Co-founder of Hamas: Westerns live like animals

Old testament, right? Welcome to the scary 10% in Canada.

 

So your not interested in talking about it, but you claim its been beaten? ok, Mr. I believe original photo's of the landing with crosshairs that magically sit behind objects and not centered. the pro-moon people claimed that the original photo's where edited(cropped and rotated) meaning that Nasa had no intention of releasing the original photo's(weird world). Many of the the reasons given for the many hoax theories where just plain old excusses.
Here's my personal favorite. This picture shows that people will believe anything you throw to them.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo16/hires/as16-107-17446.jpg

If you can find a good reason why there were so many unanswered questions let me know. Also tell me where the US Gov't took that alien they did the autopsy on too.L

 

Wise girl She's right there is a cover up of ET Visitations, ET Technology.
ACTUALLY, Many astronauts believe the same thing. look for their testimonies on youtube i'm just too lazy to do it for you.

 

Was this the video you were looking for?
[video=youtube;ZOo6aHSY8hU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU[/video]

 

Nope, not interested in talking about whether or not something that happened really happened. I don't drink koolaid, I don't own any foil hats, and I am perfectly content with reality.

Ain't that the truth. They've got you believing something that happened never happened.

 

I thought you didn't want to talk about it.

 

More proof that people who believe in god will believe in anything.

 

yap yap, If you take a look at the picture and find the middle crosshair(located near the top of the pole of moon machine) then you will see that the crosshair is not in front of the image, the crosshair is behind the pole. This is not possible. pic Crosshairs cannot be positioned behind the image. Now I know certain morons who know nothing about photographic believe that there is a one in a million chance that a crosshair can lose its color from bright light(in this case white), but this has not happened in the existance of the whole world of taking photo's yet, other than this picture.

Stick that in your face, dink. Don't be talking like I'm crazy. Don't just sit there and mouth with this "I'm for science, so it has to be correct" and open your eyes. Its as clear as day. Also feel free to wonder how 22lbs of the moon rock found identically matches by date meteor rock in Antarctica the following 6 months after the return of the Apollo. And if you want to dig deeper then take a look further to find out that shortly after the Antartica discovery NASA accidentally destroyed the 22lbs.....

Use your brain. It was all a bunch of crap. It was actually so stupid that even 40+ years later they have not been successful in making a return to the original landing site or even a single successful "CLEAR" photo of it. Every picture they released resembled te same quality of the loch ness monster. NASA isn't a science project anyway, they are just a business. They spend more time finding apropriate spots for vineyards then going to the moon to waste their time collecting dust there.

 

Dink? Weren't you the one who just embraced the idea of "wiping out" 10% of a country's population? I'm sure you have explanations as to how all the people in the command center monitoring the telemetry, the astronauts themselves, the people in the flight crews who pulled the guys out of the drink, all managed to maintain their silence for so long without exposing such a grand conspiracy! I'm sure its a perfectly rational explanation, to you.

Excuse me if I'm a bit baffled as to how you can call something so large and scientifically well documented a hoax based on some obscure inconsistency you've found, yet you have no problem buying into the biblical tale that the earth was created in 7 days, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Its almost as if you won't buy into it unless its bullshit. If you weren't so old, and I weren't so married, I'd take you out drinking to explain how I'm going to make you rich.

 

You're talking like you're crazy.

 

Helvetti all they had to do was to triangulate the video feed signal that was relayed from the moon . It's not exactly rocket science . Two radar dishes can be used for that if you have the ppl to man them . And at the time Korolyov had the technology to do that partly because half of his tech crew where the captured von Braun team .

Yes the government is keeping aliens in complete secrecy . If any government on earth had aliens they are doing a far better job at keeping this secret then they are doing whit finances , economy , health care or education .

 

Exactly! People who believe in massive government conspiracy theories believe in the James Bond fantasy of competent government. The truth of the matter is that governments seldom hire competent people and when they do accidentally hire a competent individual they cripple them with bureaucratic processes.

It's easier to go to the moon than it is to successfully fake going to the moon. Occam's Razor therefore tells us that the U.S. government actually went to the moon, picked up some rocks, and came home. It was a useless waste of taxpayer dollars, but not nearly as silly as the people who refuse to believe that it really happened.

This stupidity has been debunked repetitively, but some people are just fact resistant. Here are a few decent pages debunking the crazy anti-scientific theories:

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...oon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html

 

I must be the exception to that rule..

I do still believe in Santa Claus though. Ain't no one gonna debunk that myth.

 

Hey don't forget about me

 

I don't believe in Alien conspiricies for the record. That's stupid. lol

No, in 1969 it was impossible to get to the Moon and propable to fake it to show US as a to have world power with technology for Russia to see.

Ok, let's take a decent page with the facts from one of your sites. I'll show you. I'll argue it. The problem with you science guys is if some dork like MythBusters says something you believe it because of WHO they are, not what they say. If you actually did read up on it with a clear mind you'll realize that there were no facts brought out. There were just random arguments back and fourth.
I know this will be tough for you all because you take landing on the moon as history so you just believe it, but here's an example of why you have to question things.
Here, I'll show you at xmission.com
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/rover1.html
The argument: "Note R: The letter 'C' appears on the rock. This is a designation by the props department."

Yap, yap, enough of that mr. show off. If you are indeed a prop coordinator then you would realize that because you don't mark props the same way that this clown did in 1968 does not give evidence anyway possible. Oh, and yes, for a coordinator I'm surprised you had failed to mention at in Bewitched they used single letter prop markers and actually there are some that were found in bloopers and what not. So stick your "we don't do that up your butt"!

Well that is the point of the argument. The argument is that they made a MISTAKE. You just said that because their is a C visable then that means its not possible that its a stage marker because they don't make mistakes? (WOW)

It really depends on how far you go. Some property masters mark per scene, others for the whole movie, some for "each picture!!".
If the landing was in fact a movie hoax then you would know that there is a great chance they ran it picture by picture meaning that they would not label up that many props. And yes they still use single letters today. Hello!, are you even really in the movie bus.?

Not anymore because Nasa swapped the photo to the one without a C. This is on their main site. NASA doesn't even know which photo is real; the one With or without the C?

So you are claiming that "some other dudes said that its not a C" so that proves evidence that its not a C.......seriously? Evidence does not work that way. You can't say that this powerful smart person says its not, so that's evidence..........
And while we are on the topic your main argument throughout the site is Nasa is sooooo professional that they would never allow prop marks to be seen and do stupid stuff like mess up the shadows....Hey, what about the hair they got on an ORIGINAL PRINT OF A PICTURE FROM THE MOON. Seriously quit contredicting yourself.
The Argument: Note S: The rover tracks appear too well defined. To make this kind of impression you'd need a compound mixed with water.

Hmm, too bad. We would have been able to confirm that but when that research team found a Meteor that had been sitting for ages in Antartica and took samples it made a perfect date and quality match of the soil and rock samples taken from the moon. Of course 3 months after the discovery was press released Nasa had claimed they have destroyed the 22lbs of soil and rock through accidental expiriments...............Funny you didn't mention that in your website.

I think the word you are looking for is Humidity which doesn't exist on the moon. The picture example you show it not the one that is the most popular. The picture you are showing is not really a big deal, but the perfect print of a foot one is an example of some major humidity. This could've been easily tested if ASS-NASA didn't destroy the evidence of their hollywood movie!
The Argument: The level of detail abruptly changes just beyond the rover. In the foreground there are rocks, but there are no rocks in the background. This indicates the use of a painted backdrop.

I looked at the picture and although as a 9X winner of Worth1000 photo manipulation I cannot tell if the picture was modified. It does look like its obviously on a hill and you probably wouldn't see much. Now if you look at the satillite thing and to the right you'll see some weird dark gray coloring. This looks a little fake. Especially since the coloring seems to from a drag blend tool because its width decreases. I'm really not sure though.

On a side note NASA could easily put this to rest by going back to the landing site however they have failed to even come up with a clear photo for it after 40 years, so I guess we will never know until Russia decides to jump into space to teach them a lesson.

 

Can I buy you a drink?

 

Just an FYI, props are marked with tags or labels, never letters.

 

that's the second time you've said that. What does that mean? For the record, I don't believe in everything that is bullshit. I just find certain things interesting so I read up about them and then I weigh in what was said and refuse to bother with usless facts. There were plenty of stupid things people found in these apollo pictures and claimed that they were fake and I thought instantly, now you are just making stuff up. Then there were one's that should've been answered and when I looked for ythe answers they were covered up, ignored, and it was just plain excusses and science "big Mr. Smarty pants said no, so its no" business.

Well, a movie scene was being filmed 15 minutes from where I live starring Seann William Scott called Goon a month ago and I jumped in line to be an extra because this sort of thing happens once in a lifetime and each hockey helmet was markered on the inside "A1, B1, C1, etc" or something like that so don't bother with talking out of your A-hole! lol. You are making stuff up.

I'm 50/50 on the C theory. I don't know what to think. The evidence doesn't seem to prove either side.

Now that you read all of that I wrote you should know that your FACT reliable websites are not using too much facts. They are just a basic opinion just like my arguments. I think its concluded in this topic that Jack crap has been proven on this moon conspiracy business and Nasa reputation and apollo pictures that were released are very questionable. Not saying it didn't happen for sure, but there is ground that it was a bunch of total crap.

 

I produce music videos for a living, for some very famous bands. Looking at your picture, you would be absolutely perfect for a shoot we have coming up next month. We should meet for drinks and discuss it. I'll get you connected with one of the biggest players in the business.

So you are selective about which bullshit you are going to buy into. I like that!

 

Yeah, that picture is a tad older(2yrs old). It sounds exciting but its not for me. I'm in business.

Well if its total bullshit than it would be easily explained but instead Nasa just erased evidence and deleted pictures. Its not bullshit the evidence is fairly valid.