lets go shills, last thread was getting fun
MOON THREAD CONTD
Andrew Rogers
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
academic.oup.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Mason Ortiz
They want you to think the earth is round because that would mean there are limited resources. The earth is flat and there is unlimited resources, over the arctic wall is another society that wants us to get rid of nukes and fight over the limited land so only the strongest society whose consciousness is open enough to transcend good and evil comes out on top to join the ice wall society.
THEY ARE THE ELOHIM. THE ANNUNAKI.
Admiral Byrd, Antarctic Treaty, Nazi bases in Antarctictica, fucked up flight paths, Navy missile lasers staying level on water for over 100 miles, NASA fakery.
The sun and Moon are exactly the same size. Tides do not correspond to any model of gravity currently on the table. We only ever see one face of the moon. THERE IS NO SOUTHERN POLE STAR. THE STARS SWEEP ACROSS THE SKY. GOD IS REAL AND THE EARTH IS FLAT!!! SPREAD LOVE!!
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
>At some point in the future we're gonna look back and say "how did we do it WITHOUT SPACE"
youtube.com
"What an amazing cheat... thing you've done" Trump says to the Satanic NASA propagandist at approximately 17:50
Tyler Bennett
Flat earth is a CIA nigger psyop to make people who question the ridiculous stories about moon landings look bad by association.
John Brown
Well there's one thing we agree on.
Christian Brooks
It's all been thoroughly documented in academic journals, so the fundamental argument made by moon hoaxers is that 'the peer review process is biased and therefore cannot be trusted'. There is merit to this argument, but moon hoaxers are seldom scientists and are therefore overwhelming incapable of properly articulating this argument, resorting instead to ad hominem attacks like 'NASA said it happened therefore it's fake because NASA lies.' I will link an article that describes the scientific findings of the moon landings, which the hoaxers will immediately discredit because NASA is the primary source of the information, given that it was NASA that conducted the experiments. The hoaxers are stuck in a sort of catch 22 that they can't break out of until such time that they develop a modicum of scientific literacy, learn how the peer review process works, and when it is appropriate to be suspicious about it.
>academic.oup.com
Hunter Bennett
You the geologist leadbro from the last thread?
Luis Peterson
Yes. We agree CIA nigger psyops in 2019 are retarded, and we disagree that CIA nigger psyops in 1969 are retarded.
Chase Turner
Michael Long
>NASA is telling the truth because NASA says so
Well, maybe it's you who are stuck in the catch 22. Or maybe we both are. Who knows?
Andrew King
No idea. Maybe the space program was more about filling earth orbit with spy satellites than cool propaganda shots about people bouncing around with flags and surferbro dunebuggy rallies. Maybe it's about the plebbitor "i fucking love science" neo-religion we see being formed, where people who don't understand science or it's ideals in any way worship authorities who claim to have it's credentials. Maybe it's about the subversion of science itself, where pseudosciences like gender studies and obviously politicized biology doesn't make the academic communities shout out in condemnation. I have no way of knowing. I do know there are enough suspicious things about the propaganda footage and pictures we've gotten from NASA that some skepticism is warranted. Whether that means we've gone or not gone to the moon. Who knows?
Christopher Sanders
There was an user in the last thread asking how the tinfoil LEM could be expected to land and liftoff the moon on the first try. Thread 404'd before I could post that he's retarded because the LEM had been flown twice before the first landing on Apollo 9 and 10.
Zachary Brooks
>NASA is telling the truth because NASA says so
The findings have all been peer reviewed and verified for their authenticity by scientists from all over the world. To discredit the moon landings is to go up against the juggernaut of academia, which is no easy task. Attacking the primary source is oversimplifying the process of how we verify information to be either true or false because doing so fails to account for the individual conclusions that have been drawn by thousands of naive observers, after the fact.
Jaxon Garcia
lem has rigid titanium/aluminium structure beneath. don't be stupid.
Daniel Gonzalez
>The findings have all been peer reviewed and verified for their authenticity by scientists from all over the world.
So have "one human race" biology.
So have gender studies theories
So have climate change pseudoscience
So have the holocaust
So have all sorts of weird things
Your appeal to authority of majority consensus in the academic world is not only ridiculous seeing how the entire history of science is the established "knowns" being wrong, but there being good enough procedure (hypothesis, test, theory) for minority groups or individuals to prove the majority wrong. But it's doubly ridiculous when you observe the obvious fact that the western academies have been subverted and turned to shit in the post war era, being insulting institutions compared to what they once were, where retarded pseudoscientific quasi-religious ideas are not only spouted, but not even questioned. I'll remind you that there were no peer review back in the age of enlightenment, when experiment was the foundation of science, not pilpul star-chambers of corruptible faggots.
