What is with the trust of NASA?

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


Would you want to point out one or two things from your link that you believe to be compelling evidence of a hoax? I don't have the time to go through everything on that site and I'd rather focus on something that you find the most convincing.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
...I can't take anyone seriously who has a green recycle emblem as their avatar because by all means throw your damn trash away but Global Warming let alone man-made Global Warming is as real as a man bear pig...

You've never heard of the movie "Soylent Green"? It's a classic.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
AND DUDE PLEASE WITH THE NASA.GOV READ WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT...

Instead of your standard appeal-to-spite logical fallacies, can you tell us why ngchunter's explanation is wrong?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
... but I can't take anyone seriously who has a green recycle emblem as their avatar because by all means throw your damn trash away but Global Warming let alone man-made Global Warming is as real as a man bear pig...

Ignorance abounds...

reply to post by jra
You don't have the time and sorry buddy that will be you and mr. doomsday's demise...


AND MR DOOMSDAY I SAID HE WAS RIGHT, I CAN ADMIT WHEN I'M WRONG...



[edit on 25-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I would love to hear who your sources are that you deem credible who debunked any of this info...mythbusters? or other discovery or history channel propaganda? I'm sorry and I hope this isn't considered a "personal snip" but I can't take anyone seriously who has a green recycle emblem as their avatar because by all means throw your damn trash away but Global Warming let alone man-made Global Warming is as real as a man bear pig...

[edit on 24-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

No -- I used my own critical thinking skills, logic, and observation of the real world around me to debunk items such as "non-parallel shadows" (I see them all the time on Earth), lit-up shadows (the moon reflects light -- if you don't agree, just look outside during a full Moon), crosshairs, flap on the astronaut's pack (the flap IS visible in the movie), aiming the camera (they practiced aiming the cameras for hours -- taking the cameras home with them to practice on weekends [such as during back-yard cook-outs]) etc.


My explanations for those so-called "anomalies" make logical sense to anyone who just takes the time to observe the world, rather than taking the knee-jerk reaction of believing everything one reads on the internet.

Excuse me for doing a bit of my own research and using my own logic to try to explain these so-called anomalies, rather than taking at face-value the word of the "hoax-believer" -- not that the hoax-believer is necessarily always wrong, but their facts and logical process need to be checked and verified.

I just can't believe that when someone takes the time to actually try to understand and verify the so-called anomalies on those hoax websites, that people still actually believe in those moon-hoax theories.



...and what's this about global warming??

Originally posted by jra
...You've never heard of the movie "Soylent Green"? It's a classic.

EDIT TO ADD:
ahhh....Thanks jra.

I sometimes forget not everyone is a fan of classic sci-fi. I suppose I should be more careful when I use sci-fi quotes such as:

"Get your stinking paws off of me, you damn dirty ape!"
or
"Luke, I am your father"
or
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that"
...or even
"It's a cook booooook!!!"

I suppose not everyone is a fan.

...and, yes, my screen name and avatar show TWO things about me -- I love good sci-fi, and I have a dry sense of humor.


[edit on 5/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


So I take it from your reply that you are unable to find anything that you consider to be good evidence of a hoax on that site? Or is it that you are unable to defend the claims in a debate?

I'm here willing to discuss the topic. Why are you avoiding it?

reply to post by jra
You are obviously not looking to discuss anything, you've made up your mind...It's a hoax site right? why?

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by jra

 

You are obviously not looking to discuss anything, you've made up your mind...It's a hoax site right? why?

I don't want to speak for jra (although he said he DOES want to discuss it), but it's a "hoax site" because it is a site that promotes the idea that the moon-landing was a hoax.

...or perhaps I don't understand what you are saying here.



[edit on 5/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Again If you don't look at the evidence with an open mind than you will not see the truth even if the proof is in front of you...



As mr. Rex said "Evidence be damned"


[edit on 25-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Again If you don't look at the evidence with an open mind than you will not see the truth even if the proof is in front of you...

