Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge  (Read 16137 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 11208
  • Reputation: +6861/-1859
  • Gender: Male
Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
« Reply #210 on: July 29, 2019, 02:24:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote
    But that would involve evidence. 
    Where's the evidence for the moon landing?  Oh, right - destroyed.  So both sides are left with theories to come to conclusions.  Which side has motive, opportunity and evidence to support it's case?  The side which says it's a hoax. 
    .
    You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.  Interviews, 50 year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #211 on: July 29, 2019, 07:40:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Defending the hoax believers (HB) is like defending flat earth (FE). Both lies come from a philosophical, satanic and political agenda of crippling pusillanimity and self-justifying ignorance. If an elite wanted to accomplish controlled opposition, they couldn't do too much better than getting the opposition locked into HB and FE nonsense and even arguing for that nonsense on the internet.  As a bonus, they can be tracked easily.

    See, narratives can work the other way, since they are just constructs of the mind. What should matter is having the mind conform to external reality. But that would involve evidence.

    Being detached from reality has been routine for humanities education for decades. Science and technology still has some attachment to reality, because they have to make real devices work.
    Bingo!  You hit that one out of the ball park.  I have no evidence to verify it but my gut tells me an enemy has done this.  What better way to confuse and disorient your opponent than multiply crazy conspiracy theories to the point that few if any people know who to trust anymore?


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 908
    • Reputation: +372/-173
    • Gender: Male
    "Evidence"/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #212 on: August 04, 2019, 08:02:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.  Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.

    Really, now!?

    Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy video" must be disqualified?

    That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of the War of Yankee Aggression (e.g., unsettling still photos by Matthew Brady), the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and D-Day.

    What a pompous modernist you must be!  What in [Hades ] do you believe that the available technology allowed us back then?  Do you personally understand any of the photographic technology!?  Hah!  I'm quite sure that I know that answer to that question!

    Maybe your rhetorical allies ought to doggedly promote a "theory" that World-War II never happened!?


    If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place [....]

    Well, [Hades! ]  You've nailed me!  NASA has admitted that the alleged launch of Apollo 11 was secretly delayed until nobody was watching.  NASA has refused to admit to citizen accusations that airplanes aerially dispersed powerful depressant drugs over the crowds that had gathered that night.  So practically no one saw the Apollo 11 launch, and of those people who claimed in "interviews" to have witnessed it and "been there", such testimony could be easily dismissed.

    Offline Kazimierz

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7655
    • Reputation: +3877/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #213 on: August 04, 2019, 09:29:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder if even high res close up photos from a MILITARY not civilian satellite would prove conclusive one way or otter. The photos taken of supposed? landing sites, posted earlier on CI, really do not show much. 

    Rigorous application of the scientific method to prove or disprove A needs to continually applied to this situation.

    The theological question is greater and of more import, as it deals with truth and lies. 

    As we wait for a definitive answer that answers the lunar question once and for all, let us remain charitable towards each other. :incense:

    Is it worth getting pithed off by thy neighbour to the extent it fraks with the state of grace?

    St. Dominic ora pro nobis! St. Thomas Aquinas, ora pro nobis!


    Da pacem Domine in diebus nostris
    Qui non est alius
    Qui pugnet pro nobis
    Nisi  tu Deus noster

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11208
    • Reputation: +6861/-1859
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #214 on: August 04, 2019, 10:21:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy videomust be disqualified?
    I didn't say disqualified, I said it wasn't hard evidence.  Pictures can be faked.  Videos can be faked.  Can you trust the pictures of Pearl Harbor?  Sure, because you have thousands of men who were there and who saw people die or were injured.  The soft evidence of pictures/videos is corroborated by hard evidence.  All the hard evidence for the moon landing - apollo tech - is destroyed.  How convenient.


    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #215 on: August 05, 2019, 07:24:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I know about that. But I think there is no angle/shield material combination which prevents the burning up in the atmosphere. The kinetic energy of the heavy reentry vehicles orbiting at high speed is too much to get rid off in a short time without vaporizing.
    Space Shuttle Columbia was a reentry disaster.
    There were large pieces of debris and even body parts that survived the reentry.

    Offline Smedley Butler

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1334
    • Reputation: +551/-1531
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #216 on: August 05, 2019, 07:28:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did any of you watch the Apollo 11 film by Todd Miller that aired on CNN for two nights for the 50th anniversary? I did.

    It is very interesting. It's full of all kinds of nice, clear, HD-quality film footage of the launch and the arrival into LEO...then after that, nothing.

    It's quite bizarre.

    There's also NO moving film footage of the landing, only all sorts of crystal-clear COLOR still photos.

    The whole thing reeks of baloney.

    Watch here for $5.99:




    Offline Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1650
    • Reputation: +453/-366
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #217 on: August 05, 2019, 07:34:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Space Shuttle Columbia was a reentry disaster.
    There were large pieces of debris and even body parts that survived the reentry.

    That's the mainstream narrative.
    Men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple ... Jerome points this out. (St. Robert Bellarmine)


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 908
    • Reputation: +372/-173
    • Gender: Male
    Sunk/Re: "Evidence"/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #218 on: August 05, 2019, 08:05:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.
    Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.


    That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of [....] the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania

    Ooops!

    The "photographic technology" on which I became overly focused seems not to be especially important to proof of those maritime disasters.

    Altho' there were numerous still photos and some motion pictures of the ships before they set out on their final voyages across the Atlantic, it's my understanding that there were no still nor motion pictures of either sinking.  But I claim no expertise for either maritime disaster; I'm not among the many people apparently obsessed with the grim details of such things, especially for the earlier sinking [].

    For the sinking of the Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships.  It was eventually found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled.  That wreck never having been raised, the "video" or "photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck.  Or are Moon-landing deniers determined to reject that kind of evidence, too?

    For the sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery.  Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland.  Surely that would not be dismissed as "not hard evidence",  even tho' no CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it []?

    Let all the above be as they may, I concede that they were my potentially unwise digression(s).  So after some quick answers, let's return to the "Moon Race".

    -------
    Note ☆: E.g., once here in Central Florida, there was an exhibition of artifacts retrieved from the Titanic; I never attended it.  Not because of scheduling conflicts, but because of simple lack of interest.  Likewise the more-or-less recent eponymous film; I already knew the ending.[×]

    Note †: The wreck is nowhere even close to being within "tourist-diver" depth-limits.  The sinking of the ship hasn't been a geopolitical issue for many decades, so I suppose it's safe to rely on Wikipedia for all the details I've read today. [×]

    Note ×: I've omitted links herein in hopes of discouraging members from derailing this topic, whose debate has more-or-less briefly turned to issues of proof that's typically not popularly demanded for popularly acknowledged historical events.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1484/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sunk/Re: "Evidence"/Re: Moon Landings - No Hard Science Knowledge
    « Reply #219 on: August 05, 2019, 09:37:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Let me take a stab at answering for the moon landing deniers...


    Quote
    For the sinking of the Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships.
    Crisis actors.


    Quote
    It was eventually found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled.  That wreck never having been raised, the "video" or "photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck.
    It was a movie set created by James Cameron.

    Quote
    For the sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery.  Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland.  Surely that would not be dismissed as "not hard evidence",  even tho' no CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it []?
    The CIA sank it.  The Russians were way more advanced than the USA but it definitely was the CIA that sank it, not the KGB.  Because Sribel and Kaysing said so.