The Moon Landing Was a Fake!!!
#101
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:49
#102
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:50
FieryPhoenix7 wrote...
^ LOL! I totally feel your pain, bro. I've gone through a lot of discussion on this very topic with other such people before. I've more or less given up. They will never listen to reason. I'd call it trolling, but I don't know anymore.
Yeap I agree, they never listen to reason it kind of sad.
#103
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:51
Really this is a waste of time.
For waste of time you sure like to perpetuate it, Mr. They Used Photoshop in the 1960's. Countless experts have gone through the pictures, along with countless of excited amateurs. Among those experts there were numerous individuals who wanted to prove that Americans had failed. Out of all these people a couple of nutcases with big egos "noticed" something out of the ordinary. Spouting nonsense repeatedly for four decades doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
#104
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:53
Who cares?gmartin40 wrote...
It's ME related because they named the base on the Moon on the game after Armstrong. Or was it the colony on Mars?
That's still no reason to make a thread about it in the ME general discussion.
Maybe we should start making threads about Jesus as well because, well, you know, he was human according to the bible and humans are obviously present in ME as well.
Modifié par Petsura, 16 mars 2010 - 01:54 .
#105
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:56
"Ah, yes, "Jesus". We have dismissed those claims.Petsura wrote...
Who cares?gmartin40 wrote...
It's ME related because they named the base on the Moon on the game after Armstrong. Or was it the colony on Mars?
That's still no reason to make a thread about it in the ME general discussion.
Maybe we should start making threads about Jesus as well because, well, you know, he was human according to the bible and humans are obviously present in ME as well.
...
He was obviously a Turian."
#106
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 01:58
#107
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:00
You are the reason Buzz Aldrin was forced to punch Bart Sibel in the face (regardless of how awesome that actually is)
Modifié par jgordon11, 16 mars 2010 - 02:06 .
#108
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:03
they wanted to fake the moon landing but they couldn't find a location suitably "moon like" so they flew to the moon and filmed it there. no one was any the wiser for their cunning fake.
#109
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:11
Lightice_av wrote...
Really this is a waste of time.
For waste of time you sure like to perpetuate it, Mr. They Used Photoshop in the 1960's. Countless experts have gone through the pictures, along with countless of excited amateurs. Among those experts there were numerous individuals who wanted to prove that Americans had failed. Out of all these people a couple of nutcases with big egos "noticed" something out of the ordinary. Spouting nonsense repeatedly for four decades doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Again this is a waste of time, I say the pictures are wrong, you say the picture claims where dismised in the past.
I say Aluminium is a ****ty cover for Radiation, someone else says they didn't stay long enough to suffer from it.
I say Politics had a HUGE part in this mission and the chances of it being fake are big, then you say the ones that had the most to gain (the russians) didn't say anything at the time... so why even bother?
I say:
The picture claims where dismised, yet they still can't be used as reliable evidence either.
The fact that they spend days in space around radiation levels comparable or over a x ray machine here on earth (and the fact that here on earth x ray techs always take cover behind a sheet of thick lead) I would have to say Nasa decided to sent their astronauts with no protection to a very dangerous mission... and we know Nasa takes safetly seriusly, so I don't think that happened and if did, then you shouldn't be protecting them.
And finally, Undina showed us Diplomats and Politicians are bastards, and if by admiting the truth there is much to lose diplomaticaly then is not going to happen.
#110
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:11
www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Just because.
#111
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:11
To the OP:
You sir are a disgrace to real theorist like myself, and I think you should go put on your tin foile hat. People like you, are the reason people look down at us. The moon landing, isn't faked you can see it in any large Telascope at Nasa. The brought back many other things, and Netwon laws remeber that the flag waving is qutie possaible in space.
Modifié par RyrineaNara, 16 mars 2010 - 02:21 .
#112
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:16
The fact that they spend days in space around radiation levels comparable or over a x ray machine here on earth (and the fact that here on earth x ray techs always take cover behind a sheet of thick lead) I would have to say Nasa decided to sent their astronauts with no protection to a very dangerous mission... and we know Nasa takes safetly seriusly, so I don't think that happened and if did, then you shouldn't be protecting them.
Still repeating the old joke? Complete ignorance about cosmic radiation apparently doesn't prevent having "expert" opinions. Travelling in space is far cry from sitting in an X-Ray machine, unless you get hit by the solar wind, in which case you're well-roasted. That clearly didn't happen.
And finally, Undina showed us Diplomats and Politicians are bastards, and if by admiting the truth there is much to lose diplomaticaly then is not going to happen.
And nonsense continues. In case you haven't noticed, the United States has political enemies who'd like nothing more but to dismiss every advancement they make in any field if they were given any excuse to do so. This was even more the case back in the Cold War. You're saying that the US and the Soviets had a mutual conspiracy going on back in the 60's? You're even denser than I thought in that case, if it would be possible.
#113
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:25
gmartin40 wrote...
Here is the proof!!
There are enough moon rocks to prove you wrong. Not to mention the antennas they left on the moon which can be targeted with laser beams and / or radio waves.
#114
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:32
#115
Posté 16 mars 2010 - 02:47




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut







