Jordan Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 fraid so Oh, brother. I've given up on getting into this argument. Anyway, I'm off to the Hottest Celebs thread for a little while--play nicely, children.
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 so you could quite easily explain to the Chinese idiots how they could got a man on the moon and bring him home again quite safely good luck with that because they don't think they can do it for at least another 12 years , so they'd reward you handsomely for your input ? He built a detection system for micrometeorites, how would he be able to assist the Chinese in getting to the moon? That's a bit like asking the man who installed the collision alarm on a plane to go help with the construction of a fighter jet.
Captain... Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 They aren't really debunked though if you really stop to think about it . Men went to the moon in 69 , that's the claim ok ? But 40 odd years later the only rebuttal for men to repeat the feat is that, "Oh it costs too much" or "oh there's no need" , give me another example of a 40 year old technological feat that has not been repeated and surpassed . They did it six times with seemingly consummate ease in the late 60's and early 70's , but now it's reckoned to be years away to repeat this . I'm not saying this proves a thing , but come on you've at least got to be a bit suspicious of what you're told , or at least a bit more understanding of those that are questioning the veracity Well there is the conspiracy theory that some conspiracy theories are encouraged by the authorities as they have something else to hide, specifically alien conspiracies, the conspiracy theories are a convenient cover for the top secret military testing. Now what they are hiding with the moon landing stories I don't know, or even if they are hiding anything, but I find it more believable that they are hiding something else and using the moon landing conspiracies as cover. Because some of the answers seem deliberately obtuse. Like these pictures just released they are not exactly high quality and can be called into question and has just re-ignited the debate.
Zingari Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 ? He built a detection system for micrometeorites, how would he be able to assist the Chinese in getting to the moon. That's a bit like asking the man who installed the collision alter on a plane to go help with the construction of a fighter jet. so his input on the subject is a pile of shite then ? you said it , not me
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 so his input on the subject is a pile of shite then ? you said it , not me no his input was to point out that rather than returning to the moon they've spent their time creating a space station so they can conduct experiments rather than travelling back and forth to a great big rock.
Daggers Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 space stations are in low orbit So? so you could quite easily explain to the Chinese idiots how they could got a man on the moon and bring him home again quite safely good luck with that because they don't think they can do it for at least another 12 years , so they'd reward you handsomely for your input And the Chinese space program has exactly what to do with the price of fish? The Indians haven't built a time-travelling device yet and the Inuit's matter transporter is a joke so there's no way the US could have... As I said, I'll take physics over bullshit any day of the week. </thread4me>
ADK Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 so you could quite easily explain to the Chinese idiots how they could got a man on the moon and bring him home again quite safely good luck with that because they don't think they can do it for at least another 12 years , so they'd reward you handsomely for your input You have to remember that these kind of programs take time, and that they depend on resources and expertise available. We talk about countires being X years from having nuclear weapons yet i could tell you how a nuclear weapon works.
BoneDog Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 They built a space station. A space station in space. I built the micrometeorite detectors for it. It's not really in space is it? The space station is just up the road - a couple of hundred miles up in the sky. It's a bit like a weather balloon but a bit higher up. London to Leeds - it'd only take about 90 minutes to get there on a train if they did one (it would take around 63 days to get to the moon by train if my calculations are correct). Low earth orbit is not what I'd call space. Anything past the Van Allen Belts is space, but what's underneath the belts is just the earth's playground area that mankind will never get out of. We're trapped underneath the Van Allens forever and ever and ever and ever..... That last sentence is my science fact of the day.
Zingari Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Well you just toddle off to China and telll them how to build a manned rocket to the moon cuz those idiots can't seemto fathom it out and don't expect to get there for at least another 12 years . good luck and don't forget to give us a wave from the moon .i/ll look out for you So? no other manned space program has left "low orbit "( that's less than a few hundred miles ) but the manned moon missions are a quarter of a million miles away , thats some difference . (a bit like the difference in walking a mile or a walking quarter of a million miles ) And the Chinese space program has exactly what to do with the price of fish? The Indians haven't built a time-travelling device yet and the Inuit's matter transporter is a joke so there's no way the US could have... As I said, I'll take physics over bullshit any day of the week. </thread4me> good for you
The Doctor Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 It's not really in space is it? The space station is just up the road - a couple of hundred miles up in the sky. It's a bit like a weather balloon but a bit higher up. London to Leeds - it'd only take about 90 minutes to get there on a train if they did one (it would take around 63 days to get to the moon by train if my calculations are correct). Low earth orbit is not what I'd call space. Anything past the Van Allen Belts is space, but what's underneath the belts is just the earth's playground area that mankind will never get out of. We're trapped underneath the Van Allens forever and ever and ever and ever..... That last sentence is my science fact of the day. So, if it were the same height but over the one of the rotational poles, it'd be in space? What tosh.
I am Rod Hull Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Well you just toddle off to China and telll them how to build a manned rocket to the moon cuz those idiots can't seemto fathom it out and don't expect to get there for at least another 12 years . The Yanks were building better cars in the 60`s than the Chinese do now .
fleckneymike Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 It's not really in space is it? The space station is just up the road - a couple of hundred miles up in the sky. It's a bit like a weather balloon but a bit higher up. London to Leeds - it'd only take about 90 minutes to get there on a train if they did one (it would take around 63 days to get to the moon by train if my calculations are correct). Low earth orbit is not what I'd call space. Anything past the Van Allen Belts is space, but what's underneath the belts is just the earth's playground area that mankind will never get out of. We're trapped underneath the Van Allens forever and ever and ever and ever..... That last sentence is my science fact of the day. You need to check the definition of a fact then.
BoneDog Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 There's a difference between healthy skepticism and curdled paranoia. Questioning the moonwalks isn't paranoia though. Believing that the CIA have moved in nextdoor - on both sides - is paranoia!
Zingari Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 The Yanks were building better cars in the 60`s than the Chinese do now . only in musical film dialogues and country and western songs do Americans build good cars
BoneDog Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Seeing as they've proved so many - including some very recent ones - you'd think they'd have a 43 year old 'myth' completely unpicked, wouldn't you?! The myth has been totally unpicked in the 14 part essay thingymabob I linked to in the first post of The Ultimate Moonwalk Hoax Thread. The reflectors, the rocks, the craft, the spacesuits, the surface dust, the Russians and everything else is all debunked in that great link.
BoneDog Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 So, if it were the same height but over the one of the rotational poles, it'd be in space? What tosh. As a rule I'd go by distance away from the earths surface. 150 to 300 miles away is not really space in my opinion. It's the width of Great Britain up in the air. Yes it's a great accomplishment to get that far away, but we've not even started traveling into space at that distance. By a long shot.
MPH Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 only in musical film dialogues and country and western songs do Americans build good cars Come see for yourself. Since i moved here two and a half years ago i can promise you there the cars over here kick the crap out of anything we make in England....
davieG Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Beckford's poor form last year was faked you watch him surprise the other teams this year and top the goalscoring charts. Of course it could be with another team
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 The myth has been totally unpicked in the 14 part essay thingymabob I linked to in the first post of The Ultimate Moonwalk Hoax Thread. The reflectors, the rocks, the craft, the spacesuits, the surface dust, the Russians and everything else is all debunked in that great link. In what way does the 14 pages of conjecture debunk it? At no stage does the author offer any quantifiable proof, he merely constructs a meandering narrative in order to connect the non existing dots. He debunks the moon lazer by saying "It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically - most likely by the Soviets." That's it, thats the whole debunking, someone says maybe it's not there (it it by the way) and then they say if it is the Russian's did it. Remotely. No proof is offered. Then he talks about moon rocks and claims they are all from the Arctic and is really easy to find. They are not, if they were then people would go get them because moon rock is worth around a million for 285 grams. He claims the blue prints have been lost yet offers no evidence to support this claim. I can find no explanation for why the Russian's would be complicit in a cover up
Zingari Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 Baffling that so many think its faked. if you were a female you'd realise just how easy it is
breadandcheese Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 I've also missed the part as to why the Russians would be happy to cover-up a fake landing when they wanted to prove their superiority over America?!?
The Doctor Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 I've also missed the part as to why the Russians would be happy to cover-up a fake landing when they wanted to prove their superiority over America?!? Because of course, they were all chums and only staging a fake fight as ordered by the reptilian Candians trying to impose a NWO.
The Quick Brown Fox Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 I can see it, it is at the front of the pack on his back, or are you taking the pliss? In the second picture there is no salute like in th first so the picture wasn't taken at the same time!
purpleronnie Posted 31 July 2012 Posted 31 July 2012 if you were a female you'd realise just how easy it is
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.