Ok, now I think the Moon Landing was faked...

Yeah, I watched Mythbusters, and all that stuff.

I always believed it was real, but the link I will post changed my mind; I guess they are letting the cat of the bag, since, after 41 years, people can easily tell it was faked.

What do you think? Read the first part of the 10 part article: [url]http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html[/url]

Now, I was taught in college how to read critically, and spot 'da fakeness' a mile away, but this 10 part article has me pretty convinced the moon landing was faked... He doesn't even deal with the Mythbuster stuff; he goes way above that. There is a lot of evidence and critical reasoning that has me convinced.

I understand the need to fake the moon landing back then, in a historical context; afterall, isn't that what warfare is all about; read the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, for example...

So, yes, the moon landing was faked.

Anyone wiht even a shred of common sense would see that the 'lunar landing' could not have happened. The most logical argument is that if we don't have the technology to go to the moon now, how could we possibly have gone there 40 years ago?

It's a given that the lunar landing was fake. The real question is do you think the lunar landing was as big a hoax as global warming?

Nice try at a flame war bait, junior......

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Nice try at a flame war bait, junior......[/QUOTE]

Nice, that you provide no proof. It never happened. Maybe you should read the article, jackass.

Here is an exerpt: [B]"Consider this peculiar fact: in order to reach the surface of the Moon from the surface of the Earth, the Apollo astronauts would have had
to travel a minimum of 234,000 miles*. Since the last Apollo flight allegedly returned from the Moon in 1972, the furthest that any astronaut from any country
has traveled from the surface of the Earth is about 400 miles. And very few have even gone that far. The primary components of the current U.S. space program
– the space shuttles, the space station, and the Hubble Telescope – operate at an orbiting altitude of about 200 miles.


(*NASA gives the distance from the center of Earth to the center of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles
and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. All on a single tank of gas.)


To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build
will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space.
And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at
a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required
to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).


To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley
and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator
nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why
I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank
once and it should last me for the rest of my life."[/B]

That is like 2 percent of the whole thesis. I will destroy you on this, dorkman.

This is an official photo from NASA of the lunar module on the moon!!! It looks like cardboard paper and foil; Dorky, you believe this garbage?

Where did that moon buggy fit into that cardboard and gold foil model?

Keep trying, Spank. It's still possible somebody is going to bite on this one.

Next, you should start a thread on how some of the Czar's family escaped in 1918, and are still alive and well, and living with Elvis and hordes of escaped Nazi war criminals.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Keep trying, Spank. It's still possible somebody is going to bite on this one.

Next, you should start a thread on how some of the Czar's family escaped in 1918, and are still alive and well, and living with Elvis and hordes of escaped Nazi war criminals.[/QUOTE]

Ad hominem attacks will not work Dorkman. Sorry, but you must enter this debate with more than that.

Of course, Dorkman, you have not ONE shred of proof of any moon landing, so I understand why you have reduced yourself, so beneath an average panhandler,
as to attack 'ad hominem,' and provide no proof, or even attempt the feeblest of debates... (retard)

Here is some more proof that it is fake; another excerpt from the thesis link I posted above:

[B]"It is also important to remember that, unlike the initial blast-off from Earth (seen above), which involved the collective
efforts of thousands of people and the use of all types of peripheral equipment, the astronauts taking off from the Moon
had only themselves and a strange vessel that looked like it had been salvaged from the set of Lost in Space. What would
you be thinking, by the way, if you suddenly found yourself on the surface of the Moon with what looked like a cheap movie
prop as your only way home? Would you feel comfortable hanging around for a few days doing experiments, confident that,
when the time came, the untested contraption behind you would actually get you back home from the Moon? Or would the
words “bad career choice” be running through your head?



But as it turns out, America kicked ass back then and those lunar modules performed like champions every single time!
They didn’t even need any modifications! Despite the completely foreign environment, they worked perfectly the very first
time and every time thereafter!



On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many
trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon? We nailed that **** the very first time.



Today, of course, we can’t even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though
we have lowered our sights considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft
all the way to the friggin’ Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced
immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can’t come close to matching
the kick-ass safety record we had in the Apollo days.



The thing is that, back in the frontier days, we didn’t need all that fancy technology and book-learnin’ to send Buzz and the boys to the Moon and
back. Back then, we had that American can-do spirit and we just cowboyed up and MacGyvered those spaceships to the Moon.
All we needed was an old Volkswagen engine, some duct tape and a roll of bailing wire. Throw a roll of butt-wipe and a little Tang on
board and you were good to go.



And how about the speed with which we cranked out those Apollo spacecraft? Once we figured out how to make them, we were stamping
them out like Coke cans. We fired off seven of them in just under three-and-a-half years, or about one every six months. Given the extreme
complexity of those vessels, and the fact that every component had to perform flawlessly under largely unknown conditions, that is a pretty
impressive production schedule. America, I think it is safe to say, totally rocked back then!"[/B]

Dorkman, you are retarded!

Yeah, Dorktard believes that the moon rover ran around the moon for DAYS on a battery? They are still trying to figure out how to make a battery operated lawn mower
down here on earth, and they are getting closer but not yet...

And yet 40 years later, we still cannot get a battery-only operated car to go more than 60 miles on freeways, let alone racing around a cratered moon for days?
How retarded are you, Dorkman?

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the matter of Spankdoggie Baller, I rest my case.

However, if you wish to exchange Latin phrases, "Res Ipsa Loquitur"........(the thing speaks for itself...."you" and this brilliant post being "the thing")

....or how about "mononis et fecalis cerebri" as a descriptive Latin neologism which aptly describes you and this rant

[quote=spanqdoggie]

Where did that moon buggy fit into that cardboard and gold foil model?[/quote]

I think it was one of those Acme deals like the RoadRunner & Coyote show. You know, it comes in a box the size of a toaster and folds out to make a car in seconds........Damn Spank, Don't you know anything?

Congrats on 7000 DM, so...do you think the moon landing was real then? You haven't really said yes or no yet. Also do you believe man made global warming is real too?

Yes, I believe the moon landings were real.
Yes, I believe that the climate of the earth is changing, as it has changed throughout its history. Whether man is responsible is a completely different issue. I DO know that some of the "science" has been distorted to the point of a religious zeal, where one's own viewpoint must prevail. (What caused Yosemite's glaciers to melt? Too many cars? Too many campfires?)
I am not an "atheist" about global warming; "agnostic" would be a better term for my opinion.
I don't find the evidence as compelling as some, and there has been so much politicizing of the issue that it is difficult to know who to believe.

Some of my best moon landings were in the back seat of her car in a certain shopping center parking lot. Don't try to tell me they didn't happen.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Some of my best moon landings were in the back seat of her car in a certain shopping center parking lot. Don't try to tell me they didn't happen.[/QUOTE]
Obvious photographic fakery. With camera angles and "digital manipulation," some otherwise miniscule body parts can be made to increase in size.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Yes, I believe the moon landings were real.
Yes, I believe that the climate of the earth is changing, as it has changed throughout its history. Whether man is responsible is a completely different issue. I DO know that some of the "science" has been distorted to the point of a religious zeal, where one's own viewpoint must prevail. (What caused Yosemite's glaciers to melt? Too many cars? Too many campfires?)
I am not an "atheist" about global warming; "agnostic" would be a better term for my opinion.
I don't find the evidence as compelling as some, and there has been so much politicizing of the issue that it is difficult to know who to believe.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming you are flaming Spank here Dork. I sincerely hope so, for you and everybody and everything you are responsible for's sake. I honestly can't imagine that any thinking person on earth could possibly even contemplate that the mon landings were real. Even if you disregard the obvious irregularities in photos pointed oput by conspiracy theorists (like you I am very sceptical about the authenticity of any photograph), there are logistical discrepancies and some laws of physics that simply can't be ignored. Like the fuel capacity issues outlined in this article (and others too numerous to list in one thread).

Anyway, I've been sucked in too much already Dork. Congrats on getting me to even enter such a ridiculous argument, and even entertain the remotest thought that an educated adult could believe something as fanciful as lunar landings in the 1960s.

P.S. Hey Spank, do you notice the bright, prominently placed United States symbol on the side of the 'landing module'. I wonder if it was embroided into the foil or glued on?

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I'm assuming you are flaming Spank here Dork. I sincerely hope so, for you and everybody and everything you are responsible for's sake. I honestly can't imagine that any thinking person on earth could possibly even contemplate that the mon landings were real. Even if you disregard the obvious irregularities in photos pointed oput by conspiracy theorists (like you I am very sceptical about the authenticity of any photograph), there are logistical discrepancies and some laws of physics that simply can't be ignored. Like the fuel capacity issues outlined in this article (and others too numerous to list in one thread).

Anyway, I've been sucked in too much already Dork. Congrats on getting me to even enter such a ridiculous argument, and even entertain the remotest thought that an educated adult could believe something as fanciful as lunar landings in the 1960s.[/QUOTE]
Ya doesn't need a eddycation to believe the moon landings were faked. The less eddycation, the more betterer to see the obvius flaws in that there story.....

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Ya doesn't need a eddycation to believe the moon landings were faked. The less eddycation, the more betterer to see the obvius flaws in that there story.....[/QUOTE]

You probably believe the earth is flat and Bigfoot lives. No normal person believes in the moon landing, Dorkman. You just believe because it makes you feel good, so no proof will suffice for you.

Here is another exerpt... "Can you explain this to me? ---

[B]"Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things." [/B]

What is your explanation for this Dorky? Oh, you probably won't read it, since it will disrupt your fairy tale world. [IMG]http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/cuckoo.gif[/IMG]

This is great stuff, Spank. You do realize all of the energy for the moon trips was to be generated from the Saturn V stages and that once the vehicles were in their initial orbit around the earth, all they did was fire small rockets to change their path as needed for the trip. The velocity of the vehicles was measured by independent agencies here on earth and was enough to accomplish the trip to the moon and back.

