Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Yes indeed. How long has man been in existence on Earth? In that time our Technology has advanced enough to get us 250,000 mi to the moon.

Take that same rate of Tech advancement and apply it to an intelligent sociecy millions or say billions of years more advanced.

You are just assuming that other civilizations would be that old. Why do you assume we are the youngest? What do you base it on? Where is the proof? Show your work.

reply to post by evil incarnate


LOL are you serious?? I'm not going to calculate the probability equation. We don't even have the ability to no what infinite entails. That is the size of the universe.

Now what is your point exactly?

reply to post by FX44rice
My work? LOL Prove it? LOL Am I in court of law?

Obviously you have not even had basic astronomy. It is common knowledge I am dealing with.

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Yes indeed. How long has man been in existence on Earth? In that time our Technology has advanced enough to get us 250,000 mi to the moon.

Take that same rate of Tech advancement and apply it to an intelligent sociecy millions or say billions of years more advanced.

It would be extremely conservative to say they would have the ability to seek, find, and visit us. Probability would show us they have.

If we are saying we advanced so much as to get us to the moon.

Let me know if you still are having trouble.

I have trouble with your estimations. How are they arrived at? Pure guess, at best.

Question: If they are here and are so advanced, why do they keep CRASHING? They have a worse safety record than any airline.

And, another question, why would they come here, and why would they let us know if they did? Ever been to a zoo with a one way mirror so the animals "act naturally" while people stare at them?

reply to post by FX44rice


FX, your logic fails in a miserable way IF you consider this:

(caution, this requires actual thought)

In the entire Universe we will firstly stipulate that more than one technologically capable species exist, and will eventually progress in their science to accomplish space travel. What if WE are the first?? (Somebody has to be, unless you posit simultaenous development). Now, I'm not suggesting that this IS the case; I'm just saying that your allegation that we HAVE NOT been to the Moon because it REQUIRES the existence of ETs isn't a rock-solid theory. WE could be the aliens!!

Again, the fact of Apollo is indisputable, various attempts to 'argue' notwithstanding. Red herrings and specious 'examples' aren't really valid in an intellectual discussion.

[edit on 5/3/0909 by weedwhacker]

How many Suns like ours in the Galaxy.
Perhaps the Astronomy experts know that one.

Then estimate how long it would take to get to us.

On the Moon thing, it doesn't matter if Man went to
the moon or not cause ETs have been there cause
ETs have been to Earth in their UFOs.

Why didn't you say so.
Any one can understand that.

reply to post by Gawdzilla
Wow, you are not comprehending me. It must be my communication skills I apologize. One more time.

I don't believe ET's have visited Earth.

I don't believe man has set foot on the moon.


I FEEL:
If one believes we set foot on the moon, I "assume" should I technically say, they must surely believe that ET's have visited Earth.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Your response I must say is very bad logic.

"What if we are the first" we absolutely know our solar system is much younger than others. We do not have the capability of knowing anywhere near all solar systems out there. In fact most of what is written about deep space is "speculation."

You are simply playing stupid if you want to argue nonsense about things which we do not have facts on.

Here is a fact - We have know idea how to quantify the size of the universe or the total number of solar systems, stars, planets, or any other object.

If you have something on that, it is not fact, merely theory.

You did poorly at addressing my point.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by FX44rice]

reply to post by FX44rice


FX, OK I'll rise to that challenge. We ASSUME that there are star systems much older than ours. And, it is likely true.

But, you must consider one thing; our Star (Sol) is a third generation Main Sequence star. During the early Universe the first 'element' was Hydrogen.

Helium is formed in the nuclear reaction is stars. And progressively more complex elements, as well. The massive novae that resulted from the first generation of stars created more elements, increasingly complex. Second generation, again the cycle continued. The shockwaves from past novae sometimes provide the stimuli for future star system formation.

It took the first billions of years of these processes just for carbon to be formed. Our type of life would not be possible without it. SO, many star systems may be older, but not suitable for advanced multi-cellular lafe to develop.

I meant to add this in my original post, but my mistake was in assuming people already understood the forces at work on a Univesal scale.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by weedwhacker



"SO, many star systems may be older, but not suitable for advanced multi-cellular lafe to develop."

We have no way of knowing this whatsoever. It is purely a guess is it not.

If not please tell me how we know.

reply to post by FX44rice



So when I ask you to back up a statement or explain it instead of repeat it over and over, you resort to name calling? I can assure you, I clean no one's floors. Insult and name call all you like, that will not make your logic any better.

Can you explain it, back it up, prove it?

I expect to either be ignored or insulted again istead. I am not sure why you are so angry with me other than because I - along with MANY others - pointed out that your logice is faulty at best. I do know though that you have been asked over and over to back it up and the best we can get is you calling me names? Please prove me wrong.

Originally posted by FX44riceI FEEL:
If one believes we set foot on the moon, I "assume" should I technically say, they must surely believe that ET's have visited Earth.

Apology accepted. But you need to follow through now. WHY do you feel they've been here?

Originally posted by FX44rice
We have no way of knowing this whatsoever. It is purely a guess is it not.

If not please tell me how we know.

wait a minute. So you know that us going to the moon automatically means that other civilizations are more advanced than us but the entirety of it is a guess at best? Thank you for proving what we are trying to tell you. You are making a guess and that is all. Linking it with our ability to go to the moon is nonsense. I think it has been stated nicely as well as ignored by you but how do you know we would not be the most advanced or the first to do anything?

reply to post by Gawdzilla
I have stated at least 3 times now:

I do not believe ET's have been here.

I do not believe we have set foot on the moon.

Take a look back and read again please.

reply to post by evil incarnate

By the age of our Solar System.

Re: insult, take a look back at your post and see if it was insulting? Yes, very offensive.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by FX44rice]

reply to post by FX44rice



The age of our solar system has nothing to do with the age of the populations in it. Solar systems could be extremely old compared to us and still be less advanced. Remember, there have been at least 5 mass extinctions here on our earth. Just because it is old does not mean it has lasted and continued to evolved past us. Besides, that has nothing to do with whether or not we could get to the moon. You are tap dancing away from your own logic now.

You also have no idea what it would take to master intergalactic travel. You have no idea what level of advancement a race would have to be. You do not even know if it is even possible. Getting to the moon is one thing, going to another civilized planet in another galaxy is completely different. That is like saying that if I am able to get a sliver out of my finger then someone older than me must be able to perform magic. Dog don't hunt sir.

reply to post by evil incarnate


If I were to respond as you "Where is your work?"

Anyways apparently my analogy is flawed. It would be helpful if I had the stats on probabilities of our Tech advancement in the time it took us to get to the moon vs. other probabale life much more advanced than ours in relation to their age and advancement.

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

If I were to respond as you "Where is your work?"

Anyways apparently my analogy is flawed. It would be helpful if I had the stats on probabilities of our Tech advancement in the time it took us to get to the moon vs. other probabale life much more advanced than ours in relation to their age and advancement.

It does not matter what you get. The equation is all assumption. There is nothing in it that PROVES anything. The only reason to assume our ability to get to the moon directly correlates to another group mastering intergalactic flight is because you want to.

You are choosing to go with an assumption.

What is worse is that you are defending it for no reason. If you believe we never went to the moon, then no aliens got here, right? So what are you going for?