{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Le Dustin xddddd:
4/25/2014 11:14:13 PM
7
If NASA lied about the moon landing then why should I trust them on their opinion of global climate change?
http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/
Seriously, NASA lost all its credibility when they got caught faking the moon landing. So why should I take their opinion on global warming when they're probably faking that too?
-
Edited by CND AAA Beef: 4/26/2014 12:44:45 AMI call the whole thing bullshit based on 9 alone. The main descent burn was conducted at 6KM above the moon's surface. Also, lunar gravity is 1/6th that of Earth's, meaning that the lander would have been "falling" much slower and that much less thrust would have been needed to slow it down. They were basically just tapping the gas for course corrections on the way down. Oh, and they had five successful soft landings by probes before the Moon landing, so it's not like they had no idea how to land the thing. [quote]Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.[/quote] Don't forget to account for oh, FORTY FIVE YEARS in camera technology improvement since 1969! And when taking a picture of stars from the surface of the Earth at night, there is way less reflected light to deal with, meaning you can hold open a longer exposure to pick up the starlight. The same reason why the NASA photo could only pick up the Earth and the Moon is the same reason why you would only be able to see the moon on your picture if you tried to take one of the night sky while standing in the middle of a brightly lit city. If you dialed up the camera exposure high enough to capture the stars, you would also be capturing way more reflected light from the Earth and the Moon's surface, completely washing out the photo. You'd get the exact same effect if you opened up the exposure while in the brightly lit city. You'd have to go out into the middle of nowhere to avoid all of that ambient light to get your shot. God forbid these conspiracy theorist open up Wikipedia and learn how a camera works before they spout bullshit.
-
-
3 Repliesthat article gave me an extra chromosome
-
Edited by deemark: 4/25/2014 11:45:58 PM"10 reasons why the moon landing could be hoax" [quote]"why the moon landing could be hoax"[/quote] [quote]"could be hoax"[/quote] [quote]"could"[/quote] Nice bait though
-
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF IT BEING FAKE?
-
How could the moon landing be real if my eyes aren't real?
-
Edited by DB5: 4/25/2014 11:24:38 PMLol My favorite part about the stated Kubrick theory is where it grasps at straws as evidence
