Shut up.
Shut up.
> But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
This is the part where you prove it, instead of restating your original claim in caps
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
>> What about those people who have spent THEIR ENTIRE LIVES
>> researching moon dust form the first moon landing?
Rovers get samples from mars. Why not the moon?
In 1969? We didn't have space rovers! Take your ridiculous consiracy theories elsewhere. This is idiotic.
>But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
No, you believe it was a hoax based on the observations provided by others. The only way to prove it, and thus know for a fact, is to get NASA to officially say that it was a hoax and describe how it was performed. You need to learn how to debate before trying to convince people of anything but your complete idiocy.
My best code is written with the delete key.
>> This is the part where you prove it
Okay, say I give you a reason that it didn't happen, and you tell me why that reason isn't proof.
Hmm?
>> trying to convince people of anything but your complete idiocy.
Ohh? What makes me an idiot now? Maybe because you BELIVE it?
According to your logic, I am not an idiot untill I say that I am.
You are contradicting your self.
You haven't! All you have to "prove" your point is one fake website and your insistence that you're right. Either offer GOOD proof (which isn't possible) or shut up. And no, Prelude is right. You have already offered us conclusive proof you are an idiot. NASA hasn't done the same for the "fake space landing".
Okay, I see you people still think it's ONE site...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm (This one is the best)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...0808-moon2.htm
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/20...oonLanding.asp
There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.
I posted this link before on a completely different topic.
Yet somehow, it seems strangely relevant
Quite remarkable, it could be the most widely quoted URL outside of www.google.com
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
>According to your logic, I am not an idiot untill I say that I am.
>You are contradicting your self.
Not really. First and foremost, I didn't call you an idiot. But if you'd like me to prove it based on your assumption of my logic, I'll be happy to.
1) An idiot is defined as a foolish and/or stupid person.
2) It's foolish to debate when one doesn't know how to debate.
2a) A foolish action exhibits lack of good judgement.
2b) The point of a debate is to convince others that your opinion is correct.
2c) Playing a game without knowing the rules greatly increases the chances of losing.
2d) Therefore, debating without knowing how to debate is foolish.
3) Performing a foolish action after being told it's foolish suggests a foolish person.
4) Therefore your actions suggest that you're an idiot.
5) However, you're not an idiot unless you admit it.
5a) A foolish person exhibits lack of good judgement.
5b) Only an idiot would perform a foolish action after being told it's foolish.
5c) Therefore, performing a foolish action is an admission of being an idiot.
6) Therefore, you're an idiot.
>There are many more, but I think I made my point that it's not just ONE site.
And I already made my point that your point is a logical fallacy.
My best code is written with the delete key.
You do realize that, except for the first link, all those links say we did go to the moon?Originally Posted by Queatrix
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Quoting random sites without looking at them is yet another admission of your idiocy.
EDIT: From one of your sites:The best rebuttal to allegations of a "Moon Hoax," however, is common sense.
Last edited by manutd; 11-12-2006 at 03:19 PM.
> But I do KNOW (not think) that the FIRST landing was a hoax.
Queatrix, it's one thing to doubt when faced with arguments to each you don't have an answer, it is another completely different thing to say You Know. Either you are giggling on the shadow of your posts reading our responses (and consequentely having fun in wasting other peoples time), or you are too thick. Either way, you lose.
Govtcheez, as for the argument concerning paralel shadows, very interesting. Thank you for the link. I couldn't find it before. Probably I put too many keywords. It clearly shows the theorists are wrong and taught me something new.
But try not to be too judgemental next time. You are not going anywhere if you accuse people of being dishonest. I was this close to stop debating with you.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Is there a full moon or something?
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dicti...arch&va=lunacy
Hence, lunatic.
"I used to be a werewolf, but I'm all right noooooooowwwwwwwwwwww."
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.