Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 64033

I seem to have been misunderstood.. I don't doubt at all that NASA has built rockets capable of space flights. We've all seen the footage, the Satellites, the space station that's all real and obvious. I don't doubt that NASA has sent vehicles to Mars and the Moon and gathered minerals/photos etc.. What I do doubt is that NASA has sent man to the moon. I'm not going to present evidence because even if it's true you'll debunk it with your scientific jargon, it's what you do with any credible evidence for ID. I've been on this forum long enough to be cautious of this and what I'm really trying to do is get those who have never questioned authority before to check it out for themselves and make up their minds on the matter.. de-brainwash their heavily brainwashed minds so to speak if they want to.

Oliver, Richard Dawkins Forum 23 Comments [7/16/2009 10:55:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: Headache
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
aaa

I think you are way out of your league here.

7/16/2009 11:20:16 AM

Phil

if we can go to mars why can't we go to the moon?

7/16/2009 1:17:21 PM

Dr. Razark

Yes, we can build rockets.

Yes, We can build space stations and space craft that can reach them.

Yes, we can land things on the moon.

Guess what. If you add that all together, what do you get?

A moon landing or six, 40 years ago.

7/16/2009 3:17:13 PM

Dark_Lord_Prime

"I'm not going to present evidence because even if it's true you'll debunk it with your scientific jargon, it's what you do with any credible evidence for ID."

That's because there is no credible evidence for ID.

Also, what the fuck does that have to do with NASA sending men to the moon? o_O

7/16/2009 3:41:04 PM

Pule Thamex

So you assume that, after assessing the evidence and arriving at a different conclusion from you, we are all brainwashed? Bit of an arrogant jerk ain't ya?

7/17/2009 12:05:27 AM

Romana Twelve

>I'm not going to present evidence because even if it's true you'll debunk it with your scientific jargon, it's what you do with any credible evidence for ID.

"Yeah, those uppity fuckers obscurin' the truth with their 'reason' and 'proof' and 'evidence' for stuff 'cos they need to 'accurately understand the world around them' and all that other 'science' bullshit. I mean, if I can't understand it, it's gotta be a conspiracy to keep us from figuring it all out, right?"

7/17/2009 3:48:09 AM

Dr. Novakaine

No, you're not going to present evidence because there is no evidence to support that claim. All of it has been so thoroughly debunked that you have to completely ignore reality to believe it. Then again, you believe in intelligent design, too, so you're probably used to it by now.

7/17/2009 8:29:45 AM

GodotIsWaiting4U

How did we get the minerals without sending man to the moon? We can't have brought them back; we don't have the tech to rig up unmanned return trips.

7/17/2009 9:56:31 AM

Matherly

GodotisWaiting4U said "How did we get the minerals without sending man to the moon? We can't have brought them back; we don't have the tech to rig up unmanned return trips."

Well... actually we do (or at least did) have the tech to do this. Specifically, the Russians sent an unmanned probe to retrieve some lunar material. What we *didn't* have is the tech to send an unmanned probe and return with *as much* lunar material as the Apollo missions did.

7/17/2009 10:08:13 AM

Anon-e-moose

"What I do doubt is that NASA has sent man to the moon"

Curious, isn't it, how the whole 'Man DIDN'T go to the Moon' conspiracy theory came after the release of the film "Capricorn One" in 1978, just nine years after Neil Armstrong's 'One Small Step For Man', eh? VERY curious...!

But then, that's 'Conspiracy Theories' for you. They're like a house of cards. Elaborately constructed. Looks pretty. But when you look at them REALLY close, they collapse.

IN this case, just ONE word can completely destroy this one:

Reflectors.

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Devices placed there by astronauts on at least two of the Apollo missions, so that scientists/astronomers on Earth with lasers could precisely measure the distance between us & the Moon at any time. Measurements that are still performed to this day.

No remote rover (Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity) today could accurately place such devices, so how could they have been put there in 1969? Firing/dropping from orbital satellites was out of the question too. So, tinfoil hat-wearers, ask yourselves THIS question: If man DIDN'T go to the Moon (and the remote technology didn't exist then), how did those reflectors GET there?!

Even with the evidence presented, I know you'll dismiss it because even now I've proved it's fact you'll reject it with your conspiracy theorist tin (ass)hattery & pseudo-science jargon

I've been on this planet long enough to be cautious of you & your CT ilk, and what I'm really trying to do is get those who have questioned scientific fact before to check it out for themselves and make up their minds on the matter.. de-brainwash their heavily brainwashed minds so to speak if they want to.

7/17/2009 10:42:26 AM



debunked != credible

7/17/2009 11:36:49 AM

atrasicarius


Thank you for that demonstration of why idiots should stay the fuck off rd.net.

7/17/2009 1:01:26 PM

JonnyTruant

Really?!! Sounds like you should question the authority of the Bible if you're going to bring up ID.

7/17/2009 10:13:54 PM

WMDKitty

Check, plz, I've had enough.

7/18/2009 6:46:24 AM

Bluefinger

And once again, the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" rings so fucking true it hurts.

On the other hand, my spleens hurts because I'm laughing over the fact that they are still trying to deny this shit.

7/18/2009 6:48:46 PM



badastronomy.com has a few things to say about this stupidity. But of course, it would all just be a bunch of silly scientific facts, so nevermind.

7/19/2009 7:52:13 PM

Chamale

I'm so sick of this bullshit. This guy says that people have gotten 10,000 kilometres into space, but not 300,000? Then he goes ahead and says there's evidence for his crazy claims, but refuses to present it.

The ID analogy is appropriate, because they admit evolution happens on a small scale but doesn't on a larger scale, yet they don't have good evidence for it.

7/21/2009 8:29:25 AM

Headache

This one just cracked me up.

I just loved the section I bolded in the submission. This Olivier dude is pretty "smart".

7/21/2009 5:28:51 PM



"I'm not going to present evidence..."

Oh, somehow we guessed that...

7/22/2009 12:30:21 PM

werewolf

Have you ever seen the space station except in photos? How do you know it really exists?

Oliver, scepticism and doubt must be applied intelligently and with forethought. Then you must focus and study of all facts and evidence to relieve them. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.

7/23/2009 11:49:04 PM

Wehpudicabok

As everyone knows, presenting evidence is the most efficient form of brainwashing.

7/26/2009 4:30:28 PM

Stimbo

Yes, that pesky 'evidence' just refuses to stand up to the harsh light of reality, doesn't it? Good thing you won't present it, when sites like this one can so easily tear it to atoms.

Then there's NASA's Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) in place around the Moon, mapping its surface. Guess what it's photographed? (Hint - try "All the Apollo hardware and equipment, exactly where they should be on the Moon's surface.")

Sorry, but we really can call checkmate on this one.

7/26/2009 5:34:08 PM

hmcook87

Trying to get people to believe in the moon conspiricy on the Richard Dawkins forums? That takes balls. Stupidity, and balls.

7/28/2009 9:44:10 PM
1