So this would have had to have been a very far reaching, highly mobilized fraud consipiracy.

I've been just kidding guys, of course I believe the moon landings were real. On another topic, did anyone hear Santa coming down the chimney delivering presents this year? I live in a unit (no chimney), so he must have done a break and enter through a bedroom window. I also saw what I'm sure were reigndeer droppings just outside our complex.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]This is great stuff, Spank. You do realize all of the energy for the moon trips was to be generated from the Saturn V stages and that once the vehicles were in their initial orbit around the earth, all they did was fire small rockets to change their path as needed for the trip. The velocity of the vehicles was measured by independent agencies here on earth and was enough to accomplish the trip to the moon and back.

So this would have had to have been a very far reaching, highly mobilized fraud consipiracy.[/QUOTE]

Sir, none other than Wernher von Braun said the following below [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun[/url] :
[B]
“[U]It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.[/U] It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”[/B]

Lorenzo, are you disputing what the greatest rocket scientist in history said? Are you saying he is an idiot?

Sir, read the evidence. The moon landing is a Cold War fable.

Personally I think they jumped the gun a bit with the lunar landing. If they had waited just another 10 years, the advances in cinematography and special effects would have made the footage much more believeable. Just look at Star Wars.

P.S. Spank, I think you should choose your references for argument more selectively. A Nazi scientist with a history of deception and lying to further his own cause, and who married his first cousin, is not the most credible source you could use.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Yes, I believe the moon landings were real.
Yes, I believe that the climate of the earth is changing, as it has changed throughout its history. Whether man is responsible is a completely different issue. I DO know that some of the "science" has been distorted to the point of a religious zeal, where one's own viewpoint must prevail. (What caused Yosemite's glaciers to melt? Too many cars? Too many campfires?)
I am not an "atheist" about global warming; "agnostic" would be a better term for my opinion.
I don't find the evidence as compelling as some, and there has been so much politicizing of the issue that it is difficult to know who to believe.[/QUOTE]
VERY well put on the global warming issue, but it's a no brainer that the Earth's climate constantly changes...the question is whether we are the cause for this one...

I applaud Dorkman's restraint in resisting the urge to start a "cut 'n paste" war with Spanky. It is way too easy to find whatever you need to support your moronic views on the internet today. For every issue out there, there is tons of opinions written on both sides. I have done a little research on this myself after reading the initial posted link and I found as many legitimate rebuttals to the link as I found conspiracy theories.

After reading countless articles on this issue, I, too, believe that moon landings were real beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I'm refraining from the "cut 'n paste" war.

I've never found a lot of truth associated with conspiracy theories. The one that I think holds more validity than all others is that Elvis is not dead. In fact, I believe that he is alive and well living in Southeastern Oklahoma somewhere. Everytime I travel to the area and stop in at a convenient store or grocery store, they always have Elvis music playing over the store speakers. It is absolutely uncanny. I am still expecting to stop in at a convenient store some day and see Elvis working as a cashier . . . . .

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I applaud Dorkman's restraint in resisting the urge to start a "cut 'n paste" war with Spanky. It is way too easy to find whatever you need to support your moronic views on the internet today. For every issue out there, there is tons of opinions written on both sides. I have done a little research on this myself after reading the initial posted link and I found as many legitimate rebuttals to the link as I found conspiracy theories.

After reading countless articles on this issue, I, too, believe that moon landings were real beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I'm refraining from the "cut 'n paste" war.

I've never found a lot of truth associated with conspiracy theories. The one that I think holds more validity than all others is that Elvis is not dead. In fact, I believe that he is alive and well living in Southeastern Oklahoma somewhere. Everytime I travel to the area and stop in at a convenient store or grocery store, they always have Elvis music playing over the store speakers. It is absolutely uncanny. I am still expecting to stop in at a convenient store some day and see Elvis working as a cashier . . . . .[/QUOTE]

If you ever get a chance, check out this film about Elvis faking his death....lotsa fun!

[IMG]https://www.bloodandfear.com/images/bubba_ho_tep_cover.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Sir, none other than Wernher von Braun said the following below [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun[/url] :
[B]
“[U]It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.[/U] It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”[/B]

Lorenzo, are you disputing what the greatest rocket scientist in history said? Are you saying he is an idiot?

Sir, read the evidence. The moon landing is a Cold War fable.[/QUOTE]

That's a great quote. Can you show me where he said it?

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]That's a great quote. Can you show me where he said it?[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is in his book, "Conquest of the Moon," written in 1953 --> [url]http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-moon-Wernher-Von-Braun/dp/B0007DVW7A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262725215&sr=8-1[/url]

People will believe what makes them feel good, though. Santa Claus, moon landing, etc.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Yes, it is in his book, "Conquest of the Moon," written in 1953 --> [url]http://www.amazon.com/Conquest-moon-Wernher-Von-Braun/dp/B0007DVW7A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262725215&sr=8-1[/url]

People will believe what makes them feel good, though. Santa Claus, moon landing, etc.[/QUOTE]


The year is key. In 1953 noone had conceptualized powerful enough rockets to take a large payload to a great enough speed to depart earth's orbit and travel to and from the moon without any additional power other than supplied by the launch stages. But in the mid 60-s, the process of clustering rocket engines became perfected to the point that it became possible. Since the vehicles carrying the astronauts needed only small rockets to change orbit and path, vehicles large enough to supply continual travel power were unecessary.

Independent observers were able to measure the speed of the Apollos and confirm speed was adequate to depart earth's orbit and make the entire trip.

This is a terrific topic because it's possible to debunk crankpots with facts and data, thus exposing the mental illnesses that are at the root of these kinds of opinions.

[QUOTE=indacup]If you ever get a chance, check out this film about Elvis faking his death....lotsa fun!

[IMG]https://www.bloodandfear.com/images/bubba_ho_tep_cover.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I may have got you all wrong indy, you actually have some taste. Bubba Hotep is on my list of all time favourite movies. Bruce Campbell is superb as the King. I actually think that between the laughs this was a very moving story of what a contemplative Elvis would have been if he got old. The only other thing I will say about this movie is that I'm a huge fan of Bruce Campbell and the King. If you aren't a fan of either you won't get it.

P.S. Sooner, I can understand that you may believe that the ,moon landings did happen, but I think there surely there must be a least a shadow of some doubt. To say you don't have some doubts would be a little naive IMO. There are some conspiracy theorists who are legitimate experts in this field, and to dismiss them out of hand is hard to fathom.

Zo, you don't really supply facts and data, just general accounts of things that were supposed to have happened. Unless you have expertise in rocket engineering or are an astrophysicist, I don't think you or I are in a position to critically analyse the 'facts' and 'data' enough to debunk the assertions of experts who think the whole concept of a lunar landing is laughable. Neither you, nor anyone else on this forum, or in NASA, or anywhere in the world, has suffieciently explained why NASA in 2010 doesn't have the technology to do something that they could supposedly do in 1969 (think about the huge advances in aeronautics and computers in that time). To believe that a moon landing could be achieved then but not now is illogical. As I said, I am not scientifically or mathematically advanced enough to form an informed opinion based purely on the data (which is conveniently rated classified so it can't be critically analysed by anyone anyway), but based purely on logic it didn't happen. But unlike you and Sooner, I am wiling ot conceed that it may have happened, but I think it's highly unlikely. The only ones who really know whether it happened or not are the astronauts themselves (and in the case of it being faked a film crew and quite a few others in the know). But somehow I can't see guys on healthy pensions and being feted everywhere they go as demigods coming out and admitting that they are frauds.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I may have got you all wrong indy, you actually have some taste. Bubba Hotep is on my list of all time favourite movies. Bruce Campbell is superb as the King. I actually think that between the laughs this was a very moving story of what a contemplative Elvis would have been if he got old. The only other thing I will say about this movie is that I'm a huge fan of Bruce Campbell and the King. If you aren't a fan of either you won't get it.

P.S. Sooner, I can understand that you may believe that the ,moon landings did happen, but I think there surely there must be a least a shadow of some doubt. To say you don't have some doubts would be a little naive IMO. There are some conspiracy theorists who are legitimate experts in this field, and to dismiss them out of hand is hard to fathom.

Zo, you don't really supply facts and data, just general accounts of things that were supposed to have happened. Unless you have expertise in rocket engineering or are an astrophysicist, I don't think you or I are in a position to critically analyse the 'facts' and 'data' enough to debunk the assertions of experts who think the whole concept of a lunar landing is laughable. Neither you, nor anyone else on this forum, or in NASA, or anywhere in the world, has suffieciently explained why NASA in 2010 doesn't have the technology to do something that they could supposedly do in 1969 (think about the huge advances in aeronautics and computers in that time). To believe that a moon landing could be achieved then but not now is illogical. As I said, I am not scientifically or mathematically advanced enough to form an informed opinion based purely on the data (which is conveniently rated classified so it can't be critically analysed by anyone anyway), but based purely on logic it didn't happen. But unlike you and Sooner, I am wiling ot conceed that it may have happened, but I think it's highly unlikely. The only ones who really know whether it happened or not are the astronauts themselves (and in the case of it being faked a film crew and quite a few others in the know). But somehow I can't see guys on healthy pensions and being feted everywhere they go as demigods coming out and admitting that they are frauds.[/QUOTE]


I know enough about physics to have an informed perspective and, along with a Physics professor friend of mine, am able to evaluate the evidence.

There have been plenty of challenges to it really having taken place.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url]

If you follow the evidence in the link and referenced in the link, while with something like this there's always room for a challenge, the evidence is insurmountable. And I don't find it difficult to believe that today's world can't reproduce the Saturn V and lunar lander. If it's not on a CAD program it's probably beyond today's engineers and scientists.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url]

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Unless you have expertise in rocket engineering or are an astrophysicist[/QUOTE]

Where is good old Liarry, anyway? Surely he could settle this debate...

[QUOTE=KoolCat]Where is good old Liarry, anyway? Surely he could settle this debate...[/QUOTE]
I had been thinking that all along.....

Eventually, if Spank takes his meds and comes to his senses, he will probably come out with the sure-fire junior high excuse; "I was just kidding. Ha, ha.....I got all of you to respond to this obvious trolling thread. I'm smarter than you....."

[QUOTE=dorkman53]I had been thinking that all along.....

Eventually, if Spank takes his meds and comes to his senses, he will probably come out with the sure-fire junior high excuse; "I was just kidding. Ha, ha.....I got all of you to respond to this obvious trolling thread. I'm smarter than you....."[/QUOTE]


There's no downside here. Sometimes we can all be helpful by being willing victims.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I know enough about physics to have an informed perspective and, along with a Physics professor friend of mine, am able to evaluate the evidence.

There have been plenty of challenges to it really having taken place.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url]

If you follow the evidence in the link and referenced in the link, while with something like this there's always room for a challenge, the evidence is insurmountable. And I don't find it difficult to believe that today's world can't reproduce the Saturn V and lunar lander. If it's not on a CAD program it's probably beyond today's engineers and scientists.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url][/QUOTE]

I read this stuff, too, it seems that all searches begin at Wikipedia. But, I searched other references as well and one of the biggest statements for evidence comes from the geologists -- the tons of rocks brought back from the moon do not match anything we have on earth. They cannot be found anywhere on earth. Geologists have nothing to gain from conglomerating a lie just to assure a pension. The fact is in the rocks.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I read this stuff, too, it seems that all searches begin at Wikipedia. But, I searched other references as well and one of the biggest statements for evidence comes from the geologists -- the tons of rocks brought back from the moon do not match anything we have on earth. They cannot be found anywhere on earth. Geologists have nothing to gain from conglomerating a lie just to assure a pension. The fact is in the rocks.[/QUOTE]

No, the rocks are fake. The cat is out of the bag, and you cannot stuff it back in.

Even one given Holland by Buzz Aldren and Niel Armstrong in 1969 is fake. They figured it out 4 months ago: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html[/url]
[url]http://news.aol.com/article/moon-rock-in-dutch-museum-is-just/642402[/url]

Don't you think they would have a real rock, if they really went? Now they are checking all of the rocks out; turns out they all came from a petrified forest in Arizona.

Sooner, I agree with you; the facts are in the rocks.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]I read this stuff, too, it seems that all searches begin at Wikipedia. But, I searched other references as well and one of the biggest statements for evidence comes from the geologists -- the tons of rocks brought back from the moon do not match anything we have on earth. They cannot be found anywhere on earth. Geologists have nothing to gain from conglomerating a lie just to assure a pension. The fact is in the rocks.[/QUOTE]

Wikipedia knows all.

Actually it's conceivable they could have gathered the rocks from meteorites that landed on the earth. Just trying to help Spanq here.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]The year is key. In 1953 noone had conceptualized powerful enough rockets to take a large payload to a great enough speed to depart earth's orbit and travel to and from the moon without any additional power other than supplied by the launch stages. But in the mid 60-s, the process of clustering rocket engines became perfected to the point that it became possible. Since the vehicles carrying the astronauts needed only small rockets to change orbit and path, vehicles large enough to supply continual travel power were unecessary.

Independent observers were able to measure the speed of the Apollos and confirm speed was adequate to depart earth's orbit and make the entire trip.

This is a terrific topic because it's possible to debunk crankpots with facts and data, thus exposing the mental illnesses that are at the root of these kinds of opinions.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate the response, and I haven't forgotten to reply. I will edit this with a reply either later or tomorrow... busy.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I know enough about physics to have an informed perspective and, along with a Physics professor friend of mine, am able to evaluate the evidence.

There have been plenty of challenges to it really having taken place.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url]

If you follow the evidence in the link and referenced in the link, while with something like this there's always room for a challenge, the evidence is insurmountable. And I don't find it difficult to believe that today's world can't reproduce the Saturn V and lunar lander. If it's not on a CAD program it's probably beyond today's engineers and scientists.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories[/url][/QUOTE]
Well this puts you in a better position to evaluate the 'evidence' than me. I can merely go with what appears logical to me, and from what I've seen and read the logic just isn't there. But I'm a sceptic, and form experience there are always two sides to these things, and both sides present compelling arguments, and both sides have hidden agendas. I guess this is one of those things that people will be arguing about forever. If conclusive proof could be provided to confirm it happened (which I have seen none) the conspiracy theorists would continue to say it was fake. If the conspiracy theorists had conclusive proof that it was a fake (again I haven't seen conclusive proof), then NASA and others would deny it and try to debunk the consiracy theories, which they have spent alot of time and money trying to do, unconvincingly IMO. I would love to know for sure either way, but as I'm a sceptic I take some serious convincing. At a bare minimum I'd want Armstrong and Buzz to take a poly.

P.S. Just read the link from Spank and it hilarious, but very damning. Giving out pieces of petrified wood and saying they were moon rocks. NASA has a little bit of explaining to do on this one. I think that as technology improves, more things that were taken for granted on the say so of NASA back in the 60s will prove to be fraudulent. The US government had alot to gain by faking a moon landing back in the 60s (like reviving flagging public interest, and thus jeapordised further funding, of the space program). And we all know how trustworthy any governments are when it comes to these things (let's not forget who your president was at the time of the moon landings).

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Well this puts you in a better position to evaluate the 'evidence' than me. I can merely go with what appears logical to me, and from what I've seen and read the logic just isn't there. But I'm a sceptic, and form experience there are always two sides to these things, and both sides present compelling arguments, and both sides have hidden agendas. I guess this is one of those things that people will be arguing about forever. If conclusive proof could be provided to confirm it happened (which I have seen none) the conspiracy theorists would continue to say it was fake. If the conspiracy theorists had conclusive proof that it was a fake (again I haven't seen conclusive proof), then NASA and others would deny it and try to debunk the consiracy theories, which they have spent alot of time and money trying to do, unconvincingly IMO. I would love to know for sure either way, but as I'm a sceptic I take some serious convincing. At a bare minimum I'd want Armstrong and Buzz to take a poly.

P.S. Just read the link from Spank and it hilarious, but very damning. Giving out pieces of petrified wood and saying they were moon rocks. NASA has a little bit of explaining to do on this one. I think that as technology improves, more things that were taken for granted on the say so of NASA back in the 60s will prove to be fraudulent. The US government had alot to gain by faking a moon landing back in the 60s (like reviving flagging public interest, and thus jeapordised further funding, of the space program). And we all know how trustworthy any governments are when it comes to these things (let's not forget who your president was at the time of the moon landings).[/QUOTE]

We both know there's no such thing as conclusive proof of anything. Not even our own existence. But we also know a conspiracy has no chance of remaining intact if there are 50 people involved, never mind over 1,000.

That said, for GR purposes, I'm perfectly willing to agree the moon landings were staged by a team comprised of David Leadbetter, Dave Pelz and Richard Nixon.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]We both know there's no such thing as conclusive proof of anything. Not even our own existence. But we also know a conspiracy has no chance of remaining intact if there are 50 people involved, never mind over 1,000.

That said, for GR purposes, I'm perfectly willing to agree the moon landings were staged by a team comprised of David Leadbetter, Dave Pelz and Richard Nixon.[/QUOTE]
We should probably throw in Phil too, just for his all American cheesy looks for the promo.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]We both know there's no such thing as conclusive proof of anything. Not even our own existence. But we also know a conspiracy has no chance of remaining intact if there are 50 people involved, never mind over 1,000.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely false, and a serious breach of debate/argument. You lose, but I love you.

For example, the holocaust was kept hidden for 4/5 years during WWII, and nobody believed it, as it was happening/occurring! There were [B]thousands[/B] involved in the holocaust. It was hidden! They actually had to drag the German populace through the camps until they believed, and they lived in the country where it was happening!

If Germany won, you all would believe the holocaust never happened.

I personally know survivors that lived through the holocaust; I am not a Jew, but I really know/have known survivors, mostly non Jewish...

The holocaust is real, but the moon landing is so obviously fake. Not to mention that the Germans ended up working on the fake moon landing; hey, if you can lie about a holocaust, why not keep a fake moon landing secret? That is a lot easier.

Didn't Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler's closest associates say:

[B]“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”[/B]

The moon landing is a Big Lie, and you suckers believe it.

I honestly believe Dorkman refuses to even read the evidence I have provided. Dorky is one crazy man, living in a dream world of magic.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]
P.S. Spank, I think you should choose your references for argument more selectively. A Nazi scientist with a history of deception and lying to further his own cause, and who married his first cousin, is not the most credible source you could use.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but he became the head of the Apollo program. How convenient... He was telling the truth in 1953.

[B]A Nazi scientist with a history of deception running the Apollo program. [/B]

Hard to believe that is true history; truth is stranger than fiction and Dorkman believes in Bigfoot and the moon landing.

I guess Dorkman trusts this Nazi more than the facts... It makes me start to wonder if Dorkman is, in fact, an old Nazi on the run.

Nazi biography again: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun[/url]

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]
[B]“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ”[/B]

[/QUOTE]

That explains why the OEM's sell so many new GI & SGI irons every year.

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]That explains why the OEM's sell so many new GI & SGI irons every year.[/QUOTE]

Exactly sir! ...

Now, what is your opinion on this moon landing thing?

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Exactly sir! ...

Now, what is your opinion on this moon landing thing?[/QUOTE]

I think you should ask Sarah Palin. She can see the moon from her front porch and will have
conclusive proof one way or another.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Absolutely false, and a serious breach of debate/argument. You lose, but I love you.

