Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on April 14, 2009, 07:13:35 PM
-
Hmmmm...questions persist
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/11_2dees.jpg)
-
I think we did land on the moon, I think there is stuff up there (alien) that had to be hidden, so I think the landing was re filmed in the desert and/or studio for the public.
-
in this clip Donald Rumsfeld talks about how it was his idea to fake the moon landing images in the studio and it was Rumsfeld's idea to have Stanley Kubrick do the fake footage:
The moon landing and probably some of these photos were filmed/shot in the UK by Kubrick.
-
There is also a movie called CAPRICORN ONE which showed how the government FAKED a mars landing and how it was all done in a Hollywood studio. The movie was not a documentary...just a movie..however it could easily be a representation of the possibility that he moon landings were FAKE..personally I don't thnk america went anywhere other than to either a movie lot or somewhere out in the Nevada or Arizona desert
Here is the IMDB summary of CAPRICORN ONE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/plotsummary
-
There is also a movie called CAPRICORN ONE which showed how the government FAKED a mars landing and how it was all done in a Hollywood studio. The movie was not a documentary...just a movie..however it could easily be a representation of the possibility that he moon landings were FAKE..personally I don't thnk america went anywhere other than to either a movie lot or somewhere out in the Nevada or Arizona desert
Here is the IMDB summary of CAPRICORN ONE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/plotsummary
watched that movie when it first came out. Did you watch the clip I posted? It pretty much confirms that footage and stills were fake. When Donald Rumsfeld is sitting there saying it was his idea to fake the images, it's pretty clear cut the images were from a studio on earth.
I still think we went to the moon. The images are fake, but I need to believe we went. I've taken enough red pills in my life. For this one, I'll take the blue pill.
-
Donald Rumsfeld is clearly a conspiracy theorist, right BB?
-
watched that movie when it first came out. Did you watch the clip I posted? It pretty much confirms that footage and stills were fake. When Donald Rumsfeld is sitting there saying it was his idea to fake the images, it's pretty clear cut the images were from a studio on earth.
I still think we went to the moon. The images are fake, but I need to believe we went. I've taken enough red pills in my life. For this one, I'll take the blue pill.
Where's the evidence (in literacy, not video form) that shows the filming / pictures are fake?
Why is Russia so happy to oblige US interests is accepting Americans were the first to step foot on the moon?
-
we didn't land on the moon.
just one evidence, we land on the moon in the 60's, and today with better technologie nobody return on the moon, why?
-
No.
For the simple fact that if it was possible in the 60's, why the fuck aren't we going there now?
-
we didn't land on the moon.
just one evidence, we land on the moon in the 60's, and today with better technologie nobody return on the moon, why?
No.
For the simple fact that if it was possible in the 60's, why the fuck aren't we going there now?
The costs are exponentially higher. The scientific value of going is no longer that great considering there have been MULTIPLE missions to the moon.
-
Alert!
Moon-bots are in the area.
::)
-
watched that movie when it first came out. Did you watch the clip I posted? It pretty much confirms that footage and stills were fake. When Donald Rumsfeld is sitting there saying it was his idea to fake the images, it's pretty clear cut the images were from a studio on earth.
I still think we went to the moon. The images are fake, but I need to believe we went. I've taken enough red pills in my life. For this one, I'll take the blue pill.
Don't take any pills HUGO...they delude the mind. Be afraid...be very afraid of the pills... ;D
Why do you NEED to believe america went? and why hasn't america returned there since if it initially went?
I watched the movie again last night...learned even more. Made me think of the World Trade Collapse, the planes that supposedly crashed into the buildings and how people were made to DISAPPEAR if they spoke out or knew too much. Same thing was done in Capricorn One... Hmmmm I take what I said back...I might be ready for a pill myself ...
-
I be careful questioning anything.
the last time i did, my arm almost disappeared.
-
I be careful questioning anything.
the last time i did, my arm almost disappeared.
REALLY???.....whoa
-
REALLY???.....whoa
Yeah, I'm learning to type exclusively with one hand now just in case a wave of inquisition befalls me again.
But i think next time they will just jettison me into the Van Allen Belt.
-
Why do you NEED to believe america went?
retain something of my childhood fantasies so I don't go completely mad. I need to believe in America and keeping some of the beautiful things true makes me care more about exposing the truly bad shit.
-
Where's the evidence (in literacy, not video form) that shows the filming / pictures are fake?
Why is Russia so happy to oblige US interests is accepting Americans were the first to step foot on the moon?
So Donald Rumsfeld saying from his own mouth that they indeed set up a studio to take the images is not good enough for you ::) you would rather read it than see the actual people involved say it? You're kinda odd aren't you! There is one shot in 1 of the 3 parts that does show two studio lights above if that helps, but I would guess that all the people talking about it would be good enough. Russia does not accept we went to the moon. There were plenty that thought we did not so I don't know where you got that. I personally think we went but didn't have the ability to film in the conditions and have the film survive. I'm open to thinking that the first landing was entirely hoaxed but I do believe we did end up landing on the moon. There's evidence of that. Like the lazer reflector and we did bring back moon samples so... Plus the later images are harder to debunk so they probably figured out their camera issues.
-
Look, hugo,
you let a kid believe in santa claus because it makes the kid feel good.
-
Look, hugo,
you let a kid believe in santa claus because it makes the kid feel good.
exactly, so the moon landing is like my Santa. I can accept that. Everyone here knows I question most everything else so I don't see the harm in having one blue pill in my box. especially since the consequences are fairly benign. I mean what's gained in exposing this? Nothing really. Now what's gained by exposing things like 9/11, Banking plots, and CIA shenanigans etc... potentially a lot! exposing the moon landing would be the very last thing on my priority list so I'll save some image of America that I liked from my childhood.
-
The America haters are out in full force today. You might want to check out the below link that debunks all the moon hoax conspiracy theories.
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
-
So Donald Rumsfeld saying from his own mouth that they indeed set up a studio to take the images is not good enough for you ::) you would rather read it than see the actual people involved say it? You're kinda odd aren't you! There is one shot in 1 of the 3 parts that does show two studio lights above if that helps, but I would guess that all the people talking about it would be good enough. Russia does not accept we went to the moon. There were plenty that thought we did not so I don't know where you got that. I personally think we went but didn't have the ability to film in the conditions and have the film survive. I'm open to thinking that the first landing was entirely hoaxed but I do believe we did end up landing on the moon. There's evidence of that. Like the lazer reflector and we did bring back moon samples so... Plus the later images are harder to debunk so they probably figured out their camera issues.
I watched the clip you posted, but if you listen closely, Rumsfeld never says anything specific about the fake filming. They've edited his soundbites and used them to imply he was referring to the fake moon landing film. It's a good clip and makes you think, but there are several astronomers that telescopically witnessed the Nasa moon flights and have photos of it. Of course, you can always say they are fakes as well and the Astronomers are merely shills for the government.
-
there are several astronomers that telescopically witnessed the Nasa moon flights and have photos of it.
I thought USA halted all apollo missions right after USSR announced they now had the techniology to view the landing from earth ???
Do you have the photographs which were taken from earth showing the moon landing as it happened?
-
I thought USA halted all apollo missions right after USSR announced they now had the techniology to view the landing from earth ???
Do you have the photographs which were taken from earth showing the moon landing as it happened?
looks like a lot of independent tracking of the missions went on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
nevermind about the clip I posted ::) It's bogus... The version I watched had the critical revealing fact that it was a mockumentary removed. ::) All of the interviews were taken out of context so it's all bullshit as it turns out. Now I believe the moon landing much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
"quotes from notable personalities such as Donald Rumsfeld or Henry Kissinger are quotes from serious-tone interviews, taken out of context, thus playing a practical prank on the unsuspecting personalities."
-
I thought USA halted all apollo missions right after USSR announced they now had the techniology to view the landing from earth ???
Do you have the photographs which were taken from earth showing the moon landing as it happened?
Todays space satellites should be able to photograph all the moon junk we left behind, no? (Rovers etc.)
-
retain something of my childhood fantasies so I don't go completely mad. I need to believe in America and keeping some of the beautiful things true makes me care more about exposing the truly bad shit.
Oh...I see
-
Todays space satellites should be able to photograph all the moon junk we left behind, no? (Rovers etc.)
There were a number of independent astronomers who questioned the moon landing and asked NASA to give them the coordinates of where the moon vehicle, flag and other implements that were supposedly left on the moon. NASA VEHEMENTLY REFUSED TO GIVE ANY SUCH INFORMATION!!!! Now why is that??? Will they expose their game as a HOAX if telescopes focus on the supposed landing spots only to see NOTHING and no evidence of ever landing on the moon.... The plot thickens...
I personally feel that because the Russians made it into space first with SPUTNICK (don't know if I spelled that right) america became JEALOUS and decided to one up them by creating a false story of having landed on the moon. The Russians however have excelled at being able to stay in space for extended periods of time...america has not accomplished that...
Everyone please get the movie CAPRICORN ONE and watch it...it is amazing and revealing on how NASA, and the government work to create a certain mindset in america and what they will do to keep that mindset alive...even if it means killing... Also be aware of a comment made by ione of the main characters in the film where he says given the technology america has (which has improved greatly since this film was made)...it is possible to make people believe that fake things are real...
-
BWHAHAHAhahahaha priceless!
after the video downloads, click to play.
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/
-
BWHAHAHAhahahaha priceless!
after the video downloads, click to play.
http://www.blogjam.com/neil_armstrong/
Is this REAL???? I wanna say NO WAY!!!...but it just may very well be another smoking gun.
-
Is this REAL???? I wanna say NO WAY!!!...but it just may very well be another smoking gun.
no, it's fake, but funny as all hell lol...
-
in this clip Donald Rumsfeld talks about how it was his idea to fake the moon landing images in the studio and it was Rumsfeld's idea to have Stanley Kubrick do the fake footage:
The moon landing and probably some of these photos were filmed/shot in the UK by Kubrick.
Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.
-
WOW...This is good stuff...
-
Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and actually recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick.
I found that out, I posted the info later in the thread.
-
I do believe that mythbusters disproved all those CT angles....case fuking closed bitches ;D
-
I do believe that mythbusters disproved all those CT angles....case fuking closed bitches ;D
NBC, CNN, and all the other multi-billion-dollar media machines are pawns of evil liberal interests.
But there is this one honest show that keeps it real.
We know it is authentic, despite being shown on networks own and ran by evil socialist vultures, because.... um... we agree with it's content!
;D
-
I think we landed on the moon but mythbusters are a joke. I watch them sometimes for the destruction value only. They usually do such a lousy job busting things, I wouldn't put much faith in anything they do. I've watched them bust many things that I know work for a fact.
-
So Donald Rumsfeld saying from his own mouth that they indeed set up a studio to take the images is not good enough for you ::) you would rather read it than see the actual people involved say it? You're kinda odd aren't you! There is one shot in 1 of the 3 parts that does show two studio lights above if that helps, but I would guess that all the people talking about it would be good enough. Russia does not accept we went to the moon. There were plenty that thought we did not so I don't know where you got that. I personally think we went but didn't have the ability to film in the conditions and have the film survive. I'm open to thinking that the first landing was entirely hoaxed but I do believe we did end up landing on the moon. There's evidence of that. Like the lazer reflector and we did bring back moon samples so... Plus the later images are harder to debunk so they probably figured out their camera issues.
I was asking a question :-\
No, I would prefer achieved non-manipulated footage over literature any day of the week, I was referring to CT propaganda.
There have been countless man missions to the Moon, suggesting otherwise is quite absurd in light of all the evidence. These CT have been debunked countless times.
-
Alert!
Moon-bots are in the area.
::)
:)
-
I was asking a question :-\
No, I would prefer achieved non-manipulated footage over literature any day of the week, I was referring to CT propaganda.
There have been countless man missions to the Moon, suggesting otherwise is quite absurd in light of all the evidence. These CT have been debunked countless times.
it turned out to be bogus anyway so it's my bust... and the person who edited the video I originally watched. But if it were true, I would think hearing it from the person's mouth who was directly involved would be sufficient. Confessions given freely usually are. Not always, but usually.
-
Don't take any pills HUGO...they delude the mind. Be afraid...be very afraid of the pills... ;D
Why do you NEED to believe america went? and why hasn't america returned there since if it initially went?
I watched the movie again last night...learned even more. Made me think of the World Trade Collapse, the planes that supposedly crashed into the buildings and how people were made to DISAPPEAR if they spoke out or knew too much. Same thing was done in Capricorn One... Hmmmm I take what I said back...I might be ready for a pill myself ...
What's the point of going back? It's a rock. Unless we're planning to build a base there where we could launch missiles into every country we don't like (in due time China, in due time), then there's no point. STFU.
Hugo once again proving that his credibility = shit. You honestly take everything you read on the internet to be fact, don't you champ? (Ironic that you deleted this part of my post to cover your own failures.) Seriously pathetic. You really want to be one of those dictators you hate so much.
-
There is also a movie called CAPRICORN ONE which showed how the government FAKED a mars landing and how it was all done in a Hollywood studio. The movie was not a documentary...just a movie..however it could easily be a representation of the possibility that he moon landings were FAKE..personally I don't thnk america went anywhere other than to either a movie lot or somewhere out in the Nevada or Arizona desert
Here is the IMDB summary of CAPRICORN ONE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/plotsummary
you're out of your mind
-
you're out of your mind
And you're late with your comment...now what else is new???
-
CHECK IT OUT!!!!!
http://moonrising-themovie.com/home.html
Scroll to bottom of page and watch movie clip
-
You CT are aware that NASA has carried out six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972?
Were all these moon landings faked?
-
You CT are aware that NASA has carried out six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972?
Were all these moon landings faked?
-
Ha, add that to the right quantity of fresh orange juice and you have yourself a nice alcoholic beverage.
-
Ha, add that to the right quantity of fresh orange juice and you have yourself a nice alcoholic beverage.
Highly recommended by Johnny Falcon for both mass and cutting!
-
You CT are aware that NASA has carried out six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972?
Were all these moon landings faked?
YES THEY WERE...
-
YES THEY WERE...
Other than non-tangible anti-Whiteman, Anti-US government CT drivel, where is your evidence?
-
Other than non-tangible anti-Whiteman, Anti-US government CT drivel, where is your evidence?
Prove that any of these moon landing occured???
Show the amateur astronomers where the 'moon cart' was left
Show the amateur astronomers where the 'american flag was posted'
Show the amateur astronomers where the artifacts from the landed space craft were left'
THERE IS NOTHING...that is why NASA will NOT give the coordinates....You can''t use the NATIONAL SECURITY excuse because IT'S THE MOON...
What film
http://moonrising-themovie.com/home.html
-
Prove that any of these moon landing occured???
Show the amateur astronomers where the 'moon cart' was left
Show the amateur astronomers where the 'american flag was posted'
Show the amateur astronomers where the artifacts from the landed space craft were left'
THERE IS NOTHING...that is why NASA will NOT give the coordinates....You can''t use the NATIONAL SECURITY excuse because IT'S THE MOON...
What film
http://moonrising-themovie.com/home.html
I only have time or energy to debate 2 CT's at once. But didn't they land in the sea of tranquility? Do we have telescopes powerful enough with public access that could see the buggy and flag? if so, wouldn't it be a matter of taking the time to search for it?
-
I only have time or energy to debate 2 CT's at once. But didn't they land in the sea of tranquility? Do we have telescopes powerful enough with public access that could see the buggy and flag? if so, wouldn't it be a matter of taking the time to search for it?
YES independent astronomers do have telescopes powerful enough to see fine detail ont he moon...EVEN TEH SEA OF TRANQUILITY...
Otherwise why not just focus Hubble or Chandra on the moon at the coordinates to prove there was a moon landing...or would that expose the TRUTH OF NO MOON LANDING??? :o :o :o
-
I teach physics for a living and can tell you that most of the so called "proof" we didn't based on shadows and movements is a violation of basic physics.
There is a decent sized reflector one the Apollo crew put on the moon. We use to reflect a laser off it and can determine the distance of the moon to earth. ( D = V x T )
Sorry folks, this is urban myth nonsense
Hmmmm...questions persist
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/11_2dees.jpg)
-
YES independent astronomers do have telescopes powerful enough to see fine detail ont he moon...EVEN TEH SEA OF TRANQUILITY...
But are they powerful enough to see the flag and buggy?
-
But are they powerful enough to see the flag and buggy?
YES THEY ARE....The independent astronomers were the ones who discovered the Shoe Maker Levy asteroids that crashed into Jupiter and provided pictures and info of all type. You mean their telescopes can see asteroids MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY...yet can't see a car, flag, and what not only 250,000 miles away???? and again why not turn hubble toward the moon to the coordinates?????
-
YES THEY ARE....The independent astronomers were the ones who discovered the Shoe Maker Levy asteroids that crashed into Jupiter and provided pictures and info of all type. You mean their telescopes can see asteroids MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY...yet can't see a car, flag, and what not only 250,000 miles away???? and again why not turn hubble toward the moon to the coordinates?????
I'm not talking about the Hubble.
I'm talking about public access or privately own telescopes being power enough to see the buggy and flag.
If telescopes like that exist then it can be proved that the Buggy and flag are not there. Which hasn't happened.
-
I'm not talking about the Hubble.
I'm talking about public access or privately own telescopes being power enough to see the buggy and flag.
If telescopes like that exist then it can be proved that the Buggy and flag are not there. Which hasn't happened.
OZMO YOU ARE AN ASS IF EVER THERE WAS ONE...THe argument is "prove there was a moon landing". Prove it with and by whatever means possible....which includes, independent astronomers, hubble and chandra telescopes, etc etc. You are trying to argue whether an independent telescope can see a flag or buggy, which I have already said such telescopes exist and NASA will not provide the coordinates to where this buggy, flag, artifacts were 'supposedly' left. No astronomer is going to spend decades zooming in on every square foot of the moon to find out if there are any artifacts, which in turn would prove whether there was or wasn't a landing...we all know there wasn't. So let NASA provide the coordinates (which they won't) and let the astronomers zoom in and see the artifacts...that will end all CT and arguments....but then again thatalso expose NASA as a FAKE/LIAR...
-
OZMO YOU ARE AN ASS IF EVER THERE WAS ONE...THe argument is "prove there was a moon landing". Prove it with and by whatever means possible....which includes, independent astronomers, hubble and chandra telescopes, etc etc. You are trying to argue whether an independent telescope can see a flag or buggy, which I have already said such telescopes exist and NASA will not provide the coordinates to where this buggy, flag, artifacts were 'supposedly' left. No astronomer is going to spend decades zooming in on every square foot of the moon to find out if there are any artifacts, which in turn would prove whether there was or wasn't a landing...we all know there wasn't. So let NASA provide the coordinates (which they won't) and let the astronomers zoom in and see the artifacts...that will end all CT and arguments....but then again thatalso expose NASA as a FAKE/LIAR...
Sam. Calm down. I'm just making the point that IF there are telescopes that can see the Buggy and the Flag and they are public access or privately owned then the sea of tranquility can be photographically mapped and proved that the buggy and flag aren't there.......
Which hasn't happened. Should it have?
And it doesn't make an ass just because I'm owning CT's right and left. Brilliant, yes. Ass, no. :D ;D j/k
-
I teach physics for a living and can tell you that most of the so called "proof" we didn't based on shadows and movements is a violation of basic physics.
There is a decent sized reflector one the Apollo crew put on the moon. We use to reflect a laser off it and can determine the distance of the moon to earth. ( D = V x T )
Sorry folks, this is urban myth nonsense
Wait, I don't follow.
You are saying we landed, or did not?
(Personally, my own belief is that we went and orbited but the stuff that happened on the the surface was staged. We definitely went into space and went there, but the details of what happened on the surface -and inabilty of anyone in the last 40 years to ever view the debris we left - is just too odd. You'd think that American flag on the surface would be something we'd be PROUD of)
-
Sam. Calm down. I'm just making the point that IF there are telescopes that can see the Buggy and the Flag and they are public access or privately owned then the sea of tranquility can be photographically mapped and proved that the buggy and flag aren't there.......WHY MAP THE MOON WHEN TEH COORDINATES CAN BE GIVEN?????
Which hasn't happened. Why would an independent astronomer incur hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of dollars in cost 'MAPPING THE MOON FOR ARTIFACTS' Should it have?
And it doesn't make an ass YES IT DOESjust because I'm owning CT's right and left OWNING???...NOT ON YOUR LIFE. Brilliant, NO!!!. Ass, YES. :D ;D j/k
YOU ARE NOT AN ASS...YOU ARE AN IGNORANT ASS LACKING LESS BRAIN CELLS THAN AN ACTUAL ASS... (http://files.myopera.com/salmondine/albums/388/head%20up%20own%20ass.jpg)
-
I teach physics for a living and can tell you that most of the so called "proof" we didn't based on shadows and movements is a violation of basic physics.
There is a decent sized reflector one the Apollo crew put on the moon. We use to reflect a laser off it and can determine the distance of the moon to earth. ( D = V x T )
Sorry folks, this is urban myth nonsense
You teach physics???? Based on you post..There is no wonder why american students are so stupid.
No one asked the distance to the moon, which by the way does not require a reflector to determine...
Violation of physics because of "WHAT" in shadow and movement??
Distance equals Velocity times Time...means what in regard to landing on the moon??
THe urban myth is you teach physics!!!!!!
-
YOU ARE NOT AN ASS...YOU ARE AN IGNORANT ASS LACKING LESS BRAIN CELLS THAN AN ACTUAL ASS... (http://files.myopera.com/salmondine/albums/388/head%20up%20own%20ass.jpg)
Wow, you are really angry.
i set you off that bad?
I made a simple easy point and you melt down that quick?
BTW, you map the moon because the coordinates aren't given. If it can be done, than it should be done, because that would prove the moon landing was fake right?
But instead, we've got people like your self, who can't see that without melting down.
Too bad for you.
I guess that's why they call you folk moonbots.
-
Wow, you are really angry.
i set you off that bad?
I made a simple easy point and you melt down that quick?
BTW, you map the moon because the coordinates aren't given. If it can be done, than it should be done, because that would prove the moon landing was fake right?
But instead, we've got people like your self, who can't see that without melting down.
Too bad for you.
I guess that's why they call you folk moonbots.
I am actually having fun...I love making the less intelligent aware of their stupidity...please continue to post and meander all over the place avoiding the issue
-
Watch yourself... Ozmo will f*cking frog-stomp your ass... >:(
-
I am actually having fun...I love making the less intelligent aware of their stupidity...please continue to post and meander all over the place avoiding the issue
Ok sure. ::)
Back to the point at hand.
IF they (public & private telescopes) can photographically map the sea of tranquility, why don't they just do it to prove the moon landings were faked?
-
Watch yourself... Ozmo will f*cking frog-stomp your ass... >:(
heheh :)
-
Watch yourself... Ozmo will f*cking frog-stomp your ass... >:(
Ooooooh..I am sooooooo scared. Is that what he did to you? Was that before or after he TEA BAGGED you???
-
Ooooooh..I am sooooooo scared. Is that what he did to you? Was that before or after he TEA BAGGED you???
OOOohhhhhh shit! Good one! :D
-
Wait, I don't follow.
You are saying we landed, or did not?
(Personally, my own belief is that we went and orbited but the stuff that happened on the the surface was staged. We definitely went into space and went there, but the details of what happened on the surface -and inabilty of anyone in the last 40 years to ever view the debris we left - is just too odd. You'd think that American flag on the surface would be something we'd be PROUD of)
Of course we landed! Unless you want believe some aliens put the reflector up there.
This is one debate I think of as pretty lame. I don't mean to be rude, but c'mon.
Of course, some refuse to accept basic science and look for some sinister stuff.
It amazes me how a higher % of Americans consider that Jesus was the son of GOD and devine ,but think landing on the moon as not likely.
thanks for the reply
-
Back to the point at hand.
IF they (public & private telescopes) can photographically map the sea of tranquility, why don't they just do it to prove the moon landings were faked?
bump
-
Of course we landed! Unless you want believe some aliens put the reflector up there.
This is one debate I think of as pretty lame. I don't mean to be rude, but c'mon.
Of course, some refuse to accept basic science and look for some sinister stuff.
It amazes me how a higher % of Americans consider that Jesus was the son of GOD and devine ,but think landing on the moon as not likely.
thanks for the reply
Good point.
-
Good point.
Actually, I find it hard to believe that the astronauts would have been able to conceal a secrete this long if they did not actually land there.
Someone would have screwed up.
-
You teach physics???? Based on you post..There is no wonder why american students are so stupid.
No one asked the distance to the moon, which by the way does not require a reflector to determine...
Violation of physics because of "WHAT" in shadow and movement??
Distance equals Velocity times Time...means what in regard to landing on the moon??
THe urban myth is you teach physics!!!!!!
Thanks, but no thanks, ;)
This is a pretty dumb debate, but I took the bait and got into it. It is the same as the anti evolution crowd and the flat earth society.
If you folks want to believe the Apollo missions were some grand conspiracy, fine, have at it.
-
Thanks, but no thanks, ;)
This is a pretty dumb debate, but I took the bait and got into it. It is the same as the anti evolution crowd and the flat earth society.
If you folks want to believe the Apollo missions were some grand conspiracy, fine, have at it.
Its amazing how easy some of these people fall into ad-hom when their argument starts getting challenged.
-
okay. bottom line. in the 40 years since the moon landing...
Is there a single photograph from Earth of ANY of the multiple landing wreckage? We left moon rovers, flags, golf clubs, and launching pad.
Surely there has to be one.
-
okay. bottom line. in the 40 years since the moon landing...
Is there a single photograph from Earth of ANY of the multiple landing wreckage? We left moon rovers, flags, golf clubs, and launching pad.
Surely there has to be one.
I'm still questioning whether is a privately owned telescope that can see the buggy and flag.
But what about this reflector?
-
Also,
The argument here should be to "prove the moon landing was fake".
It's been established that it was real.
Same as any other CT.
-
It's been established that it was real.
Just to be clear, by whom?
Our govt, right? I'm assuming you're just giving them 100% credibility in the matter. Cool.
-
Just to be clear, by whom?
Our govt, right? I'm assuming you're just giving them 100% credibility in the matter. Cool.
The burden is on the accuser. Not the one who landed on the moon.
Do you believe the moon landings were faked 240?
Just curious, what about the reflector?
Also,
Your jabbing about me believing the government 100% is pretty lame. Can you for once try and stay with the FACTS with out trying to deflect or embelish? I really hate having to point stuff out to you like i did with the JFK thing where you as usual don't get your facts right and make incorrect statements.
-
The burden is on the accuser. Not the one who landed on the moon.
Do you believe the moon landings were faked 240?
Just curious, what about the reflector?
Also,
Your jabbing about me believing the government 100% is pretty lame. Can you for once try and stay with the FACTS with out trying to deflect or embelish? I really hate having to point stuff out to you like i did with the JFK thing where you as usual don't get your facts right and make incorrect statements.
You are asking this question to someone who still thinks Palin did not really give birth to Trig.
-
You are asking this question to someone who still thinks Palin did not really give birth to Trig.
You are responding as a man who voted to give Palin power to punt the nuclear football.
Glass houses
-
You are responding as a man who voted to give Palin power to punt the nuclear football.
Glass houses
burn!
-
You are asking this question to someone who still thinks Palin did not really give birth to Trig.
haha... thought I was the only one that remembered that. Adonis was in on it too.
-
You are responding as a man who voted to give Palin power to punt the nuclear football.
Glass houses
Ha ha, always fun debating with you. :) :) :) :)
-
No.
For the simple fact that if it was possible in the 60's, why the fuck aren't we going there now?
for the same reason you aren't banging the same chick you were banging when you were 18..been there done that....time to move on
-
Oh and by the way...that documentary at the beginning of this thread is FAKE!!!..they obviously spliced together different conversations from other topics taken out of context and put it together...I have seen many of the interviews in this piece ON OTHER DOCUMENTARIES HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MISSION TO THE MOON!!!
don't let yourself be fooled by this.....it is made to fool those who are too young to have been around when they went to the moon....they make er of this film has an obvious agenda...
we did go to the moon...case closed.....
-
for the same reason you aren't banging the same chick you were banging when you were 18..been there done that....time to move on
lolololo
-
okay. bottom line. in the 40 years since the moon landing...
Is there a single photograph from Earth of ANY of the multiple landing wreckage? We left moon rovers, flags, golf clubs, and launching pad.
Surely there has to be one.
Well, obviously you're ignorant in regards to the science in question. I find it silly you make these statements and you haven't used Google.
It would require a mega telescope to get the resolution required to see a flag or other man made objects on the Moon even then it would have to be outside out atmosphere.
What's ironic is you bang on about "science" when it "seems" to back you up on the CT regarding 911 yet it's the first thing you ignore when promoting a CT about the moon landings being fake.
See: http://www.geocities.com/humealumni/flag.htm
And for the retards asking for the "coordinates": http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
-
Well, obviously you're ignorant in regards to the science in question. I find it silly you make these statements and you haven't used Google.
It would require a mega telescope to get the resolution required to see a flag or other man made objects on the Moon even then it would have to be outside out atmosphere.
I've always kinda wondered about that a bit. I have a telescope that was given to me when I was a kid. On the highest lens setting I can see pretty clearly individual craters. The hardest part about being zoomed up that close is that it moves so fast so it's hard to stay locked on to a given spot long enough to check it out. If I can see that kind of detail with my old telescope, why can't they get really good images with the huge fuckers?
-
I've always kinda wondered about that a bit. I have a telescope that was given to me when I was a kid. On the highest lens setting I can see pretty clearly individual craters. The hardest part about being zoomed up that close is that it moves so fast so it's hard to stay locked on to a given spot long enough to check it out. If I can see that kind of detail with my old telescope, why can't they get really good images with the huge fuckers?
The known laws of physics show that you can't possible see the detail required to see these man made objects on the moon due to the lack of ability to resolve at the required angles.
You might think you can see every rock and spec of dust and that you should be able to simple zoom in but I assure you that's not the case. If you can find evidence debunking that post about the required angles let me know - but I'm sure some Soviet scientist would have already let the world know.
That article shows that the telescope would need a mirror 360 feet across, plus it would have to be in outer space. Nobody has the resources to spend on constructing that simple to test some mundane and easily debunked CT.
It is a fact there are reflectors on the moon which I'm sure anybody you test given the right equipment.
But I guess the laws of physics could be conspiring with the government about the whole Moon landing issue? :P
-
The known laws of physics show that you can't possible see the detail required to see these man made objects on the moon due to the lack of ability to resolve at the required angles.
You might think you can see every rock and spec of dust and that you should be able to simple zoom in but I assure you that's not the case. If you can find evidence debunking that post about the required angles let me know - but I'm sure some Soviet scientist would have already let the world know.
That article shows that the telescope would need a mirror 360 feet across, plus it would have to be in outer space. Nobody has the resources to spend on constructing that simple to test some mundane and easily debunked CT.
It is a fact there are reflectors on the moon which I'm sure anybody you test given the right equipment.
But I guess the laws of physics could be conspiring with the government about the whole Moon landing issue? :P
first, I believe we went to the moon so I'm not approaching it from an angle to prove we didn't. I just don't get why telescopes can't see that kind of detail on the moon. I mean we can get pretty good images light years away but we can't see where a moon rover went apeshit for 23 miles on the landscape? In fact didn't they leave the moon rover there? So you understand the laws of physics, I don't, please educated me. Why can't we see this kind of detail? Don't quote from an article, explain to me since you have a great understanding of physics.
-
I'm sorry, one more thing, did you actually say a mirror would have to be 360 feet across AND have to be in outer space to see that detail on the moon?
-
Well, obviously you're ignorant in regards to the science in question. I find it silly you make these statements and you haven't used Google.
It would require a mega telescope to get the resolution required to see a flag or other man made objects on the Moon even then it would have to be outside out atmosphere.
What's ironic is you bang on about "science" when it "seems" to back you up on the CT regarding 911 yet it's the first thing you ignore when promoting a CT about the moon landings being fake.
See: http://www.geocities.com/humealumni/flag.htm
And for the retards asking for the "coordinates": http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm
Bump for Sampson123
:o
-
sigh..i'll post this again for no one to watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1485155465058882626&ei=e1brSbWgKIOMqwK-1azlBA&q=secret+space
THERE WS NO RADIATION PROTECTION BUILT INTO THE SUITS
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html
-
first, I believe we went to the moon so I'm not approaching it from an angle to prove we didn't. I just don't get why telescopes can't see that kind of detail on the moon. I mean we can get pretty good images light years away but we can't see where a moon rover went apeshit for 23 miles on the landscape? In fact didn't they leave the moon rover there? So you understand the laws of physics, I don't, please educated me. Why can't we see this kind of detail? Don't quote from an article, explain to me since you have a great understanding of physics.
me too, I remember seeing craters and shit through a Sears telescope pretty clearly. I would like a dumbed down version of why we can't see these things through the massive telescopes we have on earth.
-
me too, I remember seeing craters and shit through a Sears telescope pretty clearly. I would like a dumbed down version of why we can't see these things through the massive telescopes we have on earth.
i'd just like to know why there is NO blast crater under the LEM
and NO stars are visible on the moon...there should be thousands visible since there is no atmosphere
i challange someone to find me 1 pic that shows stars
(http://www.cosmos4kids.com/extras/dtop_craft/lunarland_580.jpg)
-
i'd just like to know why there is NO blast crater under the LEM
and NO stars are visible on the moon...there should be thousands visible since there is no atmosphere
i challange someone to find me 1 pic that shows stars
(http://www.cosmos4kids.com/extras/dtop_craft/lunarland_580.jpg)
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
-
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.
This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.
convenient!
ok how about NON-parallel shadows of rocks on the moon?
1 light source (ie sun) = parallel shadows
-
convenient!
ok how about NON-parallel shadows of rocks on the moon?
1 light source (ie sun) = parallel shadows
In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.
This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.
Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes. Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.
This photograph [see photo], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.
-
When all of the theories are finished being 'refuted' and all of the excuses given for discrepencies...the truth will finally come out that there NEVER WAS A MOON LANDING!!!!
No need arguing anymore about the matter...americans fall for every hoax, hoodwink, sham, fraud and trick. The sad part is they all defend the LIE to their deaths and when the TRUTH is spoken it is (despite all evidence and proof to back it up) DISMISSED...
Carry on with the arguing... it is interesting for argument sake if nothing else.
Now about those black skies and backgrounds....how come no astronaut took pictures of the stars on the way to the moon?
Why does the background landscape just suddenly ENDS as oppose to fading away as normal backgrounds do?
The light side of the moon is hundreds of degrees hot and the dark side hundreds of degrees cold...how did these astronauts manage to stay on the light side without problems?
