Did man land on the moon?

[dt3]

Valid point. Yet nothing to immediately discredit all conspiracies..


My problem is people claiming conspiracies are unture and stupid just because they are conspiracies.. How can one believe someone with such a closed mind?

True, but on the other hand the ones with the conspiracy theories are usually equally closed off to reason.

 

[Pudding Time]

I don't see not accepting things that have been debunked as being close minded.

Fine, but believing debunkings that have been debunked is.

 

[All Else Failed]

No, the facts that have lead to the debunking of the moon conspiracy haven't been debunked. They are solid facts.

 

[Pudding Time]

True, but on the other hand the ones with the conspiracy theories are usually equally closed off to reason.

And that's stereotyping... And stereotyping is a form of being closed minded..

 

[Pudding Time]

No, the facts that have lead to the debunking of the moon conspiracy haven't been debunked. They are solid facts.

I debunked one of them.. Right here.. Yet you disbelieve it without providing anything as to why you disbelieve it..

 

[dt3]

And that's stereotyping... And stereotyping is a form of being closed minded..

You assume that people who discredit conspiracy theories are close minded. Which is stereotyping.

I've looked at the evidence presented in the thread, and I've made a decision that I don't believe it to be true. Just because I reach a certain conclusion after rational consideration doesn't mean I'm close minded.

 

[All Else Failed]

I debunked one of them.. Right here.. Yet you disbelieve it without providing anything as to why you disbelieve it..

No, you just made an outside observation on technology we both have very little knowledge about. I doubt anyone here knows the fine specifics of rocket boosters and throttles.


Plus, the whole throttle thing doesn't make the moon landing fake.

 

[Pudding Time]

You assume that people who discredit conspiracy theories are close minded. Which is stereotyping.

No. Calling someone closed minded because they disbelieve something without logic is pretty accurate.

I've looked at the evidence presented in the thread, and I've made a decision that I don't believe it to be true. Just because I reach a certain conclusion after rational consideration doesn't mean I'm close minded.

If you've thought rationally about both sides of the argument, then you could form a logical reason as to why you disbelieve the conspiracy, thus not being closed minded.

 

[groundpounder]

donnie, are you debunking the fact that the debunking of the moon landing has been debunked, and therefore flags wave in Iraq?

I'm not sure where you stand here.

 

[All Else Failed]

Someone who belives in facts isn't close minded.

 

[dt3]

No. Calling someone closed minded because they disbelieve something without logic is pretty accurate.



If you've thought rationally about both sides of the argument, then you could form a logical reason as to why you disbelieve the conspiracy, thus not being closed minded.

Then how about you consider this: The Apollo Lunar Module did have a throttle, capable of going anywhere between 10,125 lbs of thrust and 1,250 lbs of thrust.

Throttling Back To The Moon

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter8/setplem.pdf

Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been an absolute space junkie since I was about 5 years old. I've read numerous arguments both for and against the moon landing. Believe me, my opinion is not based in one internet thread.

 

[All Else Failed]

ouccch

 

[Pudding Time]

No, you just made an outside observation on technology we both have very little knowledge about. I doubt anyone here knows the fine specifics of rocket boosters and throttles.


Plus, the whole throttle thing doesn't make the moon landing fake.

You are right, it doesn't make the moon landing fake. But what it does it tarnish that guys credibility.

You don't need to know much about rocket science to know that rockets don't have throttles. This is something you learn in high school. I dunno, maybe you took different classes than I did, or maybe you were away for that part of class.

I even linked you to a source, talking about how NASA are still trying to get throttles on rockets.

All this I provide to you, yet you still brush it aside for no logical reason.

 

[All Else Failed]

see above link

 

[groundpounder]

so, donnie, did we or didn't we??

 

[dt3]

so, donnie, did we or didn't we??

It's my opinion that we did. Unless of course every single independent geologist worldwide who's studied the material brought back was lying :dunno

 

[Pudding Time]

Then how about you consider this: The Apollo Lunar Module did have a throttle, capable of going anywhere between 10,125 lbs of thrust and 1,250 lbs of thrust.

Throttling Back To The Moon

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter8/setplem.pdf

Apollo Lunar Module - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've been an absolute space junkie since I was about 5 years old. I've read numerous arguments both for and against the moon landing. Believe me, my opinion is not based in one internet thread.

I was never talking about YOUR opinion donnie..


And this is absolutely amazing! NASA have no idea that they already had this technology! They can't be all too bright over there huh?

 

[dt3]

I was never talking about YOUR opinion donnie..


And this is absolutely amazing! NASA have no idea that they already had this technology! They can't be all too bright over there huh?

If they'd just watch Apollo 13 they'll see it in the scene where they correct their course using the LEM's engine :dunno

 

[Pudding Time]

If they'd just watch Apollo 13 they'll see it in the scene where they correct their course using the LEM's engine :dunno

Do you know if there's a video of this online??

 

[dt3]

Do you know if there's a video of this online??

Beats me, I've never looked for it. I guess you could search YouTube :dunno