And just like that the Bankrupt USA is going to moon all of a sudden...............

[JDs Couch]

I guess you didn't read the thread. Over 100,000 people worked on the manhattan project and only a few knew what it was really all about, which shows how easy it is to keep the true motive behind a project completely secret. You saw a grainy black and white tv and CHOSE to believe that what was on it was real and I say CHOSE because you have zero real world first hand knowledge of it. You took it on faith, end of story.


I guess you missed the picture a couple posts up. All of it can be faked or edited together to appear uncut. I could link videos until the cows come home but a true believer must convince themselves, no one can do it for you. To you it was real and I'm a delusional idiot for thinking it wasn't. To me, it was complete bullshit and you are gullible for blindly accepting something you have not, and cannot, experience for yourself. I'd call that an impasse.

On this note, let's talk age of the Earth here.

I am firmly in the 4.54 billion years camp. Does that make me a gullible fool?

Now: evolution. True or Satanic psyop?

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

I debunked your Manhattan example earlier. It was a secret to many lower level off-site staff but it sure wasn't after the bombs were dropped. Then it was public knowledge.

It's been almost 50 years since the moon landing. The cat is out of the bag and has passed away due to old age. But yet, all those people are still keeping quiet? Nope, just doesn't compute.

But wait, haven't you subsequently claimed that the "atomic" (your scare quotes) bombs aren't really real anyway? So how can something that doesn't even exist be a secret?

I'm no expert on epistemology, in fact I barely know how to spell it so I won't get into a debate on both what knowledge is and how we can know anything more than when Descartes whittled it down to "I think therefore I am".

In fact no one has proved via ontology and epistemology that god exists either but that's another thread.

 

[VonBonfire]

I debunked your Manhattan example earlier. It was a secret to many lower level off-site staff but it sure wasn't after the bombs were dropped. Then it was public knowledge.

You didn't debunk it. It was a secret to all but a few people and then you were fed images on the television screen, much like the moon landing.

It's been almost 50 years since the moon landing. The cat is out of the bag and has passed away due to old age. But yet, all those people are still keeping quiet? Nope, just doesn't compute.

They haven't released all of the Kennedy files either. And they never will because "it's a matter of national security" i.e heads would roll if it got out how badly the general public was lied to.

But wait, haven't you subsequently claimed that the "atomic" (your scare quotes) bombs aren't really real anyway? So how can something that doesn't even exist be a secret?

That's my point, the whole "n00ks" thing was completely fraudulent. "n00ks" don't exist.

In fact no one has proved via ontology and epistemology that god exists either but that's another thread.

A god that could be proven or disproven through science is no god at all.

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

I'll reply later tonight if I have time.

 

[Monkey Man]

I guess you didn't read the thread. Over 100,000 people worked on the manhattan project and only a few knew what it was really all about, which shows how easy it is to keep the true motive behind a project completely secret. You saw a grainy black and white tv and CHOSE to believe that what was on it was real and I say CHOSE because you have zero real world first hand knowledge of it. You took it on faith, end of story.

I said nothing about motivations and took nothing on-faith.

I referred to my week-long viewing experience 'cause there's no way it could've been faked.

I guess you missed the picture a couple posts up. All of it can be faked or edited together to appear uncut. I could link videos until the cows come home but a true believer must convince themselves, no one can do it for you. To you it was real and I'm a delusional idiot for thinking it wasn't. To me, it was complete bullshit and you are gullible for blindly accepting something you have not, and cannot, experience for yourself. I'd call that an impasse.

Wow, that's some top-tier-paranoid reasoning brother.

So the news organisations that conducted the interviews must've just not wondered why they weren't broadcast in realtime as intended.

If it was, as you say, "complete bullshit", surely you can come up with some sort of explanation as to how they might've faked the interviews.

"To you it was real and I'm a delusional idiot for thinking it wasn't."
Yeah na bro'; I've never suggested you're an idiot. Never. I could've said that you're as stubborn as an ass IMHO, but I've never even said that.

 

[VonBonfire]

I said nothing about motivations and took nothing on-faith.

I referred to my week-long viewing experience 'cause there's no way it could've been faked.


Wow, that's some top-tier-paranoid reasoning brother.

So the news organisations that conducted the interviews must've just not wondered why they weren't broadcast in realtime as intended.

If it was, as you say, "complete bullshit", surely you can come up with some sort of explanation as to how they might've faked the interviews.

"To you it was real and I'm a delusional idiot for thinking it wasn't."
Yeah na bro'; I've never suggested you're an idiot. Never. I could've said that you're as stubborn as an ass IMHO, but I've never even said that.

"No way it could've been faked"

You've never been to space. The sum total of your space experience is a tv set.

The news organizations are all part of a media-military industrial complex. You should've learned that by now. Why anyone who owns a guitar spends time watching that shit is beyond me but I would definitely correlate the amount of tv consumed with the amount of bullshit a person swallows.

The fact that you laugh at my post, yet wanna have a serious discussion, smh. You should go back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Monkey Man]

You laughed at mine just-then, and I'm laughing at yours 'cause it's funny. Nothin' wrong with that bro'.

You're the one avoiding obvious, logical questions I've been posing; that would be "not having a serious discussion".

Your answers, instead of employing logical problem-solving (ie: how could this or that have been faked), resort to accusing me of being deluded.

Far from being brainwashed, I rely on logic; it's the most-potent tool we have in our arsenal when it comes to reasoning. This is why I've been asking you "logical" questions, genuinely seeking to understand your reasoning beyond "it's a conspiracy".

All-good brother.

 

[VonBonfire]

You laughed at mine just-then, and I'm laughing at yours 'cause it's funny. Nothin' wrong with that bro'.

You're the one avoiding obvious, logical questions I've been posing; that would be "not having a serious discussion".

Your answers, instead of employing logical problem-solving (ie: how could this or that have been faked), resort to accusing me of being deluded.

Far from being brainwashed, I rely on logic; it's the most-potent tool we have in our arsenal when it comes to reasoning. This is why I've been asking you "logical" questions, genuinely seeking to understand your reasoning beyond "it's a conspiracy".

All-good brother.

Logic dictates I question what I see on tv, not blindly believe what is displayed on a grainy screem. You jumped in 15 pages later and want me to reiterate everything that has been discussed in the thread to prove a point that you won't accept anyways.

You've taken it on faith. Faith, because it's something you haven't, and cannot, experience for yourself. Someone else (supposedly) did, and you choose to believe them. A picture of a guy on a lunar surface doesn't work as proof for me. Guys with high security clearances saying they walked on a lunar surface also doesn't work for me. TLDR, we don't have anything to discuss. Good night.

 

[Monkey Man]

Again, funny, hyperbolic and in bad faith:

I've never said it's not-healthy to contest the moon landing back in '69; I've always had questions and some things don't seem to add up. We agree on that and yet you painted me as gullible for believing it hook, line and sinker.

That's moving the goal posts bro' and has nothing to do with the few questions of logic / explanation I've posed lately. There weren't many:

How could they have faked the interviews when they exhibited zero-grav for longer than (we think based on logic) is possible?
How could they have faked the bulk of Artemis' journey when it can be monitored by anyone with a reasonable telescope?

Yet again, you're avoiding answering the questions. The way my logic works, if I can't explain a possible M.O. for a deception, I look deeper / think harder, always leaving the door open (healthy).

 

[84superchamp]

I only know what the current Director of National Intelligence communicates publicly. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/os-gabbard-031826.pdf

As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement. We continue to monitor for any early indicators on what position the current or any new leadership in Iran will take with regard to authorizing a nuclear weapons program.

Doesn't sound imminent to me.

I wasn't aware of "shuttered with cement", first I've heard of that. Did Iran actually give safe passage to Ready-Mix trucks?

 

[Robostyle]

I thought Bonfire might appreciate this-

 

[VonBonfire]

Again, funny, hyperbolic and in bad faith:

I've never said it's not-healthy to contest the moon landing back in '69; I've always had questions and some things don't seem to add up. We agree on that and yet you painted me as gullible for believing it hook, line and sinker.

That's moving the goal posts bro' and has nothing to do with the few questions of logic / explanation I've posed lately. There weren't many:

How could they have faked the interviews when they exhibited zero-grav for longer than (we think based on logic) is possible?
How could they have faked the bulk of Artemis' journey when it can be monitored by anyone with a reasonable telescope?