For example, the holocaust was kept hidden for 4/5 years during WWII, and nobody believed it, as it was happening/occurring! There were [B]thousands[/B] involved in the holocaust. It was hidden! They actually had to drag the German populace through the camps until they believed, and they lived in the country where it was happening!

If Germany won, you all would believe the holocaust never happened.

I personally know survivors that lived through the holocaust; I am not a Jew, but I really know/have known survivors, mostly non Jewish...

The holocaust is real, but the moon landing is so obviously fake. Not to mention that the Germans ended up working on the fake moon landing; hey, if you can lie about a holocaust, why not keep a fake moon landing secret? That is a lot easier.

Didn't Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler's closest associates say:

[B]“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”[/B]

The moon landing is a Big Lie, and you suckers believe it.

I honestly believe Dorkman refuses to even read the evidence I have provided. Dorky is one crazy man, living in a dream world of magic.[/QUOTE]

Spank, this is excellent work. And I feel ashamed because I also am participating in a conspiracy that includes thousands of people. I've been involved in a project that turns illegal aliens into heads of romaine lettuce. Haven't you noticed how the cost of Ceasar Salad has dropped significantly during the last few years?

Sh.it, now you can get four illegal aliens in a plastic bag at Costco for almost nothing. We're also working on similar projects that will turn the French into croutons, the Germans into anchovies and really fat people into kind of a lite, tangy Caesar dressing. On the one hand, almost everyone likes Caesar salad, on the other, I admit to wondering whether it's right for this huge conspiracy of ours to continue.

Maybe I should create a poll.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I may have got you all wrong indy, you actually have some taste. Bubba Hotep is on my list of all time favourite movies. Bruce Campbell is superb as the King. I actually think that between the laughs this was a very moving story of what a contemplative Elvis would have been if he got old. The only other thing I will say about this movie is that I'm a huge fan of Bruce Campbell and the King. If you aren't a fan of either you won't get it..[/QUOTE]

Wow! I am surprised! That movie, as good as it was, went really underneath the radar for most people. A great film.

I like Campbell alot...from his first TV series here in the states (Brisco County Jr.) to his current TV series here (Burn Notice).

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]


[B]“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. ”[/B]

The moon landing is a Big Lie, and you suckers believe it.

[/QUOTE]
Hmmmmmm........could this also apply to the moon landing deniers?

[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]I think you should ask Sarah Palin. She can see t[B]he moon from her front porch and will have
conclusive proof one way or another.[/B][/QUOTE]

That was effing awesome Kiwi...Palin is a crummy c unt

[quote=mentaloaf]That was effing awesome Kiwi...[B]Palin is a crummy c unt[/B][/quote]

Here comes Liaree to the resque!!!:eek:

[QUOTE=mentaloaf]That was effing awesome Kiwi...Palin is a crummy c unt[/QUOTE]

Geez... What is it about Palin that gets some people in such a tizzy? Most of the negative feelings people have from her are based on false or greatly exaggerated claims about her. It's pretty funny when you think about it...

The above quote is a perfect example. She said you can see Russia from land in Alaska, which is true. Tina Fey said "And I can see Russia from my house" on SNL, which people like to claim as a direct Sarah Palin quote.

Do yourself a favor and check out [url]www.howobamagotelected.com[/url] and the Media Malpractice video. It will make you sick to see how the sheeple in this country were manipulated by the media last year. It's ridiculous how in the tank they were for Obama right from the start.

[QUOTE=KoolCat]Geez... What is it about Palin that gets some people in such a tizzy? Most of the negative feelings people have from her are based on false or greatly exaggerated claims about her. It's pretty funny when you think about it...

The above quote is a perfect example. She said you can see Russia from land in Alaska, which is true. Tina Fey said "And I can see Russia from my house" on SNL, which people like to claim as a direct Sarah Palin quote.

Do yourself a favor and check out [url]www.howobamagotelected.com[/url] and the Media Malpractice video. It will make you sick to see how the sheeple in this country were manipulated by the media last year. It's ridiculous how in the tank they were for Obama right from the start.[/QUOTE]
I would wholeheartedly agree. I have been watching elections for decades, but the unprecedented degree of transparently blatant bias that showed up in the media in the 2008 election was absolutely astonishing and sickening. You could watch the same story on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. vs. Fox news and you wouldn't believe you were watching the same event. Fox is obviously biased to the right, but was more honest than the others. I saw instances where Fox showed an entire clip of an event, and statements made on camera tended to show Obama or Hillary in an unfavorable light. The SAME event, when shown on CNN or NBC, had been edited to remove the unfavorable footage of the Democratic candidates. The stories that were dwelt upon in terms of air time were another way the bias that was apparent on ALL the networks, depending on their bias.
Obama basically got more than a free ride. He was lifted by the biased media. They asked him fluff slushball questions, and never properly vetted him. Their questions were simply convenient opportunities for him to wax eloquent on topics he wanted to discuss and to deliver his talking points. McCain was too afriad to attack his obvious weaknesses because he was worried about being branded a racist. The whole thing was the "perfect storm" for Obama, with the poor economy, Bush's poor choices in many events, and the pent up Democrat frustration with losing twice to Bush. The media was DETERMINED to put a Democrat in office, and they helped do it. Now the irony is that people are coming to the conclusion that they were duped and manipulated by the so-called "mainstream media," and their ratings are plummeting. Fox's rating are dominating the news and news-opinion ratings, by a large margin. You can only fool some of the people some of the time. True believers on either end of the political spectrum will always remain so, but the independents and the moderates are turning away from Obama and the Democrats very rapidly.
I am a slightly to the right of center moderate who regularly crosses party lines. However, I now feel such disgust for the Democrats in Congress that it will be a long time before I vote for another Democratic candidate.

In my opinion, government "works" best (is that an oxymoron?) when the President is in one party, and at least one house of Congress is controlled by the other party. It keeps the lunatics on both extremes from ramming through an ideological agenda like the current administration and Congress are trying to do. If they succeed, it will bankrupt the country without a shadow of a doubt.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]I would wholeheartedly agree. I have been watching elections for decades, but the transparently blatant bias that showed up in the media in the 2008 election was absolutely astonishing and sickening. You could watch the same story on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. vs. Fox news and you wouldn't believe you were watching the same event. Fox is obviously biased to the right, but was more honest than the others. I saw events where Fox showed an entire clip of an event, and it tended to make Obama or Hillary show in an unfavorable light. The SAME event, when shown on CNN or NBC, had been edited to remove the unfavorable footage of the Democratic candidates. The stories that were dwelt upon in terms of air time were another way the bias that was apparent on ALL the networks, depending on their bias.
Obama basically got more than a free ride. He was lifted by the biased media. They asked him fluff slushball questions, and never properly vetted him. McCain was too afriad to attack his obvious weaknesses because he was worried about being branded a racist. The whole thing was the "perfect storm" for Obama, with the poor economy, Bush's poor choices in many events, and the pent up Democrat frustration with losing twice to Bush. The media was DETERMINED to put a Democrat in office, and they helped do it. Now the irony is that people are coming to the conclusion that they were duped and manipulated by the so-called "mainstream media," and their ratings are plummeting. Fox's rating are dominating the news and news-opinion ratings, by a large margin. You can only fool some of the people some of the time. [B]True believers on either end of the political spectrum will always remain so, but the independents and the moderates are turning away from Obama and the Democrats very rapidly[/B].[/QUOTE]

Being an independent myself, I can tell you this is very true, in fact, we were never with him. We had left GW Bush long time before his second term was over as well. There is way too much government intervention going on, even as far back as Bush's administration, for Independent's liking . . . . . .

[QUOTE=KoolCat]Geez... What is it about Palin that gets some people in such a tizzy? Most of the negative feelings people have from her are based on false or greatly exaggerated claims about her. It's pretty funny when you think about it...

The above quote is a perfect example. She said you can see Russia from land in Alaska, which is true. Tina Fey said "And I can see Russia from my house" on SNL, which people like to claim as a direct Sarah Palin quote.

Do yourself a favor and check out [url]www.howobamagotelected.com[/url] and the Media Malpractice video. It will make you sick to see how the sheeple in this country were manipulated by the media last year. It's ridiculous how in the tank they were for Obama right from the start.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, man, but what made the whole Alaska thing memorable was that she claimed that the fact that Russia was visible from land in Alaska (a distant island of Alaska, BTW) was relevant experience relating to foreign policy. That's what made her look like the dimwit she clearly is.

[QUOTE=alangbaker]Sorry, man, but what made the whole Alaska thing memorable was that she claimed that the fact that Russia was visible from land in Alaska (a distant island of Alaska, BTW) was relevant experience relating to foreign policy. That's what made her look like the dimwit she clearly is.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Palin is as stupid as she is made out to be, but she clearly lacks something in the common sense and diplomacy department. She is just as polarizing a figure on the right as someone like Hillary is on the left. Most people either love her or hate her. I think I am a bit unusual in being indifferent to her. I don't see her as a serious political leader, but she has enough drawing power that if she ran as a 3rd party candidate, she would certainly help elect the next Democratic candidate by splitting the already thin ranks of the Republicans. 3rd party candidates tend to hurt the candidate of the party that they more closely resemble ideologically. Extremely conservative splinter candidates tend to hurt Republicans, and ultra-liberals tend to siphon votes from the Democrats. The obvious irony is that with their "rule or ruin" mentality, they help elect the person most objectionable to them in the first place......

