In article <466d2e29-9b85-4096-849b-e7d625a9cd50
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wsthomas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Jul 18, 12:08=A0pm, lorad <lorad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 10:03=A0am, Grendel <wstho...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 18, 11:53=A0am, lorad <lorad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > Some other country currently has a surveying satellite orbit in
the
> > > > moon...
> > > > I'm sure they already have photographed the landing sites.
> >
> > > > Someone should ask them for pics
> >
> > > And if the pics were published, the kooks would say that THAT other
> > > country was in the United States pocket and lying to protect its
> > > interests.
> >
> > Shaddup stupid..
>=20
> Ah, nice argument. Not a big fan of the First Amendment, are we?
> Especially when it involves reasoned, well articulated arguments.
>=20
> > If the pictures were published it would just show a lunar lander - or
> > not.
> > And everyone could draw their own conclusions. Even you.
>=20
> Kooks don't want to 'draw conclusions'. They believe their bull****
> despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (that's why sane people
> consider them 'kooks'). Publi****ng any number of pictures will not
> prove it to them.
nice circular reasonning and prison-thinking.
People who question the moon landing have come up with pretty
impressive=20
criticism of the pictures published by NASA.
The sane and rational people seem to be the ones who find the many=20
abnormalities of these pictures to be weird.
> Actually taking them to the moon and showing them
> in person wouldn't prove it to them.
You have a rock-hard belief and you dream of making others adopt it.
That's religion, not reason.
> All the historical records, physical evidence and personal accounts
> from the Lunar Missions=20
are really not convincing.
> is not enough to 'prove' it to them.
because they dont like to believe what they are told to believe.
Some, on the other hand, make it a personal quest to convert everyone=20
they can to the consensus view.
> Basically, they're ****ing idiots and irrelevant.
Calling them irrelevant because you have realized you cant convince
them=20
by belief alone is a nice cop out.
> My favorite 'logic'
> from a Moon Hoax Kook so far has been, "We obviously could not land a
> man on the moon because in 1969 we didn't even have the technology to
> make a PlayStation 3."
the tech of 1969 was indeed quite basic.
Slide rules and kitchen robots;-)
> Kooks are kinda like Slinkys. Not useful for anything, but they do
> bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
they remind you that people can believe differently than you do. they=20
have the means and freedom to do so, which you seem to be lacking.
=20
> Yol Bolsun,
> Grendel.
>=20
> "I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Cristallized is the word.
--=20
psychiatry : no science, no cures
http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/psychiatry-no-science-no-cure/
|
