Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Sir William Idol on October 15, 2007, 05:40:39 PM
-
yes!
moon walking doubters always get punched in the face. i heard neil armstrong once kicked out someones kneecap who doubted him.
more face punching, but before eating
-
faking that moon landing won the Cold war, you ingrates!
World tech and investment resources all shifted from USSR to USA. As a result, after 15 years of turmoil as partners left for us, Russia collapsed and went bankrupt.
Buzz should have punched that little punk twice. America... fvck yeah!
-
faking that moon landing won the Cold war, you ingrates!
World tech and investment resources all shifted from USSR to USA. As a result, after 15 years of turmoil as partners left for us, Russia collapsed and went bankrupt.
Buzz should have punched that little punk twice. America... fvck yeah!
at least you're still as mad as a hatter.
-
yes!
moon walking doubters always get punched in the face. i heard neil armstrong once kicked out someones kneecap who doubted him.
more face punching, but before eating
hey five years ago called, they want their youtube clips back.
But yes great punch, shoulda punched him more. What a bitch.
-
yes!
moon walking doubters always get punched in the face. i heard neil armstrong once kicked out someones kneecap who doubted him.
more face punching, but before eating
they guy giving Buzz shit and calling him a liar and shit and Buzz had enough . I don't blame them the guy is an American hero .
-
at least you're still as mad as a hatter.
you hate america. were you at the obama rally yesterday? I thought so.
-
faking that moon landing won the Cold war, you ingrates!
World tech and investment resources all shifted from USSR to USA. As a result, after 15 years of turmoil as partners left for us, Russia collapsed and went bankrupt.
Buzz should have punched that little punk twice. America... fvck yeah!
Zero Evidence for this, even the photo "analysis" that supposedly proves a faked moon landing has been thoroughly debunked.
-
solid punch for an old man... way to go gramps!
-
Zero Evidence for this, even the photo "analysis" that supposedly proves a faked moon landing has been thoroughly debunked.
Hey, you believe what you wish. "Thoroughly debunked" by a group motivated by the outcome of the findings doesn't mean a lot.
It was a very convenient win and I'm glad they did it. It's not a big deal. Pretty funny that Buzz would get so upset if the person bugging him had zero evidence. If a guy came up to me and said something completely silly, I'd laugh. Only when there might be a little truth to it - which would tarnish my legacy - would I feel threatened.
And if you can tell me how a rocket launches and lands without displacing one bit of the surface - as the camera work clearly shows - I'll buy you a 6-piece mcnuggets.
-
And if you can tell me how a rocket launches and lands without displacing one bit of the surface - as the camera work clearly shows - I'll buy you a 6-piece mcnuggets.
Watch the video. the craft launches from the surface, and doesn't displace any dust under it. It's one of those "oh shit" moments.
-
If a guy came up to me and said something completely silly, I'd laugh.
You might laugh the first time....you may even laugh the 10th time...but when you get asked for the 5 thousandth time when your having a bad day and rudely approached in public, Im betting you wouldnt be laughing....see logic isnt so tough is it?
-
I'd never seen that! Raise the roof I hope he broke that guys nose.
He should have ggot stomped. Disrespectful prick
-
Watch the video. the craft launches from the surface, and doesn't displace any dust under it. It's one of those "oh shit" moments.
I think i need to check this out. Interesting
Conspiracie are sweet (http://www.ogrishforum.com/images/smilies/Coffee.gif)
-
I think i need to check this out. Interesting
Conspiracie are sweet (http://www.ogrishforum.com/images/smilies/Coffee.gif)
They're fun to ponder, for sure.
A rocket left the moon's 1/6 gravity and launched back into orbit, then back to earth.
When it took off, the camera got the whole thing. not one bit of moon dust was disrupted. I don't know how a rocket takes off without displacing a litle dust under it. Enough force to lift a craft with 2 men in it off the ground and miles into the air - I mean, a fvcking rocket blast!
yet not one bit of moon dust moves.
I'd love to be convinced that's normal. Someone clarify this!
-
They're fun to ponder, for sure.
A rocket left the moon's 1/6 gravity and launched back into orbit, then back to earth.
When it took off, the camera got the whole thing. not one bit of moon dust was disrupted. I don't know how a rocket takes off without displacing a litle dust under it. Enough force to lift a craft with 2 men in it off the ground and miles into the air - I mean, a fvcking rocket blast!
yet not one bit of moon dust moves.
I'd love to be convinced that's normal. Someone clarify this!
Please use spell check next time---------------------------look down
litle=little
Hope this helps
-
240's Right ... and that's ALL I have to say on that Subject. Nice punch, btw. :D
-
Actually we landed on the moon. And the real first words were "someone has been here before" they would refer to UFO's as "santa clause"
-
Actually we landed on the moon. And the real first words were "someone has been here before" they would refer to UFO's as "santa clause"
So I take it you were there when they " landed on the moon " ? ;)
I agree with you on the " Santa Clause " thing though.
-
What if they really did ???
Crazy nakkas
-
it's a regular convention of mad hatters in here.
-
I don't know if we landed or not.
I do know that when a rocket leaves a planet covered with lots of dust, some of that dust is kicked up.
The film NASA showed the world - it was a rocket leaving the moon. And it kicked up zero dust. I dont know how that happens. I know that motive-wise, winning the space race was awesome for our country.
But I'm not a physicist. if anyone here can explain why a rocket doesn't disrupt dust that is directly underneath it, I'm all ears. That shit looked fake. plain and simple.
-
I don't know if we landed or not.
I do know that when a rocket leaves a planet covered with lots of dust, some of that dust is kicked up.
The film NASA showed the world - it was a rocket leaving the moon. And it kicked up zero dust. I dont know how that happens. I know that motive-wise, winning the space race was awesome for our country.
But I'm not a physicist. if anyone here can explain why a rocket doesn't disrupt dust that is directly underneath it, I'm all ears. That shit looked fake. plain and simple.
are mad hatters authorities on space dust stories now?
-
it's a regular convention of mad hatters in here.
No ... NOT Mad Hatters ... just OPEN-MINDED Individuals. ;)
-
are mad hatters authorities on space dust stories now?
you use a rude name and poo-poo this idea.
Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?
I've looked at other things - fishy pics, radio delay, flags blowing, inconsistent lightning, radiation - and none of it does too much for me. both sides claim to have debunked the other. Whatever.
But the rocket - how does that happen, algebra?
How does the ship take off from the moon using rocket engines, and the camera just shows it rising. no shake, no dust, nothing. Just explain that for me, algebra. you've called me a mad hatter, so you owe me the courtesy of telling me why you believe the NASA version, that a rocket doesn't disrupt dirt. Thanks!
-
you use a rude name and poo-poo this idea.
Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?
I've looked at other things - fishy pics, radio delay, flags blowing, inconsistent lightning, radiation - and none of it does too much for me. both sides claim to have debunked the other. Whatever.
But the rocket - how does that happen, algebra?
How does the ship take off from the moon using rocket engines, and the camera just shows it rising. no shake, no dust, nothing. Just explain that for me, algebra. you've called me a mad hatter, so you owe me the courtesy of telling me why you believe the NASA version, that a rocket doesn't disrupt dirt. Thanks!
1. where's the video? is there one down the rabbit-hole w you?
-
3 words.. Van Allen Belt.
-
IS THE FLAF STILL ON THE MOON AND THE CRAFT THEY DROVE AROUND ON...WELL USE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE TO ZOOM IN ON IT AND WE CAN SEE THE FLAG THEY LEFT............IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES USE IT TO SHOW US THE MOON THEN END OF STORY...........STILL MUST BE CRAP THEY LEFT THERE STILL THERE.......
LETS ALL JUST WATCH... CAPRICORN ONE... AGAIN...GREAT MOVIE :)
-
1. where's the video? is there one down the rabbit-hole w you?
Take the blue pill, take the red pill.
-
SPACE IS GAY
FUCK SPACE
-
Moon landing was fake. The only reason why it was set up was because JFK said they will have man on the moon by the end of the decade, to which they beat the deadline by only 5 months. And why has man not been on the moon since 1972?? If the technology was available back then, surely it would be even more advanced now, yet we still are not able to return.
-
IS THE FLAF STILL ON THE MOON AND THE CRAFT THEY DROVE AROUND ON...WELL USE THE HUBBLE TELESCOPE TO ZOOM IN ON IT AND WE CAN SEE THE FLAG THEY LEFT............IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES USE IT TO SHOW US THE MOON THEN END OF STORY...........STILL MUST BE CRAP THEY LEFT THERE STILL THERE.......
LETS ALL JUST WATCH... CAPRICORN ONE... AGAIN...GREAT MOVIE :)
Not saying we did or didn't land on the moon (I'm with 240 on this), but the Hubble does not have the resolution to see an object as small as the flag on the moon. Sure it can see galaxies that are much farther than the moon, but galaxies are just a bit bigger that that flag. So even at much larger distances, it takes less resolution to see a galaxy or star than an object the size of the flag on the moon.
-
Moon landing was fake. The only reason why it was set up was because JFK said they will have man on the moon by the end of the decade, to which they beat the deadline by only 5 months. And why has man not been on the moon since 1972?? If the technology was available back then, surely it would be even more advanced now, yet we still are not able to return.
this is what gets me. If we can get on the moon with technology from the 60s and 70s, surely we'd be able to venture past it by now...perhaps even on Mars?
sm
-
Yes, the United States sent men to the moon.
1. They left behind science packages that sent data back by telemetry for a considerable time after the missions.
2. They left behind optical corner retro reflectors that still can reflect laser beams from the earth.
3. I met and conversed at length with the engineer who designed the television standards conversion system that enabled the televison networks to carry the video.
4. I met James Lovell.
5. I knew Jay Lovell, his son very well, while he worked as a commercial artist for the Houston Chronicle.
6. The Hubble telescope can only resolve objects on the moon larger than 60 meters.
There are many more hoax refutations, but I have to edit a commercial. If you are interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations. If you are suspicious of wikipedia, I suggest a university library, or large central public library.
-
Americans were not the first who "walked" on the moon - the moon landing was all fixed, many proofs. end of story.
-
IF THE CAN USE THAT TELESCOPE TO SEE OTHER UNIVERSES
What the....when did this happen?!?!?
-
Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?
How does the ship take off from the moon using rocket engines, and the camera just shows it rising. no shake, no dust, nothing. Just explain that for me, algebra. you've called me a mad hatter, so you owe me the courtesy of telling me why you believe the NASA version, that a rocket doesn't disrupt dirt. Thanks!
There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum. On Earth the rocket would push air down onto the ground kicking up dust. Not on the moon as there is no air. There's nothing in the moons atmosphere. A vacuum.
-
There's no air on the moon, it's a vacuum. On Earth the rocket would push air down onto the ground kicking up dust. Not on the moon as there is no air. There's nothing in the moons atmosphere. A vacuum.
But the rocket does throw a number of particles out of its exhaust...which is what creates the thrust. I'd have thought a vacuum would have served to accentuate any disturbance of dust as opposed to reduce it.
Not that i agree with 240.
-
But the rocket does throw a number of particles out of its exhaust...which is what creates the thrust. I'd have thought a vacuum would have served to accentuate any disturbance of dust as opposed to reduce it.
Not that i agree with 240.
How far would those particles travel from the nozzle and are they capable of moving dust?
How much dust was there on the surface of the moon under the rocket before launch to begin with?
If the rockets could move dust, wouldn't most of the dust have been moved during landing leaving mostly moon rock surface underneath the rocket?
Is it possible to see fine dust being moved on presumably poor resolution footage (I haven't seen the footage)?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI)
Looks like a lot of stuff is moved when it lifts off. Like the flag and lots of debris.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R88yPyhTMZI)
Looks like a lot of stuff is moved when it lifts off. Like the flag and lots of debris.
Yeah after watching that vid i'm not really sure where the whole 'no dust' theory came from...
-
you use a rude name and poo-poo this idea.
Can you just clear it up for me - explain why a rocket doesn't kick up dust on the surface of the moon?
I've looked at other things - fishy pics, radio delay, flags blowing, inconsistent lightning, radiation - and none of it does too much for me. both sides claim to have debunked the other. Whatever.
240, for dust to accumulate on the surface so it can later be disturbed by whatever force, there needs to be an atmosphere or some sort of flowing medium that weathers things and carries the miniscule particles to other places.
Simply put, unlike the Earth or other planets / some cosmic bodies, the moon is just a dead rock (on the surface) that has no atmosphere surrounding it (Mars has a thin one that causes the dust storms you can read about in news archives).
So there is no flow of the two main mediums of transport (air and all 3 forms of water), which is also the reason why there is no weathering, bar the inconsiderable amount bought about by solar radiation or the occasional object falling into the satellite. The Moon might have sub-surface Geothermal activity, but this is something that can be argued for just as strongly as it can be argued against.
Plus, the cameras back then weren't exactly high resolution. The thing is, it's not that unimaginably hard to send someone to the Moon and back successfully ;D. Hope this helped
-
The main point is one i already made. If we were able to put man on the moon in the late 60's to early 70's, why can we not put man on the moon these days? Why has man not set foot on the moon since 1972?
Simple, America had to beat Russia in being the 1st to put man on the moon. The Russians had better technology and a lot more space experience. If one country was going to legitimately have someone on the moon, it was going to be Russia.
-
The main point is one i already made. If we were able to put man on the moon in the late 60's to early 70's, why can we not put man on the moon these days? Why has man not set foot on the moon since 1972?
Simple, America had to beat Russia in being the 1st to put man on the moon. The Russians had better technology and a lot more space experience. If one country was going to legitimately have someone on the moon, it was going to be Russia.
Pretty much the same reason Arnold looks more impressive than bodybuilders of today inspite of the money, the growth of the industry, the advances in science etc. Then again, people didn't weigh 260 @ 5'9" in those days ;)
The thing is, if someone wanted to and there was a valid reason and had the full means to enjoy that luxury, they would. But Biotechnology and Information technology both take greater value now cause they cater to an immediate need that's lucrative in the short term and the long term.
Simply put, no one's going to make a ton of money by putting someone on the Moon and / or be able to justify the budget (billions of dollars) to the current crop of citizens in most countries.
-
Buzz would have made a mean superheavyweight
-
Scooby doo is on channel 56
-
Buzz was the main idea behind Buzz lightyear
-
I meet the man back in my German Army time, we were in France and I was asked to attend a special Celbrity Dinner in Paris a couple of days before the big parade.
Now when the cameras were on eveybody tried talking to us and all, as soon as they were off all these high society fucks were gond, one guy comes over and says: You know that guy over there? I say I have no idea... he says, thats Buzz aldrin the second man on the moon...
So I walk over and we had a really good chat, he is very friendly the only one who truly wanted to talk to us, of course I got a signature.
(http://www.goddudes.com/1.gif)
-
Buzz Aldrin isn't human
-
Buzz aldrin @ Ali G :D
&mode=related&search=
-
faking that moon landing won the Cold war, you ingrates!
World tech and investment resources all shifted from USSR to USA. As a result, after 15 years of turmoil as partners left for us, Russia collapsed and went bankrupt.
Buzz should have punched that little punk twice. America... fvck yeah!
Hey 240 have you ever watched the documentary " did we really land on the moon" u can watch it over on www.alluc.org
it was the biggest hoax of the 20th century
-
google and watch
Secret space
the moon landing pix have certain flaws
1) the shadows on the moon point in different directions
2) there is no blast crater under the lem
3) how the fuck were we talking to folks on the moon in real time??
4) how did the asstranauts not get sick from radiation while crossing the van allen radiation belt? when there ws no in built radiation protection
5) how did we miss out on all the micro metorites when the lunad mon had no protection built in it
6) why r there no r stars visible on ANY of the pix on the moon ..since there is no atmosphere there should be VERY visible
-
Its funny because all the people who watched this on tv in '69 get all angry and can't accept the fact that one of their greatest memories of their life was just really an elaborate movie set up. Hhahahaha
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1271557985143978300&q=moon+landing+faked&total=275&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
-
ahaha, the radolada people walked on the moon 2 million years ago.
-
It sounds strange, but my goldfish act frightened when certain people visit. They don't act like they're having seizures or anything--they just hide behind a plant and peek out at the person to keep an eye on the stranger.
-
Protein Farts and 240,
I actually am a physicist, not an Adonis physicist... a real one. So I'll try to answer these questions:
1) the shadows on the moon point in different directions
...valid point, but those particular photos were taken with a fish-eye lens and that distorts the image topography in a manner that is consistent with the inconsistencies in the pictures. There are several people who believe that some of the photos were studio-shot fakes... that position has not been conclusively debunked. However, that does not debunk the landing itself.
2) there is no blast crater under the lem
...there shouldn't be. The lander only had 600 lbs of thrust; spread over the area under the lander that simply isn't enough to disrupt the dust. It's comparable to a 200 lb man jumping up into the air on Earth... he doesn't kick up a cloud of dust.
It's difficult to understand unless you do the maths: 600 lbs of thrust spread over about 200 square feet is only about 3 lbs per square foot... that might kick up some dust... BUT there is no atmosphere on the moon; that means no air currents, no vacuum effect and nothing to hinder the dispersal of the exhaust. Scale experiments have been done to refute this claim but somehow people still want to believe it.
3) how the fuck were we talking to folks on the moon in real time??
...it's only 250,000 miles away, that's only a 1.34 second lag (and to the best of my knowledge Nasa edited out the pauses by using a slight delay on the broadcast). This isn't so much a question of why there wasn't much of a lag with the moon lander, it's just that people are so used to long lags on telephone calls. A transamerican (LA to NY for example) telephone call might be boosted a couple of dozens times (introducing a lag at every boosting station) and it travels over copper wires most of the way (slower than the speed of light) and when it does travel along fibre optics it gets a delay at the digital converters.
