Wagging The Moondoggy

Rick Otto said:

Not interested in debate, thanks anyway. This isn't about convincing anyone of anything because I care less what you choose to believe. It's a hobbies and entertainment forum so keep your smack talk with words like "nonsense, stupidity, etc." to your hateful selves.

Click to expand...

You could have said that without the angst, barely constrained anger and disrespect. I hope today will bring you a greater sense of calm.

Rick Otto said:

Thanks. With your permission, I'll edit it. But don't think for a Houston minute that none of it was hard earned. Go for a scroll thru this forum and look at all the anti-conspiracy theory hate being unleashed with impunity.

Click to expand...

I have only visited this sub-forum a handful of times, all in the last week, but I have seen examples of what you are talking about. The problem, as viewed from my perspective, is that some (many? most?) individuals advocating conspiracy arguments offer very poor arguments, highly questionable evidence, or use long refuted data. (This is unfortunate, since a few gems may get lost among the pebbles.) The low quality approach is frustrating and can generate the hate you are talking about, as a reaction.

I think it would be neat if you did edit your OP with a toned down version, but I leave that very much in your hands.

Rick Otto said:

Not interested in debate, thanks anyway. This isn't about convincing anyone of what to believe.

Click to expand...

You've been saying this a lot. Maybe you shouldn't post here because what you said falls outside the actual statement of purpose that the moderators put out behind this forum.

"Welcome to the Conspiracy Theories forum. This is a forum for discussing topics that are considered to be conspiracy theories. This means that your OP should present a conspiracy theory that you believe in and can post supporting evidence for (i.e. YouTube videos, articles, deductive reasoning). Other members may then ask questions and/or challenge the content of your posts with opposing data. Choosing to participate in this forum means that you are aware that your personal beliefs and theories may be challenged"

Rick Otto said:

Naw, it says "discussion", not debate.
The videos I post are listed as supporting evidence.
That you constantly deny and denigrate that doesn't constitute a rational challenge, but it doesn't specify the challenge be rational, so you are well within the comfort zone there, "SPF".

Click to expand...

So you’re saying that you believe all the conspiracies you post about?

Rick Otto said:

So are you saying I'm supposed to?

Click to expand...

Assuming you’re following the forum guidelines you do. But if you aren’t following the forum guidelines then that’s a whole other issue.

SPF said:

You've been saying this a lot. Maybe you shouldn't post here because what you said falls outside the actual statement of purpose that the moderators put out behind this forum.

Click to expand...

Are you planning on starting a 'coincidink theory forum' sometime? Because you can be sure it's not going to be frequented by 'conspiracy nuts' with nothing better to do with their time than creep about with 'deny deny deny' on their lips.

Rick Otto said:

This is a lot of information, but the format & delivery are pretty good.

Click to expand...

Dave McGowan was a good egg imho. And the moonlanding hoaxery is really just for giggles now as silly propaganda bloopery, or would be, if it wasn't so tragic that the masses still cling to it like a lead fish-shaped talisman.

It is less than edifying though to hear the ever-more absurd explanations for the tinfoil lander, the self-assembling rover, the panning camera when the lander leaves...the hilarity rolls on.

A personal favorite is the 'overboot' explanation for the discrepancy between Armstrong's treadless boot in the Smithsonian to the famous imprint photo which clearly shows tread. Guys, even the sole don't match the print. The most remedial forensics proselyte could deduce...even Maxwell Smart....Inspector Clueseau...Lord have mercy!

Anyway, gotta go out now. Fetch me my overboot and all aboard our tinfoil LEM. No time for that landline call to the Oval Office, see you all at splashdown. Cheerio chums.

Shrewd Manager said:

Dave McGowan was a good egg imho. And the moonlanding hoaxery is really just for giggles now as silly propaganda bloopery, or would be, if it wasn't so tragic that the masses still cling to it like a lead fish-shaped talisman.

It is less than edifying though to hear the ever-more absurd explanations for the tinfoil lander, the self-assembling rover, the panning camera when the lander leaves...the hilarity rolls on.

A personal favorite is the 'overboot' explanation for the discrepancy between Armstrong's treadless boot in the Smithsonian to the famous imprint photo which clearly shows tread. Guys, even the sole don't match the print. The most remedial forensics proselyte could deduce...even Maxwell Smart....Inspector Clueseau...Lord have mercy!

Anyway, gotta go out now. Fetch me my overboot and all aboard our tinfoil LEM. No time for that landline call to the Oval Office, see you all at splashdown. Cheerio chums.

Click to expand...

You forgot the funniest thing of all... You can shine a laser pointer from earth at the reflectors we physically placed on the moon and see the light reflect back... Oh wait, that demonstrates we did go... my bad.

SPF said:

You forgot the funniest thing of all... You can shine a laser pointer from earth at the reflectors we physically placed on the moon and see the light reflect back... Oh wait, that demonstrates we did go... my bad.

Click to expand...

The reflectors, I forgot, thanks, wink wink, say no more. I'm in stitches!

SPF said:

You forgot the funniest thing of all... You can shine a laser pointer from earth at the reflectors we physically placed on the moon and see the light reflect back... Oh wait, that demonstrates we did go... my bad.

Click to expand...

SPF You could shoot beams to the moon and back long before the supposed moon landings took place . So they shoot a beam in the vicinity of where the moon landings are said to have taken place. It’s what you would expect to see. I did once believe that as well. But I didn’t realise that it had been done prior to that. You had the Ruby laser that was able to send pulses to the moon in 1962 and have them reflect back again. You also have moon bounce as far back as the 1950’s where the military intelligence could bounce messages off the moon.

<staff edit>

I hope you're right. Just don't seem to meet any apart from in internet land.

<staff edit>

Yep, it's a major offensive by TPTB, and they certainly are. Still, they think the slaves are revolting, and we probably are.

<staff edit>for funding their diabolical plans anymore - if they ever did.[/QUOTE]

It's Nasa's nasty black ops budget.

<staff edit>

Hey, I've got a laser pointer that shoots 250,000 miles, hits a 2 sq foot area, then reflects back to catch the eye of my boss. He gets really irritated, it's hilarious. Runs on a couple of AAA batteries.

Shrewd Manager said:

Hey, I've got a laser pointer that shoots 250,000 miles, hits a 2 sq foot area, then reflects back to catch the eye of my boss. He gets really irritated, it's hilarious. Runs on a couple of AAA batteries.

Click to expand...

Shrewd Manager . The reflectors they claim to have on the moon go back as far the Russians do they not. They apparently crashed a few of their craft on the moon as well. But that is also problematic and begs the question for how they were able to set them up from a crashed craft. What are your thoughts on that as it seems there are two things that NASA and moon landing believers like to use as final evidence when all else has been challenged. And that being the reflectors and their moon rocks.

Kate30 said:

two things that NASA and moon landing believers like to use as final evidence when all else has been challenged. And that being the reflectors and their moon rocks.

Click to expand...

The game was finally up with the reflectors when 'Mythbusters' went out to demonstrate. They went to a Nasa observatory, where the resident technician looked through her telescope, then pointed to some feed on a computer screen. They all nodded sagely, and that was it.

So where is the actual physical verifiable proof of these laser reflectors? As per my last post, there's no laser powerful enough to travel the distances they're claiming in a focused beam, let alone return. But we have powerful telescopes, why can't we zoom in on these reflectors, or see them catch the light from certain angles?

As for the moon rocks, again, what do they have? How can we independently verify the composition and source of the materials? Also there's the scandal of the Dutch government testing a rock given to them by Buzz Aldrin and discovering it was petrified wood. Who knows, maybe that's what moonrock is? Better if it had been hardened brie or camembert.

So in both cases, all we have 'trust us' instead of real science. The 'lack of sufficient evidence' is always their problem with these ostentatious claims. The questions abound.