very much faster than light.
If it were "near light speed" and hence theoretically possible to achieve while complying with Einstein's (incomplete) theories, then the original 5 year mission would have just allowed them to reach Proxima Centauri, which is our next closest star and hugely unlikely to support intelligent life.
Seeing as warp speed is measured in light years per hour, it cannot in any way exist with our current understanding of physics.
That's fiction, not speculation.
Because it can't be supported at all.
jobo
Grandmaster
but a drive that warps space in order to propel you accross the universe IS possible, at what speed? They will need to sort out quantum entanglement and worm holes through alternative dimentions, to decieded if faster than light is possible, its not looking good so far, but you never know.
Science FICTION has a habit of becoming science FACT or at least a watered down version of it, i read the other day that they are close to " inventing" the tricorder
Nb if faster that light Isn't possible then the,chances of their being alien craft at area 51 is reduced even more
Last edited:
I sure wish the earth was flat. Think about a flat earth and one of those red sunsets...
We might look like a pizza from outer space. I betcha the aliens would come then. I betcha.
That's probably why they built Area 51 in the first place. It's going to be a drive through.
We might look like a pizza from outer space. I betcha the aliens would come then. I betcha.
That's probably why they built Area 51 in the first place. It's going to be a drive through.
Kind of cool, for anybody interested. My name be going!
Public Invited to Come Aboard NASA’s First Mission to Touch the Sun
Public Invited to Come Aboard NASA’s First Mission to Touch the Sun
Similar threads