How come when the video that was shot on the moon is played at 2x it appears like people walking around normally?
How come no one is allowed to examine the space suits (even today)?
How did the astronauts and camers/file survive the high radiation levels of space and the moon?
There is no atmosphere on the moon so the suits had to be pressurized in order for the men to survive...how could a plain cotton and plastic suit be pressurized? How come the suits show no sign of pressurization in the videos?
-
No need arguing anymore about the matter...americans fall for every hoax, hoodwink, sham, fraud and trick. The sad part is they all defend the LIE to their deaths and when the TRUTH is spoken it is (despite all evidence and proof to back it up) DISMISSED...
A certain percentage of Americans are just stupid, they fall for every hoax, hoodwink, sham, fraud & trick. Just look at you. You think there was never a moon landing. ;) :D ;D 8)
-
convenient!
ok how about NON-parallel shadows of rocks on the moon?
1 light source (ie sun) = parallel shadows
that's actually only true on a flat plane. If you go out onto an uneven landscape and place a few poles in the ground randomly you'll see the shadows don't look as parallel. They are cast in the same direction but the uneven landscape distorts that.
-
that's actually only true on a flat plane. If you go out onto an uneven landscape and place a few poles in the ground randomly you'll see the shadows don't look as parallel. They are cast in the same direction but the uneven landscape distorts that.
how abouit them talking in real time...
PS check out my Paris ufo thread on the general <10 second vid>
-
how abouit them talking in real time...
PS check out my Paris ufo thread on the general <10 second vid>
radiowaves travel at the speed of light. Less than 2 seconds, probably close to 1.25 seconds one way. All the clips I've heard there seems to be a slight delay that closely reflects this. I'll check out the vid.
-
radiowaves travel at the speed of light. Less than 2 seconds, probably close to 1.25 seconds one way. All the clips I've heard there seems to be a slight delay that closely reflects this. I'll check out the vid.
Light travels at 186000 MPS, radio waves travel a little less at 156000 MPS given the moon is 250000 miles away a round trip delay should come in at about 4 seconds. That is if there is no delay. Given satellite technology was at it poorest at that time it will be hard to say what the delay time would be, but lets say 4 second delay, so the total delay in response should be 8 seconds. A big enough gap to be clearly noticable. The audio in the vids are IMMEDIATE...no delay at all. So like I said...THERE WAS NO MOON MISSION..just a Hollywood backdrop or a night trip into the desert of Arizona or Nevada...
-
Light travels at 186000 MPS, radio waves travel a little less at 156000 MPS given the moon is 250000 miles away a round trip delay should come in at about 4 seconds. That is if there is no delay. Given satellite technology was at it poorest at that time it will be hard to say what the delay time would be, but lets say 4 second delay, so the total delay in response should be 8 seconds. A big enough gap to be clearly noticable. The audio in the vids are IMMEDIATE...no delay at all. So like I said...THERE WAS NO MOON MISSION..just a Hollywood backdrop or a night trip into the desert of Arizona or Nevada...
radio waves in free space travel at light speed. A little less in the atmosphere but I doubt the distance through our atmosphere factors much so you're still probably right between 1 to 2 seconds one way. The lag in the audio I've heard accounts for that about right.
-
Light travels at 186000 MPS, radio waves travel a little less at 156000 MPS given the moon is 250000 miles away a round trip delay should come in at about 4 seconds. That is if there is no delay. Given satellite technology was at it poorest at that time it will be hard to say what the delay time would be, but lets say 4 second delay, so the total delay in response should be 8 seconds. A big enough gap to be clearly noticable. The audio in the vids are IMMEDIATE...no delay at all. So like I said...THERE WAS NO MOON MISSION..just a Hollywood backdrop or a night trip into the desert of Arizona or Nevada...
Don't let facts slow down your assumptions. Keep going.
-
Light travels at 186000 MPS, radio waves travel a little less at 156000 MPS given the moon is 250000 miles away a round trip delay should come in at about 4 seconds. That is if there is no delay. Given satellite technology was at it poorest at that time it will be hard to say what the delay time would be, but lets say 4 second delay, so the total delay in response should be 8 seconds. A big enough gap to be clearly noticable. The audio in the vids are IMMEDIATE...no delay at all. So like I said...THERE WAS NO MOON MISSION..just a Hollywood backdrop or a night trip into the desert of Arizona or Nevada...
Where are you getting these figures from? Your ass? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. All electromagnetic radiation (including light and radio) travels at the speed of light.
I'm watching Mythbusters right now as they systematically destroy the myths that the moon landing was a hoax, one by one.
-
first, I believe we went to the moon so I'm not approaching it from an angle to prove we didn't. I just don't get why telescopes can't see that kind of detail on the moon. I mean we can get pretty good images light years away but we can't see where a moon rover went apeshit for 23 miles on the landscape? In fact didn't they leave the moon rover there? So you understand the laws of physics, I don't, please educated me. Why can't we see this kind of detail? Don't quote from an article, explain to me since you have a great understanding of physics.
Sorry didn't seem to appear arrogant in that post if that's how it come across.
The objects on the moon do not emit their own light, if the moon buggy for instance emitted light it would be a different story.
To be honest the equations speak for themselves, this one is a little better: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134
Basically however it's the angle the mirror in the telescope which is the defining factor, along with the wavelength of light. With digital telescopes I think you can chose your light frequency so if you use blue you would get more resolution than the frequency of red.
An easy way to test these laws of optics is to look at a star several light-years away - my eye can pick up just about ever detail that is possible with even the most powerful telescopes.
-
When all of the theories are finished being 'refuted' and all of the excuses given for discrepencies...the truth will finally come out that there NEVER WAS A MOON LANDING!!!!
No need arguing anymore about the matter...americans fall for every hoax, hoodwink, sham, fraud and trick. The sad part is they all defend the LIE to their deaths and when the TRUTH is spoken it is (despite all evidence and proof to back it up) DISMISSED...
Carry on with the arguing... it is interesting for argument sake if nothing else.
Now about those black skies and backgrounds....how come no astronaut took pictures of the stars on the way to the moon?
Why does the background landscape just suddenly ENDS as oppose to fading away as normal backgrounds do?
The light side of the moon is hundreds of degrees hot and the dark side hundreds of degrees cold...how did these astronauts manage to stay on the light side without problems?
How come when the video that was shot on the moon is played at 2x it appears like people walking around normally?
How come no one is allowed to examine the space suits (even today)?
How did the astronauts and camers/file survive the high radiation levels of space and the moon?
There is no atmosphere on the moon so the suits had to be pressurized in order for the men to survive...how could a plain cotton and plastic suit be pressurized? How come the suits show no sign of pressurization in the videos?
Wow, I have yet to come across some one so adamant on choosing the wrong path when all evidence points the other way. It takes a true idiot to dismiss truth in this manner.
1) In regards to the temperatures: that is only the surface of the moon, not the moons very thin atmosphere which allows heat energy to disperse into the vacuum of space.
2) That's just idiotic. Speed up someone on in space in relation to gravitation force so that speed x gravity = that of Earth and you will look like you're on Earth wherever you are in the Universe.
3) EVIDENCE of this?
4) Buzz talks about seeing "flashes" in his eyes (Z particles hitting his retina) so the radiation was there, the mission however was short enough to survive: http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/07/buzz-aldrins-fr.html
5) The suites were air tight with joints, you think it was simply a cotton and plastic outfit?
-
Hmmmm...questions persist
(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/11_2dees.jpg)
It was a movie set ;)
-
Here is the problem:
For this to be fake, this is how mnany people would have to stay silent for so long:
1. the Astronauts and their families
2. The 'film maker"
3. The designers of the set
4. The camera men
5. The producer
6. NASA
I find it hard to believe, just as with the 9/11 CT, that all these people would remian silent for so long without trying to cash in.
-
Here is the problem:
For this to be fake, this is how mnany people would have to stay silent for so long:
1. the Astronauts and their families
2. The 'film maker"
3. The designers of the set
4. The camera men
5. The producer
6. NASA
I find it hard to believe, just as with the 9/11 CT, that all these people would remian silent for so long without trying to cash in.
7. The Soviets
8. The Chinese
-
Where are you getting these figures from? Your ass? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. All electromagnetic radiation (including light and radio) travels at the speed of light.
I'm watching Mythbusters right now as they systematically destroy the myths that the moon landing was a hoax, one by one.
HAHAHAHHA
I saw that one the guide last night as i was flipping through channels. They must be in on the conspiracy too and have been paid off to keep quit by the government. HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
HAHAHAHHA
I saw that one the guide last night as i was flipping through channels. They must be in on the conspiracy too and have been paid off to keep quit by the government. HAHAHAHAHAHA
They didn't actually pay off any of these people, organizations or countries; they simple paid off the known laws of physics :)
From that moment on it was EASY! :D
-
7. The Soviets
8. The Chinese
9. All the other 1st world governments
10. All the other legit scientists in the world
I wonder if the same people who scammed us on the moon-landing killed JFK? ::) :P :o ;D :-X :-*
-
They didn't actually pay off any of these people, organizations or countries; they simple paid off the known laws of physics :)
From that moment on it was EASY! :D
So basically, if i have enough money i can shoot my own video on the moon? cool!
-
Sorry didn't seem to appear arrogant in that post if that's how it come across.
The objects on the moon do not emit their own light, if the moon buggy for instance emitted light it would be a different story.
To be honest the equations speak for themselves, this one is a little better: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=134
Basically however it's the angle the mirror in the telescope which is the defining factor, along with the wavelength of light. With digital telescopes I think you can chose your light frequency so if you use blue you would get more resolution than the frequency of red.
An easy way to test these laws of optics is to look at a star several light-years away - my eye can pick up just about ever detail that is possible with even the most powerful telescopes.
thanks!
-
So basically, if i have enough money i can shoot my own video on the moon? cool!
For 25 mil, you can hitch a ride on a Russian rocket...
-
7. The Soviets
8. The Chinese
changing the subject a little, I am confident the Chinese hoaxed their spacewalk.
The reflection of the statium lights in the first clip is priceless self ownage lol... The bubbles are bad enough.
-
changing the subject a little, I am confident the Chinese hoaxed their spacewalk.
The reflection of the statium lights in the first clip is priceless self ownage lol... The bubbles are bad enough.
That was pretty soundly debunked in another post a few months ago. I cant remember the details though. some thing about ice crystals i think.
-
hahaha lol at the chinese video.
yes, those stadium lights sure do show up in their mirrored outfits.
And yes, those "ice crystals" accelerating in a zero gravity environment look a lot like bubbles.
worst of all is the clouds suddenly filling in over the planet earth in the background, in video 2. Impossible.
i'd never seen this before. if i had to bet, I'd say their event was faked. The US isn't "calling them out" for it either.
-
That was pretty soundly debunked in another post a few months ago. I cant remember the details though. some thing about ice crystals i think.
what was debunked? by who? The stadium lights reflection? Check that out in the first clip. In the second clip, listen to the audio from the walk. It sounds clear and sounds like there is enough of a voice echo to reflect voices in a room. Doesn't sound anything like Russian and US space to earth communications which are much more scratchy. The hard line of the earth in the background? The speed of the craft as stated doesn't match the light changes even close. Even if that was an ice crystal, it rolls up and around the curvature of the face shield and then up and away increasing speed after rolling around the face shield. No freaking way that is happening. This space walk was bogus.
"soundly debunked" lol ozmo, lol...
-
ignoring all that about the bubbles...
look at the info they give in video #2 regarding the earth in the background.
We see the entire planet earth get filled in with clouds in about 3 seconds as their background graphic changes. That's fake. The background is fake. maybe you can argue they superimposed a real spacewalk over a fake background if you'd like. But the earth in the background has clouds move at an insane rate, then fill in all at once. Impossible.
