Buckster Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 5 hours ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: That truly must have been a lot of effort for those NASA guys to go to - craning the buggy into position not just once, but going through the whole palaver again just to move it forward a foot. I'd just have pushed it forward. Mind you, I can also understand why they'd want to 'avoid disturbing the carefully racked(?) moondirt' though, what with all those other people walking around on it and messing it up... I think @Nute mentioned this before and I missed the answer, but what explanation do you have for the fact that the landing sites and the abandoned descent modules are clearly visible in low-orbit images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and that craft from China, India and Japan have also seen them? Or that we've been pinging lasers off the retroreflector the Apollo 11 mission left on the lunar surface for the last 55 years? None of that really happens, the people involved are all part of the conspiracy obviously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Why is it hovering, anyway its superfluous as you can just ping off the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 12 minutes ago, zzzak said: You’re right! And if that doesn’t prove once and for all that the whole thing was faked then this one definitely does! No footprints or anything! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 I’m definitely coming around to your way of thinking on this Zzzak - there’s loads of proof out there when you start looking! I’d like to see @Nute talk his way out of this with his physics shit… 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Someone took the lander to the off licence or something or maybe a Moonie stole it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 FFS Zzzak, why didn’t you say Buzz Aldrin was a Freemason to begin with? It all makes sense now - you can’t trust those sneaky bastards. My father-in-law used to be a Freemason, and I know for a fact that he’s never even been to the Kennedy Space Centre! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 Well it looks like @zzzak was right again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 19 minutes ago, Buckster said: Well it looks like @zzzak was right again. Well duh Buckster - I’d like to see you come up with any alternative explanation for those photos… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 11 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: Well duh Buckster - I’d like to see you come up with any alternative explanation for those photos… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Six30 Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 they would never of made it through The Van Allen belts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 On 17/04/2024 at 04:36, zzzak said: , I can tell that Bucky's happy about it, in my minds eye I can see him quietly smiling to himself while nodding his head and thinking, 'zzzaks going to come through on this one'. , 100%, for a while I was getting concerned that Professor Wankstain was going to bamboozle you with his pseudo science but thankfully you stepped up to the challenge with irrefutable proof and put him in his place, once more proving yourself to be the intellectual giant we all know you to be and not just because you paid that fat bird to say so. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 I keep telling myself I must look at the stuff Zak posted, but keep finding other stuff that's more fun, like tidying up the garage or cleaning the toilet. My dentist told me I need a filling replacing, I'm wondering how hard it can be to do it myself... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 4 hours ago, Nute said: I keep telling myself I must look at the stuff Zak posted, but keep finding other stuff that's more fun, like tidying up the garage or cleaning the toilet. My dentist told me I need a filling replacing, I'm wondering how hard it can be to do it myself... I just find it amusing to be honest, waiting to see what fresh imbecility gets served up next as irrefutable proof of whichever conspiracy theory we're on at the time. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that he believes this stuff, any more than it bothers me that Buckster thinks the Earth is many millions of years younger than the fossil fuel he puts in his bike. It's harmless enough, and it's not as though by getting them to see sense they're suddenly going to make a stellar contribution to humanity, any more than most of us do. Just enjoy it! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 1 hour ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: I just find it amusing to be honest, waiting to see what fresh imbecility gets served up next as irrefutable proof of whichever conspiracy theory we're on at the time. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that he believes this stuff, any more than it bothers me that Buckster thinks the Earth is many millions of years younger than the fossil fuel he puts in his bike. It's harmless enough, and it's not as though by getting them to see sense they're suddenly going to make a stellar contribution to humanity, any more than most of us do. Just enjoy it! Aging fossils is already being debunked by the scientific community without any help from me. You stick to your pseudo science and I will stick to written observed history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 35 minutes ago, Buckster said: Aging fossils is already being debunked by the scientific community without any help from me. You stick to your pseudo science and I will stick to written observed history. Is this the same scientific community that told you fish can evolve into cows, or that humans evolved from monkeys? Go on - tell us what your concerns with radiometric dating are and we’ll have a look… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 21 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: Is this the same scientific community that told you fish can evolve into cows, or that humans evolved from monkeys? Go on - tell us what your concerns with radiometric dating are and we’ll have a look… Radiometric dating assumes that the measurable elements have always existed in the same quantities as today. It also assumes that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate. It is also very selectively applied. It is based on untestable assumptions and it has been proven incorrect when it failed to age rocks formed during volcanic eruptions, sited of returning dates of less than 100 years old it returns ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto von Jizzmark Posted April 18 Author Share Posted April 18 2 minutes ago, Buckster said: Radiometric dating assumes that the measurable elements have always existed in the same quantities as today. It also assumes that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate. It is also very selectively applied. It is based on untestable assumptions and it has been proven incorrect when it failed to age rocks formed during volcanic eruptions, sited of returning dates of less than 100 years old it returns ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Let’s start with the most obvious problem in that lot first: what form of radiometric dating is being used to date rocks of less than 100 years old Buckster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzak Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 2 hours ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: I just find it amusing to be honest, waiting to see what fresh imbecility gets served up next as irrefutable proof of whichever conspiracy theory we're on at the time. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that he believes this stuff, any more than it bothers me that Buckster thinks the Earth is many millions of years younger than the fossil fuel he puts in his bike. It's harmless enough, and it's not as though by getting them to see sense they're suddenly going to make a stellar contribution to humanity, any more than most of us do. Just enjoy it! Bucky thinks climate change is real, the climate does change however its called weather, also there are no fossil fuels, if oil is a product of dead dinosaurs all that I can say is that there must have been an enormous amount of dinosaurs considering the daily oil usage is over 100 million barrels a day at 159l per barrel, it just another hoax that people believe in without thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 3 minutes ago, zzzak said: Bucky thinks climate change is real, the climate does change however its called weather, also there are no fossil fuels, if oil is a product of dead dinosaurs all that I can say is that there must have been an enormous amount of dinosaurs considering the daily oil usage is over 100 million barrels a day at 159l per barrel, it just another hoax that people believe in without thinking. Plus the oil wells refill themselves on an ongoing basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 8 minutes ago, Buckster said: Radiometric dating assumes that the measurable elements have always existed in the same quantities as today. It also assumes that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate. It is also very selectively applied. It is based on untestable assumptions and it has been proven incorrect when it failed to age rocks formed during volcanic eruptions, sited of returning dates of less than 100 years old it returns ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Just so I'm getting this straight, are you saying that the half life of a particular isotope is variable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 5 minutes ago, Otto von Jizzmark said: Let’s start with the most obvious problem in that lot first: what form of radiometric dating is being used to date rocks of less than 100 years old Buckster? It’s irrelevant if they are coming up with ages like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckster Posted April 18 Share Posted April 18 1 minute ago, Nute said: Just so I'm getting this straight, are you saying that the half life of a particular isotope is variable? I’m saying that no one knows either way because it is based on unobservable assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now