I dont believe it. Do you ?
the film Capricorn 1 was a true story 8)
Legendary story:
When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky."
Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.
On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.
When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky.
As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"
what annoys me is this. if they did it 40 years ago, why don't they do it again????
surely it must be a simple task compared to 4o years ago
Quote from: muppet on June 21, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Legendary story:
When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky."
Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.
On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.
When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky.
As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"
Brilliant ;D
Quote from: milltown row on June 21, 2009, 10:05:25 PM
what annoys me is this. if they did it 40 years ago, why don't they do it again????
surely it must be a simple task compared to 40 years ago
1) There's no point
2) They've a better understanding of the risks involved
Quote from: milltown row on June 21, 2009, 10:05:25 PM
what annoys me is this. if they did it 40 years ago, why don't they do it again????
surely it must be a simple task compared to 4o years ago
They do it a second time but was like the Giants causeway... you see it once...
Quote from: Archie Mitchell on June 21, 2009, 10:06:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 21, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Legendary story:
When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky."
Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.
On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.
When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky.
As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"
Brilliant ;D
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.asp
Quote from: bcarrier on June 21, 2009, 09:53:05 PM
I dont believe it. Do you ?
Easier to go than to fake.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 21, 2009, 11:23:47 PM
Quote from: bcarrier on June 21, 2009, 09:53:05 PM
I dont believe it. Do you ?
Easier to go than to fake.
It would be easier to go to the moon than to fake a landing?
What are you smoking.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 21, 2009, 11:22:14 PM
Quote from: Archie Mitchell on June 21, 2009, 10:06:27 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 21, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
Legendary story:
When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the enigmatic remark "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky."
Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled.
On July 5, 1995 (in Tampa Bay, FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question.
When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky.
As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky, "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!"
Brilliant ;D
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.asp
Spoilsport.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 21, 2009, 11:39:42 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 21, 2009, 11:23:47 PM
Quote from: bcarrier on June 21, 2009, 09:53:05 PM
I dont believe it. Do you ?
Easier to go than to fake.
It would be easier to go to the moon than to fake a landing?
What are you smoking.
Fake a landing which 1,000's of people knew about but never said and the soviets never caught a sniff of this super massive cover up .
For what its worth, I was over in NASA a few months ago in Houston and according to what the tour guides said the plan is to go back to the moon within the next 10-12 years and Mars 10 years following that. Apparently the soil/rock on the moon is rich in some compound that can be used for energy (He3 ???) so now that we've done a good job of raping our planet of its natural resources we can start using our moon.
Plans to build an Irish pub on the moon have been scrapped - they reckon it will have no atmosphere. Boom Boom! I thank you ladies and gentlemen. You've been a great audience ;D
I dont buy into the whole moon landing thing either. 40 years ago they done it no problem. now they come across all these problems now. ::) wsant there a theory that it was filmed.... and that the american flag was flapping in the wind... what wind? its space how could this be. dont buy it at all it was faked IMO.
Great story about Mr Gorsky thou :D
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 11:36:56 AM
I dont buy into the whole moon landing thing either. 40 years ago they done it no problem. now they come across all these problems now. ::) wsant there a theory that it was filmed.... and that the american flag was flapping in the wind... what wind? its space how could this be. dont buy it at all it was faked IMO.
Great story about Mr Gorsky thou :D
The wind theory has been debunked several times now. The flag only moves after it was touched .
Suggested motives for a hoax
Several motives are given by hoax proponents for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings.
Cold War prestige — The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon would be risky and expensive. (John F. Kennedy famously said that the U.S. chose to go because it was hard).[13] Bill Kaysing maintained that, despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.[9] p. 29
Money — NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. Bill Kaysing claims that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.[9] p. 71
Risk — This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017%.[9] pp. 26–40
Distraction — According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.[14] (However, the Apollo program was cancelled several years before the Vietnam War ended.[15])
Delivering the promise — To seemingly fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."[16]
wikipedia
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 12:01:30 PM
Suggested motives for a hoax
Several motives are given by hoax proponents for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings.
Cold War prestige — The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon would be risky and expensive. (John F. Kennedy famously said that the U.S. chose to go because it was hard).[13] Bill Kaysing maintained that, despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.[9] p. 29
Money — NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. Bill Kaysing claims that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.[9] p. 71
Risk — This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017%.[9] pp. 26–40
Distraction — According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.[14] (However, the Apollo program was cancelled several years before the Vietnam War ended.[15])
Delivering the promise — To seemingly fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."[16]
wikipedia
Yeah the Bible of the internet. :D
It happened and I saw it live on TV so get over it
There are some fabulous theories out there though!
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 22, 2009, 12:05:57 PM
It happened and I saw it live on TV so get over it
I take it you were in Western Australia at the time?
[edit] Deaths of key Apollo personnel
In a television program about the hoax allegations, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of ten astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killed as part of a cover-up.
Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967). His son Scott Grissom said the accident was a murder.[78] Bill Kaysing also makes this claim.[9], p. 41
Edward Higgins "Ed" White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Edward "Ed" Givens (car accident, 1967)
Clifton "C. C." Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
X-15 pilot Michael J. "Mike" Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program in November 1967 - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr., scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot, who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later canceled) program.
NASA worker Thomas Baron (automobile collision with train, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired). Ruled as suicide. Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing.[78][79]
Brian Welch, a leading official in NASA's Public Affairs Office, died a few months after appearing in the media to debunk the Fox pro-moon hoax television show cited above. (James Oberg, "Lessons of the 'Fake Moon Flight' Myth," Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2003, pp. 23, 30.)
All but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their job with NASA or the Air Force. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. All except two of the deaths occurred at least one or two years before Apollo 11 and the subsequent flights.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 22, 2009, 12:05:57 PM
It happened and I saw it live on TV so get over it
Ive seen WWE live before and know its fake just because u see it ony TV doesnt make it real! NO1 can really prove this apart from the ones the were 'there'. Unfortunatly for the ones that didnt make the big bucks out of the 'landing' most of them ended up buried in the ground. funny that. The truth will all come out eventually.
Quote from: milltown row on June 21, 2009, 10:05:25 PM
what annoys me is this. if they did it 40 years ago, why don't they do it again????
surely it must be a simple task compared to 4o years ago
Probably the same reason they havent improved on Concorde
After 40 years of peoples claims it is fake can anyone give one solid piece of evidence that is was fake. Evidence that is not just speculation but 100% indisputable. I've yet to see it.
If you want 100% evidence that it is real I point to the reflectors they left up there that any half decent astronomer anywhere in the world can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment)
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 12:25:48 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 22, 2009, 12:05:57 PM
It happened and I saw it live on TV so get over it
Ive seen WWE live before and know its fake just because u see it ony TV doesnt make it real! NO1 can really prove this apart from the ones the were 'there'. Unfortunatly for the ones that didnt make the big bucks out of the 'landing' most of them ended up buried in the ground. funny that. The truth will all come out eventually.
What evidence have you that the landings where faked?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 01:01:28 PM
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 12:25:48 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 22, 2009, 12:05:57 PM
It happened and I saw it live on TV so get over it
Ive seen WWE live before and know its fake just because u see it ony TV doesnt make it real! NO1 can really prove this apart from the ones the were 'there'. Unfortunatly for the ones that didnt make the big bucks out of the 'landing' most of them ended up buried in the ground. funny that. The truth will all come out eventually.
What evidence have you that the landings where faked?
Think he's relying heavily on wikipedia. :D :D
i have no evidence that they were faked never have i said that they def are faked i said that no1 will ever know except the ones that were there. all im saying is that i dont buy into it. cant see how they could do it 40 years ago not a bother and now they cant seems funny to me. but as i say this is just my opinion and dont take offence i dont wanta spoil peoples memories.
hi wasnt it amazing when that spider bit peter parker and now he has superpowers. it was on v it must be true.
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 22, 2009, 11:00:41 AM
For what its worth, I was over in NASA a few months ago in Houston and according to what the tour guides said the plan is to go back to the moon within the next 10-12 years and Mars 10 years following that. Apparently the soil/rock on the moon is rich in some compound that can be used for energy (He3 ???) so now that we've done a good job of raping our planet of its natural resources we can start using our moon.
Yes because all those people on the moon will be affected by using any natural resources :-\
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 01:15:10 PM
i have no evidence that they were faked never have i said that they def are faked i said that no1 will ever know except the ones that were there. all im saying is that i dont buy into it. cant see how they could do it 40 years ago not a bother and now they cant seems funny to me. but as i say this is just my opinion and dont take offence i dont wanta spoil peoples memories.
hi wasnt it amazing when that spider bit peter parker and now he has superpowers. it was on v it must be true.
