I live alone - suffer from insomnia - like to drink Scotch - watch TV for company - join in a few discussions on the forum.
I have quite a few theories of the reasons behind both local and international events.
Anyone else have similar ideas? :x :x :x
Sheff

Originally posted by "sheffco"

I live alone - suffer from insomnia - like to drink Scotch - watch TV for company - join in a few discussions on the forum.
I have quite a few theories of the reasons behind both local and international events.
Anyone else have similar ideas? :x :x :x
Sheff

Care to elaborate on some of these theories?

The latest "World Threatening disease" SARS - this could be used as a simple and so far unique way of spreading "Biological Warfare" - Take some Suicide matyrs - infect them, and book them on flights to Coalition countries. - - So what if they are refused entry, the disease is spread on the aircraft! and enters the country with innocent fellow travellers.

Some of my other theories are a bit way out, and I think the moderator would censor them. - - Aids and the spread of it.

Coca Cola - I used to think that the CIA were tinkering with the formular - then building plants in eastern block countries where it was the muslims favourite drink.

My theory on the reconstruction of Iraq - posted on "War in Iraq" is proving to be quite prophetic - in the light of Colin Powels talk at the UN. :evil: :evil: :evil:

I don't believe than man has walked on the moon.

I think it is written in the Koran - - That Muslimism shall last until man sets foot on the moon?

Originally posted by "Sidla"

I don't believe than man has walked on the moon.

I think the same. I think America faked it to get there before Russia.

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

I don't believe than man has walked on the moon.

I think the same. I think America faked it to get there before Russia.

Which of the manned missions to the moon do you think was faked? All of them? This is a joke right?

Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Any of you use "Copernic" - there are 35 mentions of sites dedicated to fake or non fake landings.

Free at www.copernic.com
A good search tool.
Cheers

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

Which of the manned missions to the moon do you think was faked? All of them? This is a joke right?
No, I'm deadly serious. There's tonnes of evidence to indicate that it was most probably faked.

I also don't believe that Princess Diana is really dead.

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

I don't believe than man has walked on the moon.

I think the same. I think America faked it to get there before Russia.

Which of the manned missions to the moon do you think was faked? All of them? This is a joke right?

Is there any evidence to the contrary?

I am certainly not convinced about the first one. There was lots of motive to get there before Russia who seemed to be ahead of USA in the race.

There are fears being voiced that if there is peace in the gulf, and eastern europe manages to join the EU, - - tens of thousands of refugees would be able to go home, and work in their own countries? We only have Africa to sort out then. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Originally posted by "Sidla"

Which of the manned missions to the moon do you think was faked? All of them? This is a joke right?
No, I'm deadly serious. There's tonnes of evidence to indicate that it was most probably faked.

Kindly point me towards some
Everything I've found so far using a websearch has been risible. I'm not denying that it would be possible (just like that movie Capricorn One!) only that to keep it a secret for 30 years
and manufacture gigantic space rockets and blast them off into space,
and then have some radio relay planted on the moon by a robot so all the radio hams can point their antennas at the moon and receive signals from the crew.
and then cooking up half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples to distribute to scientific institutes all over the world
Originally posted by "http://www.space.com/news/SI_moon_hoax-1.html"


Unlike Earth rocks, the lunar samples are totally devoid of water, even within their crystal structures. Their chemical compositions, in particular the ratio of iron and manganese, set them apart from any of Earth?s native rocks. They are extraordinarily ancient, some almost as old as the solar system. Perhaps, most importantly, their surfaces show the effects of bombardment by high-speed micrometeorites and subatomic particles from the solar wind?neither of which can affect terrestrial rocks because our atmosphere screens them out. These so-called "zap pits" would have also been wiped out had the rocks fallen to Earth as lunar meteorites; the tremendous heat generated by their high-velocity passage through our atmosphere would have erased any such surface features.
and fake 32,000 pictures from the apollo missions

amongst other things.
The moon landings happened, really.
ttfn

If all the proposed countries manage to get into the EU - this will give France and Germany a load of minor votes to seek when proposing to line their own pockets - as they do with the UN minorities

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"

and manufacture gigantic space rockets and blast them off into space,
and then have some radio relay planted on the moon by a robot so all the radio hams can point their antennas at the moon and receive signals from the crew.
and then cooking up half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples to distribute to scientific institutes all over the world
How does anybody know that the radio signals came from the moon? They know because NASA has told them. They couldn't have put man on the moon, because it's not possible. NASA will tell you it is possible, but they would say that, wouldn't they? Most of the people at NASA don't know the truth anyway, there was probably only a very small number of people in on it. The evidence could quite easily be faked, but because it comes from NASA people automatically believe that it's real because people are stupid and believe whatever NASA tells them.

