TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- I dont believe that the US
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 4 [5]

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M isn't the use of second redundant actually redundant ?

consistancy is how you rate splatter bonus on a poop

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax consistancy is how you rate splatter bonus on a poop

um huh..i hear ya

quote:

Originally posted by D-res And assuming the individual is completely uneducated because they dont have a degree in certain fields is crazy. A google search, a wiki search or a trip to a bookstore can educate people in the same ways a college course can, although obviously it would a bit harder to obtain a career with that means of education

yes and no. if someone is merely going to use those sources for research purposes, they have to have a mind capable of separating reliable information from dodgy. not everyone has that capability, certainly not when looking at particularly specialist fields (such as physics in space).

i just find it laughable that people are trying to disprove photographs when there are so many other pieces of evidence that give the conspiracy theorists the big finger.

and again, unless someone knows a whole lot about photography in space, they should avoid swallowing whole the bullshit posted on conspiracy sites. thats just bad research. people are lazy therefore yes, a bit more effort than clicking on a hyperlink should be made before criticising something they know nothing about.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter I am more than you will ever be and your comments in this thread are just proof to that.

So what you are saying is that

1. I have comments in this thread
2. You are more than I will eve be.

//

1 therefore 2??


Go turn that into your philosophy teacher and make sure you dont tell him that you posted in this thread >.< that might fuck it all up

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Now that's a speculation isn't it ? it has been noted that moon dust is unusually bright. Therefore it is certainly plausable for the reflections to be bright as well. We can argue the ass off it. But a proper conclusion can only be reached after a complete chemical analysis of the soil and study of the optical principles involved. Secondly, it has been mentioned that the camera settings were designed to reduce the risk of over exposure. Not to mention the fact that the cameras must have been equipped with filters to reduce solar glare. I cannot comment whether this photo is true or fake. But it certainly cannot be dismissed as fake.

again, would this not cause every other vertical face facing the direction of the camera to also be illuminated? If the particles are bright enough to overwhelm the sunlight and illuminated the LEM it certainly would be bright enough to illuminate every vertical surface facing the camera aswell, not to mention moonlight on earth would be significantly brighter. Regardless of the reflective surface of the moon, there wouldnt be enough ambient lighting to illuminate that side of the LEM unless there were other lighting sources, which on the moon, there arent. Ambient lighting reflected off of the moons surface couldnt illuminate that side of the LEM without also illuminating every other surface facing the camera.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res

your arguments have a number of flaws and you are making some wild assumptions.

you are forgetting the fact that the LEM is closest to the reflected surface than any other "vertical face" what ever you mean by that. A mountain in the distance ?

light rays reflected from the soil will start to diverge as they travel. As the distance between LEM and the soil is smaller than any other vertical face, the reflected beam will have maximum illuminating power as it strikes the dark side of LEM. As the reflected rays travel further, they diverge and will not illuminate anything in the distance. And if you follow this line of logic it will be clear why

quote:

If the particles are bright enough to overwhelm the sunlight and illuminated the LEM it certainly would be bright enough to illuminate every vertical surface facing the camera aswell, not to mention moonlight on earth would be significantly brighter.

and

quote:

Ambient lighting reflected off of the moons surface couldnt illuminate that side of the LEM without also illuminating every other surface facing the camera. (you are basically repeating yourself here)

will not occur.

quote:

Regardless of the reflective surface of the moon, there wouldnt be enough ambient lighting to illuminate that side of the LEM unless there were other lighting sources, which on the moon, there arent.

It has been mentioned that the bright soil acts as another source of light. So the question of just one source does not arise at all.

I would suggest : read + think before posting.

^^ wow, you kids certainly have a thing for sodomy coz youre just letting omega_m plunder your assholes over and over again. give up.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M your arguments have a number of flaws and you are making some wild assumptions. you are forgetting the fact that the LEM is closest to the reflected surface than any other "vertical face" what ever you mean by that. A mountain in the distance ?

any surface facing the camera should also be illuminated by your reasoning.



also by your reasoning, those shadows shouldnt be nearly as dark as they are. if theres enough light reflected off of the surface to illuminate the LEM theres certainly enough to illuminate sorrounding surfaces hidden in shadow, or atleast some light reflected off of the LEM, no?

quote:

I would suggest : read + think before posting.

