• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

Did Man Land On The Moon?

Did man fly to and land on the moon, and return to earth in 1969?

  • Yes, it was on teevee

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • No, it appears to be technically impossible

    Votes: 44 95.7%

  • We went but forgot how (official NASA position)

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Total voters
    46
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
0431abece41f708a65d94128850e6de5.jpg
 
It's because of overexposure they say, learn your cameras they say, stop asking questions they say.

Maybe it's because the stars (and the milkyway) leave the biggest footprint?

istockphoto-1301715955-612x612.jpg
 
fokm said:
Plan to set a base to launch from there to Mars, to start to colonize it. First country to do so will control its resources.

Set up spy ops to monitor earth.

By the way, what did we get out of going to the moon in the first place? Why do it to begin with? Because Russia was trying?
Click to expand...
Setting up a base would (I guess) be vastly more expensive and complex than just making a quick visit. Also, I'm not sure what a moon base would accomplish that a space station wouldn't.

Spy ops can be done with satellites.

About what we got out of supposedly going in the first place, even if you believe the official story I think you'd still have to admit that the main point of the original missions was to show up the USSR. There's a normie Russian blogger I read who worked in Soviet propaganda when he was young and takes questions from westerners. His response to why the Soviets gave up on the race to the moon was that we didn't have the money, knew we didn't have it, and we also knew that it was all basically a big pissing contest and decided to spend what money we had on more practical things. He said it still hurt to lose to the Americans though.
 
Bird said:
There will be neither a base on the moon nor on Mars. What are you talking about? You must have seen too many sci-fi movies. No human being will ever cross the Van Allen Belt alive. Stop this colonizing garbage.
Click to expand...

They still buy their Teslas 'to save the world' though.
 
Bird said:
There will be neither a base on the moon nor on Mars. What are you talking about? You must have seen too many sci-fi movies. No human being will ever cross the Van Allen Belt alive. Stop this colonizing garbage.
Click to expand...
Yes. I more or less buy the normie idea of how space works and even a base on the Moon seems highly improbable to me. The idea of human beings making it all the way to Mars, let alone going there and coming back to Earth seems crazy and completely impossible.
 
Bird said:
There will be neither a base on the moon nor on Mars. What are you talking about? You must have seen too many sci-fi movies. No human being will ever cross the Van Allen Belt alive. Stop this colonizing garbage.
Click to expand...
Obv I'm arguing the narrative of why to go there. There are plenty of reasons -- way to nitpick my example, though. Basically the real reason to go is to prove we can.
 
Bird said:
No, we can't, because
Click to expand...
You simply cannot argue what will be possible or not in 100 or 1000 years.

Maybe robots will cross the radiation belt with shielded fertilized embryos to start humanity on an terraformed mars. It may take 5000 or 10000 or 100000 years. Or maybe some other clever solution will be concocted.

200 years ago radio communication was thought impossible. Once electricity was discovered and harness it was theorized that maybe you could get an engine or light bulbs that lasted, but those items took a long time to perfect and come to market. But the discovery of electricity changed everything.

Just saying it's not possible is not an argument. It's not possible with what we know today. That could change. Try to explain the Internet to someone who lived in London in 1753.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top