Yet again, you're avoiding answering the questions. The way my logic works, if I can't explain a possible M.O. for a deception, I look deeper / think harder, always leaving the door open (healthy).

You can think whatever you like. Last time you tried to debate the whole globe vs flat earth stuff you were crying about how I needed to stop quoting you cause it was giving you a headache. This isn't gonna be any different. Just accept that I find you and anyone else who believes men walked on the moon, which on it's face sounds completely ridiculous, as gullible to a large extent and move on. You don't wanna do that so....

The least you could do is go back and read the thread instead of jumping in late in the game wanting some intellectual discussion while simultaneously hitting the laugh emoji on every post like you were doing a jd's couch impression.

How could they have faked interviews in "zero grav"?

How do you know it was zero gravity? You don't. You perceived it on a screen as zero gravity, that's it. Zero is right, zero first hand experience on your part i.e taking it on faith that it's a zero gravity environment but you weren't there so it's just you regurgitating what you were fed.

How could they have faked the bulk of Artemis' journey when it can be monitored by anyone with a reasonable telescope?

How can you gauge the distance the craft is from the moon using a lens that does not allow for depth perception i.e the image is flat? It could be much closer, and appear to be "headed toward the moon". I doubt you, or anyone else, would sit up for days on end monitoring to make sure it disappeared behind the moon and reappeared on the other side. Even NASA doesn't offer a 24/7 feed, how come? Cameras are cheap. We can't even get a forward facing camera at launch...

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

You didn't debunk it. It was a secret to all but a few people and then you were fed images on the television screen, much like the moon landing.


They haven't released all of the Kennedy files either. And they never will because "it's a matter of national security" i.e heads would roll if it got out how badly the general public was lied to.


That's my point, the whole "n00ks" thing was completely fraudulent. "n00ks" don't exist.


A god that could be proven or disproven through science is no god at all.

Ummm, those two things can't both be true. If it's a secret, it exists.

 

[JDs Couch]

Based on this thread, I hereby Re-Christen VB as Von DumpsterFire.

 

[VonBonfire]

Ummm, those two things can't both be true. If it's a secret, it exists.

The true nature of the project remained secret until it's supposed use. The manhattan project hasn't been fully declassified.

 

[Monkey Man]

@VonBonfire OK fine brother, we'll let it be.

The least you could do is go back and read the thread instead of jumping in late in the game wanting some intellectual discussion while simultaneously hitting the laugh emoji on every post like you were doing a jd's couch impression.

Again, making assumptions. I read every thread mate; it's my job.

Last time you tried to debate the whole globe vs flat earth stuff you were crying about how I needed to stop quoting you cause it was giving you a headache.

Talk about a false representation.

1) I didn't cry.
2) I didn't have a headache.
3) The context was that I kept responding 'cause you kept responding. Neither of us was at-fault here when it comes down to it IMHO - we simply continued to debate reluctantly.

Of course, I well remember that discussion. I suggested a thought experiment that would prove that the earth's spherical - that one could walk in a straight line in any direction and wind up where one started... theoretically of course, and your response? (Paraphrasing) "You can't walk in a straight line 'cause the earth's curved."

That right there was the point at which I became frustrated 'cause it seemed impossible to have a calm, rational, good-faith debate with you. That said, I didn't call you names or stupid or anything like that, and you've thankfully treated me well too, so as always, all-good bro'.

I'll leave you with this:
As pertains to our little discussion in this thread, the premise I'm going on is a well-established one - that the onus / burden of proof of a conspiracy claim lies with the claimant.

I didn't expect or even hope for a detailed layout of a possible series of steps involved; a simple few-word description of any method that might've been used to fake the interview would've been great-and-appreciated. Green screen doesn't cut it in any universe, hence my continuation in seeking clarification.

As I said, it's all-good bro'. I'll tell you this 'though, I pride myself on my open-minded, logical thinking. I was that kid and then throughout my life who stood by my beliefs based on logic, facts and patterns. Christianity was one of them, as has been the whole evolution and age-of-the-earth thing, something I studied privately for decades, and of course the health thing, which I'd figured out by the time I was 15. The point being that I'm not just some chump who you can relegate to the gullible bin. Patterns and logic trump popular opinion and indeed "modern science" for me every day of the week.

In the latter regard, we have more in-common than you might've assumed, but I say, "might've" 'cause I'm bettin' you've been exposed to some of my ramblings at some points.

Have a great day my brother and once again, it's all-good bro'!

 

[VonBonfire]

2) The context was that I kept responding 'cause you kept responding. Neither of us was at-fault here when it comes down to it IMHO - we simply continued to debate reluctantly.

You don't get to dictate when someone has to stop responding, but you were trying to. I was fine with debating, you wanted to stop and acted like you couldn't cause I quoted your posts. It was giving you a headache. You kinda had a crybaby attitude about it but no, I didn't have a tv set to witness the tears, lol. "Talk about false representation".

I'll leave you with this:
As pertains to our little discussion in this thread, the premise I'm going on is a well-established one - that the onus / burden of proof of a conspiracy claim lies with the claimant.

I didn't expect or even hope for a detailed layout of a possible series of steps involved; a simple few-word description of any method that might've been used to fake the interview would've been great-and-appreciated. Green screen doesn't cut it in any universe, hence my continuation in seeking clarification.

As I said, it's all-good bro'. I'll tell you this 'though, I pride myself on my open-minded, logical thinking. I was that kid and then throughout my life who stood by my beliefs based on logic, facts and patterns. Christianity was one of them, as has been the whole evolution and age-of-the-earth thing, something I studied privately for decades, and of course the health thing, which I'd figured out by the time I was 15. The point being that I'm not just some chump who you can relegate to the gullible bin. Patterns and logic trump popular opinion and indeed "modern science" for me every day of the week.

In the latter regard, we have more in-common than you might've assumed, but I say, "might've" 'cause I'm bettin' you've been exposed to some of my ramblings at some points.

And you do it again...you wanted to debate, chime in, call my post hyperbolic and "in bad faith" so I take the time to answer your questions, and ask a few of my own, and this is your response? Nothing. So, thanks for nothing. Just makes it seem like you can't/won't deal with anything I posted in response and this is your easy out. Kind of reminds me of....last time.

The sum total of your claim is you think you've witnessed zero gravity on a tv set and that it's proof of everything you're stating. LMAO. I've witnessed zero gravity at a theater that had rigging that let actors take flight. You're unreal bro.

 

[JDs Couch]

You don't get to dictate when someone has to stop responding, but you were trying to. I was fine with debating, you wanted to stop and acted like you couldn't cause I quoted your posts. It was giving you a headache. You kinda had a crybaby attitude about it but no, I didn't have a tv set to witness the tears, lol. "Talk about false representation".


And you do it again...you wanted to debate, chime in, call my post hyperbolic and "in bad faith" so I take the time to answer your questions, and ask a few of my own, and this is your response? Nothing. So, thanks for nothing. Just makes it seem like you can't/won't deal with anything I posted in response and this is your easy out. Kind of reminds me of....last time.

The sum total of your claim is you think you've witnessed zero gravity on a tv set and that it's proof of everything you're stating. LMAO. I've witnessed zero gravity at a theater that had rigging that let actors take flight. You're unreal bro.

VonDumpsterFire with the bulletproof logical win!

 

[Monkey Man]

@VonBonfire I used a laugh emoji 'cause of your last paragraph, just so you know.

As I suggested earlier, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one... if that's OK with you.

I thought my post was thoughtful-and-considerate and TBH I didn't anticipate an acerbic response from you, FWIMBW. Good-faith on my side, I assure you. Sorry if I inadvertently offended you in any way; it was definitely not my intention.

 

[JackTripper]

I guess you didn't read the thread. Over 100,000 people worked on the manhattan project and only a few knew what it was really all about, which shows how easy it is to keep the true motive behind a project completely secret. You saw a grainy black and white tv and CHOSE to believe that what was on it was real and I say CHOSE because you have zero real world first hand knowledge of it. You took it on faith, end of story.

Well, history is taken on faith from the intuitions that came before us. Did Robert Johnson record Crossroad Blues in the 1930s if you weren't in the room with him? If the moon landing can be faked, then a grainy recording sure could be.

Or what about the Declaration of Independence--is that real? If the appearance of nukes can be faked, certainly a paper document with signatures can be faked.

What about religious documents, doctrines or events—did you witness them firsthand or do you take them on faith from institutions that came before you?