How does anybody know what moon rock is like anyway? If the moon rock is real (which I doubt) then it would have been collected with a scoop and return probe.

I also found this recently:
Originally posted by "BBC Online"

In September, Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, punched a man in the face after he had confronted the former astronaut at a Beverly Hills hotel.

Bart Sibrel - who has made a film questioning the Apollo Moon missions - had demanded that Mr Aldrin, 72, swear on the Bible that he had in fact walked on the Moon.

Prosecutors declined to file assault charges against Mr Aldrin.
That speaks volumes to me.

See also:
http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/
http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

The truth is we'll never know the truth. If any evidence comes out to prove that man hasn't been to the moon it is immediately covered up by NASA.

I love this topic!

- Faked lunar landing? I've heard this one but find it hard to keep everyone that was involved quiet for this long. I must admitt many of those pictures supposedly taken on different areas on the moon have very simlilar backgrounds.

- I am a preterist but many feel that the EU will result in the apocolypse starting with the "beast" from the book of revelations. Will the EU develop a system of stamping 666 on you?

- UFO accounts from actuall residents of Roswell New Mexico tell stories of aliens roaming the wreckage after wards. One fireman , recently, tells stories of shooting and killing one out of fear when it approached him for help.

- The lost city of Atlantis - the lost city was supposedly found when a diver, who does not know his axact location, went deep into an opening on the ocean's bottom and decended into a "room of pure gold" and beauty beyond description... He was diving out beyond the supposed raod in the sea that many feel leads to the city of Atlantis. proving Atlantis would result in re-writing history. The Atlantien civilization was said to be far more advanced than any at the time..

- Carbon dating shows that the Great pyramid of Giza actually dates back to the supposed beggining of human existance. We'll never get a true account as this would destroy many popular theories including evolution. How could humans have built them then? Does this show that man was put here by beings from another planet? Are we an experiment? I remember just a few years ago scientist were always baffled that neither human bodies nor Egyption writing were found in these great structures. FACT: Writings from many kings and leaders of Egypt, including Akunaten, refered to the Pyramids as mysterious ancient structures. Why did they not know who built them? Out of all the stories, gods, heroes, customs, beliefs, religions and folklore that were passed on generation after generation in Egypt why are there no accounts of how the Pyramids of Giza were built? The pyramids seemed to have existed already in all writings from the many dynasties. Even the ancient ones...

- A more recent discovery of another dead sea scroll declares that man should not worship GOD through religion and that everyone's home is GOD's home. Supposedly, the Vatican, big business, refuses to recognise it as religious law although it was written in the same references and credibility as the other dead sea scrolls.

- Great Flood stories were told in ancient Egypt. The Bible's version are told almost exactly the way the multiple accounts were written in ancient Egypt. Problem is, the version told in Egypt occured much, much earlier.

- That the Philadelphia experiment was true. Accounts from many people involved with this experiment told stories of the ship's invisibilty. Others told about how when the ship re-appeared the crew would slip into alternate "realities" but most were embedded in the ship's hull. Their "being" blended into the metal. Imagine the ship and them as one. I am from the Philadelphia area and I have heard many first hand accounts on this and I must admitt its still a hard pill to swallow.

- Dolphin men - During WWII Hitler and the US seperatly researched combining the DNA of man with that of a Dolphin. Stories on this are bone chilling! Some say thet the US was successful and have an army of Aqua men to this very day. Macdill Airforce Base or CamCom in Florida have many sea born projects witnessed by many. Some say that there are fishlike US soldiers that can swim for miles with little surfacing and can carry out missions as they blend in to the human population using skin color injections. Legs like you and I but a streamlined torso and head. All of genious IQ.

- Men In Black - while there is little doubt that the MIB are actually secret members of the CIA, their mission is to stomp out and disprove any proof that would lead to the discovery of TOP Secret information around the world. Most would relate them to the dispelling of UFO accounts but they have been involved with erasing miracles events, evidence of Ancient civilations being far more advanced than modern man and obolishing any other evidence that would go against what governments want us to know.

- The idea that sub atomic particles can slip into other dimensions. Recently, TIME ran an article about this find as factual. With the exception of Metaphysics how can this be explained? No attention has been focused on this because many feel it would cause a tear in modern belief systems. These particles have been thought to remove itself from the "here and now" to reappear in the "there and now." The crasiest part is that when they reappear in the "here and now" they show up in a different location!!!!! Light does not reflect on subatomic particles so one can conclude that energy (invisible) is indeed active at the subatomic level. Does this not backup the possibility that the human "Life source" or "soul" is entirely trasferrable? Can what we consider heaven be another dimension of time and space? Also, ghosts are another possibilty backed by this finding. Since energy is constant and can never die out, where does our "life source" energy go?

If you've never seen this site, you might find it interesting. They're not all conspiracies... but I think some of you might have heard some of these "urban legends" on this website.

http://www.snopes.com

In particular:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/moontruth.asp

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.htm

Originally posted by "Sidla"

and manufacture gigantic space rockets and blast them off into space,
and then have some radio relay planted on the moon by a robot so all the radio hams can point their antennas at the moon and receive signals from the crew.
and then cooking up half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples to distribute to scientific institutes all over the world
How does anybody know that the radio signals came from the moon?
Because with a directional antenna, you have to point it at the source fof the signal. When that source rises and sets with the moon, you can be pretty sure the source is on the moon. Also the Apollo missions installed laser reflectors on the moon that are still in use today to make extremely accurate measurements of the moon's distance from the earth.
they know because NASA has told them. They couldn't have put man on the moon, because it's not possible.

Why is it impossible? Do you actually know anything about this at all, or are you just taking other people's word for it?

NASA will tell you it is possible, but they would say that, wouldn't they? Most of the people at NASA don't know the truth anyway, there was probably only a very small number of people in on it.

How many people does it take to make a film, build the models, build the worlds largest soundstage, launch gigantic rockets without anyone on board, send radio transmitters to the moon to fake radio broadcasts, fool everyone and their instruments in mission control? And there were what 6 or seven manned missions to the moon. Thousands. Not one of them has ever said anything that would indicate that even one of the moon missions was a fake.

The evidence could quite easily be faked, but because it comes from NASA people automatically believe that it's real because people are stupid and believe whatever NASA tells them.
Explain how to fake moon rock.
Half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples were collected. This stuff came from the moon, and has been independently studied by geologists from all over the world. It looks exactly the same as the samples of moon rock collected by Russian probes. It's geological profile, age, radioactive activity and surface features clearly indicate the material is not from this planet.

How does anybody know what moon rock is like anyway? If the moon rock is real (which I doubt) then it would have been collected with a scoop and return probe.
Why do you doubt it is real? Even if the missions were a fake you readily accept that a probe would be able to go to the moon and collect rock. So it's impossible to send a man to the moon, yet perfectly possible to send a probe?

I also found this recently:
Originally posted by "BBC Online"

In September, Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, punched a man in the face after he had confronted the former astronaut at a Beverly Hills hotel.

Bart Sibrel - who has made a film questioning the Apollo Moon missions - had demanded that Mr Aldrin, 72, swear on the Bible that he had in fact walked on the Moon.

Prosecutors declined to file assault charges against Mr Aldrin.
That speaks volumes to me.

Imagine that you trained for years and risked your life on the first manned moon mission, and then some **** comes up to talking about how the moon landings were a hoax, and starts demanding that you swear on the bible that you had done what you and billions of other people said you did.
I'd punch the stupid cretin too(if I was half the man Aldrin is, which I'm not)
And if it was a fake, why would Aldrin have a problem swearing on the bible, if he'd been able to lie about it on the other 50,000 occasions he's been asked to talk about it? If it's such a big secret, then swearing on the bible wouldn't be much of a problem.

See also:
http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/
http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

Well you could look at those, or your could look at these:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

The truth is we'll never know the truth. If any evidence comes out to prove that man hasn't been to the moon it is immediately covered up by NASA.
The truth is we'll never know the truth?
ROFLMAO:) How can that be true? LOL!
The truth is that the moon landings happened. The events are massively corroborated from dozens of different perspectives including radio triangulation, geological evidence, photographic evidence, video evidence, and personal testimony. They all support the thesis that man has been to the moon.

The evidence showing them up to be a hoax is based on wilful ignorance of physics and unhelpful facts (like the Australian receiver that actually relayed the video pictures - a big directional antenna pointed at the moon, receiving video images transmitted by the mission) and wishful interpretation of pictures and video footage.

Either way , I believe a Japanese orbiter, the SELENE mission is due to arrive at the moon this year to undertake a complete and highly detailed global map of the moon in all spectra. The moon landing sites will be clearly visible.

What would it take to convince you Sidla? Or would you refused to be convinced whatever the evidence?

Originally posted by "Phanerothyme"


Because with a directional antenna, you have to point it at the source fof the signal. When that source rises and sets with the moon, you can be pretty sure the source is on the moon. Also the Apollo missions installed laser reflectors on the moon that are still in use today to make extremely accurate measurements of the moon's distance from the earth.
That doesn't prove anything. NASA could quite easily have bounced broardcasts off the moon, or ever planted a transmitter on the moon.

Why is it impossible? Do you actually know anything about this at all, or are you just taking other people's word for it?
I don't know whether it's possible or not, I just don't believe it is.

How many people does it take to make a film, build the models, build the worlds largest soundstage, launch gigantic rockets without anyone on board, send radio transmitters to the moon to fake radio broadcasts, fool everyone and their instruments in mission control? And there were what 6 or seven manned missions to the moon. Thousands. Not one of them has ever said anything that would indicate that even one of the moon missions was a fake.

The amount of people involved would have been minimized and they're kept quiet by paying them a hell of a lot of money each year.

Explain how to fake moon rock.
Half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples were collected. This stuff came from the moon, and has been independently studied by geologists from all over the world. It looks exactly the same as the samples of moon rock collected by Russian probes. It's geological profile, age, radioactive activity and surface features clearly indicate the material is not from this planet.

The moon rock could quite easily have been collected by scoop and return probes.

Why do you doubt it is real? Even if the missions were a fake you readily accept that a probe would be able to go to the moon and collect rock. So it's impossible to send a man to the moon, yet perfectly possible to send a probe?
It wouldn't be possible for humans to survive the trip to the moon. It could quite easily be achieved by machinery.

Imagine that you trained for years and risked your life on the first manned moon mission, and then some t**t comes up to talking about how the moon landings were a hoax, and starts demanding that you swear on the bible that you had done what you and billions of other people said you did.
I'd punch the stupid cretin too(if I was half the man Aldrin is, which I'm not)
And if it was a fake, why would Aldrin have a problem swearing on the bible, if he'd been able to lie about it on the other 50,000 occasions he's been asked to talk about it? If it's such a big secret, then swearing on the bible wouldn't be much of a problem.

There would be no reason to refuse to swear on the bible if it really happened.

Well you could look at those, or your could look at these:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

I've seen loads of evidence on both sides of the argument and I find the hoax theory the most convincing. Even NASA have a page dedicated to 'prove' conspiracy theorists wrong! Why would they even entertain the notion if they actually happened?


The truth is we'll never know the truth?
ROFLMAO:) How can that be true? LOL!
I already explained that! If ever some evidence comes out to prove that man has never been to the moon it's instantly covered up by NASA. Look at this for example:

FACT: The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70's when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 33 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.

Either way , I believe a Japanese orbiter, the SELENE mission is due to arrive at the moon this year to undertake a complete and highly detailed global map of the moon in all spectra. The moon landing sites will be clearly visible.

What would it take to convince you Sidla? Or would you refused to be convinced whatever the evidence?
If the Japanese find evidence of the landing site and the American flag on the moon then I'll believe. If I'm proven wrong then I'll admit defeat and look like a bit of a fool, but if I'm right then it's a big 'I told you so' and a big smug feeling for me :)

I expect they will find the remains of the Seismic Exploration Crew I took up there in 1991.
Whenever there is an expedition to the remotest places on earth - they find signs that the doodlebuggers have been there and got the T shirt.

Originally posted by "Sidla"


Because with a directional antenna, you have to point it at the source fof the signal. When that source rises and sets with the moon, you can be pretty sure the source is on the moon. Also the Apollo missions installed laser reflectors on the moon that are still in use today to make extremely accurate measurements of the moon's distance from the earth.
That doesn't prove anything. NASA could quite easily have bounced broardcasts off the moon, or ever planted a transmitter on the moon.
OK so we have established that something was on the moon at the time of the first and subsequent moon landings

Why is it impossible? Do you actually know anything about this at all, or are you just taking other people's word for it?
I don't know whether it's possible or not, I just don't believe it is.

But you must have some reason for believing that travel to the moon is impossible for a human. What is it?

How many people does it take to make a film, build the models, build the worlds largest soundstage, launch gigantic rockets without anyone on board, send radio transmitters to the moon to fake radio broadcasts, fool everyone and their instruments in mission control? And there were what 6 or seven manned missions to the moon. Thousands. Not one of them has ever said anything that would indicate that even one of the moon missions was a fake.

The amount of people involved would have been minimized and they're kept quiet by paying them a hell of a lot of money each year.

Really? How much? To whom?
Explain how to fake moon rock.
Half a tonne of moon rock and dust samples were collected. This stuff came from the moon, and has been independently studied by geologists from all over the world. It looks exactly the same as the samples of moon rock collected by Russian probes. It's geological profile, age, radioactive activity and surface features clearly indicate the material is not from this planet.

The moon rock could quite easily have been collected by scoop and return probes.
So we've agreed that it is real moon rock then? That's progress.


Why do you doubt it is real? Even if the missions were a fake you readily accept that a probe would be able to go to the moon and collect rock. So it's impossible to send a man to the moon, yet perfectly possible to send a probe?
It wouldn't be possible for humans to survive the trip to the moon. It could quite easily be achieved by machinery.

So you keep asserting, but why do you believe that humans could not survive a trip to the moon?

Imagine that you trained for years and risked your life on the first manned moon mission, and then some t**t comes up to talking about how the moon landings were a hoax, and starts demanding that you swear on the bible that you had done what you and billions of other people said you did.
I'd punch the stupid cretin too(if I was half the man Aldrin is, which I'm not)
And if it was a fake, why would Aldrin have a problem swearing on the bible, if he'd been able to lie about it on the other 50,000 occasions he's been asked to talk about it? If it's such a big secret, then swearing on the bible wouldn't be much of a problem.

There would be no reason to refuse to swear on the bible if it really happened.
Unless the guy was really insulting you and the thousands of people who sweated blood to make the moon landings a reality. If Buzz Aldrin had help up his hand and said "Sorry they were faked" then you'd have a point. But this is Buzz Aldrin punching a t w a t who'd been hounding him at public appearances, not evidence that the moon landings were faked.

Well you could look at those, or your could look at these:
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

I've seen loads of evidence on both sides of the argument and I find the hoax theory the most convincing.
[/quote]
Yes, but you don't say why? Is it because you don't really know, just that you'd like to believe they were faked?

Even NASA have a page dedicated to 'prove' conspiracy theorists wrong! Why would they even entertain the notion if they actually happened?

Because this hoax has been circulating since the early 70s, and eventually, after 30 years of flat-earthers claiming they never happened, they decided that enough was enough and decided to debunk it once and for all.


The truth is we'll never know the truth?
ROFLMAO:) How can that be true? LOL!
I already explained that! If ever some evidence comes out to prove that man has never been to the moon it's instantly covered up by NASA.

No, what I meant is:
If we'll never know the truth, then how can that be true, if we'll never know it. Xeno and Epiminides would be proud of you.

Look at this for example:

FACT: The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70's when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 33 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.

That would be fine if your FACT wasn't actually a TOTAL UNTRUTH. Show me your photo of the lunar rover with inflatable wheels please? Here is the rover from Apollo 15 on the surface of the moon. Note the mesh wheels:
Picture of Lunar Rover (http://www.skunkulike.co.uk/ahi/rover.jpg)

Either way , I believe a Japanese orbiter, the SELENE mission is due to arrive at the moon this year to undertake a complete and highly detailed global map of the moon in all spectra. The moon landing sites will be clearly visible.

What would it take to convince you Sidla? Or would you refused to be convinced whatever the evidence?
If the Japanese find evidence of the landing site and the American flag on the moon then I'll believe. If I'm proven wrong then I'll admit defeat and look like a bit of a fool, but if I'm right then it's a big 'I told you so' and a big smug feeling for me :)

IMHO you look a bit of a fool already for falling for this claptrap. And surely if SELENE does find the landing site, it will be because NASA paid them to fake the pictures right?

The web sites you referenced produce nothing better than poor scans of poorly reproduced photos for evidence, plus a lot of unsupported speculation and conjecture, prefaced by the word FACT as if that makes some kind of difference.

Anyone heard of the Jumbo jet 747........off the East coast of USA (TWA
800 ).....many people think a surface to air missile shot it down...many
witnessed seeing missile.....US government alleged cover - up. Who knows. :?:

That would be fine if your FACT wasn't actually a TOTAL UNTRUTH. Show me your photo of the lunar rover with inflatable wheels please?
That was taken from http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/.

Anyway, I can't be arsed argueing on this subject anymore. You can't prove anything, I can't prove anything, so it's obviously a moot point.

Man may have landed on the moon... but not in the way the world was shown.
My ONLY reading on this subject (that I tend to give some credibility to) is the work by Bennett and Percy entitled "Dark Moon". This fascinating book is available in most Waterstone's bookshops, and gives a number of reasons for why the images used to demonstrate to the world that man had reached the moon were phony. Beyond this, the people faking it felt guilty enough to purposefully include some obvious errors... whistle blowing.

The main reason anything living cannot survive a trip to the moon is radiation... sub atomic particles will destructively pass straight through craft and persons, unless you have a great deal of lead lining your craft... and suit, i suppose.

What about all the diverging shadows, suggesting a single point light source... not the sun. And many shots contain "hot points", areas suggesting flash photgraphy.

THE classic photo of one of the astronauts with the reflected horizon in his visor would have to be taken by someone standing on a step ladder... think about it... try it yourself with someone wearing mirror shades.

The astronaut's camera equipment was chest mounted, and "point and click"... no focus or manual control (handy when one couldn't manipulate much with those gloves anyway). Yet the photos are all amazingly well composed.

Oh, except for the reel sequence taken by Armstrong of Aldrin exiting the LM... quite a momentous occassion... however, part way through this sequence, Armstrong chooses to take a fascinating shot of the LM's landing gear (foot).

Kodak claim there was NOTHING special about the cameras... but none of the photo film was fogged by the ample radiation bouncing around the lunar environment with NO protective atmosphere.

Man may have been to the moon... apparently, some little known cosmonaut did... and he died directly because of his efforts.. this may help to account for why his grave site architecture is extraordinarily beautiful, for a cosmonaut who is meant to have accomplished less than say, Gagarin.

Who took the film sequence we see SO often, of the LM relaunching off the lunar surface?... the camera pans up, to follow the craft!

Why hoax this and try to fool the world?
...... Why have a war on Iraq?

Does anyone believe in the Marijuana Conspiracy?

Originally posted by "tymr"

Man may have landed on the moon... but not in the way the world was shown.
My ONLY reading on this subject (that I tend to give some credibility to) is the work by Bennett and Percy entitled "Dark Moon". This fascinating book is available in most Waterstone's bookshops, and gives a number of reasons for why the images used to demonstrate to the world that man had reached the moon were phony. Beyond this, the people faking it felt guilty enough to purposefully include some obvious errors... whistle blowing.

The main reason anything living cannot survive a trip to the moon is radiation... sub atomic particles will destructively pass straight through craft and persons, unless you have a great deal of lead lining your craft... and suit, i suppose.

What about all the diverging shadows, suggesting a single point light source... not the sun. And many shots contain "hot points", areas suggesting flash photgraphy.

THE classic photo of one of the astronauts with the reflected horizon in his visor would have to be taken by someone standing on a step ladder... think about it... try it yourself with someone wearing mirror shades.

The astronaut's camera equipment was chest mounted, and "point and click"... no focus or manual control (handy when one couldn't manipulate much with those gloves anyway). Yet the photos are all amazingly well composed.

Oh, except for the reel sequence taken by Armstrong of Aldrin exiting the LM... quite a momentous occassion... however, part way through this sequence, Armstrong chooses to take a fascinating shot of the LM's landing gear (foot).

Kodak claim there was NOTHING special about the cameras... but none of the photo film was fogged by the ample radiation bouncing around the lunar environment with NO protective atmosphere.

Man may have been to the moon... apparently, some little known cosmonaut did... and he died directly because of his efforts.. this may help to account for why his grave site architecture is extraordinarily beautiful, for a cosmonaut who is meant to have accomplished less than say, Gagarin.

Who took the film sequence we see SO often, of the LM relaunching off the lunar surface?... the camera pans up, to follow the craft!

Why hoax this and try to fool the world?
...... Why have a war on Iraq?

not convinced personally, im pretty sure in 1969 neil armstrong walked on the moon, purely because if he didnt NASA would try to have grounded the orbiter which is photographing the moon presently...

Who took the film sequence we see SO often, of the LM relaunching off the lunar surface?... the camera pans up, to follow the craft!


this was a remote camera set to "follow" the lander AFAIK

Originally posted by "Sidla"

That would be fine if your FACT wasn't actually a TOTAL UNTRUTH. Show me your photo of the lunar rover with inflatable wheels please?
That was taken from http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/.

Anyway, I can't be arsed argueing on this subject anymore. You can't prove anything, I can't prove anything, so it's obviously a moot point.
Fair enough, the posts were getting excessively long!
:)

Originally posted by "Lickszz"

Does anyone believe in the Marijuana Conspiracy?

NOT a conspiracy, if you are referring to why it's illegal. Dupont , nylon research and developments etc... FACT.

While I'm on Dupont, did anyone hear that CFCs DON'T deplete ozone, but their molecular patent was running out. The patent was held by Dupont, who promptly created the ozone story, came up with a "new", "safe" molecule, and sold it to everyone. Cool... what a fantastic way of making billions!
We fall for it so easily, whenever there's an alleged danger to the public.

Originally posted by "tymr"

Does anyone believe in the Marijuana Conspiracy?

NOT a conspiracy, if you are referring to why it's illegal. Dupont , nylon research and developments etc... FACT.

While I'm on Dupont, did anyone hear that CFCs DON'T deplete ozone, but their molecular patent was running out. The patent was held by Dupont, who promptly created the ozone story, came up with a "new", "safe" molecule, and sold it to everyone. Cool... what a fantastic way of making billions!
We fall for it so easily, whenever there's an alleged danger to the public.

I am inclined to agree. One volcanic eruption releases more gases into the atmosphere than anything industrial is ever likely to.

Originally posted by "tymr"

Does anyone believe in the Marijuana Conspiracy?

NOT a conspiracy, if you are referring to why it's illegal. Dupont , nylon research and developments etc... FACT.


I am not sure that all the below is fact, I would certainly say it's is classed as a conspiracy theory.

Some of this is certainly interesting. Before the twentieth century the marijuana plants provided almost all the world’s paper, textiles, and rope. The Romans used to grow marijuana, and Henry the eighth used to make each Farmer grow marijuana. In America Levi jeans, American flags, the early drafts of the American constitution, and Bibles, we’re all made from marijuana plants. In parts of America it was illegal NOT to GROW POT from 1760’s. From the sixteen thirties up until the early nineteenth century marijuana was legal tender in America. In ancient society they knew if you wanted the strongest natural fibers in the world you should grow more pot!

marijuana seeds have more protein in them than Sawyer beans and are cheaper to produce according to the U.S. department of agriculture. Another good reason to grow more pot!

According to U.S. government departments you can make four times as much paper from an acre of marijuana plants, than you can from a maker of forest. Not only that, instead of chopping down all these natural resources, once you have chop down the marijuana plants you can just be planted and grow another crop. The marijuana plants produces wood pulp at ¼ of the cost, with four times less pollution, and uses five at times less chemicals. Another worthwhile reason to grow more pot!

If we were to grow more pot, marijuana and other alternative energy sources could quite possibly negate the ‘need’ for young men to die for mineral wealth in places like Iraq/Falklands. You can make methanol from marijuana plants. At the beginning of the century most vehicles could be run on two fuel sources, and racing cars today are still run on methanol. Another reason to grow more pot?

The use of marijuana to treat medical ailments is legal in about 34 states of America. It treats many ailnents such as glaucoma it has recently shown signs of being able to treat herpes. Another valid reason!

marijuana is good as food, fuel, textiles, and has a long history of use So why don’t we grow more pot?

In 1936 a machine was invented of which it was said “ it would make marijuana the world’s biggest cash crop of the twentieth century”. This did not at all sit well with the chemical companies, who would lose 80 percent of their sales and who had just patented new chemical processing methods. This did not at all sit well with the oil companies, who hated competition. This did not at all sit well with the paper manufacturers, who had massive multinational investments in timber. And lastly This did not at all sit well with the pharmaceutical companies, who cannot patent natural substances only medicines with chemicals in them.

And so the reason people are thrown in jail, criminalized, and millions are spent on “fighting the drug war” is because at the beginning of the century just like today we didn’t have a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but government by the vested interests of private tyranny.

This is roughly how the conspiracy theory goes if I remember correct. Is this what you were talking about?
I am not saying I believe with this 100% but when I read the facts I found them most interesting and some are certainly believeable and possible.

Ha! Total proof that the moon landing was faked :

http://brainsluice.tripod.com/moonlanding.html

:D

Nomme

Originally posted by "nommedenet"

Ha! Total proof that the moon landing was faked :

http://brainsluice.tripod.com/moonlanding.html

:D

Nomme
Seen it. Surely you can't fail to believe that eveidence :roll:

Maybe the sun is just a big eletric light plugged in. :idea:

conspiracy theorists who dare to explore even further. They claim that the real reason for faking the moon landings is that there isnt actually a Moon at all. The celestial body we have seen smiling benignly down upon us for so long is actually nothing more than an elaborate mock-up, and is in fact only a few hundred feet wide, and about a mile up. Probably suspended on strings or something but i think their daft myself :wink:

you're kidding right? I always thought it was made of cheese!

and whatabout Santa Claus then? I suppose he's a man dressed up

M.

Originally posted by "Internetowl"

you're kidding right? I always thought it was made of cheese!

and whatabout Santa Claus then? I suppose he's a man dressed up

M. :shock: ya joking rite santas real but "There's no such thing as the bogeyman.Its just something parents made up to frighten kids.....like Micheal Jackson!"

so Michael Jackson's not real then ? (I know he's 50% plastic). No Santa, No Cheese on the moon and Jacko's not real either....next you'll be saying Neil Warnock's not illegitimate :P

Originally posted by "Internetowl"

so Michael Jackson's not real then ? (I know he's 50% plastic). No Santa, No Cheese on the moon and Jacko's not real either....next you'll be saying Neil Warnock's not illegitimate :P
I don't think there's any disputing the facts.
The moon may be made of cheese,
Santa Claus may not be real,
but Warnock is definitely illegitimate.

I feel most reassured :)

I saw a programme on the box tonight detailing the top ten conspiracy theories. So anybody out there a Conspiracy Theorist?
If so why not let us all in on the deal. P'raps you've been kidnapped by aliens, had your mind controlled by the government or even knowledge of where Elvis is living!

i once thought we lived in the matix. and some times still wonder! if we do how would we find out.
you may say we dont but prove it!

Anyone here a member of the Flat earth society?

I would like to know what their proof is as to why they say the earth is flat.

Wilf

Hi All,

For anybody out there who actually believes that NASA faked the moon landings, check this web-site out:-

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#shadow

If you are really interested in the truth then read this, it gives factual, coherent and scientific responses to all "allegations". It even gives you experiments to try yourself, to show you how various shadow/lighting effects work on the moon. As it says on the site, you don't have to believe the author of the site (or me!!), just try the experiments out yourself. It's science, not make believe.. and it explains away any nonsense spouted by CT'ists.

A few people out there are making a lot of money trying to convince us all that the moon landings never happened and that NASA are involved in the biggest cover up of all time. Don't believe them! It's just a scam to make money, by selling books etc!! We DID go to the moon.



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Internetowl
so Michael Jackson's not real then ? (I know he's 50% plastic). No Santa, No Cheese on the moon and Jacko's not real either....next you'll be saying Neil Warnock's not illegitimate :P read your post carefully! and study the grammer. p.s. libel rules exist even though you are posting under an assumed name.

I like listening to ALEX JONES,he is an EXCELLENT TRUTH ADVOCATE and i recommend him to anyone seeking the truth on things!

http://www.infowars.com/listen.html

"A more recent discovery of another dead sea scroll declares that man should not worship GOD through religion and that everyone's home is GOD's home. Supposedly, the Vatican, big business, refuses to recognise it as religious law although it was written in the same references and credibility as the other dead sea scrolls."

And if this scroll exists then why would the Vatican accept it as "religious law"? The Dead Sea Scrolls were just the deposit of documents of a particular religious sect. Some of them were copies of Biblical books, others just their own thoughts on things. A Dead Sea Scroll has no more religious authority, per se, than your local parish magazine.

A few people out there are making a lot of money trying to convince us all that the moon landings never happened and that NASA are involved in the biggest cover up of all time. Don't believe them! It's just a scam to make money, by selling books etc!! We DID go to the moon.



China and Japan are planning to put men on the moon by 2020 so they'll be able to look out for a star-and-stripes or whatever else was left behind when they are there. :)

You're not comparing like with like. Nobody ever quibbled with the fact that JFK was shot. Bhutto's death has had at least three different causes of death. The film I saw simply showed fairly clear evidence that she was shot. If it at least shows the official story as a lie, that is at least something. people may be arguing over who fired the shots for which cause, but the government line about the sunroof lever will probably now be shown as a lie, which would be significant in itself.

I think it is inappropriate to drag in Diana or JFK as if they are automatically equivalent, it sullies what is a very different set of circumstances.

The Zapruder film proves Kennedy was shot by more than one person, as he was clearly shot from different directions.

But the official story is still that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

The film disproves this - and disproved it at the time - but it didn't fit in with the official line of Oswald acting alone, so it was ignored.

Personally, I think the JFK and Diana situations are very similar - they were both political assassinations, the same as Benazir Bhutto, so not off-topic at all.

StarSparkle

tbh i just used diana as a conspiracy theory that hasnt been proven, even after 10 years.
the thing with jfk is....technology is such these days, a thousand fold since he was filmed being shot (the films better and equipment used to examine the films better) also with the people clamouring for the truth straight away there is a chance the truth may be "forced out" before the passage of time which has happened with other high profile deaths
thats what i was trying to get at

The Zapruder film proves Kennedy was shot by more than one person, as he was clearly shot from different directions.

But the official story is still that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman.

The film disproves this - and disproved it at the time - but it didn't fit in with the official line of Oswald acting alone, so it was ignored.

Personally, I think the JFK and Diana situations are very similar - they were both political assassinations, the same as Benazir Bhutto, so not off-topic at all.

StarSparkle

The Zapruder film proves no such thing. I have seen a ballistics expert use the footage to *prove* that it was from one gunman.

There is no proof that Diana is a political assassination. I think it is distasteful to drag such amateur nonsense into this thread.

Anyway, here is the Channel Four report (http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=10619)with the footage in it. Be warned - this shows the complete sequence of events - though there is no blood or guts, I trust the mods to remove this if they think it is inappropriate, as it shows the moment of impact.

The Zapruder film proves no such thing. I have seen a ballistics expert use the footage to *prove* that it was from one gunman.

There is no proof that Diana is a political assassination. I think it is distasteful to drag such amateur nonsense into this thread.

Anyway, here is the Channel Four report (http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=10619)with the footage in it. Be warned - this shows the complete sequence of events - though there is no blood or guts, I trust the mods to remove this if they think it is inappropriate, as it shows the moment of impact.

I don't appreciate your tone, Purdyamos. You have no business to be speaking to me like that.

My (extensive) reading and the information I have gleaned regarding the Zapruder film flatly contradicts what you say above.

And I believe sincerely that Diana's death was a political assassination. You may think differently, but I am entitled to my thoughts on the matter, and to express them, whether you think it's 'distasteful' or not.

I thought better of you, Purdy, I really did. I have no idea why you are suddenly attacking me like this.

StarSparkle

OK ladies, not not do this here please. Thanks.