RE: Did we really land on the moon in '69?
July 15, 2009 at 11:45 am
(This post was last modified: July 15, 2009 at 11:50 am by bozo.)
(July 15, 2009 at 7:38 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(July 15, 2009 at 7:21 am)bozo Wrote: Niggling doubts.
Or niggling gullibility?
Kyu
no, now concentrate on what I write-- d o u b t.....doubt.
(July 15, 2009 at 9:25 am)Eilonnwy Wrote:(July 15, 2009 at 7:41 am)Pippy Wrote: That's not fair. Why would he be gullible to believe something different that yourself. Man you have a big problem with people who aren't exactly like you. They are all stupid, demented...
And I have a problem with calling you on it.
I will try to stop, in the name of self-improvement. Meet me half way?
-Pip
It is gullible to accept an alternate theory is so overwhelmingly crushed by valid and available evidence.
Would you make the same defensive statement about a holocaust denier? Not everything is open to different opinions, Facts are facts when supported by overwhelming evidence. This is why scientists keep arguing with creationists. They insist there's some controversy but if you actually look at the evidence, the overwhelming consensus is evolution. If you have a difference of "opinion" you're flat out wrong.
On a side note about conspiracy theories, what is more logical, that we made it to the moon or that we staged the whole thing and to this day none of this has come out except a few nut job people insisting it's fake with horrible or no evidence at all?
The house of cards falls so easily. You have two people in a conspiracy, odds are you can keep it. You bring in another guy, and the odds go down. Have a conspiracy that would involve hundreds of people and the ability to keep a conspiracy on that scale is so ridiculous to even consider. People talk.
E, rather than " doing a Kyu " and resort to name-calling, would you care to answer the specific reasons for doubt I raise in my earlier post?