I'm obviously never going to convince you otherwise because you already have your mind set on the idea that the moon landing DID happen. I'm keeping an open mind and playing devils advocate. I dont know that it did or didnt happen. theres too much evidence suggesting either direction. It may very well have, but it may very well havent.

What about any other number of points brought up in the pictures someone posted. the ground below the LEM isnt disturbed regardless of the pressure of the rocket used to safely land. no dust in the picture of young jumping, but dust in the video. or how about the link someone provided where they showed multiple takes of a shot inside the shuttle?

I think you and pkcRAISTLIN should try to keep an open mind instead of trying to revert to personal attacks simply because I'm not agreeing with your viewpoint.

Screw this. I'm gonna build a rocket. Load it up with granola bars and poppers. I'll settle this damn debate once and for all.

You ever see how pissed off buzz gets when he's asked this question.

quote:

Originally posted by D-res I think you and pkcRAISTLIN should try to keep an open mind instead of trying to revert to personal attacks simply because I'm not agreeing with your viewpoint.

fuck i hate those arguments. oh- i dont believe there was a massive conspiracy re the moon landing so im close-minded? or, having an opinion at all makes one close-minded. the only people that subscribe to such beliefs are fickle cretins easily swayed anywhere coz they just cant make up their mind.

rightyo, id like a list of every person that would have to be a part of this conspiracy for it to be effected. id like to know what exactly the space missions were doing whilst everyone in the world was watching them and the fake landing was broadcast across the world, id like to know where they got the moon rocks from, id like to know what exactly the astronomers were tracking at the time of the supposed landing, and id like to know why such a conspiracy would ever be able to be kept quite, with so so many people necessarily in the loop.

see, this is the conspiracy theorists problem: they can point at a tiniest thing (like a photo they dont think looks legit) but simply cant answer all the other questions. its bullshit, and i treat it accordingly. im not close-minded coz i use logic over bullshit.

you can take your photos and look at them upside down and back to front, but that aint gonna do anything to all the other evidence people choose to ignore. i cant stand intellectually dishonest people.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fuck i hate those arguments. oh- i dont believe there was a massive conspiracy re the moon landing so im close-minded? or, having an opinion at all makes one close-minded. the only people that subscribe to such beliefs are fickle cretins easily swayed anywhere coz they just cant make up their mind. rightyo, id like a list of every person that would have to be a part of this conspiracy for it to be effected. id like to know what exactly the space missions were doing whilst everyone in the world was watching them and the fake landing was broadcast across the world, id like to know where they got the moon rocks from, id like to know what exactly the astronomers were tracking at the time of the supposed landing, and id like to know why such a conspiracy would ever be able to be kept quite, with so so many people necessarily in the loop. see, this is the conspiracy theorists problem: they can point at a tiniest thing (like a photo they dont think looks legit) but simply cant answer all the other questions. its bullshit, and i treat it accordingly. im not close-minded coz i use logic over bullshit. you can take your photos and look at them upside down and back to front, but that aint gonna do anything to all the other evidence people choose to ignore. i cant stand intellectually dishonest people.

I never said I didnt have opinions. Keeping an open mind is important for debate. Until you can accept that you might be wrong you cant possibly argue your side with any accuracy. How can I respect your opinion if you dont respect mine? In my opinion, the moon landing did happen. There is indeed a lot of evidence that cannot be rationally answered to disprove it, but a lot of things are brought up that seem a bit fishy, and, in keeping an open mind, I fully accept that it may have never happened and it might be a big hoax. Why did I argue against the genuineness of that photo? To spark debate. Its fun.

^^ well, i only find debates over real things to be fun. conspiracy theories and their advocates annoy the shit out of me. now, if you really do think theres a chance the landings didnt happen, please visit THIS website and read all of it.

if youre still so 'open-minded' at the end of it then i worry about you

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax So what you are saying is that 1. I have comments in this thread 2. You are more than I will eve be. // 1 therefore 2?? Go turn that into your philosophy teacher and make sure you dont tell him that you posted in this thread >.< that might fuck it all up

no,

I'm not the one in this thread resorting to tantrums, that would be you. Hence I am more than you will ever be as I do not need to resort to throwing a tantrum over a comment someone made on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax You better watch out how my boots gonna be applied to your skull you fuckup

which returns me to my comment about you being a sad excuse for a person. You feel the need to try to prove how big and strong you are, basically makes you seem a little insecure that you need to try to impress or intimidate people.

have a nice day.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter no, I'm not the one in this thread resorting to tantrums, that would be you. Hence I am more than you will ever be as I do not need to resort to throwing a tantrum over a comment someone made on the internet. which returns me to my comment about you being a sad excuse for a person. You feel the need to try to prove how big and strong you are, basically makes you seem a little insecure that you need to try to impress or intimidate people. have a nice day.

he told me he was going to get under your skin, i had no idea how well he would do it. my hat's off to you Orb

not under my skin at all.

I'm quite enjoying it.

Believe me, if he was under my skin my reactions would not be at all like this, in fact if he was under my skin I probably wouldn't be replying at all.

This again ... there was already a thread about this a few years back:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...d=&pagenumber=1

As usual half ass subject matter "experts" raise doubts about one area in a thousand in an attempt to dispute the entire theory. Meanwhile they fail to make any effort to reconcile their "evidence" with any of the other evidence or even perform the simplest of objective due diligence research to ensure that what they are saying is "impossible" is in fact impossible.

And of all topics one would think orbax would be serious about, it would be moon landings?? I've been away for a while but come on.

quote:

any surface facing the camera should also be illuminated by your reasoning.

quote:

If the particles are bright enough to overwhelm the sunlight and illuminated the LEM it certainly would be bright enough to illuminate every vertical surface facing the camera aswell

you are quoting yourself and trying to pass it on me! Hell, I'm desperately trying to prove otherwise!

quote:

if theres enough light reflected off of the surface to illuminate the LEM theres certainly enough to illuminate sorrounding surfaces hidden in shadow, or atleast some light reflected off of the LEM, no?

This to me indicates a complete lack of understanding on your part of what going on and what i'm trying to tell you. My answer to your question: NO!!!!!! Extend the logic of my previous post a bit and you will realize that the LEM need not be as reflective as the soil and it need not bounce off so much light as to make the surrounding surfaces glow.

If we extend your logic about illuminations then we come to the conclusion that the moon should dazzle rather brilliantly and this was indeed the conclusion you drew in the previous post. But I pointed out this conclusion was incorrect

quote:

I'm obviously never going to convince you otherwise because you already have your mind set on the idea that the moon landing DID happen. I'm keeping an open mind and playing devils advocate. I dont know that it did or didnt happen. theres too much evidence suggesting either direction. It may very well have, but it may very well havent.

Now I know you are trying to keep an open mind. THat's a good thing. But you are not in a position to critically analyze the photos. Nor are people at FOX or the hogshit websites. The scientific community, however is! That is what I'm trying to tell you. YOu should ask your teachers at school rather than reading bullshit on these websites. FOX wants to entertain not educate

quote:

I think you and pkcRAISTLIN should try to keep an open mind...

we have closed our minds to this question because we know the answer. It's too obvious even to give it a second thought!

quote:

...instead of trying to revert to personal attacks simply because I'm not agreeing with your viewpoint.

alrighty. peace

As a funny offside to this debate: I just received an email:

Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky starting August.
It will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye.
This collocation will be on Aug. 27, when Mars comes within 34.65 miles of Earth.
Be sure to watch the sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am.
It will look like The Earth has 2 Moons. Don't Miss it.....
The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287.
As NO ONE ALIVE TODAY will ever see it again, Share this with your
friends and enjoy the miracle.

fuckin' hilarious people can be amazingly ignorant

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M As a funny offside to this debate: I just received an email: Planet Mars will be the brightest in the night sky starting August. It will look as large as the full moon to the naked eye. This collocation will be on Aug. 27, when Mars comes within 34.65 miles of Earth. Be sure to watch the sky on Aug. 27 12:30 am. It will look like The Earth has 2 Moons. Don't Miss it..... The next time Mars may come this close is in 2287. As NO ONE ALIVE TODAY will ever see it again, Share this with your friends and enjoy the miracle. fuckin' hilarious people can be amazingly ignorant

I think whoever made that email missed the word "million" after 34.65

it will indeed be closer than it has in almost 60,000 but it'll still just look like a bright star

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.