[QUOTE=dorkman53]I don't think Palin is as stupid as she is made out to be, but she clearly lacks something in the common sense and diplomacy department. She is just as polarizing a figure on the right as someone like Hillary is on the left. Most people either love her or hate her. I think I am a bit unusual in being indifferent to her. I don't see her as a serious political leader, but she has enough drawing power that if she ran as a 3rd party candidate, she would certainly help elect the next Democratic candidate by splitting the already thin ranks of the Republicans. 3rd party candidates tend to hurt the candidate of the party that they more closely resemble ideologically. Extremely conservative splinter candidates tend to hurt Republicans, and ultra-liberals tend to siphon votes from the Democrats. The obvious irony is that with their "rule or ruin" mentality, they help elect the person most objectionable to them in the first place......[/QUOTE]

Sorry, but in Palin you are talking about someone who took five (5) tries to finally get an undergraduate degree...

...in Communications! That's the "degree" that college football players are usually working towards, folks!

I think that Palin is almost *precisely* as stupid as she's made out to be.

When asked what foreign policy experience she had, she replied "You can see Russia from Alaska".

That is pretty amazingly stupid.

I'll bet she's a dirty girl......:cool:

[QUOTE=indacup]Wow! I am surprised! That movie, as good as it was, went really underneath the radar for most people. A great film.

I like Campbell alot...from his first TV series here in the states (Brisco County Jr.) to his current TV series here (Burn Notice).[/QUOTE]
Bruce Campbell is the most underappreciated actor of all time. I've been a fan of his B grade movies since I was a kid and watched the first Evil Dead. He makes Burn Notice, but IMO his best TV work was as the king of thieves in Xena. I also love his cameos in the Spiderman movies. His work as the waiter at the fancy restaurant in the third one was Monty Pythonesque.

[QUOTE=alangbaker]Sorry, but in Palin you are talking about someone who took five (5) tries to finally get an undergraduate degree...

...in Communications! That's the "degree" that college football players are usually working towards, folks!

I think that Palin is almost *precisely* as stupid as she's made out to be.

When asked what foreign policy experience she had, she replied "You can see Russia from Alaska".

That is pretty amazingly stupid.[/QUOTE]


The only point you've really made so far is that you're a liberal.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]The only point you've really made so far is that you're a liberal.[/QUOTE]
....and that Palin is a polarizing figure.

My son is extremely bright, but though he attended 3 different colleges, he never came close to graduating. He is now making 6 figures a year as a computer programmer, and has won acclaim for some of the programs he's written.
College graduate, no college, or some college without graduation is not necessarily a reliable indicator of intelligence.

Incidentally, Obama attended more than one college, and no one is able to see his academic records because they are now apparently a state secret..........hmmmmmm........did he get preferential treatment because of affirmative action?......hmmmmmmm.........

It was well known that Bush was a very average to below average student at Yale, and he probably got in because of family connections. Obama's circumstances look equally suspicious, but the veil of secrecy makes him look even worse.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]
It was well known that Bush was very average to below average intelligence. [/QUOTE]

You only had to listen to one of his speeches for about 2 minutes to figure that out.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]....and that Palin is a polarizing figure.

My son is extremely bright, but though he attended 3 different colleges, he never came close to graduating. He is now making 6 figures a year as a computer programmer, and has won acclaim for some of the programs he's written.
College graduate, no college, or some college without graduation is not necessarily a reliable indicator of intelligence.

[B]Incidentally, Obama attended more than one college, and no one is able to see his academic records because they are now apparently a state secret..........hmmmmmm........did he get preferential treatment because of affirmative action?......hmmmmmmm.........[/B]
It was well known that Bush was a very average to below average student at Yale, and he probably got in because of family connections. Obama's circumstances look equally suspicious, but the veil of secrecy makes him look even worse.[/QUOTE]
It sounds like somebody has been drinking the LarryRSF Kool Aid.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]It sounds like somebody has been drinking the LarryRSF Kool Aid.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a deficit of reading comprehension?

My point was that it was public knowledge that Bush was a mediocre student, but that nobody is allowed to see Obama's academic records. I have heard reports that he was anything but an outstanding student at Occidental College, but somehow got into Harvard Law School. It is extremely unlikely that a white student with a similar academic record would have even been considered for admission at Harvard Law School, and he certainly didn't have a rich daddy contributing millions to the alumni association. Yet Obama is considered smart, and Bush is considered dumb. I think they are BOTH dumb, though Obama is obviously more eloquent when delivering a rehearsed teleprompter speech. Obama can sound really awkward when he is forced to speak unrehearsed, without a script.

I was also making the point that college graduation isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of intelligence.

Try to understand the message before you criticize.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Do you have a deficit of reading comprehension?

My point was that it was public knowledge that Bush was a mediocre student, but that nobody is allowed to see Obama's academic records. I have heard reports that he was anything but an outstanding student at Occidental College, but somehow got into Harvard Law School. It is extremely unlikely that a white student with a similar academic record would have even been considered for admission at Harvard Law School, and he certainly didn't have a rich daddy contributing millions to the alumni association. Yet Obama is considered smart, and Bush is considered dumb. I think they are BOTH dumb, though Obama is obviously more eloquent when delivering a rehearsed teleprompter speech. Obama can sound really awkward when he is forced to speak unrehearsed, without a script.

I was also making the point that college graduation isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of intelligence.



Try to understand the message before you criticize.[/QUOTE]

I am smarter than Sarah Palin. I am no Obama lover for sure, I paid close attention to McCain and Palin's campaign. I didn't like what I saw in her speeches. I think she came off as just an average airheaded chick that could only sling mud at Obama. So I believe as many do that it cost McCain the election. AGB hit the nail on the head...It doesn't matter that you can see Russia from some way the f uck boonies section of Alaska, it's that she considered that fact being "foreign policy and diplomatic experience," which is just
f ucking ridiculous

[QUOTE=mentaloaf]I am smarter than Sarah Palin. I am no Obama lover for sure, I paid close attention to McCain and Palin's campaign. I didn't like what I saw in her speeches. I think she came off as just an average airheaded chick that could only sling mud at Obama. So I believe as many do that it cost McCain the election. AGB hit the nail on the head...It doesn't matter that you can see Russia from some way the f uck boonies section of Alaska, it's that she considered that fact being "foreign policy and diplomatic experience," which is just
f ucking ridiculous[/QUOTE]
I am not certain that Palin is horribly lacking in raw intelligence as much as she really presents herself poorly. She comes across as abrasive, arrogant, and intolerant; not exactly endearing traits for someone trying to appeal to anyone other than hard core "believers." She comes across as a less intelligent and less witty version of Sean Hannity.....about as clever and incisive for the right wing as dullards like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert; "humor" is simply sarcasm and mocking rather than anything clever or really funny.

(Good political wit and humor hit all ends of the political spectrum, saving no sacred cows from lampooning. Good examples are "The Onion" and "The Capitol Steps." Bad examples are Gary Trudeau/Doonesbury, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Glen Beck. One sided political harangues disguised as "humor" get tiresome quickly.)

By the way, for purposes of comparison, Joe Biden is no intellectual powerhouse himself......

It is common knowledge that once a debate is lost, individuals attempt to change the subject.

Apparently the evidence I have provided, has forced this change of subject.

A lot of you guys are scared to stay on topic.

Carry on with the Palin gibberish... But you know you know that there is no Santa Claus, Lochness monster, space aliens, area 51 crap, Moon Landing, etc...

You knuckleheads and Dorkman (Dorky, you never answered my question if you were an old Nazi, like the head of the Apollo program, mentioned above...hmmm) are funny.

I, by myself have shut down the entire braintrust of golfreview by winning this debate. The cat is out of the bag. Any professional judge would see that you have no evidence.

You gentlemen have not proved your point and have changed the subject... touché!

Another excerpt from the link in the first post on this thread:

[B]"In November of 1962, Grumman was awarded the contract to build what Moon Machines described as “the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Soon after, we are also informed that the LEM was “what many regarded as the first true spaceship.” In other words, America’s “first true spaceship” was also America’s “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft.” To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of landing men on a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of taking off from and flying home from a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of performing rendezvous and docking maneuvers in lunar orbit. To this day, no spacecraft has been built that can protect astronauts from the hazards of flying through space outside of the Van Allen belts.

When you think about it, of course, it makes perfect sense that America’s first true spacecraft, coming as it did during the infancy of the Space Age, would also stand to this day as the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft “ever conceived.” After all, didn’t Henry Ford build the most complicated and sophisticated automobile ever conceived? And didn’t Orville and Wilbur build the most complicated and sophisticated aircraft ever conceived? And didn’t Alexander Graham Bell invent the IPhone?

From the outset, Grumman envisioned a two-stage vehicle, with as much of the weight as possible carried in the lower half, or descent stage, of the spacecraft. Eliminating excess weight was of paramount importance. Early designs included no ladder, for example, as a ladder was considered unnecessary weight. In 1/6 gravity, it was assumed, the astronauts would be able to climb in and out of the capsule using just a rope. Of course, the modules never came anywhere close to being in a reduced gravity environment, which is probably why a ladder was added to the landing vehicle.

According to the Science Channel, the only constant in Grumman’s drive to design the modules was change. So much so that, “Finally, in the spring of 1965, NASA, worried design changes would never stop, imposed a freeze.” NASA had apparently decided that two-and-a-half years, working with the knowledge and technology of the early 1960s, was plenty of time to design the “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Whatever the Grumman team had come up with to that point would have to be good enough to get our flyboys from the mother ship to the Moon and back.

It was now time to go to work actually building what was described as “an entirely independent spacecraft, with its own motors, fuel, life support system and navigation equipment. To some at the time, it seemed excessive.” To many others at the time, it just seemed ridiculous."[/B]

Anyone over 45 usually believes the moon landings, if retarded, but the younger crowd sees right through this bulls hit.

It never happened, sorry. I know you feel like you did when you were 9-11 years old and found out Santa Claus... oh never mind... I don't want to shatter any more dreams.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]
P.S. Hey Spank, do you notice the bright, prominently placed United States symbol on the side of the 'landing module'. I wonder if it was embroided into the foil or glued on?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that cloth flag didn't need any heat shields on the way up to the moon and back...

Oh my goodness... the stupidity of humanity.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]Do you have a deficit of reading comprehension?

My point was that it was public knowledge that Bush was a mediocre student, but that nobody is allowed to see Obama's academic records. I have heard reports that he was anything but an outstanding student at Occidental College, but somehow got into Harvard Law School. It is extremely unlikely that a white student with a similar academic record would have even been considered for admission at Harvard Law School, and he certainly didn't have a rich daddy contributing millions to the alumni association. Yet Obama is considered smart, and Bush is considered dumb. I think they are BOTH dumb, though Obama is obviously more eloquent when delivering a rehearsed teleprompter speech. Obama can sound really awkward when he is forced to speak unrehearsed, without a script.

I was also making the point that college graduation isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of intelligence.

Try to understand the message before you criticize.[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find that the [B]HIGHLIGHTED[/B] part of your message was the bit I was referring to. Quite frankly I couldn't give a flying fuk about what the point of anything you say is, I just tell it as I see it.

Spank,

I'm a little disappointed you don't include me in the 'entire braintrust of golf review'.

The only thing I will say to you is that to continue providing facts and logic to support your case is a futile exercise. Just as those you have allegedly humbled could not convince you that the moon landing happened. Those who believe will continue believe. Those who believe it to be a fake will continue to hold that view. What you are trying to do is akin to trying to make PM believe that Jesus was not the massiah, he was just a very naughty bot. All the scientific evidence and logic in the world will not influence a closed mind. On topics like religion, politics, and the moon landings people will decide what they wish to believe, then selectively find facts that will support their choice (of which there is ample scientific evidence published to support both sides of the argument).

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Spank,

I'm a little disappointed you don't include me in the 'entire braintrust of golf review'.

The only thing I will say to you is that to continue providing facts and logic to support your case is a futile exercise. Just as those you have allegedly humbled could not convince you that the moon landing happened. Those who believe will continue believe. Those who believe it to be a fake will continue to hold that view. What you are trying to do is akin to trying to make PM believe that Jesus was not the massiah, he was just a very naughty bot. All the scientific evidence and logic in the world will not influence a closed mind. On topics like religion, politics, and the moon landings people will decide what they wish to believe, then selectively find facts that will support their choice (of which there is ample scientific evidence published to support both sides of the argument).[/QUOTE]

Please accept my sincerest apologies, Not a hacker. I obviously did not mean to include you, but the majority of old people, that still believe in cartoons.

On the contrary, however, there is no scientific evidence to prove that the moon landing happened. As I have shown above, NASA has publicly confirmed that they 'lost' all of the records. Yep, no records left of the moon landing; how convenient. In addition, as shown above, people are taking a second look at the 'moon rocks' and they are all fake!

I guess landing on the moon wasn't worth saving. I guess that is why we cannot go back... 41 years later retards!

...Maybe Apple will lose their Iphone blueprints tomorrow, also... I don't think so; an Iphone is way more important than a Moon Lander.

I just had to laugh when I read the NPR article, 4 months ago, about how Neil and Buzz gave the fake 'moon rock' to Holland in 1969. Ha ha! That one took the cake for me. ;-)

On the contrary Spank, NASA didn't 'lose' anything. You can't really lose what they never actually had.

P.S. It was a close thing for me, I was born one year before the moon landings. If I was just 4 years older I would be in the 45 and over believers basket.

That further excerpt you got there Spank really seals the deal for me. Since the divorce, I don't believe in anything overly complicated.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]That further excerpt you got there Spank really seals the deal for me. Since the divorce, I don't believe in anything overly complicated.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever seen the Saturn V rocket in person? It is a real rocket and there is no doubt it entered space. The Saturn V rocket is real; we all know that is true.

We are discussing the additional 230,000 (mileage?) miles into space to land backwards on the moon, play golf, drive a dune buggy, take tons of pictures, plant a flag, pick up a couple of hundred moon rocks, hop around like a freaking kangaroo at half speed, etc...

Then they have the fuel to take off and escape the moon's gravitational pull, that effects the tides on earth, and fly back in without any heat shields to earth. They did this SIX times with no problems!

We are all only human; sorry for your divorce, if I may digress for a moment. I would play golf with any of you here on GR, including you Lorenzo; not you Dorkman. Anyways, we are just heaps of temporary dust, walking around... We all have our own sorrows.

But if any of you retards think the moon landing is real... Oh my heavens. ;-(

The Saturn V is real, the moon lander is fake. Take a gander at the two below. The Saturn V supposedly took the moon lander into space. Look at the difference in the engineering, ha ha. Looks like Hollywood to me. ;-)

Use your brains, retards...

[IMG]http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t373/T373929A.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/AS15-86-11598HR.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]It is common knowledge that once a debate is lost, individuals attempt to change the subject.

Apparently the evidence I have provided, has forced this change of subject.

A lot of you guys are scared to stay on topic.

Carry on with the Palin gibberish... But you know you know that there is no Santa Claus, Lochness monster, space aliens, area 51 crap, Moon Landing, etc...

You knuckleheads and Dorkman (Dorky, you never answered my question if you were an old Nazi, like the head of the Apollo program, mentioned above...hmmm) are funny.

I, by myself have shut down the entire braintrust of golfreview by winning this debate. The cat is out of the bag. Any professional judge would see that you have no evidence.

You gentlemen have not proved your point and have changed the subject... touché!

Another excerpt from the link in the first post on this thread:

[B]"In November of 1962, Grumman was awarded the contract to build what Moon Machines described as “the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Soon after, we are also informed that the LEM was “what many regarded as the first true spaceship.” In other words, America’s “first true spaceship” was also America’s “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft.” To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of landing men on a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of taking off from and flying home from a planetary body. To this day, no other spacecraft has been built that is capable of performing rendezvous and docking maneuvers in lunar orbit. To this day, no spacecraft has been built that can protect astronauts from the hazards of flying through space outside of the Van Allen belts.

When you think about it, of course, it makes perfect sense that America’s first true spacecraft, coming as it did during the infancy of the Space Age, would also stand to this day as the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft “ever conceived.” After all, didn’t Henry Ford build the most complicated and sophisticated automobile ever conceived? And didn’t Orville and Wilbur build the most complicated and sophisticated aircraft ever conceived? And didn’t Alexander Graham Bell invent the IPhone?

From the outset, Grumman envisioned a two-stage vehicle, with as much of the weight as possible carried in the lower half, or descent stage, of the spacecraft. Eliminating excess weight was of paramount importance. Early designs included no ladder, for example, as a ladder was considered unnecessary weight. In 1/6 gravity, it was assumed, the astronauts would be able to climb in and out of the capsule using just a rope. Of course, the modules never came anywhere close to being in a reduced gravity environment, which is probably why a ladder was added to the landing vehicle.

According to the Science Channel, the only constant in Grumman’s drive to design the modules was change. So much so that, “Finally, in the spring of 1965, NASA, worried design changes would never stop, imposed a freeze.” NASA had apparently decided that two-and-a-half years, working with the knowledge and technology of the early 1960s, was plenty of time to design the “most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever conceived.” Whatever the Grumman team had come up with to that point would have to be good enough to get our flyboys from the mother ship to the Moon and back.

It was now time to go to work actually building what was described as “an entirely independent spacecraft, with its own motors, fuel, life support system and navigation equipment. To some at the time, it seemed excessive.” To many others at the time, it just seemed ridiculous."[/B]

Anyone over 45 usually believes the moon landings, if retarded, but the younger crowd sees right through this bulls hit.

It never happened, sorry. I know you feel like you did when you were 9-11 years old and found out Santa Claus... oh never mind... I don't want to shatter any more dreams.[/QUOTE]
1. No, I am not a Nazi, or a former Nazi
2. You have not won any debate. Some people have apparently decided that it is simply pointless to argue with an idiot who believes they have the truth. Do you try to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, were you successful in convincing them that they were wrong? No?! Then they "won the debate".......
Apparently, you believe that whoever shouts the longest and loudest "wins," when in fact the other person has decided they have better things to do than to waste time convincing someone like yourself something you clearly don't want to believe. Like many conspiracy theorists, you aren't particularly bright, so you don't really understand the science of the matter. So you substitute passion of belief and an insecurity-driven wish to convince yourself that you are smarter than others as evidence, in a sort of desire for a sense of psychic well being.
Go on believing you are a genius. You need some sort of affirmation to make you believe that you are smarter than you really are. But don't dislocate your shoulders patting yourself on your back........

Tom Hanks says the moon landings were real, so that is the final word.

What's next on the agenda, Spanky?

Spanq, I can assure you the moon landings are all real. The reason we can't get back to the moon is because NASA is run by the government, and the government is run by idiots trying to appease other idiots. NASA will never send people back to the moon, unless the military regains interest.

Private moon landings are the wave of the future. I've been working with Burt Rutan, Donald Trump, and several tourism investors from Dubai on setting up a lunar resort encircled by a 42,000 yrd golf course. We are looking for some GC's...let me know if you're interested.

That photograph really tells us all we need to know. In the foreground, right of center, there's clearly a cigarette butt on the ground. I can't believe noone ever noticed this before.

Back then, the moon was believed to have no atmosphere so smoking outside on the moon would have been impossible. So how did that cigarette butt get there? Either one of those guys was smoking inside the module and pitched it, or someone was smoking on the soundstage where all of this was being conducted, here on earth.

While both are definitely possible, since Spank seems to think it's the latter, I'm going with that.

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]That photograph really tells us all we need to know. In the foreground, right of center, there's clearly a cigarette butt on the ground. I can't believe noone ever noticed this before.

Back then, the moon was believed to have no atmosphere so smoking outside on the moon would have been impossible. So how did that cigarette butt get there? Either one of those guys was smoking inside the module and pitched it, or someone was smoking on the soundstage where all of this was being conducted, here on earth.

While both are definitely possible, since Spank seems to think it's the latter, I'm going with that.[/QUOTE]

Zo, yer priceless! :D

[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]That photograph really tells us all we need to know. In the foreground, right of center, there's clearly a cigarette butt on the ground. I can't believe noone ever noticed this before.

Back then, the moon was believed to have no atmosphere so smoking outside on the moon would have been impossible. So how did that cigarette butt get there? Either one of those guys was smoking inside the module and pitched it, or someone was smoking on the soundstage where all of this was being conducted, here on earth.

While both are definitely possible, since Spank seems to think it's the latter, I'm going with that.[/QUOTE]
I noticed that the footprints were definitely created by a Bruno Magli shoe, about OJ Simpson's size (I'd need a micrometer to be certain.)
OJ was probably involed in creating the fake photos......no.....wait......it was the REAL KILLER........



Spank, you are going to hate yourself when you read this thread after you either sober up or go back on your meds.

On an unrelated topic, I'm sure I speak on behalf of the whole of GR in wishing Elvis a very happy 75th birthday, whichever seven eleven he is working at right now.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]On an unrelated topic, I'm sure I speak on behalf of the whole of GR in wishing Elvis a very happy 75th birthday, whichever seven eleven he is working at right now.[/QUOTE]
He goes home and has a quiet evening with John F Kennedy, who wasn't actually shot; it was his stunt double.....

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]On an unrelated topic, I'm sure I speak on behalf of the whole of GR in wishing Elvis a very happy 75th birthday, whichever seven eleven he is working at right now.[/QUOTE]

If Elvis was to spend more than a few moments with JFK, Elvis would have to be a' grabbing his ankles. JFK got more good tang than maybe anyone in history, even Tiger. He couldn't keep it in his pants for more than a couple of minutes at a time.

I'm thinking about a half-hour after the two of them crank a botle of champagne, old hound dog is singing out in pain while Johnny steps all over his blue suede shoes.

DM and Zo,

You too have unwittingly described most of the plot of Bubba Hotep. JFK is actually in the same retirement home as the King, except you can't recognise him because they died his skin to make him look like a black man, and they are fighting an Egyptian mummy who is stealing the souls of the aged residents. I higly recommend this movie to anyone who loves off the wall B grade cult classics.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]DM and Zo,

You too have unwittingly described most of the plot of Bubba Hotep. JFK is actually in the same retirement home as the King, except you can't recognise him because they died his skin to make him look like a black man, and they are fighting an Egyptian mummy who is stealing the souls of the aged residents. I higly recommend this movie to anyone who loves off the wall B grade cult classics.[/QUOTE]

Was Jim Morrison also in the home?

JFK can always bang Janis Joplin rather than the King.

[QUOTE=dorkman53]1. No, I am not a Nazi, or a former Nazi
2. You have not won any debate. Do you try to argue with Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, were you successful in convincing them that they were wrong? No?! Then they "won the debate".......
[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting comment. I have a cousin that is a jw door knocker.

He told me 20 years ago, that the Bible says when you are dead you are dead.

I called him a jackass and he showed me somewhere in his Bible; I remember cuz I read it.. also something about how jesus resurrected lazaros and why would he bring him back from heaven if he was with god in heaven; he would be pissed off.

Dorky, when you are dead you are dead, you do not go to heaven, and you do not burn in hell. There is no going to heaven or hell for you or me.

Dorky, you believe in the moon landing, flying off to heaven when you die, burning in hell, and America is the end all of life on earth. ...and who knows what else you believe.

Who do you think is crazier?

[B]I have a challenge for anybody on this thread.[/B]

I mentioned that I have first hand knowledge (above) that the holocaust is true; first hand knowledge 25 years before the moon landing!

Here is my challenge: does anyone have ANY first hand knowledge that the moon landing is true?

If anyone here has some serious first hand moon landing knowledge from someone close by, not trying to hide it, come out and say it.

I think I hear crickets... It never happened. Dorky, your ancestors screamed that Christopher Columbus was going to fall of the earth. No one like to have their myths shattered; read Joseph Campbell's works, and you will understand the power of myth.

Our tiny rants on this obscure forum won't matter. History will bring everything out, eventually.

Ha ha. you guys are funny.

Does anyone have first hand knowledge from a buddy/friend/coworker/parent/grandparent, that the moon landings happened?

Shucks, I have first hand knowledge that the Holocaust is real, and that was 25 years BEFORE the moon landing, but nobody has any first hand knowledge, over a beer and barbecued ribs, that this moon landing was real. Someone had to say it was real!

Really? Nobody?

I find this fact interesting...

retards...

well you are not retarded; I am just amazed how propaganda can fool so many normally intelligent individuals.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]Ha ha. you guys are funny.

Does anyone have first hand knowledge from a buddy/friend/coworker/parent/grandparent, that the moon landings happened?

Shucks, I have first hand knowledge that the Holocaust is real, and that was 25 years BEFORE the moon landing, but nobody has any first hand knowledge, over a beer and barbecued ribs, that this moon landing was real. Someone had to say it was real!

Really? Nobody?

I find this fact interesting...

retards...

[B]well you are not retarded; I am just amazed how propaganda can fool so many normally intelligent individuals[/B].[/QUOTE]
I find that I am regularly amazed by the willingness of otherwise intelligent people to swallow propoganda and ask for seconds. 'Vaccinations' are a great case in point. Despite overwhelming facts presented by esteemed academics who are leaders in the field of immunology, the majority of the population still decides to believe the pharma cartels BS and spin, while they make billions of dollars off of every unnecessary, and outright injurous, jab.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]This is an interesting comment. I have a cousin that is a jw door knocker.

[B]He told me 20 years ago, that the Bible says when you are dead you are dead.

I called him a jackass and he showed me somewhere in his Bible; I remember cuz I read it.. also something about how jesus resurrected lazaros and why would he bring him back from heaven if he was with god in heaven; he would be pissed off.

Dorky, when you are dead you are dead, you do not go to heaven, and you do not burn in hell. There is no going to heaven or hell for you or me.[/B]

Dorky, you believe in the moon landing, flying off to heaven when you die, burning in hell, and America is the end all of life on earth. ...and who knows what else you believe.

Who do you think is crazier?

[B]I have a challenge for anybody on this thread.[/B]

I mentioned that I have first hand knowledge (above) that the holocaust is true; first hand knowledge 25 years before the moon landing!

Here is my challenge: does anyone have ANY first hand knowledge that the moon landing is true?

If anyone here has some serious first hand moon landing knowledge from someone close by, not trying to hide it, come out and say it.

I think I hear crickets... It never happened. Dorky, your ancestors screamed that Christopher Columbus was going to fall of the earth. No one like to have their myths shattered; read Joseph Campbell's works, and you will understand the power of myth.

Our tiny rants on this obscure forum won't matter. History will bring everything out, eventually.[/QUOTE]

Was your buddy a Jehovah Witness? If he was, he showed you what the Jehovah Witness bible said. The real Bible doesn't teach what the Jehovah Witnesses teach. If there is no heaven and hell, then Jesus was a liar because he taught on the two subjects more than any other religious instructor. Read it yourself.

JWs are full of shite. They translated their own version of the Bible and they used 4 of their own people to do it. One guy out of the four had one whole year of biblical instruction in the Hebrew/Greek language. Spank, you have to know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to translate the Bible because that is what the original transcripts are written in. So, basically, the four JWs simply took english versions and rewrote the texts in order to support their own doctrines.

Along with a degree in psychology, I also have a minor in Bible and Religious history. I have people coming to tell me what their "Pastor" or "Priest" said and I tell them what the Bible says. I've sent JWs storming out of my house doing everything but cussing at me because I quote them what the Bible says in refutation of what they are spouting. I live in the Bible belt so I like to know what the Bible says whenever these yahoos come knocking on my door. If there isn't a ball game on the television, a good old fashioned religious debate is a great form of entertainment in my home.

[img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/eng/angel19.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]retards...

well you are not retarded; I am just amazed how propaganda can fool so many normally intelligent individuals.[/QUOTE]

It's worse than that. The "we never went to the moon" propaganda has taken you in, and you aren't even normally intelligent.....

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Was your buddy a Jehovah Witness? If he was, he showed you what the Jehovah Witness bible said. The real Bible doesn't teach what the Jehovah Witnesses teach. If there is no heaven and hell, then Jesus was a liar because he taught on the two subjects more than any other religious instructor. Read it yourself.

JWs are full of shite. They translated their own version of the Bible and they used 4 of their own people to do it. One guy out of the four had one whole year of biblical instruction in the Hebrew/Greek language. Spank, you have to know Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to translate the Bible because that is what the original transcripts are written in. So, basically, the four JWs simply took english versions and rewrote the texts in order to support their own doctrines.

Along with a degree in psychology, I also have a minor in Bible and Religious history. I have people coming to tell me what their "Pastor" or "Priest" said and I tell them what the Bible says. I've sent JWs storming out of my house doing everything but cussing at me because I quote them what the Bible says in refutation of what they are spouting. I live in the Bible belt so I like to know what the Bible says whenever these yahoos come knocking on my door. If there isn't a ball game on the television, a good old fashioned religious debate is a great form of entertainment in my home.

[img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/eng/angel19.gif[/img][/QUOTE]

I am going to email my cousin right now. I saw it in the Bible years ago. He destroyed me years ago, so I respect him.

Funny you claim to know the Bible but cannot quote anything, from any Bible, lol.

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]I am going to email my cousin right now. I saw it in the Bible years ago. He destroyed me years ago, so I respect him.

