Oh wait! This thread hasn't died yet.
Oh wait! This thread hasn't died yet.
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.
Man never walked the moon?
Attachment 7002
Obviously.
My inability to draw prevents me from being funny in a different way.
> where did they land the rocket?
That's an easy question: they didn't. Saturn rockets weren't like the space shuttle.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Maybe I don't know how to debate, I'll grant you that.
But how do you explain all these things that don't line up?
Last edited by Queatrix; 11-13-2006 at 06:23 AM.
> But how do you explain all these things that don't line up?
The explanations are all over the thread and on some links provided. Check them out.
EDIT: Oh, and for the record Queatrix, I'm ok if you call me stupid, idiot, ignorant, dishonest and whatever else you want for an whole month! I really am. No kidding. I happen to think you deserve it after this thread. The important thing when trying to make a point across is to insult the other person as much as you possibly can, as you certainly have had the pleasure(?) of experiencing on this thread.
Last edited by Mario F.; 11-13-2006 at 06:34 AM.
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.
Queatrix, have you seen any detective movies? If yes, then you should know that proofs mean nothing when there's no motive (unless the NASA workers are psychos which I doubt they are).
Is there any reason why they should fake that moon stuff? Do you really think it is cheaper to set up cameras, make people float, emulate the moon environment so well if they even have never been on moon and after launching the rocket, landing it to a secret place and destroy it?
If you don't have a motive, you don't have a crime.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
"Sure, you've debunked every point I've brought up, but how do you explain the stuff that doesn't line up? You know, the stuff you've ALREADY debunked? How do you explain THAT!"Originally Posted by Queatrix
You're a goddamn retard.
> Is there any reason why they should fake that moon stuff?
It was a huge victory over the Soviets to make it to the moon before them. Even if the Soviets didn't care (I don't know what their reaction was like), the public reaction here was pretty damn big. That was enough.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
It was a huge victory over the Soviets to make it to the moon before them. Even if the Soviets didn't care (I don't know what their reaction was like), the public reaction here was pretty damn big. That was enough.Do you really think it is faster to...?Do you really think it is cheaper to set up cameras, make people float, emulate the moon environment so well if they even have never been on moon and after launching the rocket, landing it to a secret place and destroy it?
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Would it be easier and cheaper to fake it? Hell yes it would; it took almost a decade to do it the real way.
I'm pretty sure that, even in the 60s, if you gave some filmmaker the billions that were pumped into the Apollo program, he'd be able to fake moon footage pretty convincingly. And before someone jumps on me for changing my tune or something, I'm not saying in any way that this WAS what happened; I'm just saying it'd be a hell of a lot easier to fake it than to actually do it. It's a pretty stupid question to ask.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
> I'm pretty sure that, even in the 60s, if you gave some filmmaker the billions that were pumped into the Apollo program,
Which reminds me of one of the questions that website site poses which also makes no sense. The author asks why is it today it would take more time to put a man on the moon than it did 40 years ago.
What is mostly annoying about that question is that the author surely knows the answer but decides instead to ignore it. Never before or after did NASA enjoyed such a tremendous money influx from the government and private companies. Also NASA personnel were almost exclusively bound to that one project. It would take more time today because there's no enough money and NASA has to still worry with its many other projects and cannot simply abandon them.
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.
Could they fake moon in 60s so well that even nowadays it is found to be true?
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
With that much money, there's no doubt in my mind that they could.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
But there's no motivation. Let's stop this thread, I'm losing braincells by the second
The best refutation I ever heard for this had nothing to do with the various claims made on hoax sites. Consider the Ben Franklin quote, "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Now consider how many people would need to be "in" on this particular secret. The fact that no one has, is pretty convincing proof for me...
The same quote/idea can be applied to many, many conspiracy theories.
The crows maintain that a single crow could destroy the heavens. Doubtless this is so. But it proves nothing against the heavens, for the heavens signify simply: the impossibility of crows.
Click Me