-
"soundly debunked" lol ozmo, lol...
Oz read one book on JFK that - for him - soundly debunked every single notion it was a conspiracy.
-
what was debunked? by who? The stadium lights reflection? Check that out in the first clip. In the second clip, listen to the audio from the walk. It sounds clear and sounds like there is enough of a voice echo to reflect voices in a room. Doesn't sound anything like Russian and US space to earth communications which are much more scratchy. The hard line of the earth in the background? The speed of the craft as stated doesn't match the light changes even close. Even if that was an ice crystal, it rolls up and around the curvature of the face shield and then up and away increasing speed after rolling around the face shield. No freaking way that is happening. This space walk was bogus.
"soundly debunked" lol ozmo, lol...
It was a while back when you were in retirement. Serious. :)
-
Buzz Aldrin Punches Moon-landing Conspiracy Theorist
(http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/anim.gif)
Bart Sibrel, a conspiracy theorist who believes that NASA faked the moon landing, confronted retired astronaut Buzz Aldrin on September 9, 2002.
"You're a coward," he exclaimed, "and a liar, ..."
At that point, Aldrin (age 72) landed a spirited punch to Sibrel's jaw.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office has declined to file charges.
http://www.csicop.org/articles/20021018-aldrin/
-
another thing that is a giveaway, look at the lighting, everything is so all around well lit like the light is defused. Look at any legit space walk, there is not that defused lighting. What would cause a defused lighting like that? WATER!
I found the soundly debunked thread lol Soundly debunked by The Luke! haha...
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=246702.25
-
It was a while back when you were in retirement. Serious. :)
I posted the thread, epic memory...
-
I wonder if there is some credible source exposing this.
Here is the problem.
ozmo is dependent upon a "credible source" to debunk things. In other words, until the US govt comes out with a statement calling them out for it, he won't believe it.
If we embarassed them on such a global level, they would retaliate, probably by stopping some of this debt purchase hilary's been kissing their ass so much to continue.
Oz, ya gotta realize there is no way govts are going to call out other govts for things like that.
-
I posted the thread, epic memory...
Being an epic ass today?
Then pull the thread up.
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531 (http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531)
-
Here is the problem.
ozmo is dependent upon a "credible source" to debunk things. In other words, until the US govt comes out with a statement calling them out for it, he won't believe it.
If we embarassed them on such a global level, they would retaliate, probably by stopping some of this debt purchase hilary's been kissing their ass so much to continue.
Oz, ya gotta realize there is no way govts are going to call out other govts for things like that.
You mean like i don't use the same "credible source" you used with the hologram theory?
The only embarrassment is CT mentality.
I'm using my head. Unlike many people here.
-
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531 (http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531)
lots of politics discussed here.
Suddenly if you laugh at the video, you're pro-Taiwan, etc. Why politicize things, Oz?
Interesting...
A few hours before the launch of the Shenzhou spacecraft, the state-controlled news website Xinhuanet published an article documenting the successful orbital insertion of the three-man crew. A transcript of the future conversation between mission control and the Shenzhou 7 module appeared online due to a technical error. (A pretty big error if you ask me.) Even before the engines had ignited the conspiracy theories were on fire! And rightly so. Whos to say this transcript wouldnt have been issued regardless of mission success or failure? So, China was already on its back-foot, the launch was viewed with utmost suspicion.
-
Being an epic ass today?
Then pull the thread up.
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531 (http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1531)
I already did, it's linked above.
-
The only embarrassment is CT mentality.
"CT mentality" = understanding that groups will tell big lies in order to legitimize and further their agendas.
IMO, the real embarassment is ppl who fail to see that, and swallow everything they're fed unless, drum roll please... it's delivered from a "credible source".
-
Where are you getting these figures from? Your ass? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. All electromagnetic radiation (including light and radio) travels at the speed of light.
I'm watching Mythbusters right now as they systematically destroy the myths that the moon landing was a hoax, one by one.
Here is something for you all to think about. These claimes of light traveling at 186,000 MPS are based on VACUUM SPACE...not real space. These light tests are done in laboratories in IDEAL conditions. As electromagnetic waves travel in space (be it the atmosphere of earth or the atmosphere of space) it collides with all manner of matter be it DARK MATTER, free electrons, protons and neutrons, Neutrinos, other electromagnetic energies (natural light and radio waves), gravitational forces, not to forget planetary gravitation, gravitational anomolies etc etc. Given all of this...it is impossible for any kind of electromagnetic energy to maintain a constant speed. The analogy would be a sprinter running on the ground at top speed and then suddenly running in the ocean and somehow this runner would still be able to maintain the exact same speed...IMPOSSIBLE. So the same in space. There is masive amounts of 'INTERFERENCE" in space that would slow electromagnetic energy down considerably as well as deteriorate its strength.
Now here is another thought to consider. As a electromagnetic signal is sent out there must also be a part of that signal's energy slated for "pushing" that signal forward. Following the scientific logic (which is illogical to quote Spock) how can a signal be "pushed" forever without that portion of the energy of that signal responsible for the "push" being consumed/exhausted??? It is impossible. What essentially is being said is that somehow this 'PUSH" energy is perpetually replaced to keep the signal going despite all...
Any of you SMART ASSES can answer if you are so inclined...I expect rhetoric from Ozmo, Dan-O and hereford
-
ozmo, go on youtube and look at several legit space walks. Check out the video of our first space walk and Russia's. Check out the several others uploaded there. Look at the lighting. Then look at the very defused soft lighting of the chinese space walk. WATER.
-
"CT mentality" = understanding that groups will tell big lies in order to legitimize and further their agendas.
IMO, the real embarassment is ppl who fail to see that, and swallow everything they're fed unless, drum roll please... it's delivered from a "credible source".
NO. CT mentality letting emotion and lack of knowledge determine facts combined with flawed logic.
Embarrassment:
1. The moon landing was faked
2. 9/11 was an inside job
-
Here is something for you all to think about. These claimes of light traveling at 186,000 MPS are based on VACUUM SPACE...not real space. These light tests are done in laboratories in IDEAL conditions. As electromagnetic waves travel in space (be it the atmosphere of earth or the atmosphere of space) it collides with all manner of matter be it DARK MATTER, free electrons, protons and neutrons, Neutrinos, other electromagnetic energies (natural light and radio waves), gravitational forces, not to forget planetary gravitation, gravitational anomolies etc etc. Given all of this...it is impossible for any kind of electromagnetic energy to maintain a constant speed. The analogy would be a sprinter running on the ground at top speed and then suddenly running in the ocean and somehow this runner would still be able to maintain the exact same speed...IMPOSSIBLE. So the same in space. There is masive amounts of 'INTERFERENCE" in space that would slow electromagnetic energy down considerably as well as deteriorate its strength.
Now here is another thought to consider. As a electromagnetic signal is sent out there must also be a part of that signal's energy slated for "pushing" that signal forward. Following the scientific logic (which is illogical to quote Spock) how can a signal be "pushed" forever without that portion of the energy of that signal responsible for the "push" being consumed/exhausted??? It is impossible. What essentially is being said is that somehow this 'PUSH" energy is perpetually replaced to keep the signal going despite all...
Any of you SMART ASSES can answer if you are so inclined...I expect rhetoric from Ozmo, Dan-O and hereford
OMG, lol, you won't recover...
-
NO. CT mentality letting emotion and lack of knowledge determine facts combined with flawed logic.
Embarrassment:
1. The moon landing was faked
2. 9/11 was an inside job
yet you look to a person who believes in bigfoot for your proof that the accusations against China's spacewalk have been soundly debunked :D
-
ozmo, go on youtube and look at several legit space walks. Check out the video of our first space walk and Russia's. Check out the several others uploaded there. Look at the lighting. Then look at the very defused soft lighting of the chinese space walk. WATER.
If that's the case 99% of every scientist in the world should have been sounding the alarm. Are they all in on it too?
But here we are, internet Einstiens studying grainy low res. vids.....
-
Here is something for you all to think about. These claimes of light traveling at 186,000 MPS are based on VACUUM SPACE...not real space. These light tests are done in laboratories in IDEAL conditions. As electromagnetic waves travel in space (be it the atmosphere of earth or the atmosphere of space) it collides with all manner of matter be it DARK MATTER, free electrons, protons and neutrons, Neutrinos, other electromagnetic energies (natural light and radio waves), gravitational forces, not to forget planetary gravitation, gravitational anomolies etc etc. Given all of this...it is impossible for any kind of electromagnetic energy to maintain a constant speed. The analogy would be a sprinter running on the ground at top speed and then suddenly running in the ocean and somehow this runner would still be able to maintain the exact same speed...IMPOSSIBLE. So the same in space. There is masive amounts of 'INTERFERENCE" in space that would slow electromagnetic energy down considerably as well as deteriorate its strength.
Now here is another thought to consider. As a electromagnetic signal is sent out there must also be a part of that signal's energy slated for "pushing" that signal forward. Following the scientific logic (which is illogical to quote Spock) how can a signal be "pushed" forever without that portion of the energy of that signal responsible for the "push" being consumed/exhausted??? It is impossible. What essentially is being said is that somehow this 'PUSH" energy is perpetually replaced to keep the signal going despite all...
Any of you SMART ASSES can answer if you are so inclined...I expect rhetoric from Ozmo, Dan-O and hereford
Shit, makes sense to me dude.
Good post.
-
OMG, lol, you won't recover...
THey won't RECOVER...lol
Now I want answers...AND I WANT THEM NOW!!!!
-
Here is something for you all to think about. These claimes of light traveling at 186,000 MPS are based on VACUUM SPACE...not real space. These light tests are done in laboratories in IDEAL conditions. As electromagnetic waves travel in space (be it the atmosphere of earth or the atmosphere of space) it collides with all manner of matter be it DARK MATTER, free electrons, protons and neutrons, Neutrinos, other electromagnetic energies (natural light and radio waves), gravitational forces, not to forget planetary gravitation, gravitational anomolies etc etc. Given all of this...it is impossible for any kind of electromagnetic energy to maintain a constant speed. The analogy would be a sprinter running on the ground at top speed and then suddenly running in the ocean and somehow this runner would still be able to maintain the exact same speed...IMPOSSIBLE. So the same in space. There is masive amounts of 'INTERFERENCE" in space that would slow electromagnetic energy down considerably as well as deteriorate its strength.
Now here is another thought to consider. As a electromagnetic signal is sent out there must also be a part of that signal's energy slated for "pushing" that signal forward. Following the scientific logic (which is illogical to quote Spock) how can a signal be "pushed" forever without that portion of the energy of that signal responsible for the "push" being consumed/exhausted??? It is impossible. What essentially is being said is that somehow this 'PUSH" energy is perpetually replaced to keep the signal going despite all...
Any of you SMART ASSES can answer if you are so inclined...I expect rhetoric from Ozmo, Dan-O and hereford
What are your sources? Or did you just pull this out of your ass?
-
What are your sources? Or did you just pull this out of your ass?
Sources???...did you not realize I asked a QUESTION???
When you provide a answer I will ask WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?????
-
Gee i donno all these people say they travel the speed of light:
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Communications/2-why-does-it-take-so-long.html (http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Communications/2-why-does-it-take-so-long.html)
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm (http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html)
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_en.html (http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_en.html)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329133240AAkPAJ2 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329133240AAkPAJ2)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555000 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555000)
This conspiracy is HUGE! All these people and organizations must be in on it too.
And this was only the first page on the google search!
-
Sources???...did you not realize I asked a QUESTION???
When you provide a answer I will ask WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?????
::)
I bet its some crack pot place you got that from like prisonplanet.
-
yet you look to a person who believes in bigfoot for your proof that the accusations against China's spacewalk have been soundly debunked :D
Who believes in Bigfoot? Luke?