Funny you claim to know the Bible but cannot quote anything, from any Bible, lol.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Spanky but it sounds like Sooner will slay you on this one....interesting about the JW's Sooner, my wife's JW friend from HS comes to our house about once a month to try and save our souls. I wish I had your intellectual firepower on the subject to send her away for eternity....She always shows up at the most inopportune moments. My wife and I rarely get the house to ourselves without the kids so when we do the clothes come off and we get to some serious bidness. Last time that happened this JW ***** showed up and it made me
f ucking FURIOUS...Then I got into a fight with my wife because I was not very nice to her friend. I wish I had a good short concise thing I could say to her to shut her down for good...

[QUOTE=mentaloaf]Sorry Spanky but it sounds like Sooner will slay you on this one....interesting about the JW's Sooner, my wife's JW friend from HS comes to our house about once a month to try and save our souls. I wish I had your intellectual firepower on the subject to send her away for eternity....She always shows up at the most inopportune moments. My wife and I rarely get the house to ourselves without the kids so when we do the clothes come off and we get to some serious bidness. Last time that happened this JW ***** showed up and it made me
f ucking FURIOUS...Then I got into a fight with my wife because I was not very nice to her friend. I wish I had a good short concise thing I could say to her to shut her down for good...[/QUOTE]
It would be easier to get rid of a Jehovah's Witness than to get Spank to shut up.......

[QUOTE=dorkman53]It would be easier to get rid of a Jehovah's Witness than to get Spank to shut up.......[/QUOTE]
True dat....

I don't recall every seeing spank so frustrated?? WTF Buddy? Why git yer britches in a bunch just cause they think yer full of shite?

[QUOTE=noshuz]I don't recall every seeing spank so frustrated?? WTF Buddy? Why git yer britches in a bunch just cause they think yer full of shite?[/QUOTE]
Spank has the maturity level of an average 7 or 8 year old.......seriously......
It's not that rare to see him get all riled up over something insignificant. He blusters and fumes and threatens to kick people's asses....
But then when it all blows over, he's back to just good old ignorant, simplistic, playing with his imaginary electronic friends, can't break 90 Spank.......

(Do you know any other early 40's male who thinks he is clever by having multiple personalities on an internet golf board?!)

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]I am going to email my cousin right now. I saw it in the Bible years ago. He destroyed me years ago, so I respect him.

Funny you claim to know the Bible but cannot quote anything, from any Bible, lol.[/QUOTE]

Do you really want to do this? Alright . . . .

-- First of all, Christianity is a religion of the spirit. Man has been given a spirit from his creator (God) and it is individual to all of us. While the physical body we have is only temporary and will eventually die and go back to dust (Ecclesistes 3:19-20), the spirit will go on through eternity (the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 can be referenced for this fact).

-- JWs sometime reference Ecclesiastes 9:10 as proof that the "human soul ceases to exist at death." The text reads -- Eccl 9:10, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." (NKJV) Solomon gives reference several times in the Book of Ecclesiastes to the "grave" as an ending spot for human activity. It IS an ending spot for all natural activity with our earthly bodies and this is what Solomon was saying as he also says in chapter 3:21, "Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, which goes down to the earth?" (NKJV) How could Solomon be talking about all souls ending at death and going to the grave whenever he acknowledges here in this verse that the souls of men go upwards? Solomon, when referencing the grave, was simply talking about all earthly activities ending at death, but he understood that the soul goes on living.

-- If JWs believe that whenever we die we're like Rover -- dead all over -- then why do they try to preach to us about 140,000 souls that are going to live with God in heaven and millions more that will live on through eternity with Christ here on the Earth (which is also puzzling considering the apostle Peter said that when Christ returned the earth and everything we know will be burned up because we will no longer have use for a physical world having spiritual bodies (2 Peter 3))? Doesn't this sound contradictory to you? I have asked several JWs and get a theological runaround that doesn't explain their doctrine as being true a bit.

-- If there is no HELL or ETERNAL PUNISHMENT like JWs like to teach, then why did Christ teach about it and tell us it exists? Does that make him a liar? (Matthew 5:22-30; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5; Matthew 25:31-46; etc.)

-- IF the soul is extinguished upon death, why did Christ preach an illustration involving two souls in a "heaven/hell" scenario? Luke 16:19-31 tells about a Rich Man and a beggar named, Lazarus. Lazarus used to sit at the gate of the Rich Man and beg. Whenever he died, his soul IMMEDIATELY went to a place of comfort. Whenever the Rich Man died, his soul IMMEDIATELY went to a place of punishment. Christ never said "this is a parable, or this is a story, or this is a fable." He taught it as a true happening, and as the Son of God, he would have had access to knowing this true happening in the spiritual world. JWs will not teach you this scripture because it refutes what they want to accept and teach about heaven and hell and the spirit of man.

Now, for those who want to argue these points and tell me what you think, know that I am not going to be GR's ordained theologian. I've got better things to do. Christians claim the Bible as the authoritative word of God, therefore it is only the Bible that I accept as the standard bearer of all religions. You guys can read it if you need future answers or want to make religious claims. I deal with enough of these Bible thumping yahoos around here . . . . .

Spank, I don't know your cousin, but it looks like I OWN his arse now along with your sorry arse. Give me a real challenge next time.

[QUOTE=SoonerBS]Do you really want to do this? Alright . . . .

-- First of all, Christianity is a religion of the spirit. Man has been given a spirit from his creator (God) and it is individual to all of us. While the physical body we have is only temporary and will eventually die and go back to dust (Ecclesistes 3:19-20), the spirit will go on through eternity (the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 can be referenced for this fact).

-- JWs sometime reference Ecclesiastes 9:10 as proof that the "human soul ceases to exist at death." The text reads -- Eccl 9:10, "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." (NKJV) Solomon gives reference several times in the Book of Ecclesiastes to the "grave" as an ending spot for human activity. It IS an ending spot for all natural activity with our earthly bodies and this is what Solomon was saying as he also says in chapter 3:21, "Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, which goes down to the earth?" (NKJV) How could Solomon be talking about all souls ending at death and going to the grave whenever he acknowledges here in this verse that the souls of men go upwards? Solomon, when referencing the grave, was simply talking about all earthly activities ending at death, but he understood that the soul goes on living.

-- If JWs believe that whenever we die we're like Rover -- dead all over -- then why do they try to preach to us about 140,000 souls that are going to live with God in heaven and millions more that will live on through eternity with Christ here on the Earth (which is also puzzling considering the apostle Peter said that when Christ returned the earth and everything we know will be burned up because we will no longer have use for a physical world having spiritual bodies (2 Peter 3))? Doesn't this sound contradictory to you? I have asked several JWs and get a theological runaround that doesn't explain their doctrine as being true a bit.

-- If there is no HELL or ETERNAL PUNISHMENT like JWs like to teach, then why did Christ teach about it and tell us it exists? Does that make him a liar? (Matthew 5:22-30; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5; Matthew 25:31-46; etc.)

-- IF the soul is extinguished upon death, why did Christ preach an illustration involving two souls in a "heaven/hell" scenario? Luke 16:19-31 tells about a Rich Man and a beggar named, Lazarus. Lazarus used to sit at the gate of the Rich Man and beg. Whenever he died, his soul IMMEDIATELY went to a place of comfort. Whenever the Rich Man died, his soul IMMEDIATELY went to a place of punishment. Christ never said "this is a parable, or this is a story, or this is a fable." He taught it as a true happening, and as the Son of God, he would have had access to knowing this true happening in the spiritual world. JWs will not teach you this scripture because it refutes what they want to accept and teach about heaven and hell and the spirit of man.

Now, for those who want to argue these points and tell me what you think, know that I am not going to be GR's ordained theologian. I've got better things to do. Christians claim the Bible as the authoritative word of God, therefore it is only the Bible that I accept as the standard bearer of all religions. You guys can read it if you need future answers or want to make religious claims. I deal with enough of these Bible thumping yahoos around here . . . . .

Spank, I don't know your cousin, but it looks like I OWN his arse now along with your sorry arse. Give me a real challenge next time.[/QUOTE]

I copy and pasted it and emailed it to my cousin. I wanna see what he says.

[quote=dorkman53]Spank has the maturity level of an average 7 or 8 year old.......seriously......
It's not that rare to see him get all riled up over something insignificant. He blusters and fumes and threatens to kick people's asses....
But then when it all blows over, he's back to just good old ignorant, simplistic, playing with his imaginary electronic friends, can't break 90 Spank.......

(Do you know any other early 40's male who thinks he is clever by having multiple personalities on an internet golf board?!)[/quote]

Ya I think I can pick 3 or 4 that are him. I couldn't do it. I'm on here too much all ready. I'm not that smort!....

[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]I copy and pasted it and emailed it to my cousin. I wanna see what he says.[/QUOTE]
Nice....I can't wait. Does God say where bad putters go?

I think hell is actually a place where you are stuck on a green lipping out a stright uphill 4 footer over and over.

[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I think hell is actually a place where you are stuck on a green lipping out a stright uphill 4 footer over and over.[/QUOTE]
We were in China several years ago, and had a chance to tour many temples, pagodas, and museums.
Buddhist and Taoist concepts of hell were sometimes expressed in dioramas. Some of the "hells" were demonstrated graphically. One's teeth might be constantly smashed out, only to grow in and be smashed again. One showed a man strapped on his back with his legs spread apart and a large log was continually rammed at his crotch.
To make the Buddhist hells more relevant to the US, I have thought that a good punishment would be for an urban planner/freeway designer to be forced to drive through some of the poorly designed freeway interchanges during stop and go rush hour, indefinitely, ad infinitum.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/sc_afp/usspacenasamars[/url]

[QUOTE=SoonerBS][url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/sc_afp/usspacenasamars[/url][/QUOTE]
Why do I get the feeling this story was concocted to help launch stock sales for the bloom box.