There is a line of reasoning that goes something like this: If the term “Illuminati” is used on any sentence, then that sentence writer must belong to the group of loonies mentioned above, even if the name “Britney Spears” is used in the same sentence.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2009 01:25 pmThere is a line of reasoning that goes something like this: If the term “Illuminati” is used on any sentence, then that sentence writer must belong to the group of loonies mentioned above, even if the name “Britney Spears” is used in the same sentence. I'm a member of the Illuminati. You gotta problem with that?(I've never met Ms. Spears.)
... you wouldn’t believe what the monkeys were throwing!
Gotta go.
Back to the original speculation. Mankind can demonstrably land on the Moon with the aid of computing resources as simple as slide rules, metallurgy as simple as Bessemer furnaces .....
Really? I'm a boddhisattva myself. We have a much better school tie than you folks.
Quote from: Patchouli on 02/11/2009 05:54 pmNo conspiracy theory is needed they just royally screwed up during the 70s and early 80s.Whether or not that is true, the idea of putting tens of thousands of people on the moon in that time frame is just loony. Look at what it took to land two people on the surface... A Saturn V. Sure you can do a bit better than that, but to make it plausible you have to do several orders of magnitude better.It would cost trillions to build, without any credible return on the investment.Basic arithmetic should be all you need to explain the lack of a moon colony.
No conspiracy theory is needed they just royally screwed up during the 70s and early 80s.
Britney Spears, and her little brother, Broccoli, are in fact running the world, but I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion. Let's all get back on the Moon, shall we?
... my point in starting the thread remains at large, even if my math is off.