-
I bet its some crack pot place you got that from like prisonplanet.
see, you're doing it again.
PP spent the last 18 months with Schiff and Ron Paul talking about the upcoming financial meltdown.
They get it right every now and then. AJ is a fearmonger. But you discount PP as being a crackpot place. Some of the time - like with the global financial crisis - they warned of it for a year whlie CNBC was talking about how great things were.
For financial predictions, you probably still consider PP a crackpot source and CNBC to be a 'credible source'.
-
Who believes in Bigfoot? Luke?
yes. I believe he has traveled to other countries in search of him.
Now you have cited a bigfoot enthusiast as your 'credible source' of spacewalk info. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Of course his views on bigfoot have no bearing on his views on the spacewalk. but you like to group together all the people who think bush had warning of 911 and didn't act, along with those who think aliens used holograms. bah your hypocrisy shows.
-
yes. I believe he has traveled to other countries in search of him.
Now you have cited a bigfoot enthusiast as your 'credible source' of spacewalk info. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Of course his views on bigfoot have no bearing on his views on the spacewalk. but you like to group together all the people who think bush had warning of 911 and didn't act, along with those who think aliens used holograms. bah your hypocrisy shows.
I had no idea Luke believed in BIgfoot. Can you show me where he says that?
Did the source i posted believe in bigfoot too? :o
Oh so you think it was aliens in those helicopters now?
-
Gee i donno all these people say they travel the speed of light:
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Communications/2-why-does-it-take-so-long.html (http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Communications/2-why-does-it-take-so-long.html)
http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm (http://www.tpub.com/neets/book10/40a.htm)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves_particles/lightspeed-1.html)
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_en.html (http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_en.html)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329133240AAkPAJ2 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090329133240AAkPAJ2)
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555000 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761555000)
This conspiracy is HUGE! All these people and organizations must be in on it too.
And this was only the first page on the google search!
First off most of these are NON CREDIBLE SOURCES...yahoo answers...sheesh
Secondly...none of these "sources" answers the question I asked. Read my question again... how can electromagnetic energy maintain speed in space which is littered with all manner of interference? and even where the is no interference (impossible) how is the energy source NOT exhausted in its travels?
-
I had no idea Luke believed in BIgfoot. Can you show me where he says that?
Did the source i posted believe in bigfoot too? :o
Oh so you think it was aliens in those helicopters now?
If Luke believes in bigfoot and has spent a lot of his resources searching...
Would that in any way affect your opinion of his chinese spacewalk analysis?
-
see, you're doing it again.
PP spent the last 18 months with Schiff and Ron Paul talking about the upcoming financial meltdown.
They get it right every now and then. AJ is a fearmonger. But you discount PP as being a crackpot place. Some of the time - like with the global financial crisis - they warned of it for a year whlie CNBC was talking about how great things were.
For financial predictions, you probably still consider PP a crackpot source and CNBC to be a 'credible source'.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. PP is still a crack pot source. Tell us all 240, is that where you got the hologram theory from?
Never the less, they were not the only one predicting it.
Actually, CNBC, CNN, ABC all the major news networks are businesses more than they are reporters of the news. IMO
-
Actually, CNBC, CNN, ABC all the major news networks are businesses more than they are reporters of the news. IMO
So are the major news networks "credible sources", or aren't they?
-
First off most of these are NON CREDIBLE SOURCES...yahoo answers...sheesh
Secondly...none of these "sources" answers the question I asked. Read my question again... how can electromagnetic energy maintain speed in space which is littered with all manner of interference? and even where the is no interference (impossible) how is the energy source NOT exhausted in its travels?
Most I listed are. I could list more. But why? To CT'er everyone's in on the scam. right?
They don't need to answer your question anyway. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. Do you have anything to counter the scientific community other than your blabber?
-
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. PP is still a crack pot source. Tell us all 240, is that where you got the hologram theory from?
Never the less, they were not the only one predicting it.
Actually, CNBC, CNN, ABC all the major news networks are businesses more than they are reporters of the news. IMO
Go listen to Schiffs youtube channel. The videos are all there time stamped.
As far as the moon landing, I think too many people would have cashed in by now for it to have been faked.
-
So are the major news networks "credible sources", or aren't they?
Depends on what it is. Do they give a straight forward objective view of the news events of the day? No.
Do they have the ability to report the 100% truth 100% of the time? No.
By those definitions, no news organization on the planet is credible.
-
If Luke believes in bigfoot and has spent a lot of his resources searching...
Would that in any way affect your opinion of his chinese spacewalk analysis?
Yes it would.
But the link i posted is not from Luke.
-
So are the major news networks "credible sources", or aren't they?
Depends on what it is.
i see. We're "kinda pregnant" here. Gotcha.
So there are no truly consistent "credible" sources out there. it depends.
On what, exactly? If you believe them or not?
-
i see. We're "kinda pregnant" here. Gotcha.
So there are no truly consistent "credible" sources out there. it depends.
On what, exactly? If you believe them or not?
What you define as a credible news source?
What would you define as a credible news story?
An earthquake hits Italy and is reported by NBC. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe its a lie because NBC isn't a credible news source?
NBC reports on conditions at a prison camp in Afghanistan, but gets its story from the US military. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe NBC isn't a credible source because it got its information from a entity you don't consider credible such as the US military?
-
First off most of these are NON CREDIBLE SOURCES...yahoo answers...sheesh
Secondly...none of these "sources" answers the question I asked. Read my question again... how can electromagnetic energy maintain speed in space which is littered with all manner of interference? and even where the is no interference (impossible) how is the energy source NOT exhausted in its travels?
Ever heard of Newton's first law.
Any object in motion tends to stay in motion.
Space is almost an absolute vacuum.
A University physics department not be a credible source on physics.
Now I have heard it all.
As for media not covering the potential for an economic downturn. All from 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491006/UK-risk-severe-economic-downturn-warns-economist.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48714
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/11/12/afx4326982.html
Here are some links for people actually calling a recession coming
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=akV2sasSGUY8
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20070907/us-sub-prime-crisis-may-lead-to-economic-recession-fed.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/01/2047552.htm?section=world
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-howlow27nov27,1,846422,full.story
-
Ever heard of Newton's first law.
Any object in motion tends to stay in motion.
Space is almost an absolute vacuum.
Obviously you missed the part where I spoke of INTERFERENCE... nothing remains in motion when it is being continuously acted upon
Space is by no means a VACUUM, but is profusely littered with matter, energy fields, anomolies, other electromagnetic energies etc etc
A University physics department not be a credible source on physics.
Now I have heard it all.
As for media not covering the potential for an economic downturn. All from 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491006/UK-risk-severe-economic-downturn-warns-economist.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48714
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/11/12/afx4326982.html
Here are some links for people actually calling a recession coming
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=akV2sasSGUY8
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20070907/us-sub-prime-crisis-may-lead-to-economic-recession-fed.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/01/2047552.htm?section=world
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-howlow27nov27,1,846422,full.story
-
Ever heard of Newton's first law.
Any object in motion tends to stay in motion.
Space is almost an absolute vacuum.
A University physics department not be a credible source on physics.
Now I have heard it all.
As for media not covering the potential for an economic downturn. All from 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491006/UK-risk-severe-economic-downturn-warns-economist.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=48714
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/11/12/afx4326982.html
Here are some links for people actually calling a recession coming
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=home&sid=akV2sasSGUY8
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/20070907/us-sub-prime-crisis-may-lead-to-economic-recession-fed.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/01/2047552.htm?section=world
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-howlow27nov27,1,846422,full.story
I should remind you that you are not talking to a sane person. You talking to a internet jockey who thinks the moon landings were faked and now thinks he's a scientist.
Basically a mouthpiece.
-
I should remind you that you are not talking to a sane person. You talking to a internet jockey who thinks the moon landings were faked and now thinks he's a scientist.
Basically a mouthpiece.
I didn't think Joker was sane either...neither is Dan-O or you Ozmo for that matter....Ooops forgot to add Berzerk to the insane list...
-
I didn't think Joker was sane either...neither is Dan-O or you Ozmo for that matter....Ooops forgot to add Berzerk to the insane list...
::)
What ever, clown.
-
THey won't RECOVER...lol
Now I want answers...AND I WANT THEM NOW!!!!
::) dude, your post was 99% fantasy... Listen to you demanding answers to bullshit haha
-
::) dude, your post was 99% fantasy... Listen to you demanding answers to bullshit haha
Yes, the scientific community is now wrong. And they are in on the conspiracy too. Universities as well.
Nothing is real. We live in a naked empire.
-
If that's the case 99% of every scientist in the world should have been sounding the alarm. Are they all in on it too?
But here we are, internet Einstiens studying grainy low res. vids.....
It's not if that's the case, that is the case. go look for yourself and come back and explain the diffused lighting. All the videos are clear enough to see that. It would have to be avatar small to not take note of the lighting diffusion. Also it's not shocking at all that governments and other professionals don't come out to mock the Chinese. What do they have to gain from doing so vs. what do they have to lose? It's a risky position even if right so why would they be eager to risk it? Just look at the lighting and tell me I'm wrong.
-
Yes, the scientific community is now wrong. And they are in on the conspiracy too. Universities as well.
Nothing is real. We live in a naked empire.
On his facts, I agree with you 100% Samson is clearly now pulling this stuff out his ass. It's contrary to all knowledge on the subjects he's posting about.
-
It's not if that's the case, that is the case. go look for yourself and come back and explain the diffused lighting. All the videos are clear enough to see that. It would have to be avatar small to not take note of the lighting diffusion. Also it's not shocking at all that governments and other professionals don't come out to mock the Chinese. What do they have to gain from doing so vs. what do they have to lose? It's a risky position even if right so why would they be eager to risk it? Just look at the lighting and tell me I'm wrong.
If the chinese faked a space walk it would a huge news story as well as, based on bubbles in space, an easy no brainer for thousands of engineers and scientists to point out. The defused lighting and bubbles and "stage lights" were explained in the link i posted as well as my assertion about us internet Einstiens making scientific conclusions on low res vid clips online. I mean com on....
Again: all the scientists are in on this too? Listen to your self.
You are starting to sound like the guy who based on youtube vids thought the helicopters were projecting holograms of planes hitting the WTC's.
-
On his facts, I agree with you 100% Samson is clearly now pulling this stuff out his ass. It's contrary to all knowledge on the subjects he's posting about.
At some point, don't you think in the last 50 years since we propelled the first radio object in space we haven't tested radio waves in space? If this is such an issue that blows open the moon landing conspiracy the Russians would have all over this like hair on a gorilla.
Yet, we have the scientific community saying radio waves travel at the speed of light. But Sampson poses a question and challenges peoplel to answer it? It's been answered.........In the real world.
-
::) dude, your post was 99% fantasy... Listen to you demanding answers to bullshit haha
To the FOOLISH it is, to the wise it is something to ponder. All scientific claims are labelled THEORIES...meaning UNPROVEN.
I did not ask a tough question...as a amatter of fact it is very simple and maybe because of its simplicity people can not grasp it. Too busy holding onto fallicies that don't take much into consideration.
Consider all that I said, stop being arrogant and thinking you know it all and say is this possible... how can energy move continuously without a propulsion? and should it have a propulsion how is it that the propulsion does not run out? and when interacted upon by other energies in the univese how is it that it remains intact and continues to move without a loss in speed, change in intesity/form or change in direction?
Nothing hard...If the example were a car going down the highway and it crashed into another car...could it maintain the same speed? Of course not, energy has changed form and direction resulting in heat released, sound, damage to each car and a SLOWING DOWN. Energy field collide in the same way with other energy fields and have the same end results: heat, light, sound, loss of energy and speed. How do you think an atomic explosion works...particle impact, energy changes form, heat released, sound released, light released much of the energy DESTROYED...what's left is shadow of itself that is weaker and slower. That is all discussed in chemistry and physics and shown in cyclotrons where atoms are smashed together to release energies and their form change recorded.