I sometimes feel the same way about the hoax believers...

...it seems to me that some of them want to believe in the Moon-landing hoax so badly, that they are so close-minded that they believe any hoax evidence they read -- even if that evidence doesn't pass critical thinking tests.

Close-mindedness is a two-way street. The "blind believer" is just as close minded as the person who is a "knee-jerk skeptic".

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
On the contrary, I wish I was wrong I really do...
And I've tried pretty damn hard to debunk myself...

reply to post by NWOWILLFALL


well, then why did you post that link discussing so-called evidence such as the non-parallel shadows, the filled-in shadows, the cross hairs, and the camera-aiming? It seems you believe that at least some of these things are evidence, when I contend that just by doing some simple research and observation, that one can see that these are not hoax evidence at all.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Well I can say we agree to disagree and I will say respectfully that you are wrong, but that's alright with me...

NASA and Roscosmos has done some of the best space work in human history and you don't have to look to hard to get validation on the science they have done over the years. Alot of the people who subscribe to the counter culture have agenda of their own and their opinions don't amount to much at all. NASA has their disclosure issues much like any branch of the military and I don't think they really care if anyone trusts em or not. They have a pretty good track record with their missions and science which is the standard by which their worth is measured. When you cook it down, do people want a space program or no space program? This thread decays to talking about doctoring photos like 20 years before the introduction of the PC which is highly unlikely. The way the space program has evolved is actually really impressive.. The fact that NASA is collaborating with the Russians, ESA, Japan (and others) is a good thing, and has been success story for the past dozen year. I was a bit shocked when Obama announced he cutting NASA's budget, but I think his position has changed someone.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

While their is some "questionable" stuff on this site they got this very right atleast on this subject...


www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

CAN you tell me WHAT bit of BS on this site you want me to look at because we have a lot to choose from!

You can't trust NASA when they say there are no UFOs, but what about NASA footage that exposes UFOs? I'm inclined to trust NASA more than the average source on these.

The "tether incident" and other videos showing astronauts talking about UFOs are quite convincing to me.

Search YouTube for "NASA UFO compilation" for a variety of good ones.

reply to post by sandwiches


Re the tether videos I take it you mean the out of focus debris CLOSE to the camera that are supposed to be UFO'S that would be hundreds of feet across at the distance they are claimed to be at, is that the videos you are talking about

This argument just continues to go nowhere...
.
.
.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
This argument just continues to go nowhere...
.
.
.

Well if you dont answer WHAT does it say, that you are NOT 100% sure about your so called evidence

reply to post by wmd_2008
Answer what exactly?
I'm not sure I saw a question...Maybe insults but no questions...You don't ask questions that's the problem with you...I hope you start...Other things are goin on right now that are a hell of a lot more important than this...It is important and basically everything (almost) on that site was the truth whether you accept it or not...This argument gets me nowhere when their is about to be a war without the people's consent...Government loves us right? NASA is a government run agency right? Piece together the puzzle...
and decipher the lies...


[edit on 25-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

Ya know what?

From my readings I have gleaned the genesis of this so-called "NASA trust issue"....

Seems to stem from the fact that, at the heart, NASA is a political entity, and is beholden to Congress for funding. Vulnerable to budget cuts at every turn, depending on how the political winds happen to be blowing at any given time.

The "never a straight answer" acronym came about because NASA tried, in order to guarantee most funding possible, to paint rosy forecasts of schedules, in various programs, to include the STS, in its early development.

Remember, the Space Shuttle was touted to (eventually) have a turn-around time on the ground of as little as two weeks, and it would be the "workhorse" space transportation system for the future!

Well....we saw how that rosy prediction wasn't lived up to...the technical challenges (and tragic failures) attest.

It is a balancing act, the finances of politics, and NASA is caught in the middle. But, in this "instant internet" age, just about any crackpot with a "conspiracy" idea can now have access to a bully pulpit, and shout it out!



[edit on 25 May 2010 by weedwhacker]