Furries are occasionally (but rarely) hot women.

Moon landing deniers are always fat greasy men.

Hence, furries edge ahead in the entertaining department, primarily because a select few of them have boobies.

I'm not sure but I think my nephew played my parents, by being a Moon Landing denier, he was 11 and got into a big discussion with my father about not landing on the moon so my father sent him to space camp in Huntsville. He is no longer a Moon Landing denier and he got to go to space camp.

Tom_Slick: I'm not sure but I think my nephew played my parents, by being a Moon Landing denier, he was 11 and got into a big discussion with my father about not landing on the moon so my father sent him to space camp in Huntsville. He is no longer a Moon Landing denier and he got to go to space camp.

That could be dangerous. I watched a documentary on TV where some kids from Space Camp accidentally got launched into space. One flip of a button, and apparently the entire sequence of events needed to launch a rocket into space would go into motion unfettered. That's how NASA rolls, biatches.

The evidence that the "Moon" landing is a crock of shiat is available, clear and more than convincing. But since the sheep would rather believe and follow what they are told they choose to mock and ridicule the messengers. So keep drinking that kool aid.

/they called Galileo crazy too

BarbadoSlim: The evidence that the "Moon" landing is a crock of shiat is available, clear and more than convincing. But since the sheep would rather believe and follow what they are told they choose to mock and ridicule the messengers. So keep drinking that kool aid.

/they called Galileo crazy too

What evidence is this again?

NASA?! I wasn't aware they still had a team.

Farkomatic: That could be dangerous. I watched a documentary on TV where some kids from Space Camp accidentally got launched into space. One flip of a button, and apparently the entire sequence of events needed to launch a rocket into space would go into motion unfettered. That's how NASA rolls, biatches.

That is why they took the safe route and sent him to Huntsville.

Through the Apollo Zone project out of the NASA Ames Research Center, scientists have created maps out of static images taken from the Apollo Metric Camera aboard the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 spacecraft, which flew to the moon in the early 1970s as part of the larger Apollo mission.

It was Apollo 11 which landed on the moon.

/allegedly

J. Frank Parnell: Through the Apollo Zone project out of the NASA Ames Research Center, scientists have created maps out of static images taken from the Apollo Metric Camera aboard the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 spacecraft, which flew to the moon in the early 1970s as part of the larger Apollo mission.

It was Apollo 11 which landed on the moon.

/allegedly

Followed by 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 11 was just the first one.

BarbadoSlim: The evidence that the "Moon" landing is a crock of shiat is available, clear and more than convincing. But since the sheep would rather believe and follow what they are told they choose to mock and ridicule the messengers. So keep drinking that kool aid.

/they called Galileo crazy too

I need a laugh today - please elaborate with non-nutty sources.

TXEric: Followed by 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 11 was just the first one.

And i thought not being able to find any trace of one supposed landing site was odd. We have the precise coordinates of each site, and telescopes which are supposed to be able to see a candle on the moon, but not a single picture of these sites.

And i did know at one point there were more supposed landings, but i guess it just got filed away with tales of the loch ness monster and the elusive yeti. The first one being the only one that stuck with me because it had such a good script.

Farkomatic: I need a laugh today - please elaborate with non-nutty sources.

This entire thing is pretty funny, but if you just want a quick laugh, jump to 2:06.

And i mean funny in a cheesy low budget 70's sense.

BarbadoSlim: The evidence that the "Moon" landing is a crock of shiat is available, clear and more than convincing. But since the sheep would rather believe and follow what they are told they choose to mock and ridicule the messengers. So keep drinking that kool aid.

/they called Galileo crazy too



Sees your proof and responds with a well reasoned and compelling counter argument... Also, obligatory.

J. Frank Parnell: TXEric: Followed by 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 11 was just the first one.

And i thought not being able to find any trace of one supposed landing site was odd. We have the precise coordinates of each site, and telescopes which are supposed to be able to see a candle on the moon, but not a single picture of these sites.

And i did know at one point there were more supposed landings, but i guess it just got filed away with tales of the loch ness monster and the elusive yeti. The first one being the only one that stuck with me because it had such a good script.

It's optically impossible to directly image Apollo evidence on the lunar surface from Earth. If you had a telescope with a mirror a half mile wide you might be able resolve a lunar lander as a dot from this distance. Lunar landing equipment is visible and has been photographed from lunar orbit. LRO spots Apollo landing sites in high res (new window)

Nem Wan: J. Frank Parnell: TXEric: Followed by 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. 11 was just the first one.

And i thought not being able to find any trace of one supposed landing site was odd. We have the precise coordinates of each site, and telescopes which are supposed to be able to see a candle on the moon, but not a single picture of these sites.

And i did know at one point there were more supposed landings, but i guess it just got filed away with tales of the loch ness monster and the elusive yeti. The first one being the only one that stuck with me because it had such a good script.

