Imagine a guy that spends his time arguing daily with a guy he doesn’t know who he believes is constantly dishonest.
Buddy- you’re the fool if you actually hold these beliefs.
Is that the “nuh-uh” defense? You show on here, with almost every post, how dishonest you are. You’re on here almost daily and I’ve been here more than a year. You’re not as complicated as you think you are.
Just an immoral man who’s a bigot and who celebrated the immorality and dishonesty of those he politically supports, also, you’re a traitor to your country. That pretty much sums it up…a sleezebag salesman from Jersey is also a nice little bow on top
So assuming you’re absolutely correct, why do you spend time on here correcting people that are liars? To convince the other 4 people you do t know lmao?!
What a fucking fool you’re revealing yourself to be.
No no…. Either YOU are the liar right now or you’re just a complete jerkoff for being obsessed with me.
1 Like
Nope, as I’ve stated before…you amuse me.
says the guy who thinks NASA is fake, Trump won the election, Trump doesn’t lie and will give the power back to the people, the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun, Qanon is real, and a myriad of others mentally handicapped ideas…
None of that statement makes any sense. There are 4 of you who post on the right wing side…you’re responding to posts. What a pussy martyr you are all of the time…you and Trump, the biggest pussies in the country. Always victim, always lying, never owning up to shit…just void of any morality or honesty in any way.
You are a remarkably weak, weak man
This is the part where the tell you how you would feel about your kids @gsc
This is the part where they tell you how you’d feel about your kids @gsc
He’s not being contradictory, he’d open his arms to your disowned transgender children
The next part where dj speaks for warden apparently…
I know I would welcome them in the neighborhood.
There’s not one person here that gives a flying fuck what you would do.
Do you purposely misstate my positions to get an advantage? I never said NASA itself is fake. It’s a very real agency that gets a lot of money.
I said it’s moon mission was faked. I provided ample evidence.
I’ve also pointed out that they employed notable Nazi’s (enemies of our state) such as Wernher von Braun. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that we can’t go higher than lower earth orbit today?
Do you deny that even though we have hundreds of satellites that one has never turned to earth and taken a complete picture?
Do you deny that someone filmed the Apollo astronauts launching from the moon but how did that mfer get home?
Do you deny that Nixon called the Apollo crew with a standard telephone 268,000 miles away in the late 60’s lol.
So quite me accurately and then try to actually deal with my arguments.
Posterity
1 Like
Just to be clear, you never ever ever provided evidence that the moon landing was faked.
Of course we can go higher. It has always been a question of why.
What are you even talking about? There have been plenty of complete images taken of Earth from satellites.
Are you talking about the lunar rover camera?
Why would anyone deny this was filmed?
Or if you mean there was a Hollywood camera dude with a camera on his shoulder… yes, we deny that.
And no, to address your concern, the 3 lunar rovers left behind by the Apollo missions never made it home.
OMG, I’m afraid you might actually be an idiot.
If you’re asking if there was a landline to the moon, then yes, we deny it.
If you’re asking if Nixon’s landline was routed through mission control over the radio comms, then no, we don’t deny it.
Jesu Cristo GSC, get a grip. Your crazy is showing.
You’re like Trump…you just can’t help but prove our points with each word.
Everytime he opens that lying piehole, his nose grows further
GSCL 
wn
1 Like
305- I’ve already dealt with everything you’ve said in other threads. We’ll agree to disagree.
If you want to believe that we went there and just decided, because of cost, not to go back. Cool. I don’t.
Come on, man. I don’t think you ever mentioned the landline to the moon before.
We didn’t decide not to go back because of cost. We didn’t go back because there was no point. Can you think of a reason we should have gone back?
And for the record, listing a bunch of arguments, saying “quote me accurately and then try to actually deal with my arguments”, and then deciding not to defend them after someone does exactly what you ask is a cop out at best.
I have and you took it out of context again. My contention was never that we had a landline connection to the moon and you know that. It was that we didn’t have the technology then to communicate that far (we may not even have it today).
There’s this little problem called “attenuation.” If you shoot a radio signal here on earth, you need multiple stations with amplifiers to continue to broadcast the signal or else it gets lost. It literally weakens the further it travels.
Where were those amplifiers? You’re telling me that we blasted a radio signal through earths atmosphere, though the Van Allen Belt and 268,000 thousand miles to the moon and there was no delay? The signal got there in almost real time like if I were to call you right now?
You’re free to believe that. I don’t.
305- we spend billions of dollars on things each year that have no point. Go look at the federal budget and how many projects this federal government runs that have no functional use.
If your contention was that radio waves can’t get to the moon, why even mention the landline? You’re the one setting up the straw man, bud, not me.
Which is a very little problem in the vacuum of space.
There was a 3 second delay. 1.5 seconds to get there, and 1.5 seconds to get back.
What is unbelievable about that to you? We know how far the moon is. Do the math. Which part doesn’t compute? Or is this a “gut feeling” thing?
Here’s a good question and answer on the technical aspect of radio reaching the moon. I’m not asking you to read the whole article, but the first part is the conspiracy-question and the debunking-answer. You should read that if you even pretend to be interested in the subject.
There’s quick math in there suggesting a radio signal should take 1.18 seconds to reach the moon.
Yes but this was very dangerous. We don’t fly hydrogen-filled zeppelins anymore, but that doesn’t mean we never did.
I want to remind you…you’re debating a guy who thinks the moon landing is fake, NASA is fake, and the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun.
I just can’t imagine someone leaning on bunk arguments, being unable to defend them when encountered with contrary evidence, and then next year using the same tired arguments again as if he hadn’t learned a thing.
It’s a sad thing in this world when people hit their level cap. Boom, that’s it, there’s no more point improving.
The choice is to keep your mind closed or to open it up. It’s that simple.
1 Like
Who was unable to defend them?
I contend that it would be difficult in 1969 to amplify a radio wave 268,000 miles away. You believe the contrary.
That’s fine.
I have 100 other reasons that lead me to this belief. I’m sure you don’t want to go through them. Neither do I.
I only answered because warden brought this topic up but misquoted me (as usual). You are free to believe what you want and so am I. To claim some kind of victory on this is silly.
Arguing with GSCl wn who refuses to believe in reality. The only reality he has is conspiracy. He has to be a troll. There is no other reasonable explanation.
1 Like
Lol- this guy is such a clown AWAYS having to jump in on shit that involves me but never making a point. You’re my bitch. I love rent free in that dome of yours.
You. You say it would be “difficult” in 1969 to amplify a radio wave. What’s your rationale for that?
And maybe it was difficult. The government and NASA no doubt had a difficult task. No one’s saying it was easy. But for you to say it was impossible, you need to say why. If you’re gonna lean on science, you need to have the capability to discuss the science, not just say you “contend that it would be difficult in 1969” without any supporting argument.
Don’t pretend to have scientific proof when you refuse to touch the science.
To be sure, I’m not claiming I convinced you of anything. But I will claim that you said some dumb shit, I challenged those statements using facts and logic, and you can’t or won’t defend what you said. That’s enough for me.
1 Like