Nasa spoke to those guys via radio.
4) how did the asstranauts not get sick from radiation while crossing the van allen radiation belt? when there ws no in built radiation protection
...none of the guys working on mapping the damage at Chernobyl got cancer either. Seems we just overestimated how dangerous very high energy gamma rays are. The titanium shell of the lander was enough to absorb the alpha and beta particles, the gamma rays were so strong they passed right through the shell and the astronauts without interacting. The astronauts got a very high dose, probably comparable to sitting in an x-ray machine for a couple of days...
The radiation comprising the Van Allen belt (charged particles) is unable to pass through metal. An inch of titanium would have been totally opaque to such radiation.
5) how did we miss out on all the micro metorites when the lunad mon had no protection built in it
...several of the ships were hit by micrometeorites. They were just lucky... it's a statistical risk.
6) why r there r stars visible on ANY of the pix on the moon ..since there is no atmosphere there should be VERY visible
...the contrast. It's impossible to photograph both something very dim (a star) and something very bright (an sunshine illuminated astronaut on a illuminated white surface) simultaneously. If the threshold/exposure was set to photograph a star, the glow from the astronaut would white out the photograph. hence the exposures were short and the stars didn't show up.
Hope this answers some questions, by the bye Buzz Aldrin should have shot that prick.
The Luke
-
Protein Farts and 240,
I actually am a physicist, not an Adonis physicist... a real one. So I'll try to answer these questions:
...valid point, but those particular photos were taken with a fish-eye lens and that distorts the image topography in a manner that is consistent with the inconsistencies in the pictures. There are several people who believe that some of the photos were studio-shot fakes... that position has not been conclusively debunked. However, that does not debunk the landing itself.
...there shouldn't be. The lander only had 600 lbs of thrust; spread over the area under the lander that simply isn't enough to disrupt the dust. It's comparable to a 200 lb man jumping up into the air on Earth... he doesn't kick up a cloud of dust.
It's difficult to understand unless you do the maths: 600 lbs of thrust spread over about 200 square feet is only about 3 lbs per square foot... that might kick up some dust... BUT there is no atmosphere on the moon; that means no air currents, no vacuum effect and nothing to hinder the dispersal of the exhaust. Scale experiments have been done to refute this claim but somehow people still want to believe it.
...it's only 250,000 miles away, that's only a 1.34 second lag (and to the best of my knowledge Nasa edited out the pauses by using a slight delay on the broadcast). This isn't so much a question of why there wasn't much of a lag with the moon lander, it's just that people are so used to long lags on telephone calls. A transamerican (LA to NY for example) telephone call might be boosted a couple of dozens times (introducing a lag at every boosting station) and it travels over copper wires most of the way (slower than the speed of light) and when it does travel along fibre optics it gets a delay at the digital converters.
Nasa spoke to those guys via radio.
...none of the guys working on mapping the damage at Chernobyl got cancer either. Seems we just overestimated how dangerous very high energy gamma rays are. The titanium shell of the lander was enough to absorb the alpha and beta particles, the gamma rays were so strong they passed right through the shell and the astronauts without interacting. The astronauts got a very high dose, probably comparable to sitting in an x-ray machine for a couple of days...
The radiation comprising the Van Allen belt (charged particles) is unable to pass through metal. An inch of titanium would have been totally opaque to such radiation.
...several of the ships were hit by micrometeorites. They were just lucky... it's a statistical risk.
...the contrast. It's impossible to photograph both something very dim (a star) and something very bright (an sunshine illuminated astronaut on a illuminated white surface) simultaneously. If the threshold/exposure was set to photograph a star, the glow from the astronaut would white out the photograph. hence the exposures were short and the stars didn't show up.
Hope this answers some questions, by the bye Buzz Aldrin should have shot that prick.
The Luke
na he should have stabbed him and stuck his cock in the stab wound.
-
SPACE IS GAY
FUCK SPACE
LMAO...
-
Protein Farts and 240,
I actually am a physicist, not an Adonis physicist... a real one. So I'll try to answer these questions:
...valid point, but those particular photos were taken with a fish-eye lens and that distorts the image topography in a manner that is consistent with the inconsistencies in the pictures. There are several people who believe that some of the photos were studio-shot fakes... that position has not been conclusively debunked. However, that does not debunk the landing itself.
...there shouldn't be. The lander only had 600 lbs of thrust; spread over the area under the lander that simply isn't enough to disrupt the dust. It's comparable to a 200 lb man jumping up into the air on Earth... he doesn't kick up a cloud of dust.
It's difficult to understand unless you do the maths: 600 lbs of thrust spread over about 200 square feet is only about 3 lbs per square foot... that might kick up some dust... BUT there is no atmosphere on the moon; that means no air currents, no vacuum effect and nothing to hinder the dispersal of the exhaust. Scale experiments have been done to refute this claim but somehow people still want to believe it.
...it's only 250,000 miles away, that's only a 1.34 second lag (and to the best of my knowledge Nasa edited out the pauses by using a slight delay on the broadcast). This isn't so much a question of why there wasn't much of a lag with the moon lander, it's just that people are so used to long lags on telephone calls. A transamerican (LA to NY for example) telephone call might be boosted a couple of dozens times (introducing a lag at every boosting station) and it travels over copper wires most of the way (slower than the speed of light) and when it does travel along fibre optics it gets a delay at the digital converters.
Nasa spoke to those guys via radio.
...none of the guys working on mapping the damage at Chernobyl got cancer either. Seems we just overestimated how dangerous very high energy gamma rays are. The titanium shell of the lander was enough to absorb the alpha and beta particles, the gamma rays were so strong they passed right through the shell and the astronauts without interacting. The astronauts got a very high dose, probably comparable to sitting in an x-ray machine for a couple of days...
The radiation comprising the Van Allen belt (charged particles) is unable to pass through metal. An inch of titanium would have been totally opaque to such radiation.
...several of the ships were hit by micrometeorites. They were just lucky... it's a statistical risk.
...the contrast. It's impossible to photograph both something very dim (a star) and something very bright (an sunshine illuminated astronaut on a illuminated white surface) simultaneously. If the threshold/exposure was set to photograph a star, the glow from the astronaut would white out the photograph. hence the exposures were short and the stars didn't show up.
Hope this answers some questions, by the bye Buzz Aldrin should have shot that prick.
The Luke
luke if theres no atmosphere or air currents why is the america flag flapping around like on a windy day?
You seem like an intelliigent guy dont be so easily fooled look at all the evidence and the reasons and advantages to faking such a thing like going to the moon
-
luke if theres no atmosphere or air currents why is the america flag flapping around like on a windy day?
Even I have heard the explanation for that retard.
-
Even I have heard the explanation for that retard.
Well whats the explanation you little ass burglar?
-
Well whats the explanation you little ass burglar?
give him a few min...so he can google it ;D
-
Buzz aldrin @ Ali G :D
&mode=related&search=
Yo Yo Das some good shit my man! ;D
-
give him a few min...so he can google it ;D
hahaa, hmm I try to explain it in eng, The above part of the flag are a steel wire that points right out to the flags stays in the correct postition? did you understand? :D
-
The Luke makes some good points.
When you have an emotional attachment to something - like the moon landing, 911, etc - you can never look at it objectively. It's only years later that files are declassified, new generations move in, etc - that truths come out.
We admit Vietnam was started using a staged fake attack at the Gulf of Tonken.
We blame a "mid-level paperwork error" for the 50,000 deaths we had over there.
Yes, we admit it.
We admit that in 1962, we made a plan to blow up US planes, blame Cuba, and start a war with them. The plan called for staged terror attack in Cuba too. It was called Operation northwoods. And the Defense Dept approved it before JFK shot the idea down.
We admitted in 1978 that JFK was probably killed by some kind of group conspiracy, but no further investigation was done.
Shit like this happens. In 10 or 20 or 30 years, we'll admit we were told about 9/11 ahead of time, but let it happen because we needed to justify attacks to set up bases and companies in oil-rich regions for long term stability.
-
Yo Yo Das some good shit my man! ;D
yeah, It was funny as hell,
"SO ONCE AND FOR ALL WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY TO ALL THOSE SKEPTICS THAT DONT BELIEVE THAT THE MOON EXISTS?" :D
-
luke if theres no atmosphere or air currents why is the america flag flapping around like on a windy day?
You seem like an intelliigent guy dont be so easily fooled look at all the evidence and the reasons and advantages to faking such a thing like going to the moon
The flag only waves while someone is holding it or touching it... this is because of the metal rod supporting the flag.
When you hold something here on Earth you continuously transfer vibration to it, it's just not always obvious with something like a flag... but on the moon, with no atmosphere to dampen the movement and much less gravity the lightest part of the object (the cloth flag) absorbs most of the vibration... hence the fluttering.
240 is right about the staggering amount of bullshit we are fed every day... the mainstream media is polluted with the laziness of arts and humanities graduates posing as journalists who don't check up on stories because they lack the basic scientific understanding required to do so.
There are some really huge cover-ups brewing at the moment in scientific and academic circles: for example, my personal favourite, the existence of extant hominids (Orang-pendek, Yeti, Bigfoot etc)... what about the identification of the Moses figure from the bible? Seems Moses might well be Amenhotep IV also known as the Pharaoh Akhenaten... want more? Atlantis has been found and it's in Bolivia. How were the pyramids built?... pretty easily considering that all the blocks are made of crude concrete. Anthropogenic global warming is also a teetering tower of bullshit that is ready to come tumbling down.
You get my drift... but unfortunately most of these Moon Landing and 9/11 conspiracies are supported by evidence that is often little more than misconceptions made by scientifically illiterate people.
A good example of this is the supposed video evidence of the twin Towers being detonated (blasts exiting from windows lower than the collapsing rubble), when anyone who knows anything about physics knows that's caused by a wavefront of compressed air within the building being forced down by the collapse and occasionally escaping at the weakest points (broken windows etc). They also claim that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel frame of the buildings, when it should be pretty obvious that the structure would fail long before the actual melting of the support beams... stressed, load-baring I-beams warp at a much lower temperature than their melting point.
240, you have to temper these catch-penny author books with a little savvy... ask yourself, who benefits most from the conspiracy? The conspiracy writers, that's who.
God help us if 240 ever gets involved in the Renne le Chateau mystery. He'd never find his way out.
The Luke
-
conspiracies are fun to follow. you can't do anything about them, but it's like cool real-life crime drama.
-
yeah, the luke, a great deal of the 911 CT stuff is silly and inaccuate.
however, I cannot get over why WTC7 fell. And why they refused to even LOOK at it in the 911 commission report. a 47-story building converts from standing to 100 mc talcum powder sized concrete powder in under 7 seconds. Gravity alone cannot do that. Collapsed buildings from failing due to small fires. don't turn to powder.
WTC7 is why most of the 911 truth kids follow the story. Cause it makes zero sense, and they refuse to look at it.
-
240,
Yeah... they do.
The concrete is under tremendous pressures at those heights, a simple shift in weight can cause the blocks to literally explode. Adding to this, the blocks and concrete powder themselves as the collapse... same thing happens during landslides; you start with tumbling boulders but end up with a soup of pebbles.
Every once in a while here in Europe some old ruined castle suddenly explodes catastrophically... this is what I was talking about: the arguments sound logical... but only to those who don't know any better, and too many people don't know any better.
The Luke
-
240,
Yeah... they do.
The concrete is under tremendous pressures at those heights, a simple shift in weight can cause the blocks to literally explode. Adding to this, the blocks and concrete powder themselves as the collapse... same thing happens during landslides; you start with tumbling boulders but end up with a soup of pebbles.
Every once in a while here in Europe some old ruined castle suddenly explodes catastrophically... this is what I was talking about: the arguments sound logical... but only to those who don't know any better, and too many people don't know any better.
The Luke
fair enough. You know more about physics than I do. Many architects and engineers and physicists have called the collapse impossible (it was standing intact with 2 small fires one minute - and 7 seconds later the entire 47-stories had coverted to 20 feet of molten metal and a giant cloud of powder.
-
buzz has an IQ of 75.
he's a retard who believes his own lies.
prat
-
The American media reported the opinions of architects who had overlooked the blueprints of the buildings: they should have stood despite the fire.
The problem is that the support structure was SUPPOSED to have been sealed with a layer of asbestos paint according to the blueprints... in reality, inspections carried out the year beforehand found that the asbestos paint was simply slapped on haphazardly by the shoddy workmen. With large pieces of the framework effectively exposed to the fire the towers would indeed have failed.
The BBC and Channel 4 over this side of the pond did some wonderful exposés of these conspiracy theories... the American media companies are too dumbed down to tackle such subjects.
Although... this does raise the coincidence that the towers were due to be condemned pending an asbestos strip-out... the strip-out (mandated by NY laws regarding asbestos in the workplace) would have cost more than the towers were actually worth, making them unsellable... within a year both towers were down and the insurance companies took the hit.
Hhhmmmm...
The Luke
-
Gotta head out now... 240 (or anyone else), if you have any other questions for me just compile a list.
The Luke
-
If you were on the Moon, wouldn't you be able to see the stars a lot more clearer?
I don't see one single star in the background....
-
Although... this does raise the coincidence that the towers were due to be condemned pending an asbestos strip-out... the strip-out (mandated by NY laws regarding asbestos in the workplace) would have cost more than the towers were actually worth, making them unsellable... within a year both towers were down and the insurance companies took the hit.
Hhhmmmm...
yeah, in spring 2002, there would have been an evacuation ordered by NYC. The towers needed a billion$ in asbestos removal. The owner had no plans in place whatsoever for the huge process. Did he just plan to have his building emptied one day? LOL... very odd.
This is what most folks want - just an honest, complete investigation.
-
Gotta head out now... 240 (or anyone else), if you have any other questions for me just compile a list.
The Luke
Do you honestly believe that we landed on the moon nearly 40 years ago Luke?
Why haven t we been there since or why haven t the russians or chinese been up there ever?
I dont buy it not for a second
Anyone whos interested check out the documentary over on alluc.org entitled "did we land on the moon"
as for the trade center everyone knows that was an inside job so they could gain public support for invading iraq and getting to the oil,irag has the second largest oil reserves in the world
-
Threads like these remind me why the US is falling behind in science in technology.
Christ, we're fucked...
-
The flag only waves while someone is holding it or touching it... this is because of the metal rod supporting the flag.
When you hold something here on Earth you continuously transfer vibration to it, it's just not always obvious with something like a flag... but on the moon, with no atmosphere to dampen the movement and much less gravity the lightest part of the object (the cloth flag) absorbs most of the vibration... hence the fluttering.
240 is right about the staggering amount of bullshit we are fed every day... the mainstream media is polluted with the laziness of arts and humanities graduates posing as journalists who don't check up on stories because they lack the basic scientific understanding required to do so.
There are some really huge cover-ups brewing at the moment in scientific and academic circles: for example, my personal favourite, the existence of extant hominids (Orang-pendek, Yeti, Bigfoot etc)... what about the identification of the Moses figure from the bible? Seems Moses might well be Amenhotep IV also known as the Pharaoh Akhenaten... want more? Atlantis has been found and it's in Bolivia. How were the pyramids built?... pretty easily considering that all the blocks are made of crude concrete. Anthropogenic global warming is also a teetering tower of bullshit that is ready to come tumbling down.
You get my drift... but unfortunately most of these Moon Landing and 9/11 conspiracies are supported by evidence that is often little more than misconceptions made by scientifically illiterate people.
A good example of this is the supposed video evidence of the twin Towers being detonated (blasts exiting from windows lower than the collapsing rubble), when anyone who knows anything about physics knows that's caused by a wavefront of compressed air within the building being forced down by the collapse and occasionally escaping at the weakest points (broken windows etc). They also claim that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel frame of the buildings, when it should be pretty obvious that the structure would fail long before the actual melting of the support beams... stressed, load-baring I-beams warp at a much lower temperature than their melting point.
240, you have to temper these catch-penny author books with a little savvy... ask yourself, who benefits most from the conspiracy? The conspiracy writers, that's who.
God help us if 240 ever gets involved in the Renne le Chateau mystery. He'd never find his way out.
The Luke
relax, 240 doesnt believe in 50% of what he writes.
-
I think one of the most hardcore evidence that the moon landing actually took place was the fact that the Soviet Union didn't say shit about it. As much as USA was in desperate need of winning that space race, so was Soviet. So if Soviet wasn't 100% sure that the landing was real they would problaby let the world know about it.
Gosh, don't you think soviet tracked every millimeter of that Apollo mission?
-
If they had let me film it, there wouldn't be any questions.
-
::) ::)
-
&mode=related&search= ::)
the 2:225 stuff is actually interesting :)
-
Protein Farts and 240,
I actually am a physicist, not an Adonis physicist... a real one. So I'll try to answer these questions:
...valid point, but those particular photos were taken with a fish-eye lens and that distorts the image topography in a manner that is consistent with the inconsistencies in the pictures. There are several people who believe that some of the photos were studio-shot fakes... that position has not been conclusively debunked. However, that does not debunk the landing itself.
...there shouldn't be. The lander only had 600 lbs of thrust; spread over the area under the lander that simply isn't enough to disrupt the dust. It's comparable to a 200 lb man jumping up into the air on Earth... he doesn't kick up a cloud of dust.
It's difficult to understand unless you do the maths: 600 lbs of thrust spread over about 200 square feet is only about 3 lbs per square foot... that might kick up some dust... BUT there is no atmosphere on the moon; that means no air currents, no vacuum effect and nothing to hinder the dispersal of the exhaust. Scale experiments have been done to refute this claim but somehow people still want to believe it.