Matthew Myers
The only Moon that matters
Carter Cooper
>an actual argument
You raise an excellent point, and unfortunately the appeal to authority is the best approach we've got when it comes to these sorts of topics. As a member of the scientific community, I'm bound by certain protocols, one of them being a respect for the scholarly academic peer review process, despite its potential pitfalls. That's not to say we should blindly accept every paper that gets published. In fact, any new information that comes to light which discredits earlier findings is accepted as the new canon, but only after it's undergone rigorous and thorough analysis. To date, there have been no verifiable findings that have emerged since the moon landings happened that have called the veracity of the moon landings into question beyond easily debunked arguments from ignorance.
Thomas Lewis
Cia copy pasta
Henry Moore
Well, it's good that we can have a rational talk about this, because I too consider myself a member of the scientific community, but I was hounded out of academia for refusing to go along with lies and politics. It's a fine balance and it's extremely difficult, I'll agree with you there. Our problem is that we don't really have anything else to lean back on than the institutions of science as it stands, which is why they've been targeted as hard as they have. I'll suggest that things are perhaps much worse off than you think.
Look at it this way, we're now at a point where pumping 10 year old boys full of pig hormone and lopping off their penis is considered a cure for... I don't even know it's so diffuse. It's fucking medieval as far as I'm concerned. Now you might consider that a single isolated instance of madness in the academic world. But where is the push-back? What a piece of shit scientist caste we have today, it should be pretty obvious. And I postulate that this development was pretty predictable, as we turned the academies from being high-IQ and costly, to being adult kindergarten for every possible pleb out there who could manage to sign some loan papers. I'd ask you to go review the entry exams to a 1800s academy, your professor would probably not pass them.
As to the moon landing, I have no idea. For all my discussion it all loops back to your argument. There are things people question and the only answer provided is "NASA says." And that's a bit of the problem too, because that's what every academy out there relies on too. That NASA is telling the truth. Just like the whole climate change debacle and the 2-3 UN based institutions that everyone else just trusts. It's not like you can reproduce their supercomputer models, or take a trip to the moon to verify why dust behaves so fucking strangely there in propaganda shots.
Kevin Gonzalez
Earth is flat
Adam Price
wtf there's no way our atmosphere extends that far out. That cannot be a thing that they're teaching. No way. Just no.
Dominic Long
What are your actual objections to the moon landing? Name specifics and well gladly explain it to you in a way that you will understand it.
Evan Perez
>pic is proof
You don't even know what's going on in that picture retard.
Cooper Cruz
>Flat earth is a CIA nigger psyop
That's a certainty and there's no hope for anyone who can't quickly see that fact.
Josiah Myers
Brody Smith
why didnt we ever put a rover on the moon?
Adrian Bailey
"atmosphere" it's just gas, or random particles. not breathable, close to vaccuum, just detectable levels of gas particulars.
Cameron Robinson
My objection is that there is no evidence.
Jonathan Brooks
Eli Barnes
THE MOON ISN'T REAL
Joshua Adams
Mason Clark
Jackson Smith
Your pic is retarded.
>"atmosphere" it's just gas, or random particles. not breathable, close to vaccuum, just detectable levels of gas particulars.
Wholly incorrect.
Grayson Harris
And you literally have no arguments. You're an Israeli shill.
Joshua Rivera
NVIDIA PRODUCES ALL MODERN CGI FOR NASA. EXPECT THEM TO WORK WITH ISRAEL TOO.
Jayden Morris
What are rays of light faggot?
Bentley Mitchell
Flat Earth disclosure comes this year.
Anthony Thomas
lol you glownigger
Hudson Richardson
The moon is artificially constructed to aid life on earth. It's also hollow and quite possibly an observation station. The reason we haven't been back is because we found ayye structures and crafts on the far side. After that weren't allowed to return manned missions.
Juan Torres
>because that's what every academy out there relies on too. That NASA is telling the truth
That's why the moon rocks get passed around the world each year. They contain unique geochemical signatures found nowhere else on Earth, so at bear minimum, something went to the moon and grabbed those samples. To claim that it was robots, and not actual people is grasping at straws, because the requirements of a manned mission aren't that big of a stretch when compared to those of an unmanned one.
>As to the moon landing, I have no idea. For all my discussion it all loops back to your argument.
I'm stuck in the opposite catch 22 in that I need an actual academic source for debunking the moon landings. It will never be enough for me to just get really baked and watch youtube videos on the topic and blindly accept them to be true, because it runs contrary to my professional training. Your right about academia being pozzed with cultural marxism, but that's only certain elements and not the institution as a whole.
Xavier Myers
^Almost this
The moon is real, but only in the sense that it's made of rock and does affect our tides, moods;etc.
Jayden Lopez
And yeah, I realize that NASA fakes most of their stuff now. So does Musk because that car video was as fake as my sex life.
Chase Cook
Do you have any scans of thin sections of the moon rocks compared to say, an basalt from Oregon or Washington?