conspiracy theories

[Kansas Bear]

Personally, i don't believe they landed.

So you're saying all SIX landings were faked?

[Shadowsided]

Oh god, please tell me you're kidding...

Especially with the "evidence" you just presented...

That's the biggest one of all? You consider that to be iron-clad evidence that the moon landing was a hoax.

It's called not dignifying a completely idiotic question - or belief - with a response.

Please, do give us more "evidence" of why you think the moon-landing was hoax.

I'm in desperate need of a laugh right now...

how about some charlie the unicorn!!!! lol!!!

YouTube - Charlie The Unicorn

Back 2 the conspiracies. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunners with one possibly being in the bushes and oswald might've been innocent or he might've used a different gun becuase bolt actions can't fire right away after a shot. You need to pull the bolt back ,put the bullet in and put the bolt back in. Theres no way a bullet can pause in midair for a second and perform all the maeuvers the magic bullet did. Its a conspiracy and a government coverup.

[ChrisF202]

how about some charlie the unicorn!!!! lol!!!

YouTube - Charlie The Unicorn

Back 2 the conspiracies. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunners with one possibly being in the bushes and oswald might've been innocent or he might've used a different gun becuase bolt actions can't fire right away after a shot. You need to pull the bolt back ,put the bullet in and put the bolt back in. Theres no way a bullet can pause in midair for a second and perform all the maeuvers the magic bullet did. Its a conspiracy and a government coverup.

While I dont think the CIA killed JFK I definitely think there was more then one gunman. The History Channel has a great series on all this called "The Men who Killed Kennedy" that they usually air around the anniversary of the assassination.

[gunnut]

So you're saying all SIX landings were faked?

There was only 1 recording session. It was split up into 6 parts to create the illusion of going to the moon 6 times.

Apollo 13 was a secret rendezvous with aliens in earth orbit to obtain advanced technology in exchange for rights to put a giant satellite dish in Eric Cartman's butt.

[Shamus]

The Mafia have a running contract on all of the male Kennedy clan.

You mean we don't? Doh!'Scuse me,I gotta make a phone call.....

[Kansas Bear]

There was only 1 recording session. It was split up into 6 parts to create the illusion of going to the moon 6 times.

Apollo 13 was a secret rendezvous with aliens in earth orbit to obtain advanced technology in exchange for rights to put a giant satellite dish in Eric Cartman's butt.

[glyn]

Back 2 the conspiracies. Kennedy was shot by multiple gunners with one possibly being in the bushes and oswald might've been innocent or he might've used a different gun becuase bolt actions can't fire right away after a shot. You need to pull the bolt back ,put the bullet in and put the bolt back in.

The bolt action can be cycled very quickly in the hands of an experienced shot. Because of the box magazine a fresh round is inserted each time the bolt goes forward, and the spent cartridge is ejected each time the bolt comes back.

[ChrisF202]

The bolt action can be cycled very quickly in the hands of an experienced shot. Because of the box magazine a fresh round is inserted each time the bolt goes forward, and the spent cartridge is ejected each time the bolt comes back.

But Oswald was not an experienced shot, IIRC he barely passed his shooting qualifications in the USMC.

[Wooglin]

Oh god, please tell me you're kidding...

Especially with the "evidence" you just presented...

That's the biggest one of all? You consider that to be iron-clad evidence that the moon landing was a hoax.

It's called not dignifying a completely idiotic question - or belief - with a response.

Please, do give us more "evidence" of why you think the moon-landing was hoax.

I'm in desperate need of a laugh right now...

Sorry TH, but he's right. It never really happened.

It might be a little known fact, but the French were actually the first to land on the moon and I can back that up. There's video of it here:

Le Voyage Dans La Lune (A Trip to the Moon )

[Predator25]

Originally Posted by TopHatter
...Please, do give us more "evidence" of why you think the moon-landing was hoax.


You want more, i'll give you more.

1. In 1959 Bill Kaysing was head of technical publications at Rocketdyne Systems, a divisions of Boeing that still makes rocket engines for the space program. In 1959 Rocketdyne predicted there was about a 14% chance they could safely send a man to the moon and back. Acording to Kaysing there is no way the space program could have advanced enough in the next 10 years to send the three Apollo 11 astrounauts to the moon, followed by the five more moon landings in the next three years.

NASA experts recently admitted that they currently do NOT have the capability of sending manned missions to the moon. So how could they have done it more than 30 years ago? Even simulators these days require powerful computers, but the computers onboard the Columia had a capacitly less than today's hand held calcuators.

2. Phony Photos: A close look at the thousand of excellent still photos from the moon landing reveal some very odd features. For one thing, they are a little too good. The astronauts seem to be well lit on all sides, regardless of where sulights is coming from, almost as if there was some artifical light source.
Defenders claim that light was reflected from the lunar surface, boucing back to light the shaw side of the astronauts. Oddly, that same reflective light does not illuminate the dark side of lunar rocks, which are even closer to the ground. Also shadows seem to fall in deifferent directions and look to be different lengths even for objects of similar height, such as the two astrounats. This lead to the conclusion of multiple light sources-some man made.
Even when everything else is in shadow, the American flag and the words "United States" are always well lit, and sometimes seem to be in a spotlight. Was someone trying to squeeze extra PR value out of the fake photos.

3. Starlight, star bright: There is an an absence of stars in the photos of the lunar sky as evidence that they were not taken on the moon. After all, in the dark sky of the moon with no atmoshpere, stars should be clearly visible.

4. Where's the Dust: One of the most memorable images NASA released from Apollo 11 was the imprint of Buzz Aldrin's boot in the lunar dust. But the landing module apparently had less of an impact on the moon's surface. There is no dust in the landing pads. If the Eagle blew away all the dust, as some spectacle, how did Aldrin make such a nice footprint?

5.Deadly Radiation: In a recent press confrence, a NASA spokesman said that radiation is one of the biggest obstacles to space travel. Wouldn't it have been a problem 30 years ago?
Once outside the Van Allen Belts, astronauts would have been exposed to solar radiation. Expert opinions differ as to whether this exposure would have been life threating. But inexplicably, not one of the astonauts from the seven lunar landing missions got cancer, a well known result of over-exposure to radiation.
Even more sensitive to radiation is photographic film. On all those beautiful monn photos there is absolutely no sign of radiation damage.

On the moon's gravity- a sixth of the Earth's- the astonauts should have been able to leap 10 feet in the air. But they didn't.


Here's the one that will bust this thing wide open:


Of the seven manned missions to the Moon, only Apollo 13 had trouble, which is a 86% success rate. In the years since, 25 unmanned crafts have have been sent to mars. Only seven have succeeded- a 28% success rate. Which figure seems more realistic?

[Predator25]

If you want more TopHatter, i got more so called "evidence."

[Shamus]

Possibly could just be my imagination(I'm not a conspiracy expert nor would I ever pretend to be )but I would be interested to hear what you believe is wrong with this picture Pred.http://www.msss.com/moon/moon.gif

[glyn]

[QUOTE=Predator25;389189]Originally Posted by TopHatter
...Please, do give us more "evidence" of why you think the moon-landing was hoax.

3. Starlight, star bright: There is an an absence of stars in the photos of the lunar sky as evidence that they were not taken on the moon. After all, in the dark sky of the moon with no atmoshpere, stars should be clearly visible.

Have you watched the full moon and noticed that there seemed to be no stars in its vicinity? That is because the moon is reflecting the suns light from its surface, even though the moons albido is not great. Also you were viewing through the Earths atmosphere. On the surface of the moon where there is effectively no atmosphere the sunlight effect is strong causing the surface to be a near-blinding white. Consequently the stars will not be visible from there. All the photos taken there were through powerful filters.

[glyn]

Originally Posted by TopHatter



Here's the one that will bust this thing wide open:


Of the seven manned missions to the Moon, only Apollo 13 had trouble, which is a 86% success rate. In the years since, 25 unmanned crafts have have been sent to mars. Only seven have succeeded- a 28% success rate. Which figure seems more realistic?

You are comparing manned missions with unmanned. With humans on board, actions can be taken to rectify problems. This is not (yet) possible with the un-manned sorties. Sorry. Apples and Pears.

[Officer of Engineers]

Let's not forget that Galileo, Copernicus, Plante, ... hell, even me and Parihaka had done complex calculations with nothing more than pencil and paper ... well, Pari and I had slide rules.

And how dare we fly airplanes and jet fighters decades before there were digital flight simulators.