A long time ago ... three years I believe... I had another blogspot blog. I have no idea how I came to have so many, mind you, but I did. This one can be located
here. The last post I wrote went something like this...
so ben made a
blog with his friend john where they debate stuff. yes, i know, its a good idea. BUT i'm jealous. you remember how jealous and left out i get? well, its happened again.
so to (once again) retaliate (even though its not so much a retaliation as an act of sugar induced randomness), i am now going to argue about the fact that the
moon is made of cheese.
The propostion that the moon is, in actual fact, made of cheese is one which upon first viewing, seems somewhat preposterous. I mean, it is an accepted scientific fact that the moon is as most moons are, made of rock and other such normal satellite materials. However, I believe that I can prove this wrong following several totally logical (perhaps to begin with... we'll see) arguments, the conclusions of which you shan't be able to deny.
My first premise is one which needs to be stated in order to answer the obvious objection that man has visited the moon, found it to be rock-like (i.e., un-cheesy), and that this is fact. Yes, I have seen the footage, yes I saw the "hubub" surrounding the take off, the landing and all that. But I have also seen a television program which proposes a conspiracy theory. "Man never landed on the moon" is its claim, and they have some convincing arguments. Mainly in the form of evidence surrounding the visit. One which I find rather unnerving is the presence of cross hairs in photographs on the moon. Simply and quickly put, cross hairs in the lense of a camera will always show up in the resulting pictures on TOP of the image captured, just as your finger, if placed in front of the lens, will obscure the view. In several pictures from the moon, which were supposedly "untampered", the cross hairs are obscured by images taken by the camera. Without tampering, this is simply impossible.
Perhaps more convincing however, are the shots (again "untampered" with) which show the moon-walkers exiting and moving around the space shuttle. They are clearly illuminated. The problem with this is that they are behind the space shuttle, that is, the shuttle is in between the sun and the moon-walkers. Now given that the only source of light on the moon, is the sun, how could this possibly be? Shadow and the bending of light is one thing, but clear illumination, and in fact (if I remember correctly) reflection, is a completely different, and somewhat impossible... well, thing.
So yeah. My argument begins with the premise that mankind has not actually visited the moon. So how do I get from that to the fact that the moon is made of cheese. I have two compelling points.
Compelling Point Number 1.Once I saw another TV program which was called "Wallace and Gromit". In this documentary style show following the adventures of a man and his dog, a trip to the moon is filmed which contains footage of Wallace and his dog Gromit eating the moon, which is made of cheese. They even put it on crackers!
Compelling Point Number 2.I have thought this through thoroughly and have decided that if I were the moon, what would I like to be made of? No, not harsh icky rocks. No, not dirty icky mud. No, water is nice, but a bit boring... What then? And the answer is clear. Cheese.
Compelling Conclusion Number 1.The moon is quite obviously made of cheese. All evidence of the "rockness" and "non-cheesy" nature of the moon given by scientists and NASA is false, because they have fabricated their moon exploration trips (yes I only had points against the first, but I'm sure if given evidence I could disprove the others too). Clearly, the only people to have visited the moon sucessfully are Wallace and Gromit (although Gromit isn't technically covered by the term "people", he is given an honorary human title because he is really rather intelligent don't you think?) who we can see in real footage eating the moon, and finding it cheesy. Also, Amanda would like to be cheese, if she were the moon. What further evidence is needed, really?
More Realistic Conclusion Number 1.Amanda is a strange lady who has too much time on her hands. She consumes too much sugar and watches too much television. Her theories about the moon are obviously flawed and do not rely on objective or reputable evidence and she uses fallacy and fantasy as premises to a conclusion nowhere near forced by the argument. She has an unnatural liking of cheese.
Posts
