Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on July 06, 2009, 03:36:30 PM
-
HAHAAHAHAAHAH...Truth is they CAN'T GET TO THE MOON (can you say VAN ALLEN BELTS) so the public is told it is because of bugetary constraints...yeah right!!!...Hmmmm.. seems like the great america does not want to do another FAKE MOON LANDING!!!
US manned space flight in doubt 40 years after moon walk
Jul 5 07:08 PM US/Eastern
US ambitions to send astronauts back to the moon as a prelude to missions t...
US ambitions to send astronauts back to the moon as a prelude to missions to Mars have been put in doubt by budgetary constraints 40 years after man's triumphant landing on Earth's nearest neighbor.
After the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, former president George W. Bush decided to phase out the shuttle flights by 2003 and set a more ambitious mandate for America in space.
Launched in 2004, the so-called Constellation program aims to take Americans back to the moon by 2020 to use as a launch pad for manned voyages to Mars.
Without renouncing those objectives, President Barack Obama has named a commission of experts to review the US manned space flight program and make recommendations by the end of August.
The space shuttles, which have carried crews of astronauts into space since 1981, were conceived as reusable vehicles to transport heavy, bulky equipment into Earth's orbit, primarily for the construction of the International Space Station.
But the shuttle has kept the United States stuck in a low orbit for too long at a time when other countries like China are emerging as rivals in space, argues Michael Griffin, the former NASA chief who championed the Constellation program.
"I think we must return to the moon because it's the next step. It's a few days from home," he said. "Mars is only a few months from Earth."
In unveiling the Constellation program in 2004 to the Congress, Griffin said: "The single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond."
"In the long run, human populations must diversify if it wishes to survive," he said in an interview with AFP last year.
But NASA's budget is not big enough to cover the cost of Constellation's Orion capsule, a more advanced and spacious version of the Apollo lunar module, and the Ares 1 and Ares V launchers needed to put it in orbit.
Constellation is projected to cost about 150 billion dollars, but estimates for the Ares 1 have skyrocketed from 26 billion dollars in 2006 to 44 billion dollars last year.
With a space exploration budget of six billion dollars in 2009, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said: "NASA simply can't do the job it's been given -- the president's goal of being on the moon by 2020."
Nelson, a former astronaut, deplored that between 2020 and 2015 the United States will have no way of transporting its astronauts to the ISS except aboard Russian Soyuz space craft.
Meanwhile, a group of active and retired NASA engineers, who are critical of the Constellation project, have been working in their spare time on a parallel project dubbed Jupiter Direct.
It envisions using the Orion capsule but replacing the Ares launchers with a family of launchers with common components based on existing shuttle technology.
Proposals presented to Obama's commission on human space flight estimate Jupiter's cost at 14 billion dollars, half the original estimate for the Ares 1.
The commission chairman, respected former Lockheed Martin chief executive Norman Augustine, said it comes down to money.
"With a few exceptions, we have the technology or the knowledge that we could go to Mars if we wanted with humans. We could put a telescope on the moon if we wanted," he said.
"The technology is by and large there. It boils down to what can we afford?"
-
::) ::)
Nowhere in this article does it say anything about the Moon landing being staged, fake or a hoax.
-
::) ::)
Nowhere in this article does it say anything about the Moon landing being staged, fake or a hoax.
REALLY????...Did you look through and read the whole post??? Maybe you should read it again...You missed an important comment.
-
REALLY????...Did you look through and read the whole post??? Maybe you should read it again...You missed an important comment.
OK gimmick, what comment would that be? You explained your position before the article. It was childish and ignorant but that's the only thing I see that says anything about a "fake moon landing". It says nothing about a fake moon landing in the article.
-
OK gimmick, what comment would that be? You explained your position before the article. It was childish and ignorant but that's the only thing I see that says anything about a "fake moon landing". It says nothing about a fake moon landing in the article.
Chuckle Chuckle...It is obvious you are operating on limited intelliegnce. The article is about america NOT being able to go to the moon. MY comment was becasue of the VAN ALLEN BELTS (which they CAN NOT FLY THROUGH), so the only way they can get to the moon is by way of another FAKE MOON LANDING, which they do not want to do. Do you get it now????
-
HAHAAHAHAAHAH...Truth is they CAN'T GET TO THE MOON (can you say VAN ALLEN BELTS)
good point poorly presented...
our space suits back in the lunar landing days DID NOT HAVE RADIATION PROTECTION built in...which woulda made it difficult to pass thru the van allen radiation belt..but piss poor chice of words to make your point
(http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/31/6031-004-89E5D4FB.gif)
-
Chuckle Chuckle...It is obvious you are operating on limited intelliegnce. The article is about america NOT being able to go to the moon. MY comment was becasue of the VAN ALLEN BELTS (which they CAN NOT FLY THROUGH), so the only way they can get to the moon is by way of another FAKE MOON LANDING, which they do not want to do. Do you get it now????
You must have trouble communicating with actual people. You typed (VAN ALLEN BELT) and then posted your article which had nothing to do with whatever you were insinuating.
You typed (VAN ALLEN BELT) and then began to type gibberish and sound like a retarded 3 year old with a computer. Maybe you should learn how to actually communicate with other on here without sounding like a fucking angry retard.
Just a tip.
-
You must have trouble communicating with actual people. You typed (VAN ALLEN BELT) and then posted your article which had nothing to do with whatever you were insinuating.
You typed (VAN ALLEN BELT) and then began to type gibberish and sound like a retarded 3 year old with a computer. Maybe you should learn how to actually communicate with other on here without sounding like a fucking angry retard.
Just a tip.
YAWN
I can hear the embarassment in your post...you feel pretty stupid at this point don't you for not reeading the post correctly. Anyway here put these on
-
YAWN
I can hear the embarassment in your post...you feel pretty stupid at this point don't you for not reeading the post correctly. Anyway here put these on
Such a good gimmick, you've gone to full trolling. As ToxicAvenger said you wording is retarded and juvenile. Learn how to properly read on article and please learn how to properly convey your "ideas".
You're still a shitty gimmick that no-one takes seriously.
-
Such a good gimmick, you've gone to full trolling. As ToxicAvenger said you wording is retarded and juvenile. Learn how to properly read on article and please learn how to properly convey your "ideas".
You're still a shitty gimmick that no-one takes seriously.
QFT
-
reeading....not sure about that word. SAMSON is a retard. His posts are like a car crash...we can't stop looking, if for no other reason then to watch him burn.
-
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html
-
http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-scientific-evidence.html
You present proof from "Conspiracy-Theories-Hoax.com"?
Really?......Really? I read it and wasn't too impressed.
-
You present proof from "Conspiracy-Theories-Hoax.com"?
Really?......Really? I read it and wasn't too impressed.
its actually debunking the radiation bit... :-\ i could provide better proof but noone here is actually gonna takr the time to watch the video
-
plus i'm in the middle of teaching a class :D
-
plus i'm in the middle of teaching a class :D
Ha Ha!
Been there and most. definitely done that.
-
I'll admit this haS piqued my interests i'll try finding something worthwhile to post :)
-
maybe later too busy atm ;D
-
Just dedicate all your time and the lest of your life to it.
Picket NASA 24/7
Go on a moon hoax hunger strike.
-
I'll admit this haS piqued my interests i'll try finding something worthwhile to post :)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1485155465058882626&ei=qqdSSqSqEZXxlQfCjYjHBQ&q=secret+space
watch this vid
-
maybe later too busy atm ;D
it's rare when you find a girl who will do A2M. You keep that chick, when you do!
-
For the FOOLS who still wanna believe the US went to the moon
-
For the FOOLS who still wanna believe the US went to the moon
what the hell does that prove ::) nothing...
-
what the hell does that prove ::) nothing...
To the UNWISE it proves nothing to the WISE it confirms that the whole moon landing was a HOAX. A staged photo shoot in a lot designed to look like the moon. Even noticed how the "moonscape" has no depth to it? It runs back about 100 to 200 feet and then turns to absolute blackness. The moon has a diameter of over 2000 miles and a circumference of almost 7000 miles, how is it despite it being a place geographically flat and without mountain ranges can you see only a small area beyond the space ship??? If you were standing in the Sahara desert or the deserts of americas southwest, you could see for MILES since it is so flat. And why no stars? How come no one took a picture of earth from the moon? Since the dark area is so near to where they were how come no one walked over to this area and took photos of the night sky which would have been a blanket of stars....not to mention a perfect opportunity to photograph the other planets in what would have been a perfectly CLEAR atmosphere?
I'll await your answers...
-
I seriously hope whoever in this topic thinks the moon landing was faked is joking or just trying to get a rise out of everyone, otherwise I'm afraid you're just embarrassingly stupid. Congratulations either way.
-
That's the thing. Some people are so stupid they lack the comprehension to see how stupid they are.
-
I seriously hope whoever in this topic thinks the moon landing was faked is joking or just trying to get a rise out of everyone, otherwise I'm afraid you're just embarrassingly stupid. Congratulations either way.
Just answer my questions...
-
To the UNWISE it proves nothing to the WISE it confirms that the whole moon landing was a HOAX. A staged photo shoot in a lot designed to look like the moon. Even noticed how the "moonscape" has no depth to it? It runs back about 100 to 200 feet and then turns to absolute blackness. The moon has a diameter of over 2000 miles and a circumference of almost 7000 miles, how is it despite it being a place geographically flat and without mountain ranges can you see only a small area beyond the space ship??? If you were standing in the Sahara desert or the deserts of americas southwest, you could see for MILES since it is so flat. And why no stars? How come no one took a picture of earth from the moon? Since the dark area is so near to where they were how come no one walked over to this area and took photos of the night sky which would have been a blanket of stars....not to mention a perfect opportunity to photograph the other planets in what would have been a perfectly CLEAR atmosphere?
I'll await your answers...
maybe you missed the part that CBS commissioned the footage. News programs do that all the time. Can you show the footage used from CBS was actually passed off as the real footage or was it just supplementary footage to show in more detail what the astronauts would be doing? They probably showed that before we landed on the moon. I suspect that's all it is... Even the guy in the photo believes we landed on the moon.
I'll await YOUR answers...
-
Just answer my questions...
There's nothing to answer. Every possible bit of "evidence" that it was faked has been debunked 100x over. The moon landing was real. All of them were. Case closed. Get over it. Move on to the next crack pot conspiracy theory. The only reason why we haven't gone back is for the simplest and most blatantly obvious of reasons, money. NASA hardly has a budget to do anything these days, and it's certainly no longer of cold war importance or any other importance to get our asses personally to the moon rather than by proxy.
-
bump?
-
maybe you missed the part that CBS commissioned the footage. News programs do that all the time. Can you show the footage used from CBS was actually passed off as the real footage or was it just supplementary footage to show in more detail what the astronauts would be doing? They probably showed that before we landed on the moon. I suspect that's all it is... Even the guy in the photo believes we landed on the moon.
I'll await YOUR answers...
I love how the guy in the video laughs when he says america went to the moon..hint hint he is letting you know it was all a LIE. Did you ever watch THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON???
-
There's nothing to answer. Every possible bit of "evidence" that it was faked has been debunked 100x over. The moon landing was real. All of them were. Case closed. Get over it. Move on to the next crack pot conspiracy theory. The only reason why we haven't gone back is for the simplest and most blatantly obvious of reasons, money. NASA hardly has a budget to do anything these days, and it's certainly no longer of cold war importance or any other importance to get our asses personally to the moon rather than by proxy.
Nowhere has there been evidence that the moon landing was REAL on the contrary NASA has refused to this day to allow investigators to inspect the SPACE SUITS neither will they answer how these suits could survive the radiation or protect the astronauts from the INTENSE radiation of the Van Allen Belts, solar radiation and the radiation of the moon. NASA refuses to answer how the suits could protect the astronauts from the intense heat and cold of the moon. In case you do not know the dark side of the moon is nearly 300 degrees below ZERO and the light side is nearly 300 degrees above ZERO. You mean that cotton and plastic suit protected them from that? And how exactly did they utilize the bathroom in those suits? Hmmmmmm..
There are plenty of UNANSWERED questions..
-
who cares. Like many things in history, it was a political necessity and there are some fishy things about it. And, it really doesn't effect us all that much.
Kinda like 9/11 to the young people of today. Many of them were in 2nd or 3rd grade when it happened. Another few years, it'll be like Pearl harbor to them. Just something in history with a lot of Qs attached to it.
Doesn't affect us all that much, although it can be fun to debate. history is written by the winners. Do ya think we'd know the Reishtag Fire was an inside job if Hitler had won WW2? ;)
-
I love how the guy in the video laughs when he says america went to the moon..hint hint he is letting you know it was all a LIE. Did you ever watch THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON???
Dude, the guy thinks we went to the moon, do some research on him. ::) And now answer my question instead of evading. Can you or can you not show that CBS used the footage commissioned as real or supplemental info? Put up or shut the fuck up...
-
Nowhere has there been evidence that the moon landing was REAL on the contrary NASA has refused to this day to allow investigators to inspect the SPACE SUITS neither will they answer how these suits could survive the radiation or protect the astronauts from the INTENSE radiation of the Van Allen Belts, solar radiation and the radiation of the moon. NASA refuses to answer how the suits could protect the astronauts from the intense heat and cold of the moon. In case you do not know the dark side of the moon is nearly 300 degrees below ZERO and the light side is nearly 300 degrees above ZERO. You mean that cotton and plastic suit protected them from that? And how exactly did they utilize the bathroom in those suits? Hmmmmmm..
There are plenty of UNANSWERED questions..
Provide proof. Post an article, a scholarly journal, an actual interview where we can hear a NASA technician say these things.
Post it.
-
Provide proof. Post an article, a scholarly journal, an actual interview where we can hear a NASA technician say these things.
Post it.
NASA is NOT going to say they didn't go to the moon...they are complicit in the FRAUD of landing on the moon. NASA was paid BILLIONS for this HOAX. BILLIONS in the 60s was a tremendous amount of money then. Documentaries such as DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON, CAPRICORN ONE, WAS IT ONLY A PAPER MOON, ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD and MOON LANDING HOAX all expose the FRAUD of the moon landing and why america did it. There is a film maker named Bart Sibrel who has made a number of documentaries proving the HOAX of moon landing (I would suggest you watch them...try your local library)
-
Blah Blah Blah, ::)
Provide proof.
-
Blah Blah Blah, ::)
Provide proof.
The proof is right there in the post...now if you are unwilling to watch the documentaries or read the reports of investigators, then truth of the matter is you don't want the truth and you don't want to know..
-
NASA is NOT going to say they didn't go to the moon...they are complicit in the FRAUD of landing on the moon. NASA was paid BILLIONS for this HOAX. BILLIONS in the 60s was a tremendous amount of money then. Documentaries such as DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON, CAPRICORN ONE, WAS IT ONLY A PAPER MOON, ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD and MOON LANDING HOAX all expose the FRAUD of the moon landing and why america did it. There is a film maker named Bart Sibrel who has made a number of documentaries proving the HOAX of moon landing (I would suggest you watch them...try your local library)
::) ::) Gimmicks gone horribly wrong!
This here is a perfect example of why no one takes you seriously and everyone mocks you at every turn. No proof, no discussion, no anything....just you smashing your keyboard w/ capslock on and spouting a bunch of shit off. You give no proof, no articles, no interviews no nothing to back up what you are saying. You fail to give even a shred of evidence. Instead you copy/paste a bunch of debunked and hack "mockumentaries" in your post, like Dark Side of The moon, which was already brought up on here and it is a thoroughly discredited movie.
Discredited just like you.
-
the moon hoax is disinfo.
-
the moon hoax is disinfo.
::) ::) Gimmicks gone horribly wrong!
This here is a perfect example of why no one takes you seriously and everyone mocks you at every turn. No proof, no discussion, no anything....just you smashing your keyboard w/ capslock on and spouting a bunch of shit off. You give no proof, no articles, no interviews no nothing to back up what you are saying. You fail to give even a shred of evidence. Instead you copy/paste a bunch of debunked and hack "mockumentaries" in your post, like Dark Side of The moon, which was already brought up on here and it is a thoroughly discredited movie.
Discredited just like you.
Everything is DISINFO and UNBELIEVABLE to you guys... WHAT DO YOU WANT...BLOOD?!?!?!?!
-
As long as it's yours and there a 6 quarts of it
-
Everything is DISINFO and UNBELIEVABLE to you guys... WHAT DO YOU WANT...BLOOD?!?!?!?!
No, not blood, all we want is some proof, evidence, interviews, scholarly articles etc, to back up your assertions.
Can you provide them? You haven't even tried up to this point in any of your threads and posts.
-
What a coincidence an interviewer wished to talk with Buzz Aldren about the Apollo mission which he emphatically refuses to talk about...Why all the HUSH? Could it be becasue it NEVER HAPPENED AND HE IS TIRED OF LYING ABOUT IT. BTW..In the movie DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, both Buzz's sister and wife talk about his depression and alcoholism right after eh hem coming back from the moon. Here he is now admitting he went through such. Now if DARK SIDE OF THE MOON was not true then why is this fact which is discussed at length in the movie surfacing now as TRUTH. Hmmmm...
Buzz Aldrin: the dark times that followed that historic flight
As we prepare to mark the fortieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission, Buzz Aldrin talks to Marc Lee about the depression and alcoholism he faced after his moon landing.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01439/buzz2_1439637c.jpg)
By Marc Lee
Published: 5:00PM BST 08 Jul 2009
A few minutes into our conversation, Buzz Aldrin makes it clear that we won't be spending much time reliving the day that began a new chapter in the history of the human race and made him one of the most famous people on – and off – the planet. It's not that the Second Man on the Moon doesn't want to talk about his space odyssey; it's just that he thinks he should be suitably rewarded for doing so.
Sharing his extraterrestrial experiences is, he concedes, "an appropriate and necessary thing: it's what people want. But I can't just keep doing that for ever in my life [he's 79] unless I'm appropriately compensated."
So, is he reluctant to talk about Apollo 11? "No, I wouldn't say I'm reluctant, but my [interest] is not in the past…" And he proceeds to roll out a diversionary anecdote about how, when he was young, his father would reminisce endlessly about the early days of aviation and how "regrettable" that was. He is and always has been, he says, "future-oriented".
Surprisingly, Aldrin's reservations about describing what it's like to kick up moon dust for an hour and a half, as he did on July 20, 1969, are in marked contrast to his willingness to discuss – free of charge – the dark side of his life: his struggles with depression and alcoholism, his two failed marriages, his difficult relationship with his father, and the tragedy of his mother (born Marion Moon), who killed herself shortly before the lunar mission because she did not think she could handle her son's imminent fame.
And, while refusing to elaborate on his celebrated description of the Moon's "magnificent desolation" – the title of his new autobiography – he is happy to talk about the man who accompanied him on his incredible journey. Not that happy is quite the word to describe his relationship with Neil Armstrong – now or 40 years ago.
Is he still in touch with Armstrong or Michael Collins, the third crew member, who stayed in lunar orbit? "Well," he says, not quite answering the question, "they have personalities that are different, each one, and they're different than mine. We worked together as a very close team, not jocular but very seriously determined to carry out [the task] we were given."
So it was a professional relationship? "Absolutely professional, yes."
And it didn't continue after Apollo 11? "Not that much. Hardly at all."
He sees Armstrong very rarely: the last time was at Nasa's 50th anniversary celebrations in 2008. "I was expected to be there," he says, adding in passing an observation that throws a revealing light on their relationship: "No one mentioned that I was there."
Did they chat? "Not really." There was no conversation? "Not particularly."
Having shared with Armstrong such a wondrous, perilous, unprecedented adventure – one that redrew the boundaries of human experience – does it sadden Aldrin that there is no longer a bond between them, if indeed there ever was one?
"I'd rather it be otherwise, yeah. It just doesn't seem proper any more for me to ask him to come to things I'm involved in. And he doesn't ask me. He doesn't let me know what he's doing."
It is widely assumed that Aldrin resents the fact that it was Armstrong – the mission commander – who became the first person to set foot on another world. Wrong, says Aldrin, before explaining in detail why it was never going to be him.
In previous flights it had always been the junior officer who left the spacecraft first for EVA (extra-vehicular activity). But what people don't understand, he says, is that this precedent did not apply on the Moon because both of them were going to explore the surface, whereas previously only one astronaut was ever outside the craft at a time.
And, anyway, he says, it was never his ambition to be first. "I really didn't want that because of the added heartache [it would bring]. Even more questions about this and that…" Indeed he didn't even want to be on the first lunar landing. Later missions, he says, allowed more time for important scientific work.
"Clearly, there is a fetish among human beings about [being] first," he says, adding testily: "I really hate to be put in the position of trying to justify something, a decision that was made. I'm a military guy: when a decision is made, I go along with it, whatever the manufactured controversy and criticism."
After Apollo 11, the 39-year-old Aldrin found it difficult to readjust to life on Earth. His marriage of 21 years soon broke up, he remarried in haste and was divorced for a second time within two years. His military career ended after an unhappy stint as commandant of the USAF test-pilot school. (He had been a fighter pilot, with 66 combat missions over Korea in the early Fifties, but never a test pilot.) He began to suffer acutely from depression, and finally confronted the fact that he was an alcoholic.
It is a measure of how much his life changed, and how quickly, that within eight years of the tickertape parades and being feted around the world as a hero of our times, he ended up working at the Cadillac dealership in Beverly Hills. Not that he sold a single car in the six months or so he spent there.
Then came an ignominious encounter with the police after he drunkenly broke down the door of his girlfriend's apartment. Was this, I ask, when he hit rock bottom? Aldrin doesn't hold back: "When you've seen your family break up, then you get into an erroneous relationship, and you get married again, and that turns sour, then you're looking for some companionship, and that gets kinda complex, and somebody takes advantage in a way that really irritates you as a stalker and an obsessive… you really get kinda frustrated. And, if you're still drinking, you make some pretty dumb decisions."
Fortunately, within a couple of years, Aldrin regained control of his life. He stopped drinking in 1978 and has been sober ever since. He and his third wife, Lois, celebrated their 21st wedding anniversary on Valentine's day this year.
Nevertheless, he is still troubled by the demands of worldwide celebrity and the many ways in which he feels he has been exploited since Apollo. He has had a long-running dispute with the Omega over the use of pictures of him wearing one of their watches on the Moon, for which he has never been paid. "How could they do that?" he asks, infuriated.
More recently, he was exasperated when Disney appropriated his name for the character Buzz Lightyear in the hit movie Toy Story. He could sue, but knows it would reflect badly on him: "You don't want to tangle with Disney, the friend of children. You don't want to challenge their lawyers – for sure, you're going to lose."
So, knowing what he knows now about all the anguish that was to follow, would he still have chosen to go to the Moon? "Absolutely, yeah. I have gained so much by facing adversity. I had a shrink who said, 'Buzz, you are so lucky that you had to change, to grow. You are a better person now.'
"I believe that. I have a lot of frailties, a lot of shortcomings, but I am a much more productive person now than I ever was at the peak of my astronaut career."
-
Samson, Dark side of the moon is a mockumentary. It's an april fools joke.
The tone of the "documentary" begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger seems to lend credence to the story.
It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).
Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week.
Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman and Jack Torrance, are named after characters from movies directed by Stanley Kubrick. There are also references to other characters; Eve Kendall and George Kaplan, each featured in the documentary, are characters in Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Not to forget Ambrose Chapel, also a Hitchcock 'character', better to say 'location'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
I guess you didn't see the ending.
-
Everything is DISINFO and UNBELIEVABLE to you guys... WHAT DO YOU WANT...BLOOD?!?!?!?!
lol you're too much.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/311526846_24b03feedf_o.jpg)
one question. who does it benefit to say the moon landing was a hoax etc etc??
-
What a coincidence an interviewer wished to talk with Buzz Aldren about the Apollo mission which he emphatically refuses to talk about...Why all the HUSH? Could it be becasue it NEVER HAPPENED AND HE IS TIRED OF LYING ABOUT IT. BTW..In the movie DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, both Buzz's sister and wife talk about his depression and alcoholism right after eh hem coming back from the moon. Here he is now admitting he went through such. Now if DARK SIDE OF THE MOON was not true then why is this fact which is discussed at length in the movie surfacing now as TRUTH. Hmmmm...
As was stated countless times, Dark Side of the Moon was a mockumentary....almost a comedy.
Even after you have been discredited for citing a bogus movie, many of the Marines that raised the 2nd flag over Iwo Jima became alcoholics, suffered from depression and I believe (could be wrong) that a some even committed suicide. Does this mean it didn't happen?
-
The proof is right there in the post...now if you are unwilling to watch the documentaries or read the reports of investigators, then truth of the matter is you don't want the truth and you don't want to know..
Your flawed logic is proof? ::)
Asking questions is not proof.
the TRUTH of the matter is you cannot back up your assertions. You are all fluff and no substance.
-
Samson, Dark side of the moon is a mockumentary. It's an april fools joke.
The tone of the "documentary" begins with low key revelations of NASA working closely with Hollywood at the time of the Moon landings. Over the course of the tale, Karel postulates that not only did Kubrick help the USA fake the moon landings but that he was eventually killed by the CIA to cover up the truth. First hand testimony backing these claims come from Rumsfeld and Dr. Kissinger seems to lend credence to the story.
It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).
Australian broadcaster SBS television aired the film on April 1 as an April fools' joke, and again on 17 November 2008 as part of Kubrick week.
Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman and Jack Torrance, are named after characters from movies directed by Stanley Kubrick. There are also references to other characters; Eve Kendall and George Kaplan, each featured in the documentary, are characters in Hitchcock's North by Northwest. Not to forget Ambrose Chapel, also a Hitchcock 'character', better to say 'location'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(documentary)
I guess you didn't see the ending.
And Elvis is really still alive... Go watch the movie adn tell me at what point(s) does a person feel inclined to laugh. Soon they will be saying *911 didn't really happen it was all a dream everyone had at the same time....
lol you're too much.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/311526846_24b03feedf_o.jpg)
one question. who does it benefit to say the moon landing was a hoax etc etc??
Better to be TOO MUCH than too little..hehe
Who benefits by saying they did land on the moon?
As was stated countless times, Dark Side of the Moon was a mockumentary....almost a comedy.
Even after you have been discredited for citing a bogus movie, many of the Marines that raised the 2nd flag over Iwo Jima became alcoholics, suffered from depression and I believe (could be wrong) that a some even committed suicide. Does this mean it didn't happen?
Which oneof you lilly livered sap suckers discredited me??? NONE OF YOU!!!
Not one of you have proven anything landed or even went to the moon...Prove your cases and don't say "BECAUSE NASA SAID THEY WENT TO THE MOON" as your proof. Give me solid evidence, facts...EVEN BLOOD if you have it. Cuz I don't believe it and no one has shown me otherwise.
Your flawed logic is proof? ::)
Asking questions is not proof.
the TRUTH of the matter is you cannot back up your assertions. You are all fluff and no substance.
"ALL FLUFF AND NO SUBSTANCE"...what am I a cream puff?
I have received no substance from any of you...just your opinions. Look at the picture in the article and tell me that is NOT FAKE. Notice how the background has no depth? Just a few feet from the space ship and everythign turns black. Is the moon only a couple of yards wide? How come there is only sunlight in the area where they are? This whole thing is just FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!
Gimmie some proof any of thi is REAL...
-
And Elvis is really still alive... Go watch the movie adn tell me at what point(s) does a person feel inclined to laugh. Soon they will be saying *911 didn't really happen it was all a dream everyone had at the same time....
See, proof that samson is a disinfo agent. Nobody is actually this stupid. When I first saw the documentary the end was cut off so I had no way of knowing the interviews were not totally legit. It gave me some doubts. When I finally saw the ending it was clear that the documentary was a joke from the start. Again, nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe the documentary is legit when they see that interviews were taken out of context and the people who were interviewed having a laugh over it. So Samson is what I think he is. He posts absurd info in an absurd fashion and goes out of his way to be as annoying as possible so that people in general feel compelled to take an opposite stance to whatever he brings up. The result is that a whole lot of material that deserves to be seriously debated is sabotaged by a distracting clown. He may not be doing this in an official capacity, he's probably just some angry fool thinking he's the most clever thing since sliced bread ::) The gig is up Samson. Get the fuck out of here.
-
See, proof that samson is a disinfo agent. Nobody is actually this stupid. When I first saw the documentary the end was cut off so I had no way of knowing the interviews were not totally legit. It gave me some doubts. When I finally saw the ending it was clear that the documentary was a joke from the start. Again, nobody could possibly be stupid enough to believe the documentary is legit when they see that interviews were taken out of context and the people who were interviewed having a laugh over it. So Samson is what I think he is. He posts absurd info in an absurd fashion and goes out of his way to be as annoying as possible so that people in general feel compelled to take an opposite stance to whatever he brings up. The result is that a whole lot of material that deserves to be seriously debated is sabotaged by a distracting clown. He may not be doing this in an official capacity, he's probably just some angry fool thinking he's the most clever thing since sliced bread ::) The gig is up Samson. Get the fuck out of here.
You mean ALL of the documentaries are HOAXES and all the film producers had nothing to do except provide disinfo to make people believe the moon mission never happened?? You mean they all had nothing else to do? So they ALL made the same type of films for no reason? That's odd...gimmie your rationale for all of these film/documentary makers doing the same thing?
-
You mean ALL of the documentaries are HOAXES and all the film producers had nothing to do except provide disinfo to make people believe the moon mission never happened?? You mean they all had nothing else to do? So they ALL made the same type of films for no reason? That's odd...gimmie your rationale for all of these film/documentary makers doing the same thing?
The game is up, you're wasting everyone's time. Dark side of the moon was without a doubt a hoax, a joke, an april fools and you tried to pass it off legit. You're just annoying everyone so when something serious comes up you can sabotoge the debate with a single post of disaproval. Why else would you post in a fashion obviously intended on pissing off as many people as possible? That's hardly smart for a person who's trying to sincerely inform, because that's not what you're doing and we both know it. Game Over Samson...
-
The game is up, you're wasting everyone's time. Dark side of the moon was without a doubt a hoax, a joke, an april fools and you tried to pass it off legit. You're just annoying everyone so when something serious comes up you can sabotoge the debate with a single post of disaproval. Why else would you post in a fashion obviously intended on pissing off as many people as possible? That's hardly smart for a person who's trying to sincerely inform, because that's not what you're doing and we both know it. Game Over Samson...
You keep referencing one documentary and ignoring all others. Again where all the documentary makers in on a gag?
-
The game is up, you're wasting everyone's time. Dark side of the moon was without a doubt a hoax, a joke, an april fools and you tried to pass it off legit. You're just annoying everyone so when something serious comes up you can sabotoge the debate with a single post of disaproval. Why else would you post in a fashion obviously intended on pissing off as many people as possible? That's hardly smart for a person who's trying to sincerely inform, because that's not what you're doing and we both know it. Game Over Samson...
Weren't you banning this twat?
-
And Elvis is really still alive... Go watch the movie adn tell me at what point(s) does a person feel inclined to laugh. Soon they will be saying *911 didn't really happen it was all a dream everyone had at the same time....
Better to be TOO MUCH than too little..hehe
Who benefits by saying they did land on the moon?
Which oneof you lilly livered sap suckers discredited me??? NONE OF YOU!!!
Not one of you have proven anything landed or even went to the moon...Prove your cases and don't say "BECAUSE NASA SAID THEY WENT TO THE MOON" as your proof. Give me solid evidence, facts...EVEN BLOOD if you have it. Cuz I don't believe it and no one has shown me otherwise.
"ALL FLUFF AND NO SUBSTANCE"...what am I a cream puff?
I have received no substance from any of you...just your opinions. Look at the picture in the article and tell me that is NOT FAKE. Notice how the background has no depth? Just a few feet from the space ship and everythign turns black. Is the moon only a couple of yards wide? How come there is only sunlight in the area where they are? This whole thing is just FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!
Gimmie some proof any of thi is REAL...
You are still dodging. There is no need to prove the Moon landings were real. It's your burden to prove they were faked.
So far all you have provided is fluff.
Is that all you got?
It that all you are capable of?
You can't even construct a good argument and back it up with facts?
How pathetic.
-
Who benefits by saying they did land on the moon?
answering a question with a question, fuck this, buddy.
-
He's a gimmick. The little twat was run off the G&O a year ago when he tried to post up there with his anti-white and pro-black/Muslim bullshit and has since set up shop here because he realized that he could troll this board much more successfully.
-
Here's a pretty good site debunking and summarizing the lunacy of MoonBot's who believe the landings were a hoax.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on%20the%20Moon.htm)
-
He's a gimmick. The little twat was run off the G&O a year ago when he tried to post up there with his anti-white and pro-black/Muslim bullshit and has since set up shop here because he realized that he could troll this board much more successfully.
I was NEVER run off of any board and NEVER posted anything racial/race of the sort...You dream and/or LIE Too much Berzerk
-
You are still dodging. There is no need to prove the Moon landings were real. It's your burden to prove they were faked.
So far all you have provided is fluff.
Is that all you got?
It that all you are capable of?
You can't even construct a good argument and back it up with facts?
How pathetic.
When you cannot witness somethign with your own eyes, then it must be proven to have happened...else you will fall for anything...like ummm... america going to the moon.
-
The game is up, you're wasting everyone's time. Dark side of the moon was without a doubt a hoax, a joke, an april fools and you tried to pass it off legit. You're just annoying everyone so when something serious comes up you can sabotoge the debate with a single post of disaproval. Why else would you post in a fashion obviously intended on pissing off as many people as possible? That's hardly smart for a person who's trying to sincerely inform, because that's not what you're doing and we both know it. Game Over Samson...
Calm down HUGO you are so TIGHT right now you are starting to SQUEAK!!!
-
Weren't you banning this twat?
NOT BEFORE BANNING YOU!!!
-
When you cannot witness somethign with your own eyes, then it must be proven to have happened...else you will fall for anything...like ummm... america going to the moon.
Christ Gimmick!
You still haven't provided any proof to lend even a shred of credibility to your assertions. None. Bunk mockumentaries don't count, my friend.
-
Ha Ha!
Been there and most. definitely done that.
i'm sooo sick ya fuckers....watch the vid i posted >:( watch the first 3 mins...THEN speak
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5980990221766439646&ei=6FtVSpa3K43dlQewlp2tDg&q=greatest+story+ever+denied
please :(
-
i'm sooo sick ya fuckers....watch the vid i posted >:( watch the first 3 mins...THEN speak
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5980990221766439646&ei=6FtVSpa3K43dlQewlp2tDg&q=greatest+story+ever+denied
please :(
watched the first 3 minutes. I have a feeling I've watched all of that material at some point. Rods have been completely debunked. What does this have to do with the moon landing being a hoax? I believe we're not alone and I'm pretty sure we've been visited but I think 90 percent or more of the material out there is BS.
-
When you cannot witness somethign with your own eyes, then it must be proven to have happened...else you will fall for anything...like ummm... america going to the moon.
So you would had to be on the mission to the moon to believe it?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA H
By your logic, you could be talking on the net to hundreds of computers controlled by the government instead of real people. ::)
How do you know the earth is round?
How do you know all the places on Earth you haven't seen even exist?
HAHAHAHA
Like I said, your logic is flawed.
What a tard.
-
watched the first 3 minutes. I have a feeling I've watched all of that material at some point. Rods have been completely debunked. What does this have to do with the moon landing being a hoax? I believe we're not alone and I'm pretty sure we've been visited but I think 90 percent or more of the material out there is BS.
What bugs me about that, is that we don't have a clear pic of any. Do you know of any clear pics of UFO's?
-
What bugs me about that, is that we don't have a clear pic of any. Do you know of any clear pics of UFO's?
not that I can think of, but I've heard enough testimony from pretty decent sources that I believe there probably are legit UFOs. I just think most of them are BS. Rods are BS. These days, what would be the point of a credible photograph anyway. Would there be such a thing? Photomanipulation is so advanced, nobody would believe it anyway.
-
not that I can think of, but I've heard enough testimony from pretty decent sources that I believe there probably are legit UFOs. I just think most of them are BS. Rods are BS. These days, what would be the point of a credible photograph anyway. Would there be such a thing? Photomanipulation is so advanced, nobody would believe it anyway.
Yep >:(
-
"SAMSON123" (oh brother), being punched in the face by Buzz changes everything.
-
No I would not have to be on the mission to believe, but I would like more than someone merely saying they went when evidence says they didn't. Have you ever wondered why no space shuttle or international space labratory has ever gone higher than 400 miles into space? Hmmmmm... The Van Allen Belts just happen to start at about 400 miles into space...COINCIDENCE?
No, not coincidence. Science. Prolonged exposure to the radiation in the Van Allen Belts is dangerous. Passing through it isn't.
And "someone" isn't merely saying we went to the moon. That's more of your flawed logic.