Now if you have another theory please presnt it..I will add no negative comment but will see if it is plausible..
-
To the FOOLISH it is, to the wise it is something to ponder. All scientific claims are labelled THEORIES...meaning UNPROVEN.
I did not ask a tough question...as a amatter of fact it is very simple and maybe because of its simplicity people can not grasp it. Too busy holding onto fallicies that don't take much into consideration.
Consider all that I said, stop being arrogant and thinking you know it all and say is this possible... how can energy move continuously without a propulsion? and should it have a propulsion how is it that the propulsion does not run out? and when interacted upon by other energies in the univese how is it that it remains intact and continues to move without a loss in speed, change in intesity/form or change in direction?
Nothing hard...If the example were a car going down the highway and it crashed into another car...could it maintain the same speed? Of course not, energy has changed form and direction resulting in heat released, sound, damage to each car and a SLOWING DOWN. Energy field collide in the same way with other energy fields and have the same end results: heat, light, sound, loss of energy and speed. How do you think an atomic explosion works...particle impact, energy changes form, heat released, sound released, light released much of the energy DESTROYED...what's left is shadow of itself that is weaker and slower. That is all discussed in chemistry and physics and shown in cyclotrons where atoms are smashed together to release energies and their form change recorded.
Now if you have another theory please presnt it..I will add no negative comment but will see if it is plausible..
Universities and the scientific community isn't plausible so all that's left are CT nutjobs.
I'll go find one and get back to you.
-
Universities and the scientific community isn't plausible so all that's left are CT nutjobs.
I'll go find one and get back to you.
SURPRISE SURPRISE...even universities and the scientific community will tell you that there is a WHOLE LOT THEY DO NOT KNOW...Science is constantly on the move with new discoveries and amendments made to old claims...no where is it stated that what has been discovered is DEFINITE, END OF SUBJECT, CLOSED TO DISCUSSION...as a matter of fact it is the opposite.
-
SURPRISE SURPRISE...even universities and the scientific community will tell you that there is a WHOLE LOT THEY DO NOT KNOW...Science is constantly on the move with new discoveries and amendments made to old claims...no where is it stated that what has been discovered is DEFINITE, END OF SUBJECT, CLOSED TO DISCUSSION...as a matter of fact it is the opposite.
Geeze dude. You're thinking way too hard on this and confusing yourself. The speed of c in a vacuum is 186,000 m/s. All of the so-called "intereference" you mention barely makes an appreciable dent in c. I never took a college physics class and to me that's just common sense. You're trying to think this through logically (using some rather flawed logic) and trust me, you're just going to dig yourself deeper by doing that.
Honestly most of the people who believe the moon landings were a hoax, are people like yourself who try to figure stuff out based on their own woefully inadequate understanding of basic scientific principles--and if the facts don't appear to match their understanding (or lack thereof), then they assume the facts must be false.
-
If the chinese faked a space walk it would a huge news story as well
No, it really woudln't.
Govts don't embarass each other like that.
Who knows why, but they do not.
-
SURPRISE SURPRISE...even universities and the scientific community will tell you that there is a WHOLE LOT THEY DO NOT KNOW...Science is constantly on the move with new discoveries and amendments made to old claims...no where is it stated that what has been discovered is DEFINITE, END OF SUBJECT, CLOSED TO DISCUSSION...as a matter of fact it is the opposite.
So because there's a whole lot they don't tell that they don't know, radio waves don't travel the speed of light and the moon landing was fake.
Why didn't you just say so?
::)
-
Honestly most of the people who believe the moon landings were a hoax, are people like yourself who try to figure stuff out based on their own woefully inadequate understanding of basic scientific principles--and if the facts don't appear to match their understanding (or lack thereof), then they assume the facts must be false.
That pretty much sums up CT'ers.
-
No, it really woudln't.
Govts don't embarass each other like that.
Who knows why, but they do not.
Yes, really it would. Our government wouldn't have to. There are thousands of scientists who would say something now. Are you telling me thousands of scientists (maybe millions in the world) are sitting there knowing based on this "internet CT'er logic" or scientific understanding of their own that China faked it's space walk but are keeping their mouths shuts?
Same with the Moon landings. At the height of the cold war during the space race, Russia would have loved nothing better that to "further the honorable ideals of Communism" by showing the how dis-honest imperial capitalistic swine really are and the advancements in the future of the human race are best left out of these monsters hands.
Woooooooooooooooooooowww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
-
Yes, really it would.
Okay.
Please list the conspiracies committed by other govts that the USA has confirmed in the last 50 years.
-
Okay.
Please list the conspiracies committed by other govts that the USA has confirmed in the last 50 years.
You know that's not what i meant. Read the next three sentences after "Yes, really it would"
-
There are thousands of scientists who would say something now.
Wait a second.
When thousands of scientists question the 911 story, it's nonsense.
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=20&Itemid=35
When thousands of science question the chinese walk, you would sondier that credible.
oz, you're grasping at straws here. You only assign credibility to a group when you agree with them.
-
You know that's not what i meant. Read the next three sentences after "Yes, really it would"
Okay. So you're saying govts WOULD NOT announce the discovery of a CT by another govt?
yes or no, oz?
-
At some point, don't you think in the last 50 years since we propelled the first radio object in space we haven't tested radio waves in space? If this is such an issue that blows open the moon landing conspiracy the Russians would have all over this like hair on a gorilla.
Yet, we have the scientific community saying radio waves travel at the speed of light. But Sampson poses a question and challenges peoplel to answer it? It's been answered.........In the real world.
lol. couldn't say it any better.
-
If the chinese faked a space walk it would a huge news story as well as, based on bubbles in space, an easy no brainer for thousands of engineers and scientists to point out. The defused lighting and bubbles and "stage lights" were explained in the link i posted as well as my assertion about us internet Einstiens making scientific conclusions on low res vid clips online. I mean com on....
Again: all the scientists are in on this too? Listen to your self.
You are starting to sound like the guy who based on youtube vids thought the helicopters were projecting holograms of planes hitting the WTC's.
in the area of light, I know what I'm talking about. I admit to the things I don't know about. That pretty constant difused light in the Chinese shots is consistent with underwater lighting way more than the light in space. Seriously, check out every legit space walk that you can find then look at the chinese walk and tell me you don't see it.
-
Okay. So you're saying govts WOULD NOT announce the discovery of a CT by another govt?
yes or no, oz?
Why should I? You don't answer my questions.
What you define as a credible news source?
What would you define as a credible news story?
An earthquake hits Italy and is reported by NBC. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe its a lie because NBC isn't a credible news source?
NBC reports on conditions at a prison camp in Afghanistan, but gets its story from the US military. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe NBC isn't a credible source because it got its information from a entity you don't consider credible such as the US military?
Tell us all 240, is that where you got the hologram theory from?
-
No, it really woudln't.
Govts don't embarass each other like that.
Who knows why, but they do not.
It's much easier when the general public gets on it. Like they did with those photoshopped pics Iran posted of their failure of a missile test last year.
-
in the area of light, I know what I'm talking about. I admit to the things I don't know about. That pretty constant difused light in the Chinese shots is consistent with underwater lighting way more than the light in space. Seriously, check out every legit space walk that you can find then look at the chinese walk and tell me you don't see it.
Ok, fair enough.
I would rather like to see the video in it's original res. and I'm sure you would to. But for now, It's a space walk to me.
I do know that res and pic quality changes depending on many factors when it's converted to different file formats.
-
Wait a second.
When thousands of scientists question the 911 story, it's nonsense.
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=20&Itemid=35
When thousands of science question the chinese walk, you would sondier that credible.
oz, you're grasping at straws here. You only assign credibility to a group when you agree with them.
When i say thousands of scientists I mean the main stream scietific community. In other words most of them.
Keeping trying to trap me 240. :) If you used a hologram it might work. ;)
-
240, that hologram theory is the worst post since the infamous post that the chinese army could defeat the United States army because they know Kung-Fu
-
240, that hologram theory is the worst post since the infamous post that the chinese army could defeat the United States army because they know Kung-Fu
dude, someone posted a video like 2 or 3 years ago that showed part of the wing disappear as it hit, from several angles. it was interesting, but by no means scientific or conclusive.
Ozmo is mad that he's looked like shit on this thread, assigning credibility to the media "sometimes" and to thousands of scientists "sometimes".
he's now resorting to refusing to identify a credible source until I talk about holograms. At this point, he knows he has pretty much stated that sources are only credible if he agrees with them. he knows he looks like shit on this issue. So, he's attacking me for holigram discussion 3 years ago.
oz, you're a very inquisitive guy and I enjoy your posts, but your destoryed yourself in this thread bro. You said Luke the bbigfoot hunter debunked the chinese space CT. I mean, really?
-
When i say thousands of scientists I mean the main stream scietific community. In other words most of them.
"most" of them?
Dude, "most" scientists agree on global warming, and it's by no mean conclusive.
"Most" scientists agree on some form of evolution, and it's by no means conclusive.
You gotta quantify tings with some numbers. What % of scientists must agree on a topic before you consider it to be truth?
-
dude, someone posted a video like 2 or 3 years ago that showed part of the wing disappear as it hit, from several angles. it was interesting, but by no means scientific or conclusive.
Ozmo is mad that he's looked like shit on this thread, assigning credibility to the media "sometimes" and to thousands of scientists "sometimes".
he's now resorting to refusing to identify a credible source until I talk about holograms. At this point, he knows he has pretty much stated that sources are only credible if he agrees with them. he knows he looks like shit on this issue. So, he's attacking me for holigram discussion 3 years ago.
oz, you're a very inquisitive guy and I enjoy your posts, but your destoryed yourself in this thread bro. You said Luke the bbigfoot hunter debunked the chinese space CT. I mean, really?
I looked like shit? How so? With you spinning my posts?
And now you trying to dismiss your conclusion about the holograms? ::)
All you've done this whole thread is run and deflect.
And did you state the chinese army could defeat the USA because they know kung fu? I'm not surprised.
BTW, I'm not mad because of the way you think you made me look. You didn't make look like anything. You onLy avoided my questions and tried to put words in my mouth. Weak ass.
I'm laughing at you because you have to resort to the same lame crap you did when you defended the hologram theory.
Or how about:
"The agents were called off at the same time the bullets flew"
;D
Another example of 240's CT'er propaganda.
-
You mean like i don't use the same "credible source" you used with the hologram theory?
What you define as a credible news source?
What would you define as a credible news story?
An earthquake hits Italy and is reported by NBC. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe its a lie because NBC isn't a credible news source?
NBC reports on conditions at a prison camp in Afghanistan, but gets its story from the US military. Is that credible to you?
Or do you believe NBC isn't a credible source because it got its information from a entity you don't consider credible such as the US military?
Tell us all 240, is that where you got the hologram theory from?
Anytime you have the balls.
Add these to the list too.
Are universities credible sources?
what are credible sources to you 240?
-
"most" of them?
Dude, "most" scientists agree on global warming, and it's by no mean conclusive.
"Most" scientists agree on some form of evolution, and it's by no means conclusive.
You gotta quantify tings with some numbers. What % of scientists must agree on a topic before you consider it to be truth?
So because "most" scientist agree on evolution and global warming and they are not conclusive that means that when scientists agree on radio waves or don't speak out about china's alleged fake space walk it's therefore a a fake?
-
I'm beginning to think Conspiracy Theorist have a mental disorder.
-
LOL I CANT BELIEVE YOU PPL ARE STILL ARGUEING ABOUT THIS 8 PAGES :o HAHAHAHAH
-
what are credible sources to you 240?
I think many agencies are good at delivering good info, but they are also vulnerable to compromise due to agendas.
I wouldn't feel confident enough - as you do - to claim I can define who is credible and who is not.
-
So because "most" scientist agree on evolution and global warming and they are not conclusive that means that when scientists agree on radio waves or don't speak out about china's alleged fake space walk it's therefore a a fake?
No - it means YOU used the word "most".
I would like you to quantify that.
-
No - it means YOU used the word "most".
I would like you to quantify that.
OMG I used the word "most"! OMG I qualified it by saying the main stream scientific community OMG they also believe in global warming so CHINA must have faked the space walk!!!! OMG 240 only reads 50% of my posts and ignores the rest
OMG!
-
I think many agencies are good at delivering good info, but they are also vulnerable to compromise due to agendas.
I wouldn't feel confident enough - as you do - to claim I can define who is credible and who is not.
So then all sources are not credible?
And which news story or news source did i cite as credible?
-
I think many agencies are good at delivering good info, but they are also vulnerable to compromise due to agendas.
I wouldn't feel confident enough - as you do - to claim I can define who is credible and who is not.
Sounds like you think it depends on the news story............
-
So then all sources are not credible?
And which news story or news source did i cite as credible?
It's very hard to find a group you can call credible all of the time.
Alex Jones called the financial crash long before CNBC did.
Which is more credible?
-
It's very hard to find a group you can call credible all of the time.
Alex Jones called the financial crash long before CNBC did.
Which is more credible?
Sounds like it depends on the story and the source......
-
Sounds like you think it depends on the news story............
No.
I think it depends on their motivation - at that time.
Right after 911, the BBC came out with a report that several of the 911 terrorists were alive and well, and reported their info stolen. Suddenly the FBI changed their position from "We know these 19 pricks did it" to "we may never know their true identities.
Was the BBC credible on that article? yes.
Now, ON 9/11, when their reporter reported WTC7 falling about an hour before it did - as it stood in the background - they were certainly not credible. She said it had collapsed. It was standing right behind her. She was reading a script with some off timing that day.
Were they credible in that piece? Certainly not.
Was alex jones credible on declaring the financial crisis was coming? yes.
Was AJ credible in everyone getting mobbed up to camps 5 years ago? No.
Do, for YOU to declare any group 0% credible is silly, bro. that's the point I'm making. You shit on AJ because he gets some wrong.
-
No.
I think it depends on their motivation - at that time.
Right after 911, the BBC came out with a report that several of the 911 terrorists were alive and well, and reported their info stolen. Suddenly the FBI changed their position from "We know these 19 pricks did it" to "we may never know their true identities.
Was the BBC credible on that article? yes.
How do you know the BBC article was credible? Because the FBI identified some of them?
That's how you conclude it's credible?
Now, ON 9/11, when their reporter reported WTC7 falling about an hour before it did - as it stood in the background - they were certainly not credible. She said it had collapsed. It was standing right behind her. She was reading a script with some off timing that day.
Were they credible in that piece? Certainly not.
How do you know that just wasn't an error?
People are perfect? the news is always accurate?
Why would the government need to report the WTC had collapse if they were planning to?
If the building falls there will be no doubt it did.
Was alex jones credible on declaring the financial crisis was coming? yes.
Was AJ credible in everyone getting mobbed up to camps 5 years ago? No.
He's one man basing his prediction on information he deems credible. His credibly to us is based on how many times he correct versus incorrect. Each person has a different idea of what that ration should be.
Do, for YOU to declare any group 0% credible is silly, bro. that's the point I'm making. You shit on AJ because he gets some wrong.
So this is really about PP isn't it?
I didn't say a broken clock isn't right at anytime.
Feel free to try again. :D
-
How many stories is Alex jones wrong about something versus how many time is CNBC wrong?
BTW I don't listen to or watch either.
-
How many stories is Alex jones wrong about something versus how many time is CNBC wrong?
BTW I don't listen to or watch either.
again, can you quantify this? What % each of them is right/wrong?
Also, if you read PP, you'd see the majority of stories are interviews or calling out people making statement. AJ himself rants on the show, that's another thing. but PP itself is pretty strong on accuracy. A lot of the time, they have video of the event they're discussing.
Then again, you admit you don't watch either PP or CNBC. So how in the world can you tell us if they're accurate or not?
-
again, can you quantify this? What % each of them is right/wrong?
Also, if you read PP, you'd see the majority of stories are interviews or calling out people making statement. AJ himself rants on the show, that's another thing. but PP itself is pretty strong on accuracy. A lot of the time, they have video of the event they're discussing.
Then again, you admit you don't watch either PP or CNBC. So how in the world can you tell us if they're accurate or not?
I've read PP before. I did a lot when you and i first started debating 9/11. And I've watched news and specials CNBC. But i don't currently watch either.
So the answer goes back to what i originally said, and what you deny, but are really saying the same thing too:
It's depends on the story. The source and motivation, be it for business or what have you play a part in why the story is being reported. (go back to the questions about the earthquake that you ran from answering) You and are pretty much saying the same thing.
Is the hologram story on PP?
Your reasoning for the BBC story is more than flawed as well as the WTC7 story if you think the reporter reporting it before it happened is part of a conspiracy. Because of this I believe your opinion far from objective when i comes to scrutinizing news stories.
-
240, you're a mental midget with epic skills in derailing threads.
Oh and by the way, your logic in regards to credible sources is way off.
How do you determine the BBC is more credible than the FBI? The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities so I'm really looking forward to how you determine they're more credible.
-
The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities
oh good god then, well by all means, off with their heads!
-
oh good god then, well by all means, off with their heads!
It's a rebuttal to 240's statement of the BBC being a credible source whilst using his own "logic".
-
How do you determine the BBC is more credible than the FBI?
Because of the BBc article, robert mueller at fbi admitted we may never know their true identities.
-
NASA left behind a car dealership of Rovers on the Moon. One picture from our sophisticated satellites ends this conversation.
-
Because of the BBc article, robert mueller at fbi admitted we may never know their true identities.
Whatever...
You also questioned why the space buggy and flag weren't visible from Earth... do you now concede this point considering I gave you scientific evidenced based on physical laws detailing exactly why they are not visible?
-
Whatever...
the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.
But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story. They got that one right.
-
the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.
But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story. They got that one right.
Wait, did you just ignore my question of your earlier premise to dismiss men on the moon because "we can't see the flag" out of embarrassment?
-
Wait, did you just ignore my question of your earlier premise to dismiss men on the moon because "we can't see the flag" out of embarrassment?
no, it's because i wasted too much time yesterday arguing with strangers trying to own each other regarding something that happened before I was born.
what's the point? the govt lies about a bunch of shit, and tells the truth about other shit. we're arguing about which things they lied about. what's the point? i'm watching espn and eating breakfast. enjoy your win, just not worth the effort, ya know?
-
the BBC is a piece o shite, don't get me wrong.
But on this story, the FBI did change their position from "Yes, we are 100% sure these were the guys" to "We're not sure..." based upon the BBC story. They got that one right.
So you are looking at statements made to the public during an on going investigation and that what determines for you the credibility of the BBC story?
You are truly an internet investigator lol.
woooooooooooooooooooooww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww w ::)
-
The BBC at the highest level are known appeasers to muslim / gay and other minority sensibilities so I'm really looking forward to how you determine they're more credible.
Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.
-
Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.
My main reason for thinking that a hoax is not realistic is allthe people who would have cashed in by now with books, movies, etc..
-
no, it's because i wasted too much time yesterday arguing with strangers trying to own each other regarding something that happened before I was born.
what's the point? the govt lies about a bunch of shit, and tells the truth about other shit. we're arguing about which things they lied about. what's the point? i'm watching espn and eating breakfast. enjoy your win, just not worth the effort, ya know?
Wait, this is an online forum, how many man hours did YOU waste trying to convince strangers the planes that hit the twin towers were possibly holograms? I imagine considerably more time than it took me to refute nonsense with the laws of physics.
Oh you're watching ESPN whilst eating breakfast... what are you trying to say? That you don't take this seriously and being wrong means little to you? That'll explain the 23+ posts per day you make! :D
Yes you Brits seem to be intent on becoming a Muslim state within the next 2 decades.
I'm starting to think the opposite. My prediction: do gooder far lefties will go so far that some smart albeit insane nut case who shares common opinions with the native masses (although extreme) will gain power. You might recall something similar happening in Nazi Germany.
-
Wait, this is an online forum, how many man hours did YOU waste trying to convince strangers the planes that hit the twin towers were possibly holograms?
the hologram conversation was about 2 hours out of the last 4 years.
really, ya dont need to make stuff up to be popular.
-
the hologram conversation was about 2 hours out of the last 4 years.
really, ya dont need to make stuff up to be popular.
Please tell me the lies? I didn't say how much time you devoted to convincing people it was an elaborate hologram.
I'm not the one making stuff up to be popular, you however are perpetrating lies and not taking on board FACTS based on tangible evidence...
-
Where are you getting these figures from? Your ass? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. All electromagnetic radiation (including light and radio) travels at the speed of light.
I'm watching Mythbusters right now as they systematically destroy the myths that the moon landing was a hoax, one by one.
i'm not saying we didn't go to the moon...we went wayyy before we said we did
i'm saying it just was buzz aldrin and neil armstrong....
-
i'm not saying we didn't go to the moon...we went wayyy before we said we did
i'm saying it just was buzz aldrin and neil armstrong....
Maybe, maybe not... although I still think if it were a vast coverup, SOMEBODY would have blown it wide open by now...
But I'll tell you what baffles me, is that our space travel technology seems to have taken a giant leap backward since the 1970's... imagine us sending astronauts to the moon now... it seems we just don't have the technology and it would be 10-15 years down the road. Why is that?? Admittedly the "space race" isn't nearly the priority it once was and the money it would cost could be put to far better use right here on terra firma... but still ya have to wonder why sending a man to the moon today seems like a nigh insurmountable obstacle. Kinda funny.
-
Maybe, maybe not... although I still think if it were a vast coverup, SOMEBODY would have blown it wide open by now...
But I'll tell you what baffles me, is that our space travel technology seems to have taken a giant leap backward since the 1970's... imagine us sending astronauts to the moon now... it seems we just don't have the technology and it would be 10-15 years down the road. Why is that?? Admittedly the "space race" isn't nearly the priority it once was and the money it would cost could be put to far better use right here on terra firma... but still ya have to wonder why sending a man to the moon today seems like a nigh insurmountable obstacle. Kinda funny.
Todays' technology is superior, the costs relative to the rewards is exponentially higher - that's why.
-
Did anyone watch the ENTIRE movie ...THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON ??? I will have to post it so it can be viewed.... it answers all questions...
DOWNLOAD it here... http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1888794/
-
Did anyone watch the ENTIRE movie ...THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON ??? I will have to post it so it can be viewed.... it answers all questions...
DOWNLOAD it here... http://www.demonoid.com/files/details/1888794/
Nope. It's been devastatingly refuted much like most of your assertions in this thread.
Your complete lack of intelligence and inability to take on board TRUTH amazes!
-
Nope. It's been devastatingly refuted much like most of your assertions in this thread.
Your complete lack of intelligence and inability to take on board TRUTH amazes!
Just watch the movie and shut up...
-
Just watch the movie and shut up...
Just refute the evidence provide and shut up...
-
It's amazing in this day and age where we are supposed to all be so enlightened, that people still believe these ridiculous conspiracy theories.....it is impossible for the U.S. to fake something like the moon landing.....there would have to be a ton of people involved and someone would have talked......plus no politician including the president would ever try to tell such a BIG lie......they would be ruined and their name would live in infamy for all of history...