Moon landing

[Dont be a lemon]

Seriously tho, the thing is, there's a lot of credible evidence on both sides.

Except there isn't.

 

[Benno_900]

Anyone who believes it's real is an idiot, it was filmed on Mars.

 

[lachlan24]

Anyone who believes it's real is an idiot, it was filmed on Mars.

Yeah the man has a point

 

[Ghostwriter]

An American sub sank the Kursk too, apparently there were 2 US subs playing cat and mouse with the Kursk and one of the US subs bumped into the Kursk, Clinton paid off the Kremlin to keep its mouth shut. True story.
link

 

[Roddy]

Haven't read all these posts, but there's a 5 hour long British made documentary debunking the entire thing. I watched about an hour of it and I was convinced it was a hoax.......

 

[Ed_Gein]

Think i was reading somewhere that there were a few people who were investigating a cover up mysterisly died not long after. One of a heart attack and an investigator and his wife BOTH of cancer at the same time.

 

[crownie]

if i had to put money on it being real or fake i would say fake.

your telling me that something done 35 odd years ago cant be done today with the modern technology? if anyone was to stage a moon landing it would be the yanks.

i saw one conpsoiracy show against it and the evidence they had of it being fake was pretty solid.

as people have said theres enough points to make you question if it was real.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

your telling me that something done 35 odd years ago cant be done today with the modern technology?

Who says it cant be down today?

 

[Hap Hapablap]

fake. if it was real why arent they going there on a regular basis and dont mention funding. nasa gets a ********load of cash for anything just like the military.

it was also a stunt to show the russians that the U.S were the first to land there and have absolute control of the sky.

 

[Leper]

I asked my good lady if she reckons they'll soon put a man on Mars.

If she gets her way they'll put em all there by Friday apparently.

 

[Chief]

i saw one conpsoiracy show against it and the evidence they had of it being fake was pretty solid.

as people have said theres enough points to make you question if it was real.

(1) No it wasn't. The evidence was flimsy and incorrect but it had enough truthiness to make ignorant people believe the makers of the show.

(2) No there aren't. There are no points of evidence that have not been throughly debunked numerous times.

God you can barely get three bureaucrats to agree on anything but you think they managed to pull off a massive hoax like this.

It's not like it was two blokes with a lot of sand and rocks in their back yard. Thousands of people - yes, thousands - put time and effort into this. Conferences, scientific documentation, tradesmen, technicians... it boggles the mind that anyone could ignore the sheer volume of evidence available and take the word of some dodgy TV show and a few blokes hawking books and conspiracy theory conference PAs down through the years.

 

[RoosterLad]

It was real.

Trust me.

Seriously.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

if it was real why arent they going there on a regular basis

Because, in short, the United States government hasn't deemed it to be financially/nationally worthwhile.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Haha @ all these fools believing these conspiracy theories


Open your eyes idiots.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Think i was reading somewhere that there were a few people who were investigating a cover up mysterisly died not long after. One of a heart attack and an investigator and his wife BOTH of cancer at the same time.

Yep Nasa killed them

 

[Jeremias]

Real for sure...

 

[Catfish Jake]

these so called 'moon landings' are a disgrace. not even real.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

these so called 'moon landings' are a disgrace. not even real.

incorrect. They merely used skinny-leg space suits

 

[exe ex machina]

This thread should have had a poll in it. I reckon it would be 50-50. Or 'fake' with the 'suprising' lead.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

This thread should have had a poll in it. I reckon it would be 50-50. Or 'fake' with the 'suprising' lead.

well that would shut me up

 

[RooDog]

my physics teacher was obsessed with this would bring it up nearly weekly... was dead set convinced it didnt happen....

on 911 i have seen some creepy videos on conspiracy theories that a mate has downloaded... im not convinced either way on this... my dad and i argue about it all the time... really interesting stuff though

 

[FIGJAM]

For the dust to kick off the moon-buggy tyres in a perfectly parabolic manner without clouding, it would require a film studio totally devoid of air and devoid of gravity.

We can't even create those conditions today.

Case closed.

----------

9/11 was a result of a terrorist attack. The US definitely had some knowledge of something going to occur, but the cocked it up and so did many other organisations on the day. All buildings fell over due to severe structrural damage. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

----------

JFK was killed by powerful organised criminals. Powerful in terms of muscle and political influence. There were several gunmen, Oswald being one of them, and he was the patsy. I think Jack Ruby being an "overly patriotic" stripclub owner with links to the Italian mafia might give some hint as to what happened!

 

[exe ex machina]

For the dust to kick off the moon-buggy tyres in a perfectly parabolic manner without clouding, it would require a film studio totally devoid of air and devoid of gravity.

We can't even create those conditions today.

Case closed.

----------

9/11 was a result of a terrorist attack. The US definitely had some knowledge of something going to occur, but the cocked it up and so did many other organisations on the day. All buildings fell over due to severe structrural damage. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

----------

JFK was killed by powerful organised criminals. Powerful in terms of muscle and political influence. There were several gunmen, Oswald being one of them, and he was the patsy. I think Jack Ruby being an "overly patriotic" stripclub owner with links to the Italian mafia might give some hint as to what happened!

1. The moon walk footage when speeded up 2x shows perfectly in normal time. Meaning all they did supposedly was slow the footage down....hence why it looks and seemingly responds to looking like low gravity. There's a lot of evidence out there, scientific, done by experts in certain fields (like geography, photography, russian scientists, etc) that goes into a lot more detail than can possibly give it justice to mention.

2. NY Firemen (reputed firsthand sources) told of detonations going off storey after storey, of "bombs" etc. Not to mention that all buildings that collapsed had that same detonated physics effect of collapsing inwards etc. Even the guy who owned all the buildings said that's what was done. I forget the 'technical' word/jargon for this. Also include building 7 which had no reason to also collapse where it did and nothing else around it. Only those 3 buildings owned by the same guy collapsed. Building 7 also was a safe house for many important insurance/banking documents etc.


3. JFK - it was the CIA, then controlled by George Bush Snr who had many illicite activites going on that JFK tried to shut down (in the Cuban region). J Egdar Hoover was privy to the finer details, the mafiaso who were hired to perform the assassination, (hence Ruby killing Oswald and Ruby himself killed later), and the CIA surgical hackjob done to JFK in the jet back to Washington...that he wrote a memo in safekeeping naming the head of the hit (Bush Snr). Anyway, JFK has too much evidence proving it was a govt/cia hit to even be argued against.


All cases are still wide open.

 

[FIGJAM]

The moon dust kicks off the tyres in a perfectly parabolic fashion. This is impossible here on Earth. Please explain how it was contrived at any camera speed.

 

[Killer eagle]

1. The moon walk footage when speeded up 2x shows perfectly in normal time. Meaning all they did supposedly was slow the footage down....hence why it looks and seemingly responds to looking like low gravity. There's a lot of evidence out there, scientific, done by experts in certain fields (like geography, photography, russian scientists, etc) that goes into a lot more detail than can possibly give it justice to mention.

Amazing isnt it, when your walking in almost zero gravity, everything moves a bit slower.


2. NY Firemen (reputed firsthand sources) told of detonations going off storey after storey, of "bombs" etc. Not to mention that all buildings that collapsed had that same detonated physics effect of collapsing inwards etc. Even the guy who owned all the buildings said that's what was done. I forget the 'technical' word/jargon for this. Also include building 7 which had no reason to also collapse where it did and nothing else around it. Only those 3 buildings owned by the same guy collapsed. Building 7 also was a safe house for many important insurance/banking documents etc.

How many of these firefighteres had actually experienced first hand of how a sky scraper sounds like when it collapses after being hit by a 737. Obviously as the floors collapse there is going to be loud bang noises, especially when there is many thousands of tons of weight. I suppose as each floor collapsed it could sound similar to an explosive. Do you really think a big team of explosive experts would have managed to go around on every floor and put enough explosives on every floor without nobody even noticing? Wouldnt these explosives have gone of when the plane hit the building, what with all the extreme heat and flames.


3. JFK - it was the CIA, then controlled by George Bush Snr who had many illicite activites going on that JFK tried to shut down (in the Cuban region). J Egdar Hoover was privy to the finer details, the mafiaso who were hired to perform the assassination, (hence Ruby killing Oswald and Ruby himself killed later), and the CIA surgical hackjob done to JFK in the jet back to Washington...that he wrote a memo in safekeeping naming the head of the hit (Bush Snr). Anyway, JFK has too much evidence proving it was a govt/cia hit to even be argued against.

Who cares

All cases are still wide open.


Conspiracy nuts p1ss me off

I think Chief hit the nail on the head.

(1) No it wasn't. The evidence was flimsy and incorrect but it had enough truthiness to make ignorant people believe the makers of the show.

(2) No there aren't. There are no points of evidence that have not been throughly debunked numerous times.

God you can barely get three bureaucrats to agree on anything but you think they managed to pull off a massive hoax like this.

It's not like it was two blokes with a lot of sand and rocks in their back yard. Thousands of people - yes, thousands - put time and effort into this. Conferences, scientific documentation, tradesmen, technicians... it boggles the mind that anyone could ignore the sheer volume of evidence available and take the word of some dodgy TV show and a few blokes hawking books and conspiracy theory conference PAs down through the years.

Case closed.