The 1969 Moon Landing -- fake or real?

[Snarky Oracle!]

Apparently....if you have a really good state of the art telescope, you can see the American flag on the moon. So I'm told anyway.

Oh, honey, please.... Somebody told you way wrong!

 

[Willie Oleson]

Well I'm sure it will be lovely when its finished

It pains me to inform you all that the moon has been cancelled.

 

[Richard Channing]

It pains me to inform you all that the moon has been cancelled.

Oh God, this is even worse than when Sue Ellen's arm got cancelled.

 

[Sarah]

Oh God, this is even worse than when Sue Ellen's arm got cancelled.

Please explain.

 

[Richard Channing]

Please explain.

Back on the old Dallas TNT forum when the show got cancelled there was a big cancelled stamp put on the banner photo. This created a bit of a furore as the cancelled stamp went over Sue Ellen's arm. Well, when I say 'furore', a few members weren't impressed, much to the amusement of many of the other members!

 

[Sarah]

Back on the old Dallas TNT forum when the show got cancelled there was a big cancelled stamp put on the banner photo. This created a bit of a furore as the cancelled stamp went over Sue Ellen's arm. Well, when I say 'furore', a few members weren't impressed, much to the amusement of many of the other members!

And I wasn't at the centre of this BECAUSE??????

 

[Richard Channing]

And I wasn't at the centre of this BECAUSE??????

I dunno, where were you?!?!

 

[Willie Oleson]

And I wasn't at the centre of this BECAUSE??????

Nobody here is responsible for your actions (or the lack thereof)

 

[Sarah]

This is all very mysterious (like the moon landing). I'm sure I must have created SOME sort of fuss over it.

 

[Emelee]

No. We could fly satellites in the '60s.

The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there.

But you said: "Real. We can indeed fly to other satellites in our galaxy. And we could in the 60s."

Then I said: "No. We could fly satellites in the '60s."

And then you said: "The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there."

So you're giving evidence that we went to the moon based on the premise that we went to the moon?

Your logic is as circular as ... as the moon!

 

[Willie Oleson]

The moon is a satellite

It's not a planet?

 

[Emelee]

But you said: "Real. We can indeed fly to other satellites in our galaxy. And we could in the 60s."

Then I said: "No. We could fly satellites in the '60s."

And then you said: "The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there."

So you're giving evidence that we went to the moon based on the premise that we went to the moon?

Your logic is as circular as ... as the moon!

My reply is based on the thought that you didn't know that the moon is a satellite. It was not an attempt to show evidence that we went to the moon.

 

[Emelee]

It's not a planet?

Earth is a planet. A little blue ball with a smaller yellow ball that buzzes around it like a mosquito in heat.
Moons are so-called "natural satellites". Or debris that gravitates around bigger debris instead of the star.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

My reply is based on the thought that you didn't know that the moon is a satellite. It was not an attempt to show evidence that we went to the moon.

No, honey. Willie Oleson asked if the moon was a planet and not a satellite. Not me.

I understood exactly what you were saying when you claimed we were visiting satellites in the '60s as evidence that we'd been to the moon.

I countered by saying that man had sent up satellites (as in big pieces of metal) in the '60s, but hadn't been to a satellite (as in the moon) except for, perhaps, the moon.

What other satellites had man visited in the '60s (other than the moon) that you were using as evidence that we been to the moon, too?

 

[Emelee]

No, honey. Willie Oleson asked if the moon was a planet and not a satellite. Not me.

I understood exactly what you were saying when you claimed we were visiting satellites in the '60s as evidence that we'd been to the moon.

I countered by saying that man had sent up satellites (as in big pieces of metal) in the '60s, but hadn't been to a satellite (as in the moon) except for, perhaps, the moon.

What other satellites had man visited in the '60s (other than the moon) that you were using as evidence that we been to the moon, too?

That's not how I interpreted it.
You said: "No. We could fly satellites in the '60s." - which I read as "we could only fly space shuttles in the 60s."
So I replied "The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there." - with which I meant to inform that the moon is a natural satellite.

Cause I know that many people don't know that the moon is a natural satellite, and from your post, I thought that you didn't know that.
I think your italics confused me.

If I were to argue the fact, then I would have only said something like that we can fly there (the moon) today if we wanted, so why not in the 60s?
The moon is the only natural satellite that a human being from Earth has visited. And I believe the government, NASA and the austronauts themselves are telling the truth. I have no proof, as I don't work with space or anything --- my only "proof" is my belief, which isn't proof at all.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

That's not how I interpreted it.

You said: "No. We could fly satellites in the '60s." - which I read as "we could only fly space shuttles in the 60s."

So I replied "The moon is a satellite, and we did fly there." - with which I meant to inform that the moon is a natural satellite.

Cause I know that many people don't know that the moon is a natural satellite, and from your post, I thought that you didn't know that.

I can't help how it's interpreted, or how one adds those interpretations of what I said onto the sentences themselves. I thought my bare-bones post made it clear that I "got" that a moon was a satellite. But perhaps not.

I think your italics confused me.

Interesting.

If I were to argue the fact, then I would have only said something like that we can fly there (the moon) today if we wanted, so why not in the 60s?

Really? Technology was just as good then? I'm sure that isn't what you were saying.

The moon is the only natural satellite that a human being from Earth has visited. And I believe the government, NASA and the austronauts themselves are telling the truth. I have no proof, as I don't work with space or anything --- my only "proof" is my belief, which isn't proof at all.

I'm just not sure what I think anymore. I used to be quite sure, in my callow yet relatively-unarrogant youth. But the more one learns about some of the things our government and intelligence agencies were doing in the '60s, the more feasible the conspiratards' evidence becomes, if not 100% convincing, because TPTB were well capable of pulling off the most outrageous scams.

 

[Willie Oleson]

my only "proof" is my belief, which isn't proof at all.

And yet, you know for sure that God doesn't exist, and people have no soul?

 

[Emelee]

And yet, you know for sure that God doesn't exist, and people have no soul?

No, I don't know any such thing. It was my conclusion of the philosophical text that I had been reading.
No one can know for sure anything regarding God/no God, a soul separate from the body or not separated, if unicorns and dragons are alive on another solar system or if the Universe is really endless of universes side by side.
But I do like to problematise things - argue one point on and on until I am proven right or wrong. But with things that cannot be proven one way or another by us (at this point), you can problematise forever. Which is what philosophers do.

 

[Emelee]

I can't help how it's interpreted, or how one adds those interpretations of what I said onto the sentences themselves. I thought my bare-bones post made it clear that I "got" that a moon was a satellite. But perhaps not.

Interesting.

Really? Technology was just as good then? I'm sure that isn't what you were saying.

I'm just not sure what I think anymore. I used to be quite sure, in my callow yet relatively-unarrogant youth. But the more one learns about some of the things our government and intelligence agencies were doing in the '60s, the more feasible the conspiratards' evidence becomes, if not 100% convincing, because TPTB were well capable of pulling off the most outrageous scams.

I was sleepy when I wrote all those things, so I can very likely have read something completely wrong.

Technology wasn't as good then as it is now, but I believe that it was good enough. How hard can it be? They were flying concords and other huge planes, and had long experience of shooting up things in space. Not to mention that the Russians were close to beating USA in this matter. Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space, orbiting our planet and then landing successfully again.

I don't recall the Russians calling the moon landing fake and wanting evidence - but maybe they did? If they didn't, then I think it adds to pointing that Armstrong & crew did indeed land on the moon.