It's optically impossible to directly image Apollo evidence on the lunar surface from Earth. If you had a telescope with a mirror a half mile wide you might be able resolve a lunar lander as a dot from this distance. Lunar landing equipment is visible and has been photographed from lunar orbit. LRO spots Apollo landing sites in high res (new window)

Was hoping someone would post that link

J. Frank Parnell: and telescopes which are supposed to be able to see a candle on the moon,

Know how I know you don't know jack shiat about optics?

Nem Wan: Lunar landing equipment is visible and has been photographed from lunar orbit. LRO spots Apollo landing sites in high res

That's not the first satellite to orbit the moon snapping photos of the lunar surface. All the others inexplicably avoided those areas like the plague, or found nothing there. I guess they just got tired of people asking for pictures of the sites for 50 years, and decided to shop some up. That sure shows me.

Another interesting thing about the Apollo moon landings which you can ignore to pick at easier targets, is the complete lack of any blast zone under the lander. It's almost as if it was just placed there, without having to use its thrusters to slow the descent. There should be a very obvious visible depression in the dust.

And before anyone starts in with the mirrors on the moons surface 'proof', i completely believe we went there, only with unmanned probes. Those mirrors didn't have to be placed by human hands. Unmanned probes would also be what Russia and other countries observed. No human can survive passing through the radiation belt. It was even during a solar maximum when the first moon landing occurred, which means any human would have surely been fried by solar rays if they had even managed to get through the radiation belt. The proposed lunar module being able to protect people from any sort of radiation is preposterous. It would take a couple feet of steel to do that, which would make it very hard to launch. Instead it has what appears to be, tinfoil? There is even zero radiation shielding on the space suits used, which means if by some miracle they managed to make it through all the radiation getting to the moon, the fun little walk on it would have been quite fatal due to cosmic radiation in general.

/ray-de-ation. you hear the most outrageous lies about it

J. Frank Parnell:
/ray-de-ation. you hear the most outrageous lies about it

It's funny because Van Allen himself shot down this argument

J. Frank Parnell: That's not the first satellite to orbit the moon snapping photos of the lunar surface. All the others inexplicably avoided those areas like the plague, or found nothing there. I guess they just got tired of people asking for pictures of the sites for 50 years, and decided to shop some up. That sure shows me.

Or.... since these are costly and, at the time, low-def mapping missions, perhaps a choice was made to look at places we had yet to cover in hopes of new discovery since we had put actual eyes and (gloved) hands in the other places.

Another interesting thing about the Apollo moon landings which you can ignore to pick at easier targets, is the complete lack of any blast zone under the lander. It's almost as if it was just placed there, without having to use its thrusters to slow the descent. There should be a very obvious visible depression in the dust.

I presume you are trolling for fun, or whatnot, but in the off event that you really believe this and would like to better yourself with knowledge... the above is patently false. I have a suspicion that you already know that though.
Link (new window)


/ray-de-ation. you hear the most outrageous lies about it

Yes, and at this moment the best lies are coming from you. Radiation comes in many varieties and not all of them are difficult to protect against or require layers of steel as shielding. You are correct in that there was no discernible shielding. That is because there was none, because it was unnecessary. There was a calculated risk as to how much of what types of radiation the Apollo astronauts would be exposed to. As it turns out, math and science works and the astronauts survived (though with a questionably, due to sample size, higher cancer rate).

Now I am sure it is difficult for someone with a GED in Physics to imagine planning for all of these contingencies, getting it right, and finding fools brave enough to strap themselves to ludicrously over-sized missiles based only on the calculations of yourself. But that's why it was done by teams of the brightest minds and bravest astronauts making and learning from mistakes that cost real lives. It resulted in one of our greatest achievements, and we are the poorer for people who cause us rehash these discussions, and poison the well of common discourse for the lulz.

BarbadoSlim: The evidence that the "Moon" landing is a crock of shiat completely verifiable is available, clear and more than convincing.

There, fixed that for you. It's called "reality" and is nice place to live in. You should try it sometime.

J. Frank Parnell: Another interesting thing about the Apollo moon landings.....

...is the building and launching of the Saturn V rockets that were observed by millions of people.
You know..the most expensive and difficult part of the missions.
So once those rockets have lifted their payloads into space...why not just farking go land on the moon? It would actually be easier than faking it.

/and remember folks..President Clinton couldn't keep a blowjob secret. But hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists, etc. have kept the biggest secret in history for over 40 years and nobody has figured it out!
//well, apart from this guy.

unchellmatt: Edymnion: Furries are occasionally (but rarely) hot women.

Moon landing deniers are always fat greasy men.

Hence, furries edge ahead in the entertaining department, primarily because a select few of them have boobies.

0.o

Now, now that... THAT is logic.

Your newsletter....

I happen to know a particular young lady, Attractive, Mid twenties, polite, professional. and is a Moon landing denier..

nothing you can say will convice her otherwise.. because.. well it is the nature of the beast.

I once told her " No Amber we did not put a man on the moon, we LANDED TWO men on the moon, then brought them back, and then proceeded to LAND 10 MORE men on that same moon. and bring all of them back as well. And for petes sake, why on earth we would we fake it SIX TIMES!?"

i see what you did there