Moon totally on it's side right now

Now your posting counter arguments for statements that were never made.. Links that I never posted.

Moontards from this thread. I meant substantial red dude you really do just like to be right lmao what a fuckin child. Gtfo astro you are beyond annoying. Bet your not so fuckin chipper in real life

I almost gave you red but then switched it to green not to be a dick and just insulted you in the description. Not all are as kind as me

Your "hypothetical" illustrated your complete ignorance.

I GAVE YOU FUCKING PROOF, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO BELIEVES PEOPLE LIKE WATERBUG WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF!

PROVE WHAT? THAT MY HOMETOWN WAS POPULATED? ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID OR WHAT?! YOU CAN SEE THE GODDAMN PADS FROM US1 IN MY HOMETOWN! I'LL TAKE A FUCKING PICTURE FOR YOU NEXT TIME I'M IN TOWN!

[link to www.astr.ua.edu]
Saturn V, lifting off the pad as seen from my hometown. You can clearly see we have a clear line of sight to the pads. That's true even today even though the rockets are shorter as are the pads.

Lol prove any of the things you have said astro it's not hard for all to see you can not. SHILL=DEAD Astro can eat a bag of dicks i'm so done with this thread.

108-KSC-71P-74 isn't on that webpage. So what? I have other NASA photos as well in my personal collection (including from Apollo, particularly KSC center photos like 108-KSC-71P-74) that have never been uploaded to the internet on any NASA site. "If it's not on the internet it's not official/doesn't exist" is not a logical or rational claim.

Did I ask for proof of a population? Did I ask for proof you had eyesight? Yes its true even today you can still see the pads cause they exist. Wow astro.

I had a strange dream a few months ago, it felt really clear when I had it though. I was standing on the moon and it's orbit changed. It almost tilted over, part of the far side of it became visible to Earth, and it also moved closer to Earth. FWIW.

True but if it exists as a NASA image in your collection and not in NASA's.. it's probably fake.. Lmao what a fucking idiot.

They had clear line of sight to the pads from my hometown, everyone could see it out there on the pad. You can still see the pads today, of course the structures have changed over time to accomidate space shuttles and are changing again to accomidate future heavy lift rockets similar to the Saturn V, but they just rebuild it on the same location, the same pads.

Why are you telling me this? ... What the fuck is this proof of astro? Ok so the rocket launch site is not invisible.. great now lets tackle the next question..

Gotta admire astro's dedication to a fruitless topic.

NASA has them in their collection as well you idiot, just not online. And jumping to the conclusion that "it's probably fake" is not logical statement nor is it supported by any evidence. If you want a copy of 108-KSC-71P-74 or any other KSC photo, call the public affairs office and ask for it!
321.867.5000
Go ahead, knock yourselves out! Not all research is done on the internet you morons.

I don't want a copy as it serves no purpose.. it's digital imagery astro. When are you gonna realize pictures are not proof? That's like saying obviously tom cruise is ascended.. he was in war of the worlds.

Because, everyone saw the rocket out on the pad. There is no way NASA could have lied about when they rolled out the Saturn V. It happened in November 1970, months before launch. End of story.

No one ever said that they did astro.

It's up to you to prove it's fake. Otherwise there is no reason to assume it is fake.

You just spent the last ten minutes arguing with me as if they could have. You're a fucking moron.

By that logic there's no reason to assume it's real. Which option do you think would be more beneficial to your learning ability, assume it's real, or assume it's fake and prove it real.

On top of that I was just asked for a NASA source of the image. There it is. Now shut the fuck up.

Arguing the point that you couldn't prove any of the things you had said. Any still haven't.. Still not seeing where i'm wrong here lol

I've been telling you from the start of this thread to put your nasa photo album away.. lol.

You don't get it, it IS evidence, in order for you to disregard it you must have a LOGICAL reason to do so, or you're not being rational. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it's fake. Same as the amateur image which you also ignore. You don't get to assume everything is fake just because it disagrees with your beliefs. I assume things that disagree with my beliefs are real until I prove they're fake, hence the whole point of debunking things like this. I assumed the claim was true, I went out and found pictures like this one that show it is not.

Last Edited by Astromut on 01/18/2013 04:32 PM

I proved the things I said already. Just because you automatically reject any evidence that disagrees with you means nothing.

I do have a logical reason to do so. I disregard it because i'm in an argument with someone who would be helped by the contents of the picture. That's all the reason needed to assume it's fake. If you wanna assume shit is real and go around trying to prove everything real vs fake your in for a terrible life lmao. Most people wait til they doubt something before trying to prove it fake. There's just no reason to assume a picture is evidence of anything. I can fake a thousand photos of any type of event you want so I don't see how your holding this as intangible proof. I damn sure don't understand your want to continue in an argument with someone you deemed fucking stupid. One would assume someone who is fucking stupid would have nothing intellectually to offer you, so why are you here still? To say I can't think something is fake because I don't have a reason to is stupid, who defines what a reason would be to assume something is fake? This argument is just so fucking stupid and we got to this point because you wanted to be right about small points in your arguments. Like the visibility of a launch pad.. lmao.

HOW IS A PICTURE PROOF? Can you hold it up and say, there is NO WAY that i'm coming to any other conclusion than the right one, based on the fact that there is NO WAY someone could've doctored this evidence. If you can't, then you haven't proven anything. And you most certainly are not able to do this with your argument

Ok hows this as an example.. That sandy hook photo of the dead girl with obama.. That's not proof, people still say it's her sister. Same with your pictures, they're just that.. pictures. To assume them real at face value is naive.

Holy shit, that is not a logical reason, but that is a transparent revealing of your fucking bias.

Fine, fake a photo of the fucking moon, get in a time machine, publish it in a book 20 years ago, and then take a video of the book you published 20 years ago and make sure I can find it in a library myself and verify you published it 20 years ago if I so choose.

I'm willing to bet you don't have a fucking time machine.

Because statements such as this "I disregard it because i'm in an argument with someone who would be helped by the contents of the picture" are incredibly telling, useful, and revealing. I would do this 20x over just to get a statement like that out of you. I'm not doing this for your benefit, that's for damn sure.

You know, rather than obsess about trying to prove me wrong on "small points" in my arguments where I'm clearly right, maybe you should shut up and start learning from me instead. You won't of course, but the amazingly revealing statements you make are worth it anwyay.

There is NO logical reason to assume fakery of a photo taken 40 years ago, published in a book 20 years ago, when this phenomenon is supposedly new to within the last decade. If it didn't happen back then, there is no logical reason to assume they would fake a photo to make the moon look normal in a horizontal position if it really wasn't a normal position for the moon to be in. It's up to you to prove they faked it, or accept it, your choice. There is no logical alternative. Even worse for you, I also showed you an amateur photo published over 20 years ago as well. So now you can't even make ad hominem appeals to "NASA" as being untrustworthy.

Good luck...