...it's only 250,000 miles away, that's only a 1.34 second lag (and to the best of my knowledge Nasa edited out the pauses by using a slight delay on the broadcast). This isn't so much a question of why there wasn't much of a lag with the moon lander, it's just that people are so used to long lags on telephone calls. A transamerican (LA to NY for example) telephone call might be boosted a couple of dozens times (introducing a lag at every boosting station) and it travels over copper wires most of the way (slower than the speed of light) and when it does travel along fibre optics it gets a delay at the digital converters.
Nasa spoke to those guys via radio.
...none of the guys working on mapping the damage at Chernobyl got cancer either. Seems we just overestimated how dangerous very high energy gamma rays are. The titanium shell of the lander was enough to absorb the alpha and beta particles, the gamma rays were so strong they passed right through the shell and the astronauts without interacting. The astronauts got a very high dose, probably comparable to sitting in an x-ray machine for a couple of days...
The radiation comprising the Van Allen belt (charged particles) is unable to pass through metal. An inch of titanium would have been totally opaque to such radiation.
...several of the ships were hit by micrometeorites. They were just lucky... it's a statistical risk.
...the contrast. It's impossible to photograph both something very dim (a star) and something very bright (an sunshine illuminated astronaut on a illuminated white surface) simultaneously. If the threshold/exposure was set to photograph a star, the glow from the astronaut would white out the photograph. hence the exposures were short and the stars didn't show up.
Hope this answers some questions, by the bye Buzz Aldrin should have shot that prick.
The Luke
excellent answer...thankyou! :)
-
I don't which is more humorous, the video or the comments on it ;D
"he hit him and the guy didn't fall down?
Stupid old man, now he shoed everyone how weak you are! Don't show ur emotion's unless you can't live by it literally,
I got lots of shit on my neck when I pissed of in highschool, the guy's who bully'd me just said; "hahaha, what are you going to do? punch me in a rapid fire and cause no damage? hahahaha"
then I knew I had to get stronger... bodbuilding for life..."
-
&mode=related&search= ::)
the 2:225 stuff is actually interesting :)
For fucks sake it dosen t even look real you dont have to be a physicist to see thats shit is fake theres wires pulling him up again when he s on the ground.
What a joke
-
Threads like these remind me why the US is falling behind in science in technology.
Christ, we're fucked...
the US is falling behind for 1 reason
yall go to high skool till the 12th grade..most of the world gets it done in 10
calculus is taught in the 9th grade elsewhere...
-
If you were on the Moon, wouldn't you be able to see the stars a lot more clearer?
I don't see one single star in the background....
I assume you have been on the moon?!?
(http://www.goddudes.com/1.gif)
-
They're fun to ponder, for sure.
A rocket left the moon's 1/6 gravity and launched back into orbit, then back to earth.
When it took off, the camera got the whole thing. not one bit of moon dust was disrupted. I don't know how a rocket takes off without displacing a litle dust under it. Enough force to lift a craft with 2 men in it off the ground and miles into the air - I mean, a fvcking rocket blast!
yet not one bit of moon dust moves.
I'd love to be convinced that's normal. Someone clarify this!
Here is clarity...IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT
Funny thing about it though is the fact that there is a movie called CAPRICORN ONE that talks about this very thing. In the movie it shows that the government realized that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get to the moon because of the amount of fuel necessary, the VAN ALLEN BELTS (you should have been taught this in science and/or physics), the solar radiation (ABSOLUTELY DEADLY RADIATION IN SPACE), the HOSTILE environment on the moon (300 degrees on the sunny side/ 300 below zero on the dark side) and the impossible task of launching again from the moon back into orbit and then to earth. YOU HAVE ALL BEEN DUPED. HAD, TRICKED and BAMBOOZELED. Go rent the movie CAPRICORN ONE from Blockbuster or Netflix or something and you will be made wise.
-
There are some really huge cover-ups brewing at the moment in scientific and academic circles: for example, my personal favourite, the existence of extant hominids (Orang-pendek, Yeti, Bigfoot etc)... what about the identification of the Moses figure from the bible? Seems Moses might well be Amenhotep IV also known as the Pharaoh Akhenaten... want more? Atlantis has been found and it's in Bolivia. How were the pyramids built?... pretty easily considering that all the blocks are made of crude concrete. Anthropogenic global warming is also a teetering tower of bullshit that is ready to come tumbling down.
1. what would be the motivation for covering up the existence of such hominids? i never got that one. also i was under the impression that evidence for the existence of orag-pendek had been found? i think the most likely of these to have existed were the almas of central asia. theres just no way something like bigfoot could continue to live undetected in the continental united states.
2. atlantis in bolivia-wtf??? while it is likely that significant civilization did exist well before orthodox archaeologists will admit, 'atlantis' itself was either made up by plato or was based on the memories of the thera eruption of santorini and the resulting demise of the minoan civilization. tell me more about this bolivia thing...
3. the poured concrete theory...i dont buy it. as it stands today there is still no sufficient explanation for how exactly the great pyramid was built
-
3. the poured concrete theory...i dont buy it. as it stands today there is still no sufficient explanation for how exactly the great pyramid was built
my grandpa told me he built it w blood, sweat & tears.
-
READ THE WHOLE FUCKING PAGE BEFORE ASKING DUMB QUESTIONS, RETARDS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
-
Mad motive, son.
Cold-War prestige — The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon was risky and expensive (John F. Kennedy famously said that the U.S. chose to go because it was difficult.[8]) Despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, Bill Kaysing believes that it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.[3] p. 29
Money — NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. Bill Kaysing thinks that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.[3] p. 71
Risk — This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017%.[3] pp. 26–40
Distraction — According to hoax proponents the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.[9] (However, the Apollo program was cancelled several years before the Vietnam War ended.[10])
Saving face — To seemingly fulfil president Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
-
1. what would be the motivation for covering up the existence of such hominids? i never got that one. also i was under the impression that evidence for the existence of orag-pendek had been found? i think the most likely of these to have existed were the almas of central asia. theres just no way something like bigfoot could continue to live undetected in the continental united states.
...no evidence for orang pendek yet (unless you think as I do that it might be one in the same with the Hobbit Man Homo Floresiensis). Won't comment on Bigfoot so much as to say that they could easily go undiscovered for this long considering the habitats they prefer, the fingerprint evidence is conclusive (google Jimmy Chilcut) and that I spent my life savings chasing Squatch across north America and Canada.
Guess I did comment.
2. atlantis in bolivia-wtf??? while it is likely that significant civilization did exist well before orthodox archaeologists will admit, 'atlantis' itself was either made up by plato or was based on the memories of the thera eruption of santorini and the resulting demise of the minoan civilization. tell me more about this bolivia thing...
...that's the orthodox view. In fact Plato got the dates RIGHT... it did happen 12,000 years ago... the city is now under Lake Popo on the Bolivian Altiplano and a guy named Jim Allen, an amateur cartographer, found the remnants of the city that are still above ground. The city ruins match Plato's description in every conceivable way... it's solved, archeology just hasn't listened yet.
3. the poured concrete theory...i dont buy it. as it stands today there is still no sufficient explanation for how exactly the great pyramid was built
...the largest pyramid, the Pyramid of Cheops/Khufu, contains approximately 1.2 million blocks averaging 2 metric tons each: that' s enough blocks to fill every quarry in ancient Egypt several times over.
Forgetting the transportation problems... forgetting that a ramp would have needed to contain 3 million similar blocks to achieve a usable incline... forgetting that such a feet was simply impossible using cut blocks in those times... forgetting all that; the simple fact remains that the pyramid blocks contain 9 times as many air bubbles as does natural limestone: case closed, it's concrete.
Besides, the polymer physicist who brought forward this solution got so tired of getting no publicity that he and a few friends built a 30 foot high mini-pyramid, including one twelve ton block (as big as the biggest Giza block: the lintel from the Wall of Crows), complete with casing stones in one day using only tools and materials available to the ancient Egyptians, right on the lawn of the French National Polymer Physics Institute. The Incas, Aztecs, Toltecs, Olmecs, Mayans, Persians (Balbek), Phoenicians and Atlanteans all built using concrete too for that matter.
Go google and see for yourself.
The Luke
-
I spent my life savings chasing Squatch across north America and Canada.
The Luke
you poor sap . . . it's hard to take a walk in rural E. Texas w/o tripping over a bigfoot. wouldn't have cost you more than a couple grand . . .
-
So what if we did not land on the moon. We still beat the Russian's. ;D
There where never any Dinosaurs either, just a bunch of bullshit for some self proclaimed professers to create something to study and make a living off of. ::)
Oh yeah the 911 conspiracy.............. .who gives a shit...........JFK...... .WGF(who gives a fuck).
Now let's talk a bout something real............like Britney's nasty Beef Curtains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
Here's the Apollo 11 press conference.......bizzare .
-
ask nasser, he knows.
-
yeah, in spring 2002, there would have been an evacuation ordered by NYC. The towers needed a billion$ in asbestos removal. The owner had no plans in place whatsoever for the huge process. Did he just plan to have his building emptied one day? LOL... very odd.
This is what most folks want - just an honest, complete investigation.
Do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that the U.S. government was a part in taking down the Twin Towers?
