Page 3 of 11
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:08 pm
by waugs
And why, exactly, should we believe ANYTHING NASA tells us? (not in reference to any particular post)
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:12 pm
by orz
waugs wrote:And why, exactly, should we believe ANYTHING NASA tells us? (not in reference to any particular post)
AARRGHGHGHHGHGHGHG ARGGHHHHHH AAAARGGHGHGHGGHGHGHG HAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGHGHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG STOP POSTING YOU ARE JUST DOING EXACTLY WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:12 pm
by orz
Point taken re: the helium tho.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:14 pm
by waugs
orz wrote:waugs wrote:And why, exactly, should we believe ANYTHING NASA tells us? (not in reference to any particular post)
AARRGHGHGHHGHGHGHG ARGGHHHHHH AAAARGGHGHGHGGHGHGHG HAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGHGHHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHG STOP POSTING YOU ARE JUST DOING EXACTLY WHAT I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
um, ok?
what's your problem, exactly?
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:17 pm
by OP ED
who wants to pool our resources and buy a space shuttle?
(Endeaver cost 1.5 billion, but you could probably get something to do the same thing for 1/1000th of that, although in this case, i actually regard THAT as a much more likely hoax, that they're fleecing us wrt costs, funding something else with the cash probably or it goes to pockets)
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:17 pm
by orz
Sensible reply is that the fact that the mood landing(/s? Well, which is it?) were real is not something "NASA tells us".
They are something which happened with plenty of real verifiable evidence from NASA and other sources, and maths and physics and all that other stuff we love so much in 9/11 CD threads but throw out the window in favour of "NO STARS LOL" and emotional appeals to "I DUNNO I JUST GOT A
FEEEEELING NASA ARE
HIIIIDINGGGG SOMEHTING" and "I GUESS WE'LL JUST
NEVER KNOW WHAT
REALLLLLLY HAPPENED"
Maybe, just maybe, the truth is
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE? 
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:18 pm
by waugs
OP ED wrote:who wants to pool our resources and buy a space shuttle?
I've got 5 bucks to contribute.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:21 pm
by orz
waugs wrote:what's your problem, exactly?
Having the EXACT SAME CONVERSATION every time there's a moon hoax thread. ;_;
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:21 pm
by Avalon
professorpan wrote:Everything under the Sun is in tune.
But the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:25 pm
by waugs
orz wrote:Sensible reply is that the fact that the mood landing(/s? Well, which is it?) were real is not something "NASA tells us".
They are something which happened with plenty of real verifiable evidence from NASA and other sources, and maths and physics and all that other stuff we love so much in 9/11 CD threads but throw out the window in favour of "NO STARS LOL" and emotional appeals to "I DUNNO I JUST GOT A
FEEEEELING NASA ARE
HIIIIDINGGGG SOMEHTING" and "I GUESS WE'LL JUST
NEVER KNOW WHAT
REALLLLLLY HAPPENED"
Maybe, just maybe, the truth is
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE?
you're probably right--somewhere in the middle. but really, i don't give it much thought and don't even believe it was a hoax. it's called "playing the devil's advocate". maybe you've heard of it.
you seem a bit unhinged, though. maybe you should try getting away from your computer for a bit. Reading someone's tantrum online is not a pretty sight.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:27 pm
by waugs
orz wrote:waugs wrote:what's your problem, exactly?
Having the EXACT SAME CONVERSATION every time there's a moon hoax thread. ;_;
i didn't realize i was supposed to be aware of your "issues" with different topics.
maybe you could message me a list and i'll avoid them.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:33 pm
by orz
you're probably right--somewhere in the middle
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh urg can someone help me out here? I can't face explaning the sarcasm.
:cry::cry::cry:
i don't give it much thought
You don't
say.
Reading someone's tantrum online is not a pretty sight.
Yes I should calmly post utter drivel as a 'devils advocate' instead, that'd be much more edifying for everyone.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:34 pm
by Penguin
Everyone should be aware of orz's soft spots. A sensitive person he is. I think hes a heman. (among those soft spots are - propaganda, propagEnda, 9/11 - especially controlled demolition, conspiracies and hoaxes, and so on.)
He himself is infallible.
(Though in this thread, I dont really disagree with him much
Hug, orz)
Except I dont see what riles you so in waugs` post?
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:35 pm
by orz
waugs wrote:i didn't realize i was supposed to be aware of your "issues" with different topics.
Ok let's try this again. Is there maybe
one single sentence or even a
word I wrote which you actually understand and can reply to without proving my point for me? If we start there we might have something to work with.
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:42 pm
by orz
Penguin wrote:Everyone should be aware of orz's soft spots. A sensitive person he is. I think hes a heman. (among those soft spots are - propaganda, propagEnda, 9/11 - especially controlled demolition, conspiracies and hoaxes, and so on.)
Basically every topic anyone ever posts here.
I am indeed, never fail to upset myself and others.
Seriously tho folks, I simply cannot be the bad guy in a moon hoax thread. There's no sarcastic and mean spirited comment I could possibly make which could be worse or more insulting to the intelligence than the bog standard moon hoax talking points which are already manifesting themselves here, and which turn every single internet thread on the subject turn into exactly the same confounding morass of infuriating circular arguments.
i didn't realize i was supposed to be aware of your "issues" with different topics.
Seriouspost reply to this because I sense I have to be direct here to be understood: This is NOT about my 'issues'. Come on, if you have done any reading about the moon hoax at all (and you must because you're parroting the same old talking points) you must have noticed that every single messageboard thread on the subject on any board ends up almost identical. Same old dead end arguments.
The basic problem is that the moon hoax believer's 'questions' about the moon landings are rhetorical but unfortunately they are also very easily answered, and of course nobody likes their rhetorical question
answered.