Why would they go back? What is to be gained? Forty years ago there was a Cold War "space race" so the missions were driven primarily by ideology, and to show the other side that they went to the moon because they could. If a reason arises for a manned mission to the moon then no doubt the US government will look into it, but we live in a risk averse society so the pros of any mission must outweigh the cons.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 01:28:08 PM
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
In your opinion.
QuoteThe "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Do the people who think it was fake think that people have gone to the moon in the mean time?
I believe that they have been to the moon since but cant see how they were able to do it 40 years ago without a problem then struggle to do it again. did someone forget to write the directions down?
Must look about that back to the future car and travel back to witness it myself.... bound to be able to do that it was on TV it must be true ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 01:28:08 PM
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
...but there's no fooling you Pints 8)
Quote from: pintsofguinness link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Occam's razor would suggest in face of large amounts of independent evidence and not one credible hoax theory we went to the moon
At what level was the decision made to fake it ? How many people would be needed to set up the set, record it , sent the recording back to NASA. Your easily into the Hundreds .
Quote from: longball link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
i have no evidence that they were faked never have i said that they def are faked i said that no1 will ever know except the ones that were there. all im saying is that i dont buy into it. cant see how they could do it 40 years ago not a bother and now they cant seems funny to me. but as i say this is just my opinion and dont take offence i dont wanta spoil peoples memories.
hi wasnt it amazing when that spider bit peter parker and now he has superpowers. it was on v it must be true.
Why would we return to the moon without a further goal (i.e mars) . It costs trillions and is a barren rock .
The cost of the apollo missions calculated at approximately $135 billion (inflated to 2005 equivalent).
Obviously they where not going to continue to fund this for no further gain.
What is it that makes people think it had to be faked? Do you not believe that the technology existed for moon landings? Which bit was missing?
Quote from: nifan on June 22, 2009, 02:23:16 PM
The cost of the apollo missions calculated at approximately $135 billion (inflated to 2005 equivalent).
Obviously they where not going to continue to fund this for no further gain.
What is it that makes people think it had to be faked? Do you not believe that the technology existed for moon landings? Which bit was missing?
I assume that is per mission?
That was for the whole program.
The moon landing happened lads, there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
Talk to me when the Russians decide to fight the landing, given that they were sworn enemies of the Americans at the time, they accepted the yanks got there first why cant you lot do the same?
To my mind the images are not convincing but the existence of these lunar retroreflectors seem to provide indisputable evidence that we did get something to land there (unless of course we didnt put them there ;).
Speaking of weird PMs :o
Quote from: jimbo on June 22, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Longball, the whole thing is a fake. If u wanta meet up and talk about it PM me back, we can meet just bring a 15 inch dildo and plently of lube. Chat l8r
xxx Jimbo
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:55:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2009, 02:54:18 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:49:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2009, 02:48:32 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:44:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 22, 2009, 02:42:31 PM
QuoteShould I have left it up there to be believed when it's clearly fake
Should I have left 'Achems Razor' up there to believed when it is clearly gibberish?
Difference between a typo and a urban legend now in fairness. What ever I don't have time to humour you.
The 'urban legend' was a joke, until you spoiled it and Achems/Occams is quite a typo. 50% of the letters wrong. Either way harldy any need for you to insult me via PM is it?
It was a joke. Complete missed than sorry. Hardly insulting now was it?
Low enough on a scale of 1 to 10 but you still took the time to send it and use a PM so others wouldn't see it.
Well I didn't want to ruin this thread with a personal back and forth . Ironic no? ;)
::) Now you have a personal back and forth with the Mod's and a thread to back it up!!!
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 02:57:37 PM
Speaking of weird PMs :o
Quote from: jimbo on June 22, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Longball, the whole thing is a fake. If u wanta meet up and talk about it PM me back, we can meet just bring a 15 inch dildo and plently of lube. Chat l8r
xxx Jimbo
Ah you poor sad uneducated wee boy noone paying you any attention son; bless!! so you start making up PM's. Hardly up there with faking a moon landing, but horses for courses. :D :D :D
Like someone says earlier no one can be 100% sure unless they where there. Could Stanley Kubrik create a credible 10 minute movie in a studio in 1969 that looked real, probably IMO. There are plenty of reasons to fake the moon landing.
Reason's to fake
Moon landing too difficult technically in 1969 and more expensive than expected.
Cold war, proving they where better than the russians.
Distraction from the Vietnam war.
Kennedy promised to do it by end of the decade.
Reason not to fake
They had the technology and the know how to go to the moon so no need to fake it.
There is no need to insult anyone for having a different point of view.
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 22, 2009, 03:08:07 PM
Like someone says earlier no one can be 100% sure unless they where there. Could Stanley Kubrik create a credible 10 minute movie in a studio in 1969 that looked real, probably IMO. There are plenty of reasons to fake the moon landing.
Reason's to fake
Moon landing too difficult technically in 1969 and more expensive than expected.
Cold war, proving they where better than the russians.
Distraction from the Vietnam war.
Kennedy promised to do it by end of the decade.
Reason not to fake
They had the technology and the know how to go to the moon so no need to fake it.
There is no need to insult anyone for having a different point of view.
Stanley Kubrick couldn't not have done it without some female nudity.
Quote from: jimbo on June 22, 2009, 03:06:33 PM
Quote from: longball on June 22, 2009, 02:57:37 PM
Speaking of weird PMs :o
Quote from: jimbo on June 22, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
Longball, the whole thing is a fake. If u wanta meet up and talk about it PM me back, we can meet just bring a 15 inch dildo and plently of lube. Chat l8r
xxx Jimbo
Ah you poor sad uneducated wee boy noone paying you any attention son; bless!! so you start making up PM's. Hardly up there with faking a moon landing, but horses for courses. :D :D :D
Thought that this was the best way for this thread to go, fake landings, fake PMs someone post a picture of Katie Prices boobs
Quote from: Maiden1 on June 22, 2009, 03:08:07 PM
Like someone says earlier no one can be 100% sure unless they where there. Could Stanley Kubrik create a credible 10 minute movie in a studio in 1969 that looked real, probably IMO. There are plenty of reasons to fake the moon landing.
It's been shown you can't reproduce the low g walk they showed here on earth.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Occam's razor would suggest in face of large amounts of independent evidence and not one credible hoax theory we went to the moon
At what level was the decision made to fake it ? How many people would be needed to set up the set, record it , sent the recording back to NASA. Your easily into the Hundreds .
What hoax theory do you want? They didn't go, they faked it, there are several good reasons to fake it. Go and read up on the background of the space race, what landing on the moon meant to the US, they didnt give a shite about space btw, it was the cold war they were interested in. Look the Soviet Unions space missions, I think they beat the US in every race, the US had spent millions with f**k all to show for it and were getting their ass kicked by the soviets. Something had to be done.
Hundreds of people involved? It would take hundreds to film something and send it back to NASA? Nonsense, you're talking about a camera man, maybe a couple of people for the set and a few in Nasa. Do you think people or governments can't keep secrets?
btw the wind and the flag issue has never been "debunked" as you claimed earlier, find a scientist with a supposed explanation for it you'll find one that says it's not possible, the stars issue has never been debunked, the issue with the shadows on photographs have never been debunked either.
I find it amusing that someone who is so critical of people believing in God believes something because he's seen it on tv.
Quote from: Irenses on June 22, 2009, 12:43:49 PM
After 40 years of peoples claims it is fake can anyone give one solid piece of evidence that is was fake. Evidence that is not just speculation but 100% indisputable. I've yet to see it.
If you want 100% evidence that it is real I point to the reflectors they left up there that any half decent astronomer anywhere in the world can find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment)
What does that prove? Unmanned soviet missions placed theirs on the moon but americans must have landed on the moon to place theirs there?
If you believe they put a man on the moon -- man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up their sleeve
Then nothing is cool
I dare y'all to register with the flat earth society. You gotta keep the same user name though.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/)
I think I'll register. It looks like a barrel of laughs.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 08:04:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Occam's razor would suggest in face of large amounts of independent evidence and not one credible hoax theory we went to the moon
At what level was the decision made to fake it ? How many people would be needed to set up the set, record it , sent the recording back to NASA. Your easily into the Hundreds .
What hoax theory do you want? They didn't go, they faked it, there are several good reasons to fake it. Go and read up on the background of the space race, what landing on the moon meant to the US, they didnt give a shite about space btw, it was the cold war they were interested in. Look the Soviet Unions space missions, I think they beat the US in every race, the US had spent millions with f**k all to show for it and were getting their ass kicked by the soviets. Something had to be done.
Hundreds of people involved? It would take hundreds to film something and send it back to NASA? Nonsense, you're talking about a camera man, maybe a couple of people for the set and a few in Nasa. Do you think people or governments can't keep secrets?
btw the wind and the flag issue has never been "debunked" as you claimed earlier, find a scientist with a supposed explanation for it you'll find one that says it's not possible, the stars issue has never been debunked, the issue with the shadows on photographs have never been debunked either.
I find it amusing that someone who is so critical of people believing in God believes something because he's seen it on tv.
By days ,weeks or sometimes months. The stars have been debunked, do you see stars in Croker when your watching a game under lights? The flags only moves after it has been touched. The shadows has been debunked too. Try read it sometime.
I don't believe it because it was on TV. I believe it because it's the most logical answer and there has not been one decent hoax theory put forward.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 11:12:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 08:04:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Occam's razor would suggest in face of large amounts of independent evidence and not one credible hoax theory we went to the moon
At what level was the decision made to fake it ? How many people would be needed to set up the set, record it , sent the recording back to NASA. Your easily into the Hundreds .
What hoax theory do you want? They didn't go, they faked it, there are several good reasons to fake it. Go and read up on the background of the space race, what landing on the moon meant to the US, they didnt give a shite about space btw, it was the cold war they were interested in. Look the Soviet Unions space missions, I think they beat the US in every race, the US had spent millions with f**k all to show for it and were getting their ass kicked by the soviets. Something had to be done.
Hundreds of people involved? It would take hundreds to film something and send it back to NASA? Nonsense, you're talking about a camera man, maybe a couple of people for the set and a few in Nasa. Do you think people or governments can't keep secrets?
btw the wind and the flag issue has never been "debunked" as you claimed earlier, find a scientist with a supposed explanation for it you'll find one that says it's not possible, the stars issue has never been debunked, the issue with the shadows on photographs have never been debunked either.
I find it amusing that someone who is so critical of people believing in God believes something because he's seen it on tv.
By days ,weeks or sometimes months. The stars have been debunked, do you see stars in Croker when your watching a game under lights? The flags only moves after it has been touched. The shadows has been debunked too. Try read it sometime.
I don't believe it because it was on TV. I believe it because it's the most logical answer and there has not been one decent hoax theory put forward.
Hmm, you could try the same.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:19:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 11:12:31 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 08:04:00 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 22, 2009, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness link=topic=12698.msg#msg date=
what evidence have you that it was real gnevin? you seen some footage of it?
A thousand people wouldnt need to be involved in a simple recording sent to nasa control.
The "moonlanding" was simply a brillant and perfectly executed PR stunt. Fair play to those involved, imo, they fooled the world.
Occam's razor would suggest in face of large amounts of independent evidence and not one credible hoax theory we went to the moon
At what level was the decision made to fake it ? How many people would be needed to set up the set, record it , sent the recording back to NASA. Your easily into the Hundreds .
What hoax theory do you want? They didn't go, they faked it, there are several good reasons to fake it. Go and read up on the background of the space race, what landing on the moon meant to the US, they didnt give a shite about space btw, it was the cold war they were interested in. Look the Soviet Unions space missions, I think they beat the US in every race, the US had spent millions with f**k all to show for it and were getting their ass kicked by the soviets. Something had to be done.
Hundreds of people involved? It would take hundreds to film something and send it back to NASA? Nonsense, you're talking about a camera man, maybe a couple of people for the set and a few in Nasa. Do you think people or governments can't keep secrets?
btw the wind and the flag issue has never been "debunked" as you claimed earlier, find a scientist with a supposed explanation for it you'll find one that says it's not possible, the stars issue has never been debunked, the issue with the shadows on photographs have never been debunked either.
I find it amusing that someone who is so critical of people believing in God believes something because he's seen it on tv.
By days ,weeks or sometimes months. The stars have been debunked, do you see stars in Croker when your watching a game under lights? The flags only moves after it has been touched. The shadows has been debunked too. Try read it sometime.
I don't believe it because it was on TV. I believe it because it's the most logical answer and there has not been one decent hoax theory put forward.
Hmm, you could try the same.
I have and every theory I've read about has been debunked including many of the ones you put forward
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
You put forward , flag,shadow and stars . All of which have been debunked. There is plenty independent evidence of the moon landings that but of course you rather live in a dream world.
If NASA didn't land on the moon where did all their moon rocks come from?
What was the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station , tracking ?
Where was the Blue Marble picture taken and by what?
The SELENE imaging shows evidence of the moon landings, why are these wrong?
How where parts of Surveyor 3, exposed to lunar conditions?
Will you believe images from the LRO ?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
You put forward , flag,shadow and stars . All of which have been debunked. There is plenty independent evidence of the moon landings that but of course you rather live in a dream world.
What indepedent evidence?
I can't be bothered arguing over it gnevin, I have a feeling you've either never read about the landings or would rather swallow what you're being told. There's not one argument ever "debunked" any argument brought up by those who don't believe has been answered with basically "that's just the way it happens on the moon". How do you or me know that? what evidence is there?
THe flag shouldnt have been fluttering, expert photographers say the pictures had to have been taken under spotlights, ridiculous shadows where there shouldnt be etc. Crosshairs in funny postions. The flag ALWAYS remains lit up when it shouldnt have been, no pr exercise there, backgrounds all the same - answered with "that's the way it looks on the moon". Footprints on the moon yet the massive 15-20 ton landing thing (dont know the correct terminolgy) doesnt leave a mark and netiher does it leave a mark when it takes off when it should have left scorch damage. Astronuts who are magically able to move freely in suits when they shouldnt be able to, take superb pictures, thousands of them, (5 pictures a second or something ridiculous like that?) when they didnt even have view finders on the cameras. NASA of course claim only the best pictures were used and there are poor pictures, but I havent seen them, have you? Video footage not matching pictures taken. Picture where the rocks in them have been marked for postions like they are in movie sets for God sake!! Astronuts who can fly through the Van Allen belt and not suffer any radiation damage, why would that be? Maybe it's because NASA changed their minds about how much radiation they would face. Nasa doomed by tousands of technical hitches but what do you know, apollo 11 hadn't one.
I've read arguments for and against many times and I just don't buy it, I wish I could, I'd love to think we landed there but I don't believe it. If you do then that's fine but why ridicule those who don't believe what you believe as living in a dream world?
Btw, I bet you don't belive there's life on other planets?
Moon rocks, I'd say collected from unmanned missions
honeysuckle, god knows
Blue marble, not taken from the moon, could have been taken from unmanned mission
Dont know much about selene imaging, what does it show?
Surveyor, again, could have been unmanned and who told you these things about it? Nasa?
Im not sure what images you think LRO will show? Dont know much about it though, will it even be able to find the landing sites?
btw, it's a pity NASA only allowed the networks record the earth shattering images from their tv screen rather than give them the direct link, funny that.
The Da Vinci Code is all true as well, so it is.
(http://publicintellectual.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tin-foil-hat.jpg)
why the need to make fun of people who dont believe a government's official line on events or to suggest their crazy?
Because the US government would never lie? Ha! Yeah, Nixon was a saint and I'm sure we'll find those weapons of mass destruction any day now. Are the scientists and other experts who dont believe we landed on the moon crazy too?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:27:08 AM
why the need to make fun of people who dont believe a government's official line on events or to suggest their crazy?
Because the US government would never lie? Ha! Yeah, Nixon was a saint and I'm sure we'll find those weapons of mass destruction any day now. Are the scientists and other experts who dont believe we landed on the moon crazy too?
The US government lied for there own gain with the WMDs is it really that hard for you people to believe that the moon landings could be faked as well. POG has given all very valid points of why the landings were faked but the only arguement anyone has come up with that it was real was 'I seen it on TV'.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 01:18:37 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
You put forward , flag,shadow and stars . All of which have been debunked. There is plenty independent evidence of the moon landings that but of course you rather live in a dream world.
What indepedent evidence?
I can't be bothered arguing over it gnevin, I have a feeling you've either never read about the landings or would rather swallow what you're being told. There's not one argument ever "debunked" any argument brought up by those who don't believe has been answered with basically "that's just the way it happens on the moon". How do you or me know that? what evidence is there?
THe flag shouldnt have been fluttering, expert photographers say the pictures had to have been taken under spotlights, ridiculous shadows where there shouldnt be etc. Crosshairs in funny postions. The flag ALWAYS remains lit up when it shouldnt have been, no pr exercise there, backgrounds all the same - answered with "that's the way it looks on the moon". Footprints on the moon yet the massive 15-20 ton landing thing (dont know the correct terminolgy) doesnt leave a mark and netiher does it leave a mark when it takes off when it should have left scorch damage. Astronuts who are magically able to move freely in suits when they shouldnt be able to, take superb pictures, thousands of them, (5 pictures a second or something ridiculous like that?) when they didnt even have view finders on the cameras. NASA of course claim only the best pictures were used and there are poor pictures, but I havent seen them, have you? Video footage not matching pictures taken. Picture where the rocks in them have been marked for postions like they are in movie sets for God sake!! Astronuts who can fly through the Van Allen belt and not suffer any radiation damage, why would that be? Maybe it's because NASA changed their minds about how much radiation they would face. Nasa doomed by tousands of technical hitches but what do you know, apollo 11 hadn't one.
I've read arguments for and against many times and I just don't buy it, I wish I could, I'd love to think we landed there but I don't believe it. If you do then that's fine but why ridicule those who don't believe what you believe as living in a dream world?
Btw, I bet you don't belive there's life on other planets?
Moon rocks, I'd say collected from unmanned missions
honeysuckle, god knows
Blue marble, not taken from the moon, could have been taken from unmanned mission
Dont know much about selene imaging, what does it show?
Surveyor, again, could have been unmanned and who told you these things about it? Nasa?
Im not sure what images you think LRO will show? Dont know much about it though, will it even be able to find the landing sites?
btw, it's a pity NASA only allowed the networks record the earth shattering images from their tv screen rather than give them the direct link, funny that.
For feck sake half of your so called hoax evidence was shown to be crap in a kids tv program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22 !
The flag only moves when touched, the star shouldn't appear as they are too dim ,the shadow effect is caused by an uneven surface, the lunar surface is very reflective hence why we can see it can night and hence by the flag is bright, the LM did leave a mark on the surface . Van Allen himself said the belt wouldn't be lethal at the exposure they got. Funny how the Aussie's took the feed direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek
Seleen imaging shows the effect of Apollo 15 engines on the Luanar surface . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs
Surveyor was examined independent of NASA
The LRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) they believe will be has the resolution to show the landing sites ,will you believe it or is it just a other NASA cover up?
What would it take for you to believe pints?
All your points have explanations, the flag one that has been brought up many times on here being possibly the most obvious with a degree of knowledge of science.
As for a cover up - they where so competent at doing this, covering it up, including all the nasa people (not just the people it would have taken to make the video) - mission control etc etc. either all these people where complicit or they managed to fool a lot of highly trained people that they where actually controlling a mission when they where not.
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 09:43:47 AM
What would it take for you to believe pints?
All your points have explanations, the flag one that has been brought up many times on here being possibly the most obvious with a degree of knowledge of science.
As for a cover up - they where so competent at doing this, covering it up, including all the nasa people (not just the people it would have taken to make the video) - mission control etc etc. either all these people where complicit or they managed to fool a lot of highly trained people that they where actually controlling a mission when they where not.
Jesus lads have you not seen enough of Pints in action. If you actually flew him to the moon he still wouldn't change his mind. It would be some sort of elaborate hoax.
Pints yesterday...(http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:yMOCGuEghywt1M:http://zapatopi.net/afdb/testimonials/afdbtest.bbjjjb.jpg)
I recalled a conversation on the board about ufos before.
Surprisingly pints believes in aliens are responsible for ufos, and the "photographic and video evidence" of this.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 20, 2008, 11:28:08 PM
QuoteI'd also imagine that if these alien visits are as frequent as the number of sighting suggest that it would be nigh on impossible for governments throughout the world to cover up every single one, not allowing any definitive proof ever to escape into the public domain.
They haven't covered it up. There's any amount of eye witness reports from all over the world, any amount of photographic and video evidence (though I'm nto saying it's all real), what other proof can the normal every day joe bloggs provide?
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 10:48:57 AM
I recalled a conversation on the board about ufos before.
Surprisingly pints believes in aliens are responsible for ufos, and the "photographic and video evidence" of this.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 20, 2008, 11:28:08 PM
QuoteI'd also imagine that if these alien visits are as frequent as the number of sighting suggest that it would be nigh on impossible for governments throughout the world to cover up every single one, not allowing any definitive proof ever to escape into the public domain.
They haven't covered it up. There's any amount of eye witness reports from all over the world, any amount of photographic and video evidence (though I'm nto saying it's all real), what other proof can the normal every day joe bloggs provide?
Pints likes to argue the fact that 90% of the time he's talking balls doesn't matter - Pint's likes to argue, logic and rational doesn't come into it, his fix is being as twisted as possible. ::)
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 10:48:57 AM
I recalled a conversation on the board about ufos before.
Surprisingly pints believes in aliens are responsible for ufos, and the "photographic and video evidence" of this.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 20, 2008, 11:28:08 PM
QuoteI'd also imagine that if these alien visits are as frequent as the number of sighting suggest that it would be nigh on impossible for governments throughout the world to cover up every single one, not allowing any definitive proof ever to escape into the public domain.
They haven't covered it up. There's any amount of eye witness reports from all over the world, any amount of photographic and video evidence (though I'm nto saying it's all real), what other proof can the normal every day joe bloggs provide?
Pints likes to argue the fact that 90% of the time he's talking balls doesn't matter - Pint's likes to argue, logic and rational doesn't come into it, his fix is being as twisted as possible. ::)
Thats quite a summary jimbo...............
I think none of us have clue whether it happened or not, some want to believe so there no changing there mind, some dont believe the footage etc...
Either way no one knows, tv footage in 69 isnt enough proof alone.
Moon rocks could be asteroid debre that 100s fall onto earth every yr.
Im neutral, I honestly havent a clue if we did it or not, Im confused why we havent done it since, I expeced a city to built on there by now as space station like mir....at least I expected some sort of development on there like satellites etc... but nothing i find that strange considering the leap in technology.
Seanie mentioned they plan to go back in 10-12 yrs time, what for? as thats the excuse we havent done it since..
Anyway I think all of us are looking forward to Survivor Moon, Im a celebritity get me off the moon, Big Moon etc...
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on June 23, 2009, 11:25:31 AM
I think none of us have clue whether it happened or not, some want to believe so there no changing there mind, some dont believe the footage etc...
Either way no one knows, tv footage in 69 isnt enough proof alone.
Moon rocks could be asteroid debre that 100s fall onto earth every yr.
Im neutral, I honestly havent a clue if we did it or not, Im confused why we havent done it since, I expeced a city to built on there by now as space station like mir....at least I expected some sort of development on there like satellites etc... but nothing i find that strange considering the leap in technology.
Seanie mentioned they plan to go back in 10-12 yrs time, what for? as thats the excuse we havent done it since..
Anyway I think all of us are looking forward to Survivor Moon, Im a celebritity get me off the moon, Big Moon etc...
Moon rocks can not be asteroids .We know what the moon is made up or and we know what asteroids are made up of and they aren't one and the same. They are going back as a staging post to Mars.
I agree with Pints on this one, aIll even go one further I dont believe in submarines and for that matter fish.
QuoteIm confused why we havent done it since
money partly.
Travelling to the moon was expensive, dangerous and of limited scientific value to continually repeat for no further gain.
The funding was moved to what was seen as more useful - space stations, reusable spacecraft (shuttle) etc
I defo believe in Aliens. If there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets. the bottom of the sea has the worst conditions known to man for life and creatures like this survive:
(http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04deepscope/background/deeplight/media/fig3a_400.jpg)
only 1% of the Sea's deck has been examined.
QuoteIf there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets.
I dont know why that condition would have to hold, but I do believe there is a chance of life on other planets.
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
QuoteIf there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets.
I dont know why that condition would have to hold, but I do believe there is a chance of life on other planets.
Think the key thing about the seas as compared to other worlds is water!!!
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 01:18:37 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
You put forward , flag,shadow and stars . All of which have been debunked. There is plenty independent evidence of the moon landings that but of course you rather live in a dream world.
What indepedent evidence?
I can't be bothered arguing over it gnevin, I have a feeling you've either never read about the landings or would rather swallow what you're being told. There's not one argument ever "debunked" any argument brought up by those who don't believe has been answered with basically "that's just the way it happens on the moon". How do you or me know that? what evidence is there?
THe flag shouldnt have been fluttering, expert photographers say the pictures had to have been taken under spotlights, ridiculous shadows where there shouldnt be etc. Crosshairs in funny postions. The flag ALWAYS remains lit up when it shouldnt have been, no pr exercise there, backgrounds all the same - answered with "that's the way it looks on the moon". Footprints on the moon yet the massive 15-20 ton landing thing (dont know the correct terminolgy) doesnt leave a mark and netiher does it leave a mark when it takes off when it should have left scorch damage. Astronuts who are magically able to move freely in suits when they shouldnt be able to, take superb pictures, thousands of them, (5 pictures a second or something ridiculous like that?) when they didnt even have view finders on the cameras. NASA of course claim only the best pictures were used and there are poor pictures, but I havent seen them, have you? Video footage not matching pictures taken. Picture where the rocks in them have been marked for postions like they are in movie sets for God sake!! Astronuts who can fly through the Van Allen belt and not suffer any radiation damage, why would that be? Maybe it's because NASA changed their minds about how much radiation they would face. Nasa doomed by tousands of technical hitches but what do you know, apollo 11 hadn't one.
I've read arguments for and against many times and I just don't buy it, I wish I could, I'd love to think we landed there but I don't believe it. If you do then that's fine but why ridicule those who don't believe what you believe as living in a dream world?
Btw, I bet you don't belive there's life on other planets?
Moon rocks, I'd say collected from unmanned missions
honeysuckle, god knows
Blue marble, not taken from the moon, could have been taken from unmanned mission
Dont know much about selene imaging, what does it show?
Surveyor, again, could have been unmanned and who told you these things about it? Nasa?
Im not sure what images you think LRO will show? Dont know much about it though, will it even be able to find the landing sites?
btw, it's a pity NASA only allowed the networks record the earth shattering images from their tv screen rather than give them the direct link, funny that.
For feck sake half of your so called hoax evidence was shown to be crap in a kids tv program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22 !
The flag only moves when touched, the star shouldn't appear as they are too dim ,the shadow effect is caused by an uneven surface, the lunar surface is very reflective hence why we can see it can night and hence by the flag is bright, the LM did leave a mark on the surface . Van Allen himself said the belt wouldn't be lethal at the exposure they got. Funny how the Aussie's took the feed direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek
Seleen imaging shows the effect of Apollo 15 engines on the Luanar surface . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs
Surveyor was examined independent of NASA
The LRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) they believe will be has the resolution to show the landing sites ,will you believe it or is it just a other NASA cover up?
That doesnt prove anything, explanations are provided yes, it's up to yourself if you believe them to be shite or not. For me, the "explanations" don't add up. I don't buy the "that's the way it is on the mooon" as explanations for any particularly when there are scientists out there who don't buy it either. The rest of your "evidence" doesnt prove man landed on the moon.
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 09:43:47 AM
What would it take for you to believe pints?
All your points have explanations, the flag one that has been brought up many times on here being possibly the most obvious with a degree of knowledge of science.
As for a cover up - they where so competent at doing this, covering it up, including all the nasa people (not just the people it would have taken to make the video) - mission control etc etc. either all these people where complicit or they managed to fool a lot of highly trained people that they where actually controlling a mission when they where not.
I dont think anything at this stage would make me believe, theres too much dodgy "evidence" but, as I said before, the biggest thing for me is that NASA just hadn't the capability. As for people keeping it secret, do you think people can't keep secrets?
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 10:48:57 AM
I recalled a conversation on the board about ufos before.
Surprisingly pints believes in aliens are responsible for ufos, and the "photographic and video evidence" of this.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 20, 2008, 11:28:08 PM
QuoteI'd also imagine that if these alien visits are as frequent as the number of sighting suggest that it would be nigh on impossible for governments throughout the world to cover up every single one, not allowing any definitive proof ever to escape into the public domain.
They haven't covered it up. There's any amount of eye witness reports from all over the world, any amount of photographic and video evidence (though I'm nto saying it's all real), what other proof can the normal every day joe bloggs provide?
There is more photographic and video evidence of UFOs than there is of the moon landing, there's more eye witness accounts than there is of the moon landing yet people chose not to believe, why? because they're waiting on a government agency to tell us to believe. It's pathetic.
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
QuoteIf there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets.
I dont know why that condition would have to hold, but I do believe there is a chance of life on other planets.
Think the key thing about the seas as compared to other worlds is water!!!
What's water got to do with it? Because living things on earth need water doesnt mean living things on other planets need water. On earth alone you have any amount of living things that rely on opposite conditions to survive but you assume life on other planets need the same environment as us? Who's to say there isn't water on other planets either, because we haven't found it yet it must not be there? Perfect examples of the arrogance of man kind.
So if the photograph had been taken by a UFO you would believe it?
Quote from: ludermor on June 23, 2009, 07:31:43 PM
So if the photograph had been taken by a UFO you would believe it?
it would depend
Where is the objective evidence of UFOs? Locked in Area 51 / some secret government vault you'll tell us.
None of us (apart from Pints) know what really happened, but I think it takes a special type of person to believe in the existence of aliens in their spaceships but not believe that man has gone to the moon.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 23, 2009, 07:42:04 PM
Where is the objective evidence of UFOs? Locked in Area 51 / some secret government vault you'll tell us.
None of us (apart from Pints) know what really happened, but I think it takes a special type of person to believe in the existence of aliens in their spaceships but not believe that man has gone to the moon.
Why would you have to be a special type of person to believe countless eye witness acounts and video and photographic evidence, or to believe in this vast world we are not the only living beings?
QuoteYou answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about?
So because we need water, everything in the universe must need water? Not necessarily true is it?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
QuoteIf there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets.
I dont know why that condition would have to hold, but I do believe there is a chance of life on other planets.
Think the key thing about the seas as compared to other worlds is water!!!
What's water got to do with it? Because living things on earth need water doesnt mean living things on other planets need water. On earth alone you have any amount of living things that rely on opposite conditions to survive but you assume life on other planets need the same environment as us? Who's to say there isn't water on other planets either, because we haven't found it yet it must not be there? Perfect examples of the arrogance of man kind.
You answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth
all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about? :D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:17:51 PM
QuoteYou answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about?
So because we need water, everything in the universe must need water? Not necessarily true is it?
How do you know? The science says it is - why believe your science to say man never went to the moon but not believe global universal science to say you need water for life to exist?
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:17:51 PM
QuoteYou answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about?
So because we need water, everything in the universe must need water? Not necessarily true is it?
How do you know? The science says it is - why believe your science to say man never went to the moon but not believe global universal science to say you need water for life to exist?
Because they dont know, we haven't explored other planets enough to say that a. there's no water or b. that no life can exist in this universe without water. Scientists state living things on earth need water, our planet is 2 thirds water so it makes sense through evolution or whatever that living beings on earth will rely on water. I'm not arrogant enough to state that a. we are alone in this vast universe or b. that all living creatures in this universe will require the same as us.
But you are arrogant enough using some crap second rate websites and stats to state that probably the greatest technological achievement of the human race, to place a person on another world, is a load of balls because you weren't on the shuttle to witness it for yourself. Maybe you should ask one of your alien witnesses to get bug eyes and time travel back in time with you and check out the boys having a party in the desert!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:17:51 PM
QuoteYou answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about?
So because we need water, everything in the universe must need water? Not necessarily true is it?
How do you know? The science says it is - why believe your science to say man never went to the moon but not believe global universal science to say you need water for life to exist?
Because they dont know, we haven't explored other planets enough to say that a. there's no water or b. that no life can exist in this universe without water. Scientists state living things on earth need water, our planet is 2 thirds water so it makes sense through evolution or whatever that living beings on earth will rely on water. I'm not arrogant enough to state that a. we are alone in this vast universe or b. that all living creatures in this universe will require the same as us.
If as you say aliens can build craft to travel many light years to Earth why is it not possible that man created a craft to take him the relatively small distance to the nearest satellite? On balance I know which one I'd put my money on.
Nail what are the odds on aliens on earth versus man landing on the moon 40 years ago?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 23, 2009, 08:33:06 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:24:32 PM
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:17:51 PM
QuoteYou answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about?
So because we need water, everything in the universe must need water? Not necessarily true is it?
How do you know? The science says it is - why believe your science to say man never went to the moon but not believe global universal science to say you need water for life to exist?
Because they dont know, we haven't explored other planets enough to say that a. there's no water or b. that no life can exist in this universe without water. Scientists state living things on earth need water, our planet is 2 thirds water so it makes sense through evolution or whatever that living beings on earth will rely on water. I'm not arrogant enough to state that a. we are alone in this vast universe or b. that all living creatures in this universe will require the same as us.
If as you say aliens can build craft to travel many light years to Earth why is it not possible that man created a craft to take him the relatively small distance to the nearest satellite? On balance I know which one I'd put my money on.
Nail what are the odds on aliens on earth versus man landing on the moon 40 years ago?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/editors-choice/2008/10/13/bookies-suspend-bets-on-alien-landing-86908-20798802/
:o :o :o
QuoteIf as you say aliens can build craft to travel many light years to Earth why is it not possible that man created a craft to take him the relatively small distance to the nearest satellite? On balance I know which one I'd put my money on.
They're more advanced than us. Simple as that.
Jimbo if you can't discuss something in a sensible fashion don't bother.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 01:18:37 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 12:29:03 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 22, 2009, 11:48:48 PM
I havent put forward any theory other than it was faked.
Screaming "it was debunked" "it was debunked" doesnt make it so either. There are plenty of experts and scientists who put up arguments for both sides of the debate, I've read most of them but for me I just don't believe the US got so lucky and for a government who have in the past been involved in conspiracies and with all they had to lose over the space mission I think it's more likely that they faked the moon landing than actually got lucky enough to complete an astonishing successful mission out of the blue.
It's odd that you don't believe in God and ridicule those who do because there is no evidence yet you believe men landed on the moon despite there being no evidence as it's the most "logical answer". That doesnt make any sense.
You put forward , flag,shadow and stars . All of which have been debunked. There is plenty independent evidence of the moon landings that but of course you rather live in a dream world.
What indepedent evidence?
I can't be bothered arguing over it gnevin, I have a feeling you've either never read about the landings or would rather swallow what you're being told. There's not one argument ever "debunked" any argument brought up by those who don't believe has been answered with basically "that's just the way it happens on the moon". How do you or me know that? what evidence is there?
THe flag shouldnt have been fluttering, expert photographers say the pictures had to have been taken under spotlights, ridiculous shadows where there shouldnt be etc. Crosshairs in funny postions. The flag ALWAYS remains lit up when it shouldnt have been, no pr exercise there, backgrounds all the same - answered with "that's the way it looks on the moon". Footprints on the moon yet the massive 15-20 ton landing thing (dont know the correct terminolgy) doesnt leave a mark and netiher does it leave a mark when it takes off when it should have left scorch damage. Astronuts who are magically able to move freely in suits when they shouldnt be able to, take superb pictures, thousands of them, (5 pictures a second or something ridiculous like that?) when they didnt even have view finders on the cameras. NASA of course claim only the best pictures were used and there are poor pictures, but I havent seen them, have you? Video footage not matching pictures taken. Picture where the rocks in them have been marked for postions like they are in movie sets for God sake!! Astronuts who can fly through the Van Allen belt and not suffer any radiation damage, why would that be? Maybe it's because NASA changed their minds about how much radiation they would face. Nasa doomed by tousands of technical hitches but what do you know, apollo 11 hadn't one.
I've read arguments for and against many times and I just don't buy it, I wish I could, I'd love to think we landed there but I don't believe it. If you do then that's fine but why ridicule those who don't believe what you believe as living in a dream world?
Btw, I bet you don't belive there's life on other planets?
Moon rocks, I'd say collected from unmanned missions
honeysuckle, god knows
Blue marble, not taken from the moon, could have been taken from unmanned mission
Dont know much about selene imaging, what does it show?
Surveyor, again, could have been unmanned and who told you these things about it? Nasa?
Im not sure what images you think LRO will show? Dont know much about it though, will it even be able to find the landing sites?
btw, it's a pity NASA only allowed the networks record the earth shattering images from their tv screen rather than give them the direct link, funny that.
For feck sake half of your so called hoax evidence was shown to be crap in a kids tv program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Episode_104_.E2.80.93_.22NASA_Moon_Landing.22 !
The flag only moves when touched, the star shouldn't appear as they are too dim ,the shadow effect is caused by an uneven surface, the lunar surface is very reflective hence why we can see it can night and hence by the flag is bright, the LM did leave a mark on the surface . Van Allen himself said the belt wouldn't be lethal at the exposure they got. Funny how the Aussie's took the feed direct from Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek
Seleen imaging shows the effect of Apollo 15 engines on the Luanar surface . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#SELENE_photographs
Surveyor was examined independent of NASA
The LRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter) they believe will be has the resolution to show the landing sites ,will you believe it or is it just a other NASA cover up?
That doesnt prove anything, explanations are provided yes, it's up to yourself if you believe them to be shite or not. For me, the "explanations" don't add up. I don't buy the "that's the way it is on the mooon" as explanations for any particularly when there are scientists out there who don't buy it either. The rest of your "evidence" doesnt prove man landed on the moon.
No one is saying that's the way it is on the moon . Every thing else can be tested and repeat here on earth.
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 08:18:19 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 01:32:05 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 12:24:00 PM
QuoteIf there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets.
I dont know why that condition would have to hold, but I do believe there is a chance of life on other planets.
Think the key thing about the seas as compared to other worlds is water!!!
What's water got to do with it? Because living things on earth need water doesnt mean living things on other planets need water. On earth alone you have any amount of living things that rely on opposite conditions to survive but you assume life on other planets need the same environment as us? Who's to say there isn't water on other planets either, because we haven't found it yet it must not be there? Perfect examples of the arrogance of man kind.
You answered your own question, no matter what amount of living things there are on Earth all rely on water to survive, thats scientific fact. So by your reckoning man didn't land on the moon because some "scientists" out there feel like being contorversial - maybe they got their PHD where Big Ian got his - but all science stipulates that you need water for life to exist yet you are now going to enter a fantasy land where one eye bugs that live on the Sun's radiation run about? :D
No true microbes have been found in water less environments here on earth
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 08:36:29 PM
QuoteIf as you say aliens can build craft to travel many light years to Earth why is it not possible that man created a craft to take him the relatively small distance to the nearest satellite? On balance I know which one I'd put my money on.
They're more advanced than us. Simple as that.
Jimbo if you can't discuss something in a sensible fashion don't bother.
Is a discussion - man didn't land on the moon, I don't believe it - here's some crap websites now im right your wrong? That type of discussion you talking about?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 08:40:44 PM
No true microbes have been found in water less environments here on earth
Surprised there isn't more information about this, surely worthy of a scientific article or two?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:59:41 PM
Why would you have to be a special type of person to believe countless eye witness acounts and video and photographic evidence, or to believe in this vast world we are not the only living beings?
Where have we got credible video and photographic evidence?
Also - Ive yet to see any "evidence" that the landing has been faked that does not have a reasonable explanation.
Yeah and Elvis isn't dead, 9/11 didn't happen, Princess Di is alive and well and Ricey is a nice person. ::)
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 09:52:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:59:41 PM
Why would you have to be a special type of person to believe countless eye witness acounts and video and photographic evidence, or to believe in this vast world we are not the only living beings?
Where have we got credible video and photographic evidence?
Also - Ive yet to see any "evidence" that the landing has been faked that does not have a reasonable explanation.
Ive yet to see any evidence it's real.
As for evidence of UFOs, search the web, if you dont want to believe stories of the likes of me and you because you think they're crazy then look at the eye witness accounts of pilots, inc military pilots, army personnel etc
pilots like the guys who walked on the moon?
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 10:01:56 PM
pilots like the guys who walked on the moon?
Only these pillots have no reason to lie.
Quote from: jimbo on June 23, 2009, 08:47:38 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 08:40:44 PM
No true microbes have been found in water less environments here on earth
Surprised there isn't more information about this, surely worthy of a scientific article or two?
Sorry msiread/misheard about microbes which live in
near waterless conditions .
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 09:59:50 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 09:52:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:59:41 PM
Why would you have to be a special type of person to believe countless eye witness acounts and video and photographic evidence, or to believe in this vast world we are not the only living beings?
Where have we got credible video and photographic evidence?
Also - Ive yet to see any "evidence" that the landing has been faked that does not have a reasonable explanation.
Ive yet to see any evidence it's real.
As for evidence of UFOs, search the web, if you dont want to believe stories of the likes of me and you because you think they're crazy then look at the eye witness accounts of pilots, inc military pilots, army personnel etc
what evidence would satisfiy you ? Would a picture from the LPO ? Are you disputing the finding of JAXA and SELENE findings?
We'll see what LPO show first.
Salene findings are interesting, because they found a similar background to the ones the apollo misson took we're expected to believe this is evidence? yet, when it was questioned why so many of the pictures taken on the apollo missions had similar/same backgrounds when they were suppose to be taken in different areas we were basically told everything looks the same on the moon.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 10:50:20 PM
We'll see what LPO show first.
Salene findings are interesting, because they found a similar background to the ones the apollo misson took we're expected to believe this is evidence? yet, when it was questioned why so many of the pictures taken on the apollo missions had similar/same backgrounds when they were suppose to be taken in different areas we were basically told everything looks the same on the moon.
Not a similar background the same background, NASA and JAXA know where A15 landed, it's the exact spot . The pictures are clear evidence of the surface being disturbed by A15's LM. Don't try muddy the waters here a typical Hoax nut ploy when one theory is blown out of the water .
How can JAXA find evidence on the lunar surface of A15 if we never went?
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 10:50:20 PM
We'll see what LPO show first.
Salene findings are interesting, because they found a similar background to the ones the apollo misson took we're expected to believe this is evidence? yet, when it was questioned why so many of the pictures taken on the apollo missions had similar/same backgrounds when they were suppose to be taken in different areas we were basically told everything looks the same on the moon.
Not a similar background the same background, NASA and JAXA know where A15 landed, it's the exact spot . The pictures are clear evidence of the surface being disturbed by A15's LM. Don't try muddy the waters here a typical Hoax nut ploy when one theory is blown out of the water .
How can JAXA find evidence on the lunar surface of A15 if we never went?
What's the point ::)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:05:14 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 10:58:14 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 10:50:20 PM
We'll see what LPO show first.
Salene findings are interesting, because they found a similar background to the ones the apollo misson took we're expected to believe this is evidence? yet, when it was questioned why so many of the pictures taken on the apollo missions had similar/same backgrounds when they were suppose to be taken in different areas we were basically told everything looks the same on the moon.
Not a similar background the same background, NASA and JAXA know where A15 landed, it's the exact spot . The pictures are clear evidence of the surface being disturbed by A15's LM. Don't try muddy the waters here a typical Hoax nut ploy when one theory is blown out of the water .
How can JAXA find evidence on the lunar surface of A15 if we never went?
What's the point ::)
AKA you'll leave that up too some other conspiracy nut guy and then claim to always have the answer . No doubt if LPO finds any of the A11 stuff on the moon you'll claim they where unmanned and part of NASA's plan.
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTtixBih0PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Two things I don't believe.. that the passengers overcame the beardy boys on that plane on 9/11. Was the American airforce shot it down and then tried to make a hero story. Also I don't think Myra Hindley died but she was given a new identity and a life somewhere as uproar on her release would have been too much. I do believe the moon landing tho-it was on TV.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
If the cap fits.
Quote from: longball on June 23, 2009, 12:07:58 PM
I defo believe in Aliens. If there is live at the bottom of our seas there has to be life on other planets. the bottom of the sea has the worst conditions known to man for life and creatures like this survive:
(http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04deepscope/background/deeplight/media/fig3a_400.jpg)
only 1% of the Sea's deck has been examined.
While I think it likely, given the sheer size of the universe, that there is (or at least was or will be) life somewhere else, I don't see what the adaptation of creatures to the ocean depths has to do with it. Once multicellular life exists and evolves, the chances, given enough time, are that sooner or later some organisms will adapt to a particular unusual set of conditions. Whether that is comparable to the development of life itself is highly debatable.
Nothing hugely unusual about that creature you've posted - its a deep-sea fish with a huge mouth and distendable stomach. Not that big a departure from the average fish species.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 09:59:50 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 23, 2009, 09:52:55 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 07:59:41 PM
Why would you have to be a special type of person to believe countless eye witness acounts and video and photographic evidence, or to believe in this vast world we are not the only living beings?
Where have we got credible video and photographic evidence?
Also - Ive yet to see any "evidence" that the landing has been faked that does not have a reasonable explanation.
Ive yet to see any evidence it's real.
As for evidence of UFOs, search the web, if you dont want to believe stories of the likes of me and you because you think they're crazy then look at the eye witness accounts of pilots, inc military pilots, army personnel etc
So official NASA footage isn't evidence but these second rate crap websites you obviously hold as your Holy Grail are all 100% accurate - and then you have the audacity to question my discussion methods. Your only argument is that you don't believe a person was put on the moon, irrespective of all the evidence out there to say this is true. You do however have some amazing insight that life can survive without water and that these dried up creatures are whizzing around Earth in shiny coins with millions of lights. In fairness if they could evolve without water; you would think they could adopt themselves to being able to see in the dark without needing so many fair ground lights hanging from their space ships!!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
Don't go; fire out another few quotes from the net - it really backs up your
I don't believe theory - honestyl. :P I suppose the documentary on BB2 tonight about the Space Race and the Moon landings - NASA: Triumph and Tragedy 9pm - is a publicity stunt; no doubt every single person interviewed there is lying and all the footage fake! ::)
Quote from: jimbo on June 24, 2009, 07:26:58 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
Don't go; fire out another few quotes from the net - it really backs up your I don't believe theory - honestyl. :P I suppose the documentary on BB2 tonight about the Space Race and the Moon landings - NASA: Triumph and Tragedy 9pm - is a publicity stunt; no doubt every single person interviewed there is lying and all the footage fake! ::)
Gnevin simply ridicules anyone who doesnt believe the same thing as him, whether it be this or religion or whatever. You have to get personal all the time. What's the point? If you hold so much weight to documentaries watch one on UFOs or read a book maybe. That is if you can pull yourself away from your James Bond lifestyle or the campaign for more parent/todler spaces at your local supermarket. It's amazing that anyone would be arrogant enough to think a. there's no water on other planets because we didn't find any b. we're the only intelligent life in the universe or c. everything must have the same conditions as us to survive in the universe. However if a government agency told you tomorrow there was life on other planets you'd believe it. Try thinking for yourself for once.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2009, 08:17:14 AM
Quote from: jimbo on June 24, 2009, 07:26:58 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
Don't go; fire out another few quotes from the net - it really backs up your I don't believe theory - honestyl. :P I suppose the documentary on BB2 tonight about the Space Race and the Moon landings - NASA: Triumph and Tragedy 9pm - is a publicity stunt; no doubt every single person interviewed there is lying and all the footage fake! ::)
Gnevin simply ridicules anyone who doesnt believe the same thing as him, whether it be this or religion or whatever. You have to get personal all the time. What's the point? If you hold so much weight to documentaries watch one on UFOs or read a book maybe. That is if you can pull yourself away from your James Bond lifestyle or the campaign for more parent/todler spaces at your local supermarket. It's amazing that anyone would be arrogant enough to think a. there's no water on other planets because we didn't find any b. we're the only intelligent life in the universe or c. everything must have the same conditions as us to survive in the universe. However if a government agency told you tomorrow there was life on other planets you'd believe it. Try thinking for yourself for once.
There is a major difference in believing their is life on other worlds and believing intelligent life likes to come here as stick rods up red necks asses .
Now to really blur the lines. Did God create they Alien life that visits earth , and if so do they believe in god, are they created in his image too?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2009, 08:17:14 AM
Quote from: jimbo on June 24, 2009, 07:26:58 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:37:53 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:32:01 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 23, 2009, 11:25:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 23, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Why is it that someone who doesnt believe what you do, whether it be on religion or the moon landings or whatever, must be a nut?
Religious people are not nuts,there is a difference between indoctrinated and nuts. People who believe the ravings of internet crazys over all other evidence no matter what are nuts . I mean you can test half of these so called theories yourself.
and these "internet crazys" would be people who don't believe the offical version of events from a government who has lied and covered up in the past?
Yes the same internet crazy who don't believe the independent evidence and don' believe one of their theory's can be debunked such as the flag. I mean a child with a hover could debunk that one.
Not much point in discussing something when you're going to label people who disagree with you as being crazy or a nut job.
I'm done here.
Don't go; fire out another few quotes from the net - it really backs up your I don't believe theory - honestyl. :P I suppose the documentary on BB2 tonight about the Space Race and the Moon landings - NASA: Triumph and Tragedy 9pm - is a publicity stunt; no doubt every single person interviewed there is lying and all the footage fake! ::)
Gnevin simply ridicules anyone who doesnt believe the same thing as him, whether it be this or religion or whatever. You have to get personal all the time. What's the point? If you hold so much weight to documentaries watch one on UFOs or read a book maybe. That is if you can pull yourself away from your James Bond lifestyle or the campaign for more parent/todler spaces at your local supermarket. It's amazing that anyone would be arrogant enough to think a. there's no water on other planets because we didn't find any b. we're the only intelligent life in the universe or c. everything must have the same conditions as us to survive in the universe. However if a government agency told you tomorrow there was life on other planets you'd believe it. Try thinking for yourself for once.
Suppose when you spend 90% of your waking life on the net, you start to believe all the shit out there. No one has landed on the moon but aliens evolved without water and are zooming around our skies. UF0's and aliens exist because you read a book :D Your discussion tactics are always the same, basically you try to beat the other person down by constantly going on and on and when you can't you state you're done. As for the parent/toddler thing did any of the alien abductees see any form of young alien abuse by the older members of the clan, or is that solely for living things who need water to survive?
Jimbo,
you seem to know a lot about POG for someone who has only registered a few weeks ago. Though it did yake you a wee while to start attacking.
Quote from: Gnevin on June 24, 2009, 09:00:53 AM
Now to really blur the lines. Did God create they Alien life that visits earth , and if so do they believe in god, are they created in his image too?
Why would they have to be created in God's image?
Ive no problem in believing in life on other planets.
I don't think it is wrong to question whether it is possible for them to be sufficiently advanced to visit earth. They may be, but if so id question why they refuse to make contact, and if they wish to not be noticed why they are, often by incredibly poor photographers, and often the seem to be seen by the same people on many occasions while most people never see anything of them.
If they wished to remain anonymous then surely they would have suitably advanced technology to do so.
Quote from: supersarsfields on June 24, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 24, 2009, 09:00:53 AM
Now to really blur the lines. Did God create they Alien life that visits earth , and if so do they believe in god, are they created in his image too?
Why would they have to be created in God's image?
Well why where we created in his image? I assume God created the alien life, so why are we so special . Do they believe in god?
BBC2 at 9.00pm tonight, should be a decent show.
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:09 AM
Ive no problem in believing in life on other planets.
I don't think it is wrong to question whether it is possible for them to be sufficiently advanced to visit earth. They may be, but if so id question why they refuse to make contact, and if they wish to not be noticed why they are, often by incredibly poor photographers, and often the seem to be seen by the same people on many occasions while most people never see anything of them.
If they wished to remain anonymous then surely they would have suitably advanced technology to do so.
I'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there. Also, the first thing we would do if they made contact would be to try and kill them!
as for the rest of your post about the same people seeing them, incredibily poor photograhpers etc - that's just not true. It's lazy to say that when there 100s of photographs and video footage, any amount of eye witness reports from credicle witnesses, several incidents where 100s of people witnessed the event - they can't all be crazy or these incidents aren't all weather baloons.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2009, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:09 AM
Ive no problem in believing in life on other planets.
I don't think it is wrong to question whether it is possible for them to be sufficiently advanced to visit earth. They may be, but if so id question why they refuse to make contact, and if they wish to not be noticed why they are, often by incredibly poor photographers, and often the seem to be seen by the same people on many occasions while most people never see anything of them.
If they wished to remain anonymous then surely they would have suitably advanced technology to do so.
I'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there. Also, the first thing we would do if they made contact would be to try and kill them!
as for the rest of your post about the same people seeing them, incredibily poor photograhpers etc - that's just not true. It's lazy to say that when there 100s of photographs and video footage, any amount of eye witness reports from credicle witnesses, several incidents where 100s of people witnessed the event - they can't all be crazy or these incidents aren't all weather baloons.
And you tell me to dry up with this drivel!! :D
Quote from: Gnevin on June 24, 2009, 04:01:51 PM
Quote from: supersarsfields on June 24, 2009, 10:06:00 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 24, 2009, 09:00:53 AM
Now to really blur the lines. Did God create they Alien life that visits earth , and if so do they believe in god, are they created in his image too?
Why would they have to be created in God's image?
Well why where we created in his image? I assume God created the alien life, so why are we so special . Do they believe in god?
Maybe he went in for a bit of variety. And maybe their the special ones as they were made unique? Just because it says we are made in God's image doesn't mean all races will be.
( Disclaimer - I am in no way saying that there is definitely intelligent aliens :-X )
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:09 AM
Ive no problem in believing in life on other planets.
I don't think it is wrong to question whether it is possible for them to be sufficiently advanced to visit earth. They may be, but if so id question why they refuse to make contact, and if they wish to not be noticed why they are, often by incredibly poor photographers, and often the seem to be seen by the same people on many occasions while most people never see anything of them.
If they wished to remain anonymous then surely they would have suitably advanced technology to do so.
If aliens did ever decide to make contact how would they do it and with who specifically? When humans explored new worlds the first person they want to talk to is the leader. Who is the leader of our planet? We don't really have one. You could claim Obama but he only leads 5% of the Earths population. So who then? the Chinese, The Pope, Bertie, or maybe every single world leader simultaneously somehow?
If Aliens do want to make contact I suspect they'll wait till they know who to talk to.
Quote from: Irenses on June 24, 2009, 08:30:14 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:09 AM
Ive no problem in believing in life on other planets.
I don't think it is wrong to question whether it is possible for them to be sufficiently advanced to visit earth. They may be, but if so id question why they refuse to make contact, and if they wish to not be noticed why they are, often by incredibly poor photographers, and often the seem to be seen by the same people on many occasions while most people never see anything of them.
If they wished to remain anonymous then surely they would have suitably advanced technology to do so.
If aliens did ever decide to make contact how would they do it and with who specifically? When humans explored new worlds the first person they want to talk to is the leader. Who is the leader of our planet? We don’t really have one. You could claim Obama but he only leads 5% of the Earths population. So who then? the Chinese, The Pope, Bertie, or maybe every single world leader simultaneously somehow?
If Aliens do want to make contact I suspect they’ll wait till they know who to talk to.
Pints obviously.
Just watched the BBC documentary - I'm with Pints - X-Files more believable!!
QuoteI'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there.
Why do the shun contact yet supposedly continue to be seen by small groups. Why are they never seen by large groups at cities etc.
Can you show us some of the good quality photos and or video that is so abundant.
If they are advanced enough to completely obliterate our knowledge of phyics when it comes to travelling i fail to see why they would be concerned about us trying to kill them. They can travel faster than any weapon we would hav available.
The Earth is flat.
I wouldn't believe anything gnevin says, sure he reckons there is a super being living in his Y front drawer that has zero mass, hence displacing none of his many Y fronts. This moon landing is so 60's, let them come back to me when they've landed on the Sun.
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:01 PM
QuoteI'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there.
Why do the shun contact yet supposedly continue to be seen by small groups. Why are they never seen by large groups at cities etc.
Can you show us some of the good quality photos and or video that is so abundant.
If they are advanced enough to completely obliterate our knowledge of phyics when it comes to travelling i fail to see why they would be concerned about us trying to kill them. They can travel faster than any weapon we would hav available.
What do you constitute at small or large groups? There has been loads of incidents where they've been seen by large groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings)
If you want pictures just simply put the term UFO into google.
anyway, I've no idea why they don't make contact.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 24, 2009, 10:24:19 PM
I wouldn't believe anything gnevin says, sure he reckons there is a super being living in his Y front drawer that has zero mass, hence displacing none of his many Y fronts. This moon landing is so 60's, let them come back to me when they've landed on the Sun.
Let me break down how your wrong!
First of all they are boxers!
Secondly it's a press
Thirdly prove the super being isn't their .
;) ;) ;D
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:01 PM
QuoteI'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there.
Why do the shun contact yet supposedly continue to be seen by small groups. Why are they never seen by large groups at cities etc.
Can you show us some of the good quality photos and or video that is so abundant.
If they are advanced enough to completely obliterate our knowledge of phyics when it comes to travelling i fail to see why they would be concerned about us trying to kill them. They can travel faster than any weapon we would hav available.
In fact they can travel fast than a multiple factor of light speed or use some other means to obtain the same end e.g point to point travel faster than light can make the trip.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 24, 2009, 10:37:39 PM
Quote from: nifan on June 24, 2009, 10:16:01 PM
QuoteI'd ask what they would have to gain my making contact, they are far more advanced than us, probably have us down as an idiotic war mongering world, probably don't rely on the resources we do so there's no advantage there.
Why do the shun contact yet supposedly continue to be seen by small groups. Why are they never seen by large groups at cities etc.
Can you show us some of the good quality photos and or video that is so abundant.
If they are advanced enough to completely obliterate our knowledge of phyics when it comes to travelling i fail to see why they would be concerned about us trying to kill them. They can travel faster than any weapon we would hav available.
What do you constitute at small or large groups? There has been loads of incidents where they've been seen by large groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings)
If you want pictures just simply put the term UFO into google.
anyway, I've no idea why they don't make contact.
Wikipedia. :D :D Is that everyone's answer here - its entries created and maintained by people like Pints ffs!!!
There probably is intelligent life out there.
And we know they are intelligent, because they have not made contact with GAABoard.
Just noticed this thread. Brought back great memories of getting drunk in the Student's Union as a first year. You'd leave the bar having been convinced half of the population were aliens or we were the playthings of a giant. Ahhh, the innocence of youth.
Saw this image and thought of this thread
(http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/electromagnetic_leak.PNG)