Listen to what you are saying. I'm not sure if you've thought about your outlook on life, but you are certifiably insane if you believe that.
Regarding the moon, has the word "gravity" ever been introduced to you?
In short, you are an anti-American, insane, 170 pound weakling.
Hope this helps.
-
you poor sap . . . it's hard to take a walk in rural E. Texas w/o tripping over a bigfoot. wouldn't have cost you more than a couple grand . . .
There's a drive-thru in Beaumont, and everytime I go there I see one or two Bigfoot(s) ordering Bar-B-Q.
Oh... the pyramids are not built of concrete.
-
Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim
Method used only at higher levels Blocks set using a limestone slurry.
Charles Bremner, Paris... How the Egyptians really built a Pyramid:
The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.
The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs’ craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids.
Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist.
The stones, say the historians and archeologists, were all carved from nearby quarries, heaved up huge ramps and set in place by armies of workers. Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time.
Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.
But according to Professor Gilles Hug, of the French National Aerospace Research Agency (Onera), and Professor Michel Barsoum, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, the covering of the great Pyramids at Giza consists of two types of stone: one from the quarries and one man-made.
“There’s no way around it. The chemistry is well and truly different,” Professor Hug told Science et Vie magazine. Their study is being published this month in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.
The pair used X-rays, a plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare small fragments from pyramids with stone from the Toura and Maadi quarries.
They found “traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystalisation . . . The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.”
The pair believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the “Davidovits theory” that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry.
Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days.
New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: “The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.”
The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.
Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.
The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.
================================================
??? This particular story (above) proves nothing.
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1 (http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1) Ditto. This article has many problems.
One more:
[u]Pyramids built of limestone, not concrete blocks[/u]
Egypt, Local, 10/12/2002
Egypt's Pyramids in Giza are built of limestone, not concrete blocks as a French chemist claimed recently, said Zahi Hawwas, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.
In statements on Thursday, Hawwas said the quarry where the stones were brought from had been spotted 150 kilometers south of Cheops Pyramid.
"The French Chemist, Joseph David, has never visited Egypt neither has he ever seen the Pyramids," said Hawwas.
"His idea is an old one which he published in a book several years ago and did not distribute more than 1.000 copies," added Hawwas.
Hawwas believes that the French chemist reached this conclusion because the samples he worked on came from wrong renovation conducted in the past century on the exterior of the great pyramid's stones.
This method is now absolute, added Hawwas
-
...no evidence for orang pendek yet (unless you think as I do that it might be one in the same with the Hobbit Man Homo Floresiensis). Won't comment on Bigfoot so much as to say that they could easily go undiscovered for this long considering the habitats they prefer, the fingerprint evidence is conclusive (google Jimmy Chilcut) and that I spent my life savings chasing Squatch across north America and Canada.
Guess I did comment.
...that's the orthodox view. In fact Plato got the dates RIGHT... it did happen 12,000 years ago... the city is now under Lake Popo on the Bolivian Altiplano and a guy named Jim Allen, an amateur cartographer, found the remnants of the city that are still above ground. The city ruins match Plato's description in every conceivable way... it's solved, archeology just hasn't listened yet.
...the largest pyramid, the Pyramid of Cheops/Khufu, contains approximately 1.2 million blocks averaging 2 metric tons each: that' s enough blocks to fill every quarry in ancient Egypt several times over.
Forgetting the transportation problems... forgetting that a ramp would have needed to contain 3 million similar blocks to achieve a usable incline... forgetting that such a feet was simply impossible using cut blocks in those times... forgetting all that; the simple fact remains that the pyramid blocks contain 9 times as many air bubbles as does natural limestone: case closed, it's concrete.
Besides, the polymer physicist who brought forward this solution got so tired of getting no publicity that he and a few friends built a 30 foot high mini-pyramid, including one twelve ton block (as big as the biggest Giza block: the lintel from the Wall of Crows), complete with casing stones in one day using only tools and materials available to the ancient Egyptians, right on the lawn of the French National Polymer Physics Institute. The Incas, Aztecs, Toltecs, Olmecs, Mayans, Persians (Balbek), Phoenicians and Atlanteans all built using concrete too for that matter.
Go google and see for yourself.
The Luke
1.i dont see how teh bigfoot could continue to live inthe united states and not be a known species. a body would have been found by now. or bones. or something tangible. period. perhaps they survived up until the 60's then went extinct. chilcut is the footprint -dermal- ridges guy right? as much as id like to believe, we would have found a body by now.
2.what are your reasons for accepting plato's story as fact, and insisting the dates were accurate? also there have been countless 'amature scientists' who have claimed to have found atlantis in various places all over the world that 'completely match the descriptions'...what makes this guy right? there were civilizations lost to history but 'atlantis' itself began with plato's story, and it is either an account of the thera eruption or just a story
3.i havent much looked into the 'concrete' theory but here are some points
-it says they quarried limestone then DISSOLVED it in water(?) and made a cement mixture out of it? how long does it take to dissolve a limestone block in water?
-if it was poured concrete then why did they divide it into millions of blocks?
-the 30 ton pink granite stones in the 'kings chamber' were not poured, how did they get there?
-article says only the top levels were poured; this was almost 500ft tall, even if the top was poured, that still leaves several hundred feet to raise and place actual 2-ton+ limestone blocks
-
[u]Pyramids built of limestone, not concrete blocks[/u]
Egypt, Local, 10/12/2002
Egypt's Pyramids in Giza are built of limestone, not concrete blocks as a French chemist claimed recently, said Zahi Hawwas, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities.
In statements on Thursday, Hawwas said the quarry where the stones were brought from had been spotted 150 kilometers south of Cheops Pyramid.
"The French Chemist, Joseph David, has never visited Egypt neither has he ever seen the Pyramids," said Hawwas.
"His idea is an old one which he published in a book several years ago and did not distribute more than 1.000 copies," added Hawwas.
Hawwas believes that the French chemist reached this conclusion because the samples he worked on came from wrong renovation conducted in the past century on the exterior of the great pyramid's stones.
This method is now absolute, added Hawwas
not saying hes right or wrong in this particular case, but zahi hawass can always be counted on to not just reject, but make a mockery of absolutely any theory or scientist that dares to challenge orthodox egyptology's long-held 'facts'. the guy is as biased and stubborn as they come.
-
not saying hes right or wrong in this particular case, but zahi hawass can always be counted on to not just reject, but make a mockery of absolutely any theory or scientist that dares to challenge orthodox egyptology's long-held 'facts'. the guy is as biased and stubborn as they come.
I have to agree. Perhaps Hawass was not the best person to reference in this matter. ;)
* On the matter of concrete; I think everyone agrees, the Romans invented concrete in the 4th or 5th century. The use of concrete in the pyramids, would move this date back by approx 4,000 years. That's big.
-
&mode=related&search= ::)
the 2:225 stuff is actually interesting :)
If you weighted 1/6 of whhat you do now and had the same strength, it would be possible to do that on the low gravity environment of the moon. Look at his left arm, he is being supported and helped up by the other astronaut.
Imagine a wooden cross about the size of a person, weighing about 40lbs lying on the floor. You could quite easily grab that cross by its 'arm' and pick it up in a similar way to the video.
-
I have to agree. Perhaps Hawass was not the best person to reference in this matter. ;)
* On the matter on concrete; I think everyone agrees, the Romans invented concrete in the 4th or 5th century. The use of concrete in the pyramids, would move this date back by approx 4,500 years. That's big.
no, onlyme is big. that's big.
-
Do you honestly believe that we landed on the moon nearly 40 years ago Luke?
Why haven t we been there since or why haven t the russians or chinese been up there ever?
I dont buy it not for a second
Anyone whos interested check out the documentary over on alluc.org entitled "did we land on the moon"
as for the trade center everyone knows that was an inside job so they could gain public support for invading iraq and getting to the oil,irag has the second largest oil reserves in the world
It makes no sense economically to go to the moon.
These countries have never had the technology or resources to go to the moon let alone in 1969. The Russians couldn't even build reliable jetliners let alone rockets, lunar modules etc.. Iraq doesn't have the second largest oil reserves of oil either.
-
I assume you have been on the moon?!?
(http://www.goddudes.com/1.gif)
there is no atmosphere on the moon..so stars should be VERY visible..
ever been out in the country on a clear nite where there is no light pollution and looked up?
-
as for the pyramids..the great pyramid point EXACTLY to TRUE north not magnetic north...
even today thats a task thats hard to do and costs a lot of $ soo people dont do it as precisely ...they dont bother with it
somescientists believethat we r a species with amnesia...mayhap we were more advanced in the past..
gold replica toy planes at excavation sites have tested great in wind tunnels...explain that..?
the Nazco lines cannot be explained either <google nazca lines>
-
Bump for a flat Earth!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum//
-
there is no atmosphere on the moon..so stars should be VERY visible..
ever been out in the country on a clear nite where there is no light pollution and looked up?
They weren't out on a clear "NIGHT." They were on the mood during the moon's day period.
The cameras used and exposure setting to allow visibility in the near field.
There was the mega bright SUN beaming down on them......
If they would have set the exposure to see the stars, the astranauts would have been way to bright to see.
I'm sure they didn't consider the need to 'prove' there were stars and set the exposure for that....especially considering you wouldn't have been able to see any of hte pertinant information up close.
And, this is the dumbest argument imaginable. As if in the midst of the greatest hoax in human history...someone just forgot to put little lights in the dark backdrop.
I'm sure they spent the time to stage an entier moon landing, but just forgot to put the most prevelant objects in the sky there.....
-
as for the pyramids..the great pyramid point EXACTLY to TRUE north not magnetic north...
even today thats a task thats hard to do and costs a lot of $ soo people dont do it as precisely ...they dont bother with it
somescientists believethat we r a species with amnesia...mayhap we were more advanced in the past..
gold replica toy planes at excavation sites have tested great in wind tunnels...explain that..?
the Nazco lines cannot be explained either <google nazca lines>
They seemed to be explained pretty easily here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Lines
-
Ya, the star issue is silly. Take a camera, focus on an object in the foreground. Magically the objects in the background become very distorted or disappear completely. Keep in mind the background objects (the stars) were billions of miles in the background. They were taking pictures of the guy on the moon, not the stars.
It was pointless and very expensive, but we went to the moon. Besides, if we didn't go to the moon, how do you explain Moon Pies? I mean legally, they would have to be called Earth Pies, if the guy didn't go to the moon and get the ingredients.
-
"no evidence for orang pendek yet (unless you think as I do that it might be one in the same with the Hobbit Man Homo Floresiensis). Won't comment on Bigfoot so much as to say that they could easily go undiscovered for this long considering the habitats they prefer, the fingerprint evidence is conclusive (google Jimmy Chilcut) and that I spent my life savings chasing Squatch across north America and Canada.
Guess I did comment."
------------------------------------
The former cop and certified nutjob? The Anthropologist, Archaeologist and Biologist, they got it wrong, the retired cop got it right. Negative sir.
There's nothing... not a bone, not a tooth, not a skull, no hair, nothing. I'd like to see Bigfoot, he's probably friendly, but it's not going to happen.
-
Besides, if we didn't go to the moon, how do you explain Moon Pies? I mean legally, they would have to be called Earth Pies, if the guy didn't go to the moon and get the ingredients.
that was lame bro, but it made me laugh! ;D
-
Big ass UFO's with tractor beams came from another world and used their superior technology to build the pyramids to the amazment of all the primitive humans.
Everyones thinking it but no one wants to say it.
-
Thanks SM :D
--------------
"3.i havent much looked into the 'concrete' theory but here are some points
-it says they quarried limestone then DISSOLVED it in water(?) and made a cement mixture out of it? how long does it take to dissolve a limestone block in water?
-if it was poured concrete then why did they divide it into millions of blocks?
-the 30 ton pink granite stones in the 'kings chamber' were not poured, how did they get there?
-article says only the top levels were poured; this was almost 500ft tall, even if the top was poured, that still leaves several hundred feet to raise and place actual 2-ton+ limestone blocks"
---------------------------
That confused me too. Even better, can you imagine the conversation that took place when some guy had the idea:
Boss: "Hey you workers, we're going to take these blocks of limestone, dissolve them, and then make the mixture into blocks of limestone.
Worker: "OK jackass, whatever you say."
-
Boss: "Hey you workers, we're going to take these blocks of limestone, dissolve them, and then make the mixture into blocks of limestone.
Worker: "OK jackass, whatever you say."
LMFAO!!!
-
there is no atmosphere on the moon..so stars should be VERY visible..
ever been out in the country on a clear nite where there is no light pollution and looked up?
Are you just joking around or are you really that stupid? :-\
-
Not sure scientific answers are useful here, as most of you guys obviously "never bin much fur buck lernin'!".
But here goes:
1) It is pretty much impossible to dissolve limestone quickly without powerful acids... what dem der Egyptians did was to super heat blocks of limestone in bellow fed blast ovens/furnaces (mud brick ovens with foot operated leather bellows) producing lime.
The LIME was then mixed with water and sand to make a crude concrete... voila: Pyramids!
2) No anthropologist or academic believes in the existence of Bigfoot and/or other relict hominids?
I'd better pass this breaking news on to Dr Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University; and other anthropologists such as Dr Myra Shackley... not to mention all the other academics who won't come forward publicly, I've been on expedition with several of them.
You guys all need to get some edumacation.
The Luke
-
Hold everything! The Luke, you're not the same guy who posted here approximately 1.5 years ago that...
- Is 30 years old and lives at home with his parents
- Travels around Europe looking for the holy grail
- Thinks the goverment, is hiding DaVinci's machine that turns lead into gold
...you're not that guy, are you?
"Dr" Jeff Meldrum http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/meldrum/ (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/meldrum/) ;D
-
Hold everything! The Luke, you're not the same guy who posted here approximately 1.5 years ago that...
- Is 30 years old and lives at home with his parents
- Travels around Europe looking for the holy grail
- Thinks the goverment, is hiding DaVinci's machine, that turns lead into gold
...you're not that guy, are you?
Dr Jeff Meldrum http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/meldrum/ (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/meldrum/) ;D
tommy your brutal in this thread. :D
-
Found it :-\
Re: What are the rules for the 225lbx113 deadlift?
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2006, 02:29:49 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Yeah, I live at home.... with my parents... in a $1.2 million home.
-Yeah, I don't have a job... I save my money and take several months holiday each year, haven't had to work since July. Probably won't work again till February.
-Yeah, I hunt for Bigfoot in my spare time... in the last year I've been on expeditions to Wisconsin, Washington state and British Columbia, I've been interviewed in the Wisconsin Bee newspaper, on Wisconsin Public Radio and on SpinFM back here in Dublin. I turned down a tv spot on Good Morning America. I've also been treasure hunting in Southern France, scouting all the sites associated with the RleC mystery and doing some exploratory digging in the Valley of Death behind Perillos castle. I'm an amateur Indiana Jones of sorts.
-Not all of us wanted to be internet trolls when we grew up.
-Hiding behind an online persona and ripping on your betters: Monster accomplishment.
-The "Living the Dream" Luke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Found it :-\
Re: What are the rules for the 225lbx113 deadlift?
« Reply #146 on: December 17, 2006, 02:29:49 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Yeah, I live at home.... with my parents... in a $1.2 million home.
-Yeah, I don't have a job... I save my money and take several months holiday each year, haven't had to work since July. Probably won't work again till February.
-Yeah, I hunt for Bigfoot in my spare time... in the last year I've been on expeditions to Wisconsin, Washington state and British Columbia, I've been interviewed in the Wisconsin Bee newspaper, on Wisconsin Public Radio and on SpinFM back here in Dublin. I turned down a tv spot on Good Morning America. I've also been treasure hunting in Southern France, scouting all the sites associated with the RleC mystery and doing some exploratory digging in the Valley of Death behind Perillos castle. I'm an amateur Indiana Jones of sorts.
-Not all of us wanted to be internet trolls when we grew up.
-Hiding behind an online persona and ripping on your betters: Monster accomplishment.
-The "Living the Dream" Luke
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't quite understand the need for hyperbole on the internet in regards to one's assets......
All you have for worth here is your intellectual abilities.....property, wealth, assets...doesn't mean anything on the net.
The Luke may be a booger eatin' loser in his parent's basement. (in fact, that is the most likely situation given all things known about him) But, he's the only one here making intelligent comments.
It's dreadfully boring when turd droppings post as authority figures on issues they have no knowledge about.
Shit like "why couldn't you see the stars? You can see them on EARTH at NIGHT" When the explaination is shitfully obvious if you know anything about the situation the photos were taken under, is laughably stupid.
One will never cease to be in amazement upon understanding of the common man's ignorance.
-
Hold everything! The Luke, you're not the same guy who posted here approximately 1.5 years ago that...
- Is 30 years old and lives at home with his parents
- Travels around Europe looking for the holy grail
- Thinks the goverment, is hiding DaVinci's machine that turns lead into gold
...you're not that guy, are you?
Yes, I am that guy... I don't know where you got the bit about the government (which goverNment?) hiding a metal transmutation machine (first I've ever heard of such a thing)... but everything else is pretty much accurate.
Just for the record, just about everyone living in Dublin (Ireland) lives at home till they're in their forties these days... cramped one bedroom apartments average about $500,000 over here, and I probably pay more in rent to my parents than most of you guys are paying on a mortgage. Considering these extenuating circumstances I'm technically a loser... that's two steps up from the pathetic loser you guys seem to wish me to be (presumably because my posts made sense).
The Luke
-
I don't quite understand the need for hyperbole on the internet in regards to one's assets......
All you have for worth here is your intellectual abilities.....property, wealth, assets...doesn't mean anything on the net.
The Luke may be a booger eatin' loser in his parent's basement. (in fact, that is the most likely situation given all things known about him) But, he's the only one here making intelligent comments.
