HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » How we know the USA lande...

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:24 PM

How we know the USA landed on the Moon

Last edited Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:59 PM - Edit history (3)

Because if we did not actually land on the moon the USSR would have had something to say about it, and they were in a position to know.

The dog that does not bark. What would the world be like if X was true?

If the USA had a crashed saucer what policy would flow from that? Would the USSR have known? If not, it is the only top secret thing going on in late 1940s America they didn't know. (We did consider the H-bomb design kind of sensitive but thet had it about as fast as we could run off the blueprints.)

Does the history of the cold war make sense in the context of a world being visited by a vastly technologically superior race?

If saucer technology was reverse engineered to give us printed circuits or silly putty or whatever the heck it is we couldn't have developed on our own, it sure didn't seem to change our thinking about space transportation, which is what a saucer is.

We spent generations after capturing a crashed saucer working on our process of strapping men on top of a huge bomb (which is what our rockets were, and still are) and blasting them into space. (Unless we had to get to the moon any low-tech way we could because we knew there was cool saucer people stuff there... and so on. But in the midst of a race to the moon to get the saucer people artifacts there LBJ decided to bankrupt us with Vietnam rather than devoting resources to maybe figuring out the crashed saucer. Every incoming president finds out about the crashed saucer and then goes back to whatever the heck he ran on... and so on.)

And meanwhile the NSA suppresses the truth by having people lose their jobs at a lawnmower repair shop in New Mexico, and putting a radio in their fillings, all to discredit the books they write. We kill people around the world for looking at the US sideways, but people with information about the biggest secret in human history live to old age blabbing about this stuff to FATE magazine..

You have to seriously want to believe.

It is like the water engine... you can spin a story that a guy in the 1950s invented a car that runs on water and the corporations suppressed it. But that would mean it was possible, which means it would be rediscovered constantly.

What would the world look like if chemistry and physics were such that a water engine was possible? (An engine that puts out more energy than it takes in and is fueled by nothing but water.) It's not like losing a magic spell. It is like losing a fundamental correction to thermodynamics... a correction to a set of theories that work perfectly in all our applications but that must be fundamentally wrong because the water car is possible.

And what would the world look like if Republicans could switch election results? Well, perhaps we would not have just elected a black President. Twice. And what is Obama's incentive for covering it all up, since he would have to be at the head of the conspiracy, along with Eric Holder and a bunch of other people. Threats to his family? Then why not cut out the middle man and simply threaten his family to make him lose the election?

And what are the extraordinary facts that we need conspiracy theories to explain? A candidate who won the popular vote by roughly three million votes in 2004 won the electoral college narrowly. Shocking. Startling.

What evidence is there that the candidate did not win? Exit polling... which is never right except when someone WANTS it to be right in which case it is golden.

All media polling is a vast conspiracy to shape expectations to create the illusion that races are close enough to steal... unless there is a media poll result (which the consortium exit polling is) that advances a conspiracy theory.

When Obama was up in September the unskedpolls.com movement was hilarious. A few weeks after the first debate DU was unskewedpolls central... every unfavorable poll part of the conspiracy. Nate Silver, using nothing other than the public polling that we know is all fake, manages to call the election pretty darn closely.

The fake polls done to create the impression that Ohio was fairly close but with Obama distinctly ahead were cover for the fraudulent election result... of Obama winning a close race in Ohio.

The result matched the polls. Mighty suspiscious... because the polls are all fake, except the least accurate subset of the media consortium exit polling for Kerry in 2004, which is gospel.

How could Obama have possibly done pretty much what all the polls said he would do in Ohio? If the Rove conspiracy was real then Obama couldn't have won... unless there was a double-conspiracy. Two opposite patently illegal hacking operations canceling each other out in such a way that the fake media polling happened to be in line with the result.

Why was Rove so adamant that the Romney campaign not concede Ohio? Because he thought the Romney campaign had the votes. What was his source for that? Well, he said his source was talking to people in the Romney campaign. So a campaign thought they were in better shape than they were? That has obviously never happened...

Indeed. Why would a man who had spent 100s of millions of other people's money on a losing effort be reluctant to concede defeat?

There is obviously no explanation... petulant assholes are usually so quick to admit to their mistakes.

Perhaps Rove had turn-out assumptions for different parts of Ohio that assumed the Romney campaign was competent. Perhaps Rove assumed that every Republican district in Ohio would turn out better for Romney than for McCain. Every Republican assumed that Republican turn-out would be way up from 2008, everywhere. And it was not. The Republican districts were mostly flat. Romney will end up with only a few votes more than McCain got.

People who day in, day out, demonstrate that they cannot find their ass with both hands are transformed to Ernst Stavro Blofeld whenever it is convenient.

Rove had Bush campaigning in blue states in the last few days on the 2000 campaign. Was that because Rove knew his hackers could flip California for Bush? Or was it because Rove is delusional?

7 replies, 1205 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply How we know the USA landed on the Moon (Original post)
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 OP
MineralMan Nov 2012 #1
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #2
MineralMan Nov 2012 #3
Speck Tater Nov 2012 #4
Kaleva Nov 2012 #5
COLGATE4 Nov 2012 #6
trackfan Nov 2012 #7

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:49 PM

1. Thank you.

Elections are not a science. The result is never really known until the votes get counted. As confident as I was that President Obama would win, I did not go to sleep until the Ohio results were called for him. One never knows, really, until the polls close.

Rove couldn't imagine that Obama would win. All of his toadies told him that Romney would win.

Too many people would have to know that an election was rigged. That's the problem. How many people can you trust with a bombshell secret? I maintain that that number is zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:18 PM

2. The amazing result that would be hardest to explain, objectively, is that

we elected a back president twice.

And one who, in two elections, ran the table in swing states... winning all the close calls.

If Republicans can just switch votes electronically they are making some very odd uses of that power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:36 PM

3. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:40 PM

4. Lunar orbiters have photographed the landing sites. End of story. nt


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:53 PM

5. "You have to seriously want to believe. "

People believe what they want to believe. Lots of folks watch Fox News because Fox puts out the news in such a way it conforms to their audience's world views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:12 PM

6. People who day in, day out, demonstrate

that they cannot find their ass with both hands are transformed into Ernst Stavro Blofeld whenever it is convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 12:50 AM

7. kick n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread