Sorry, havent watched the videos, but whats the motive?
Big mouths, little dicks?jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, havent watched the videos, but whats the motive?
Hmm... this "theories" I really don't even want to call them "theories" because they have no true grounding. Can all be disproved easily, there was a documentary on TV that disproved each one of them.
The Flag flaps because there is someone moving it but because there is no air on the moon it flaps irregularly (also there is a stick holding up the top).
The photos w/ different shadow lengths is because the moon isn't flat, its hilly but since its generally the same color it is hard to distinguish the hills (also because the hills are smooth and rolling like the Great Plain somewhat).
Then we have the science experiments, they brought back a lot of moon rocks and moon dust, no way they could've gotten that much rock by collecting them from meteriods and the dust couldn't have fallen onto the earth. Also the gravity experiment, dropping a hammer and a feather both landed at the same time because there was no air to affect the objects.
Also it seems that we all agree that we went to the moon.
The Flag flaps because there is someone moving it but because there is no air on the moon it flaps irregularly (also there is a stick holding up the top).
The photos w/ different shadow lengths is because the moon isn't flat, its hilly but since its generally the same color it is hard to distinguish the hills (also because the hills are smooth and rolling like the Great Plain somewhat).
Then we have the science experiments, they brought back a lot of moon rocks and moon dust, no way they could've gotten that much rock by collecting them from meteriods and the dust couldn't have fallen onto the earth. Also the gravity experiment, dropping a hammer and a feather both landed at the same time because there was no air to affect the objects.
Also it seems that we all agree that we went to the moon.
IMO, anybody who believes that the moon missions were fake, are completely ignorant. There were far too many people involved in the project from suppliers to personel for it to be a hoax. You really need to educate yourself before buying into the majority of this conspiracy crap. I suppose that it's a gene of human nature to always have doubt. Afterall, yin/yang, right/wrong, Democrat/Republican...it's all the same in the end.
If it was fake, it worked and we beat the Ruskies.
You'd think somebody would have talked.
I believe we were there.
You'd think somebody would have talked.
I believe we were there.
There are more people who believe Elvis is still alive
than there are
people who believe the moon landings/space program was a hoax.
than there are
people who believe the moon landings/space program was a hoax.
Russia never landed a man on the moon, they apparenly gave up after being defeated. And the USSR might have a reason to keep schtum, if it's also true the Gagarin wasn't the 1st man in space. And there wouldn't have needed to be many people really aware, mission control could have been communicating with a relay on the moon transferring messages from a low-earth orbit device. The implication of the film is that every time someone decided to talk they mysteriously dropped dead shortly afterwards. Just what the film says, I'm convinced it was fake yet.ATG wrote:
If it was fake, it worked and we beat the Ruskies.
You'd think somebody would have talked.
I believe we were there.
Anyway, who cares about NASA now Armadillo Aerospace are on the scene:
http://www.doomrpg.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
Good old John Carmack. Saw him on a documentary about the X-Prize a while back - couldn't believe it.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Russia never landed a man on the moon, they apparenly gave up after being defeated. And the USSR might have a reason to keep schtum, if it's also true the Gagarin wasn't the 1st man in space. And there wouldn't have needed to be many people really aware, mission control could have been communicating with a relay on the moon transferring messages from a low-earth orbit device. The implication of the film is that every time someone decided to talk they mysteriously dropped dead shortly afterwards. Just what the film says, I'm convinced it was fake yet.ATG wrote:
If it was fake, it worked and we beat the Ruskies.
You'd think somebody would have talked.
I believe we were there.
Anyway, who cares about NASA now Armadillo Aerospace are on the scene:
http://www.doomrpg.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home
An obvious attempt by the left, to discredit American achievment in space an science to further their goal of putting a terrorist moon base in operation, complete with, " sharks with frickin' lazor beams attached to their heads".
Oh come on. It's nothing to do with an attempt by the left. It's obviously just another silly conspiracy theory - like the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 'conspiracy' (which ok is primarily endorsed by the left).lowing wrote:
An obvious attempt by the left, to discredit American achievment in space an science to further their goal of putting a terrorist moon base in operation, complete with, " sharks with frickin' lazor beams attached to their heads".
Liberals aren't nutters and conspiracy theorists any more than conservatives.
Conspiracy theories are silly. Concerns about quality of life for people other than ourselves are significantly less so.
The 'official story' 9/11 conspiracy theory is endorsed mainly by the right...Bertster7 wrote:
Oh come on. It's nothing to do with an attempt by the left. It's obviously just another silly conspiracy theory - like the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 'conspiracy' (which ok is primarily endorsed by the left).
Why are we wasting valuable internet space with this conspiracy crap? Space that could've been used for porn, or important discussions about "OMGSTATPADDERS" or bitchin' about 1.3. Get you priorities straight!
I am just curious as to why they have not landed more on the moon with all our new current technology....hmmm
Back then we were out to prove something. Now it's all about money.splixx wrote:
I am just curious as to why they have not landed more on the moon with all our new current technology....hmmm
Rick_O_Shea678 wrote:
There are more people who believe Elvis is still alive
than there are
people who believe the moon landings/space program was a hoax.
"Pass me some of them deep fried lard balls and that Jack Daniels....."
Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
The 'official story' 9/11 conspiracy theory is endorsed mainly by the right...Bertster7 wrote:
Oh come on. It's nothing to do with an attempt by the left. It's obviously just another silly conspiracy theory - like the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 'conspiracy' (which ok is primarily endorsed by the left).
I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.
There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
Wow some really compelling arguments there. I'm going to have to change all my ideas about how physics work.
I especially liked this pearl of wisdom.
lolFlat Earth Society wrote:
Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?
yes i found that website some while back, my favorite bit is
Flat Earth Society wrote:
Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
Last edited by jimmanycricket (2006-09-03 09:38:35)
Well it looks like you don't know much about photography because a lot of that is wrong. The cameras were most likely shooting at around 1/100 or 1/250th of a second, not 1/3000th (most proffessional sports cameras these days shoot around 1/2500th and they're digital). Plus the light from the earth is most certainly bright enough to change a shadow, especially when it is comepeting with the sun for brightness. Oh, and even if it was in a studio, care to explain how lights there could effect the shadows indvidually and not leave indications on the ground in between them?PRiMACORD wrote:
The problem is...thats completely incorrect. There is only one direct light source in that picture and it is the Sun.GotMex? wrote:
And I was refutting the claim that the only light source is the Sun. It is not, there are many others
1. Reflected light from the Earth is far to weak to show up at the exposure length this photograph was taken in (which i assume is around 1/3000th of a second +).
2. Other light sources would not manipulate the shadows length, they would create there own shadows.
The best evidence that the moon landings are real is that no concrete proof has ever emerged that it was a fake, merely geeks pawing over photographs for hours on end, "oooh look that cant be real, look at the shadows" and thats it they never try to actually prove that its inaccurate. Furthermore it would have been far easier to actually attempt a lunar landing and then fail than to fake it and then keep the hundreds of people involved to keep quiet for so many years. Those hundreds of people involved included several KGB operatives in some relatively high ranking positions within the project, that would have known that the landings were faked and would have reported it back to the Russians. Who obviously just decided to keep quiet rather than cause a fuss and embarrass their arch rival
American achievements in space were pioneered by the left ffs!! If the right side was in total cntrol all we'd have is more orbital vehicles (icbms) no achievements..lowing wrote:
An obvious attempt by the left, to discredit American achievment in space an science to further their goal of putting a terrorist moon base in operation, complete with, " sharks with frickin' lazor beams attached to their heads".
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing. Why has that not become common knowledge? Is it too far fetched? It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking aboutBertster7 wrote:
Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
The 'official story' 9/11 conspiracy theory is endorsed mainly by the right...Bertster7 wrote:
Oh come on. It's nothing to do with an attempt by the left. It's obviously just another silly conspiracy theory - like the Kennedy assassination or the 9/11 'conspiracy' (which ok is primarily endorsed by the left).
I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.
There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
ps thermite is used to melt steel
the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers. Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.
700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail. I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel. Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel. Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-03 11:17:21)
No, that's a theory that has arrisen. The "reactions" still taking place at ground zero were nothing more than debris burning. If you look at what went down there, it's kind of big and something tells me that the fire department wouldn't have been focusing on putting out those fires in the heart of the collapsed area.Spumantiii wrote:
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing. Why has that not become common knowledge? Is it too far fetched? It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking about
ps thermite is used to melt steel
Care to give a creditable source showing that "modern chemistry" has proven the presence of thermite charges. And I sincerely doubt that if it was present there would have reactions continuing 6 weeks later. Thermite is very volatile and reacts extremely quickly and fiercely hence why it is so good at "melting shit".