It's dreadfully boring when turd droppings post as authority figures on issues they have no knowledge about.
Shit like "why couldn't you see the stars? You can see them on EARTH at NIGHT" When the explaination is shitfully obvious if you know anything about the situation the photos were taken under, is laughably stupid.
One will never cease to be in amazement upon understanding of the common man's ignorance.
ILL HAMMER YOUR FACE!!!
-
Now I understand The Luke. I thought you were from Dublin, California, but you're actually from Dublin, Ireland. You've been sneaking a sip or two from the Jameson, haven't you. That's OK, I'm a sucker for a friendly bottle of Dewars.
Cheers & happy travels.
http://www.jamesonwhiskey.com/ (http://www.jamesonwhiskey.com/) (for the squares)
http://www.dewars.com/lda.aspx?ReturnUrl=/default.aspx (http://www.dewars.com/lda.aspx?ReturnUrl=/default.aspx) (for the creampuffs)
-
The luke in your travels what have you learned of the holy grail?
and could you tell me what exactly it is?
I've been confused ever since I read The Da Vinci Code.... :-\
-
If you were on the Moon, wouldn't you be able to see the stars a lot more clearer?
I don't see one single star in the background....
It is a matter called "exposure latitude". The f stop and shutter speed was set to expose the sunlite scenes, not for the star field. To photograph star fields on silver halide film, you have to expose many seconds to several minutes. In fact, on Earth, you have to use a device called an "equatorial mount" to slowly turn the camera at the same rate as the Earth spins to keep the star field steady long enough to register. Here is a picture of a cheap one. Next to it, the one used at mt. Palomar
-
ILL HAMMER YOUR FACE!!!
You and whose army, Pal? >:(
-
The luke in your travels what have you learned of the holy grail?
and could you tell me what exactly it is?
I've been confused ever since I read The Da Vinci Code.... :-\
I can only tell you if you can answer this...
"Et in Arcadia ego"
...and if you can answer that you probably already have a good idea of what it is. Or should I say a good idea of one of the things that it is.
The Luke
PS-read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh
-
I enjoy this temporal life too, Luke.
-
I can only tell you if you can answer this...
"Et in Arcadia ego"
...and if you can answer that you probably already have a good idea of what it is. Or should I say a good idea of one of the things that it is.
The Luke
PS-read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh
enough of your riddles you ass burglar just tell us what the holy grail is and where we can find it
-
I can only tell you if you can answer this...
"Et in Arcadia ego"
...and if you can answer that you probably already have a good idea of what it is. Or should I say a good idea of one of the things that it is.
The Luke
PS-read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh
what do you make of the graham hancock hypothesis that teh Ark is in ethiopia in a chapel that has been identified and located, guarded by a single elderly monk?
-
what do you make of the graham hancock hypothesis that teh Ark is in ethiopia in a chapel that has been identified and located, guarded by a single elderly monk?
...no, he's about 700 years too late.
That's a replica ark which may or may not contain one or both of the original tabota.
The Luke
-
hahaa, hmm I try to explain it in eng, The above part of the flag are a steel wire that points right out to the flags stays in the correct postition? did you understand? :D
WHY WOULD YO NEED TO PUT A STEEL WIRE IN A FLAG TO HOLD IT UP WHEN THERE IS NO GRAVITY TO PULL IT DOWN????? ITS A HOAX...YOU HAVE BEEN HAD
-
WHY WOULD YO NEED TO PUT A STEEL WIRE IN A FLAG TO HOLD IT UP WHEN THERE IS NO GRAVITY TO PULL IT DOWN????? ITS A HOAX...YOU HAVE BEEN HAD
There's no gravity on the moon? OK, case solved.
-
I can only tell you if you can answer this...
"Et in Arcadia ego"
...and if you can answer that you probably already have a good idea of what it is. Or should I say a good idea of one of the things that it is.
The Luke
PS-read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh
Et in arcadia ego is a painting.
I'll read it if I have the time and if its really interesting. I just thought I'd ask you what this grail is as it seems you'd know alot about it.
-
The general consensus is that the grail is a pseudonym for one of the following:
1) A Grail King... a direct descendant of Jesus Christ, who would (to the medieval mindset) be heir to all Christendom.
2) The Head of John the Baptist... there is a small group of Christian heretics who live subversively alongside (traditional) Pauline Christians called Johannites who believe John the Baptist was the true Christ and Jesus was an Antichrist usurper. There are rumours that the Mandaens (swamp Kurds) of southern Iraq are actually Johannites despite their outwardly Christian/Muslim protestations. What is not known is whether any of the other historical Christian heretics: the Cathars; Bogomils; Capocratians; Knights Templar or Simon Magis disciples are actually Johannites... and whether or not any of them have survived to modern times in the form of secret societies who protect this relic.
3) The Philosophers Stone... a magical (perhaps metaphorical) stone which is claimed to make possible the Great Work (the conversion of base metals into gold). But that gets into the realm of Alchemy and hidden esoteric traditions.
4) The Ark of the Covenant... every time I go scouting locations in southern France I play the theme from Indiana Jones in my rental car.
5) The Lost Visigoth Treasure... when Alaric and the Visigoths conquered Rome in the fifth century they removed everything of value, including the entire Roman treasury (which contained the Temple treasure from Jerusalem since 70 AD) back to their capital Rhedae (believed to now be the "village of mystery" Renne le Chateau)... this treasure has never been recovered. It's probably somewhere in the region of a hundred billion dollars worth of gold, silver and artifacts.
6) The Templar Treasure... as the first bankers in Europe the Templars became immensely wealthy. When they were suppressed in 1307, King Philip le Bel seized all their assets. The Templar coin/bullion reserve was never found.
7) The Body of Jesus... in the first century the Rhedae area of southern France actually had the worlds second largest population of Jews (outside Jerusalem/Israel). If Jesus had actually survived the crucifixion and was banished/unwelcome in Israel/Judea/Palestine chances are he would have moved to southern France. Others believe Jesus and Issa are the same person and that the body of Issa/Jesus was removed/stolen by Templar Knights (or Christian Crusaders) from the mausoleum in Kashmir (between Pakistan and India). The Kashmiri tomb of a prophet/healer named Issa who supposedly claimed to be the exiled Jesus is still visited by pilgrims to this day.
8) The Grail Cup... the cup/vessel used in the Last Supper that supposedly also caught Christs blood when he was dying on the cross.
...there are several other theories covering everything from the ridiculous (ley-line convergence points) to the obscure (Thoth's Emerald Tablets or perhaps even copies of Berossus' Histories), but those listed above are the main contenders.
The Luke
-
There's no gravity on the moon? OK, case solved.
;D
-
WHY WOULD YO NEED TO PUT A STEEL WIRE IN A FLAG TO HOLD IT UP WHEN THERE IS NO GRAVITY TO PULL IT DOWN????? ITS A HOAX...YOU HAVE BEEN HAD
You hit the nail on the head. An interesting anomaly of the universe is that earth's moon is the sole location where gravity does not exist.
You must work for NASA writing the code behind the mission logic.
-
Ya, the star issue is silly. Take a camera, focus on an object in the foreground. Magically the objects in the background become very distorted or disappear completely. Keep in mind the background objects (the stars) were billions of miles in the background. They were taking pictures of the guy on the moon, not the stars.
It was pointless and very expensive, but we went to the moon. Besides, if we didn't go to the moon, how do you explain Moon Pies? I mean legally, they would have to be called Earth Pies, if the guy didn't go to the moon and get the ingredients.
Exactly, are these morons gonna start saying we've never been in space now because pictures of the earth from space have no stars in the background either ::)
Oh and why haven't we been back....... Why the hell do we need to keep going back.
I think I no longer believe my step dad went to Vietnam to fight........ Because he never went back ::)
Conspiracy junkies are annoying, I have haerd and seen it too many times and I actually know of someone who has a collection of Dvds all about conspiracy theories, he even keeps a few in his car to show others. Some people are just true retards escpecially those who argue things they have ZERO actual knowledge about, they just read an article or see a movie and suddenly proven scientific facts mean shit because some douche bag with no credentials is telling them otherwise.
-
The Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
-
They're fun to ponder, for sure.
A rocket left the moon's 1/6 gravity and launched back into orbit, then back to earth.
When it took off, the camera got the whole thing. not one bit of moon dust was disrupted. I don't know how a rocket takes off without displacing a litle dust under it. Enough force to lift a craft with 2 men in it off the ground and miles into the air - I mean, a fvcking rocket blast!
yet not one bit of moon dust moves.
I'd love to be convinced that's normal. Someone clarify this!
there was NO rocket booster. The craft was raised from the moon using a tractor beam borrowed from the Klingons.
-
You hit the nail on the head. An interesting anomaly of the universe is that earth's moon is the sole location where gravity does not exist.
You must work for NASA writing the code behind the mission logic.
HOW DID YOU KNOW? WOW YOU GUYS ARE REALLY SMART....
-
ILL HAMMER YOUR FACE!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :D