Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Tin Foil Hat Time!
Posted: Jul 12, 2009 11:36 am
 
Moon landing light truss falls on soundstage where moon landing was filmed...

Posted: Jul 12, 2009 2:40 pm
 
its real man real!! dont destroy my dreams!!
Posted: Jul 17, 2009 8:45 am
 
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 5:04 pm
 
I have been out where they filmed a lot of this footage.
I kept yelling for art bell to come out from behind that damn rock but he stayed hidden and then ran. I lost track of him somewhere out side of the Amargosa Opera House.
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 5:34 pm
 
Yeah, planes don't really fly either. They just show you a movie outside the windows and change the scenery when they let you out. Go back to Russia.
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 6:38 pm
 
this sums this "hoax" shit up:
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 8:35 pm
 
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 9:56 pm
 
Buzz Aldren punching conspiracy theorist in the head.

i so wish they'd had a better angle. i don't care who is right, i just like seeing cranky old men beat up whiny dorks.
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 10:15 pm
 
That's one of the best things I've seen in a while. I hope I'm still clockin assholes when I'm that age.
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 10:19 pm
 
a guys I work with was trying to show me videos on YouTube about how the reall killer in the Kennedy assasination was.....

BUM-BUH-BAHHHHHH.....

THE DRIVER OF THE LIMO.

the video didn't really convince me.
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 10:24 pm
 
uh...what limo?
wasn't Kennedy riding in some open air convertible? Not a limo?
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 10:27 pm
 
wasn't Kennedy riding in some open air convertible? Not a limo?

whatever - you know what I mean
Posted: Jul 20, 2009 11:07 pm
 
uh, okay, yeah I do.
(I guess I'm sensitive to this stuff as I just became a limo driver!)
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 9:08 am
 
Of all the major conspiracy theories, this is the dumbest. Each point can easily be debunked (there are many science sites which do this for you, read them!). The Russians would have refuted the moon landing if they thought in any way it was staged.
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 10:47 am
 
just became a limo driver!)

i did that for a while. get ready to have people who are not even remotely attractive want you to watch while they fuck in the back...and not tip you.
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 10:48 am
 
i like how the first "related video" that comes up after the first link is for "oops i crapped my pants."
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 5:26 pm
 
get ready to have people who are not even remotely attractive want you to watch while they fuck in the back...and not tip you.

Nice.
They may not be inclined to do that with me, though. I look like your grandma.
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 5:31 pm
 
I just became a limo driver!

drive me to the store for a slurpee, bith!


Yeah, planes don't really fly either. They just show you a movie outside the windows and change the scenery when they let you out.

and when you get off the plane they dress up where you left from to look like where you wanna go.
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 6:53 pm
 
They may not be inclined to do that with me, though. I look like your grandma.


don't matter. you've got a pair of eyes don't you?
Posted: Jul 21, 2009 8:55 pm
 
Yeah...that should be fixed firmly on the road.
The limo's got a nifty "privacy panel" that I control. Lucky me!
Posted: Jul 22, 2009 12:13 am
 
this sums this "hoax" shit up:


Right on

Gotta post part 2 >

And part 3 >
Posted: Jul 22, 2009 12:14 am
 
Buzz Aldren punching conspiracy theorist in the head.

Sweet!
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 5:33 pm
 
Posted: Jul 22, 2009, 12:13 am Quote

this sums this "hoax" shit up:


Right on

Gotta post part 2 >

And part 3 >

Battle Cat
Member Posted: Jul 22, 2009, 12:14 am Quote

Buzz Aldren punching conspiracy theorist in the head.

Sweet!



If neil armstrong had the first steps on the moon on camera, then who the FUCK was running the goddamn camera?

Who the fuck ran, and focused, the camera on their ascent back to earth?
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 5:35 pm
 
stanley kubrick
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 5:46 pm
 
i got a kick out of how nasa finally admitted they "lost" the original moon landing footage. hey, supposedly one of mankinds greatest accomplishments, cost a fucking fortune in taxpayer dollars, who wouldve thought to hang onto the video? how could they possibly know someone might be interested in looking at that some day? well apparently they misplaced it or taped over it, and i believe that was as much of an accident as the missing nixon tapes.

yes, i do believe we went to the moon. no, i do not believe the photos were taken on the moon. absolutely no way.
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 6:28 pm
 
If neil armstrong had the first steps on the moon on camera, then who the FUCK was running the goddamn camera?

Who the fuck ran, and focused, the camera on their ascent back to earth?


Yeah, they expect us to believe that NASA could do the impossible. Like set up a tripod.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 6:53 pm
 
Who the fuck ran, and focused, the camera on their ascent back to earth?

It was Dee Dee Ramone. DUH!
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 8:06 pm
 
coud not have been a photographer on the moon. Camera wasn't mounted to the module cause that thing is in the pic. Also , all the shadows are wrong. Rad...

No stars in the background either...genius.
Posted: Jul 24, 2009 9:41 pm
 
It was Dee Dee Ramone. DUH!

obviously, stanley kubrick!!! or hal
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 1:02 am | Edited by: Battle Cat
 
No stars in the background either...genius.

I don't know about you but I don't see stars at 4pm. I would say the sun is usually outshining them.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 1:48 am | Edited by: a cobb
 
I don't see stars at 4pm.

This guy did.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 3:19 am
 
its obvious there wouldnt be stars in the pictures that were taken, however, why wouldnt they bring a camera specifically to use such a unique opportunity to take some pictures of the stars from the surface of the moon! all thery wouldve had to do is adjust the exposure! whats unusual is not the absence of stars in the pictures that were taken, but the fact that they never took any pictures of the stars at all! the took almost 6,000 total pictures.

how about the height issue? the pics were taken supposedly from a camera at waist level, yet are framed perfectly. even a professional photographer wouldve had trouble framing pictures that accurately, and yet they supposedly took picture after picture, all perfectly framed, all in perfect focus, all in a row from a camera supposedly point and shot with no viewfinder at waist level. hundreds of photos taken with perfect framing, focus and composition, without a viewfinder. no way. this would be easy for a mythbusters type show to prove by simply putting some people in space suits with similar cameras and training them.

why were there no still photographs taken during the same time as the film footage? nasa claims both were shot at the same time. the cameras they had were not automatic, they had so set the aperture and shutter speed manually, so there is no excuse to not have taken a single picture of the stars. they must have looked spectacular in the vacuum of space with no atmosphere!

as soon as people start mentioning stars or waving flags its obvious they dont understand moon science, so i tend to disregard most conspiracy theorist websites and films on the subject. however, there are legitimate issues concerning the photographs and film footage themselves.

nasa purposely didnt provide a direct link, a technology that was readily available at the time. instead they made the TV stations film off a big TV screen! subsequently they "lost" the original footage, making meaningful analysis of its authenticity an impossibility. the objective stated for the appolo missions was scientific discovery. did they really not think saving the original fiml footage was any big deal? gimme a break.

another "why didnt they?"

why didnt they test the lunar lander? we were so far behind the russinas with our space program, and had a solid record of terrible accidents. why assume the LEM would work without even so much as a test?
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 9:21 am
 
If neil armstrong had the first steps on the moon on camera, then who the FUCK was running the goddamn camera?

Who the fuck ran, and focused, the camera on their ascent back to earth?


this has perplexed me since my late teens, and I would not put it past our government lie,lie,lie like crazy!

Did anyone watch the pen & teller conspiricy theory you tube garbage? They never give any relivant explination about who was operating the camera, they just divert the subject matter to focus on an obvoius crackpot(straw man tactic) rene I think was that fool's name.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 10:31 am
 
The Russians had a direct comm link and never disputed the moon landing. The whole entire reason we rushed to the moon was to "disgrace" the other superpower. There was so much cloak 'n dagger shit going on during the Cold War that each side was able to pull schematics and plans nearly at will, yet not one single fucking Russian spy was privy to this truly massive cover-up involving thousands, and Russia never once disputed it happened.

Seriously, the single dumbest motherfucking conspiracy theory that non-flatearthers are spouting and some of you honestly believe it. ReFuckingTarded. We went to the moon. Get over it.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 1:55 pm
 
No one EVER went to the goddamn moon, and I can PROVE IT!
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 2:09 pm
 
Seriously, the single dumbest motherfucking conspiracy theory that non-flatearthers are spouting and some of you honestly believe it. ReFuckingTarded. We went to the moon. Get over it.

What Tricknee said. Any and all "theories" about the moon landing being a hoax have been debunked a million times. If anybody really has questions, a simple google search will bring up the answers in short order. Who was holding the camera? Really? Jesus, that is stupid. I won't argue with people who claim to doubt that the moon landing happened, because it is too stupid to even acknowledge. I just assumed they had to be joking.

To believe the the moon landing was faked, you'd also have to believe that not only the Soviets, but also China, Cuba, North Korea, even Iraq - hell, every scientist in every country that has ever been an enemy of the USA since - has known that it was faked but for some reason never went public with that information. The Middle East has physicists (even Iran has a nuclear program, after all). There are scientists all over the world who may HATE America and have a reason to see it shamed, and even THEY don't claim that the moon landing was fake. There may an Islamic physicist out there who believes that Mohammad rode to heaven on a winged horse, but they, along with every other scientist in the world, don't dispute the moon landing! Yet, some think that by looking at some photos that "don't look right" to them, the untrained idiot on the internet, they are able to discover "errors" that the majority of scientists, physicists, and engineers in the entire world have somehow overlooked? Yes, the majority of educated people in the ENTIRE WORLD are all part of this conspiracy, which only a few brave people with internet connections and no scientific background have somehow seen through.

So the question for everybody else who is sane, rational, and/or intelligent, is why would anybody doubt the occurrence of what is one of the most well-documented and verified events in modern history? I would say that it's a lack basic critical thinking skills, but it has to go beyond that. What is to be gained? What is the benefit of clinging to such an easily dis-proven idea?

People believe religious absurdities for many reasons; conditioning from childhood, societal pressure, and of course just the fact that it's pleasant to believe that there is life after death. I can see why that idea would have appeal. But why doubt the moon landing? What do people get out of that? Are their lives so empty and pathetic that they can't accept that there are others, obviously smarter and braver then they are, who could pull off something like that? Do they have a need to pull down others of superior talents to their level? Does doubting the moon landing make them feel better about their sad lives? It is pathetic.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 5:22 pm
 
So the question for everybody else who is sane, rational, and/or intelligent, is why would anybody doubt the occurrence of what is one of the most well-documented and verified events in modern history? I would say that it's a lack basic critical thinking skills, but it has to go beyond that. What is to be gained? What is the benefit of clinging to such an easily dis-proven idea? Who was holding the camera? Really? Jesus, that is stupid.

Answer the question if you're so fuckin' "smart". Who worked the camera? That should be a simple enough question for such a scolarly, "critical thinking" individual as yourself to answer in about 10 words or less, easy.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 5:35 pm
 
Here are images, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter over the last few weeks, of Apollo hardware left on the moon. You can also see footprints and tire tracks in some of the images. And there are more to come: The LRO is not yet in it's final orbit, which is much lower than the one it is in now. Once there, it will have even higher-rez images of the hardware left on the lunar surface.

If neil armstrong had the first steps on the moon on camera, then who the FUCK was running the goddamn camera?

Here is a diagram of the Lunar Module. Notice the item on the bottom right side, next to the ladder, marked "TV Camera". Here is the footage of Armstrong's "One small step". Notice that the camera is stationary, which is consistent with a fixed, automatic camera, and that the angle is consistent with the placement of the camera on the side of the Lunar Module. Hell, Neil is looking directly at the camera when he steps off the footpad.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 5:42 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
At least finally some sort of explaination.
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 5:53 pm
 
Notice the item on the bottom right side, next to the ladder, marked "TV Camera".

The camera is still on the INSIDE of the lunar module.

Notice that the camera is stationary, which is consistent with a fixed, automatic camera, and that the angle is consistent with the placement of the camera on the side of the Lunar Module. Hell, Neil is looking directly at the camera when he steps off the footpad.

That's the fakest shit I've EVER SEEN!
Only a complete moron would believe anyone ever landed on the moon!
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 5:54 pm
 
The Russians had a direct comm link and never disputed the moon landing. The whole entire reason we rushed to the moon was to "disgrace" the other superpower.

Russians are stupid, just like you!!!
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 8:32 pm
 
Does doubting the moon landing make them feel better about their sad lives?

Skepticism is a sign of superior intelligence while you sir are a buffoon who is easily duped!

No one has EVER LANDED ON THE MOON!
It's scientificaly IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Posted: Jul 25, 2009 8:32 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
!
Posted: Jul 26, 2009 12:09 pm
 
They can't land on the moon NOW!!!????
Posted: Jul 26, 2009 4:37 pm
 
NO WAY!!!!!!!

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!
Posted: Jul 26, 2009 4:40 pm
 
God would never allow it to happen, just Isac Newton!!!!
Posted: Jul 26, 2009 5:50 pm
 
still no explanation of why or how nasa would have "lost" the tapes of their greatest accomplishment.
Posted: Jul 26, 2009 6:12 pm
 
The Russians had a direct comm link
i fail to find proof for this assertion anywhere.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 3:45 pm
 
http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIIa.html

This wacko has an interesting take on the whole thing....
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 3:56 pm
 
Here is a detailed, 3-page story from Wired explaining why and how NASA lost the original slow-scan tape recorded at the Austrailian tracking station. Here's an update from the AP written on July 16.

And yes, the Russians were listening to the whole thing. They had their own deep space tracking network, just like we did. The transmissions from the moon missions were not encrypted or scrambled. Anybody with a big enough antenna could have—and, in fact, did—listen to the audio in real time. To this day, ham radio operators sometimes chat with the space station crew.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 4:03 pm
 
Anybody with a big enough antenna could have—and, in fact, did—listen to the audio in real time. To this day, ham radio operators sometimes chat with the space station crew.

liars!!!

They're ALL LIARS!!!!!!!
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 6:03 pm
 
more bullshit with no proof. if the russians had a direct link, prove it. as far as the articles linked:

Lebar never even saw the raw transmission; only the few tracking-station engineers did. But as they converted the feed for Mission Control and the worldwide audience, they also recorded it onto huge reels of magnetic tape that were promptly sent to NASA to be filed for safekeeping.

NASA has lost the tapes.


that article doesnt explain anything!

The goal of the mission wasn't merely to get a man on the moon. It was to send back a live television feed

and then they lost the video??? bullshit. the article goes into great detail on their trying to track down the footage decades later, but explains nothing of why they wouldve tossed the original tape in the first place. every piece of shit movie from that time period was saved, but noone thought to hang onto mankinds greatest accomplishment? horseshit.

After a few inquiries into the current whereabouts of the tape, the gang ran into red tape and, more surprisingly, indifference.

not indifference, they knew he wasnt going to find the tapes because they purposely erased them decades ago.

It's hardly the conditions you'd want for your old Mad magazines, let alone the original tapes of the moonwalk.

indeed.

"Nearly all the stuff that was there was destroyed," he says. Then he hesitates. "I need to be careful here. Would you cross out the word destroyed?"

destroyed? i thought they were lost, no wait, erased. oh yeah, the most expensive and daring exploit of mankind, walking on the moon, who wouldnt toss that old shit out? we went to the moon and then tossed the tapes out the window! clearly if they were capable of sending men to the moon they should be capable of hanging onto a fucking video tape. nobody, anywhere hung onto an original copy of the moon landing video?

on to story #2 :

WASHINGTON -- NASA could put a man on the moon but didn't have the sense to keep the original video of the live TV transmission.

In an embarrassing acknowledgment, the space agency said Thursday that it must have erased the Apollo 11 moon footage years ago so that it could reuse the videotape.


really? and they wonder why people question the official story? you spend a fortune in taxpayer dollars and simply erase the tape to save a couple bucks? bullshit, plain and simple.

It wasn't his job to preserve history, he said

wow. just wow.

"It's surprising to me that NASA didn't have the common sense to save perhaps the most important historical footage of the 20th century," said Rice University historian and author Douglas Brinkley. He noted that NASA saved all sorts of data and artifacts from Apollo 11, and it is "mind-boggling that the tapes just disappeared."

thats what i'm saying.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 7:07 pm
 
They're ALL LIARS!!!!!!!
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 7:47 pm
 
still no explanation of why or how nasa would have "lost" the tapes of their greatest accomplishment.

They didn't hire a decent archivist.

Yes, the majority of educated people in the ENTIRE WORLD are all part of this conspiracy, which only a few brave people with internet connections and no scientific background have somehow seen through

This is the problem with 99% of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy required to keep it all a secret is way more ridiculous than the conspiracy itself.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 9:17 pm
 
This is the problem with 99% of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy required to keep it all a secret is way more ridiculous than the conspiracy itself.


It's a miricle!
Thank you God!
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 10:30 pm
 
They didn't hire a decent archivist.

so not only 99%, but a full 100% of the people at nasa were too stupid to think someone might want to see the original footage of mankind's greatest accomplishment someday? nobody in the ENTIRE WORLD can check its authenticity now that they conveniently destroyed the only evidence. moon rocks and stuff on the surface of the moon only prove something went there, probably a robot.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 10:41 pm
 
the idea that nasa erase the tape of the first moon landing to save the cost of a video tape is way more ridiculous than any conspiracy theory. there didnt have to be many people in on it at all. the fact is, the night before the supposed actual landing they did a test run through, and noone could tell the difference. they couldve easily done it without more than a couple people knowing.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 11:07 pm
 
"Space programs" are the single stupidest fucking thing in the world.
Posted: Jul 27, 2009 11:08 pm
 
It's not that you can't see the footage. It's right here. It's just not optimally recorded.

But you know what? I don't know why the burden of proof in on us, especially when you keep moving the goal posts. The moon landings were some of the most-recorded events in the history of the world. Here's an entire page of videos, including video of the entire 15-minute landing sequence taken from the 16-mm camera that was pointing out Buzz Aldrin's window. Here's Buzz's view of the "one small step" in glorious 16 MM, and here's the entire moonwalk in one-frame-per-second time lapse. And since you're so into first-generation video of people on the moon (and hey, who isn't?), here's big batches of original video from Apollo 12, Apollo 14,, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 12:21 am
 
man has never walked on the moon
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 12:24 am
 
Fake Earth Transparencies and Dark Blackboards were used to Fake Small Moving Earth as Seen From Apollo 11 Windows.

This video is supposedly showing a small Earth moving outside the Apollo 11 spaceship windows, when they are supposedly on their way to the Moon.

As the faked Earth transparency is moved to the right on the outside of the window, at :34 following close behind, a dark Blackboard outside the window is moved across to the right. The sharp diagonal line of the Blackboard is seen against the left side of the fake Earth transparency, then at :36 the Blackboard is slammed shut.

At 1:09 the camera has moved over to the other side of the spaceship to show another fake Earth transparency outside another window. At 1:45 as the fake Earth transparency is moved to the right, a dark Blackboard outside the window is seen coming from the left, the Blackboards sharp diagonal line is clearly seen to the left of the fake Earth transparency, then at 1:49 the Blackboard is slammed shut.

Posted: Jul 28, 2009 3:44 am | Edited by: bradx
 
And since you're so into first-generation video of people on the moon (and hey, who isn't?), here's big batches of original video from

sure. i also want everyone to be clear, the video i listed above is also readily available on nasa's website:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/video15.html

Apollo 15 Vid Library

148:56:18 - 3:01 seconds
149:04:05 - 3:38 seconds

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/video16.html

Apollo 16 Vid Library

125:19:04 - 3:38 seconds
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 12:40 pm
 
the night before the supposed actual landing they did a test run through, and noone could tell the difference.

between the fake moon landing and the actual moon landing?
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 1:53 pm
 
Brad probably doesn't even believe Todd moved to Milwaukee.
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 2:01 pm
 
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 3:05 pm
 
Fake Earth Transparencies and Dark Blackboards were used to Fake Small Moving Earth as Seen From Apollo 11 Windows.

I'm supprised they didn't have footage of the rocket flying flying through space, or a landing scene.
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 4:38 pm
 
I'm supprised they didn't have footage of the rocket flying flying through space, or a landing scene.

yep, and i got it right here, flat earth/creationist faggots
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 5:08 pm
 
yep, and i got it right here, flat earth/creationist faggots

FAKE!
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 5:21 pm
 
obviously fake.

hey, if y'all want to believe man went to the moon in that tin foil piece of shit, rode around on a 25 million dollar dune buggy, and then returned, all with a computer with less computing power than a frickin atari 2600, good for you.
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 5:31 pm
 
All you need is the Sun and Stars to guide you. Einstein. Sailors sailed around the world for thousands of years with only a Sextant. I suppose the Pyramids are fake too?
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 6:17 pm
 
ned, navigating in space is a bit trickier than on a boat and the sextant was invented in the mid-1700s.
Posted: Jul 28, 2009 6:29 pm
 
Sailors sailed around the world for thousands of years with only a Sextant.

FAKE!
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 9:56 am
 
We're all living in a matrix. Brad is in a pod. He's actually a 4'9" Norwegian woman.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 10:01 am
 
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 10:05 am
 
brad wins.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 1:02 pm
 
Actually, the principles for navigating in space were first laid down by Issac Newton in the 1600s, but don't let the facts stop you from from being ignorant.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 2:57 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
the principles for navigating in space were first laid down by Issac Newton in the 1600s,


Issac Newton, you're a GODDAMN LIAR!

yep.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 3:51 pm
 
Issac Newton, you're a GODDAMN LIAR!

yep.


I'm guessing you don't get laid much.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 4:44 pm
 
brad x is a bit more familiar with fig newton would be my guess.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 5:18 pm | Edited by: bradx
 
the principles for navigating in space were first laid down by Issac Newton in the 1600s

and did sir issac newton think it would be possible to travel in space in that aluminum can we supposedly sent to the moon? what did he have to say about the van allen radiation belts? unless theres original film of him discovering these principles i say its a hoax.

sir issac newton, liar and fraud.

He's actually a 4'9" Norwegian woman.

just call me princess toadstool.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 5:19 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
I'm guessing you don't get laid much.

I'm guessing you're not exactly "on the ball", stupid "ladies" like you wouldn't get satire if it was my big huge dick, and I slapped you in your cum-drenched, donut hole, face with it.





Did any of you idiots happen to watch NOVA last night.

NASA even lies to their astronauts.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 5:32 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
Oh yeah,
I know I fucked the bitch that stole my Jon Wayne c.d.

do you even know who that "movie star" is?!?

I'll give you a hint....
He NEVER WALKED ON THE MOON.
Posted: Jul 29, 2009 8:52 pm
 
the fact that Bradx is actually arguing this with the fervor he usually reserves for his apocalyptic sermons and his crayon drawn pie-charts of political "truth" just proves he is stupid/crazy/both...
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 1:19 am
 
this is even more fucked.
The G8 was presented with a prototype of the new "one world " currency....

Check it!

http://www.futureworldcurrency.com/
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 3:40 am
 
look at this thing.

just fucking look at it.

would you ride it to the moon?

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/303/lemc.jpg

i didnt fucking think so.

case closed.

if you really want to believe we went to the moon in this tinfoil wrapped studio prop, guided by the predecessor of a commodore 64, more power to ya!

my point of view is plain and simple,

just LOOK at that shit.

gimme a fuckin break!

how about this, lunar rover, piece of shit dune buggy with a fake fucking sattelite dish, price to the taxpayer only a cool $25 million in 1969 dollars.

dune buggy or quarter million dollars?

you be the judge.

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/1081/lunarover.jpg
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 1:13 pm
 
case closed?? that's your final argument?? does this thing look like a space ship?? this is your coup de grace??

you're an idiot.
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 2:16 pm
 
Ever seen a Huey helipcopter used in Nam? You wouldn't think those could fly either. But we beat the Viet Cong with them.
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 2:22 pm
 
But we beat the Viet Cong with them

We did?
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 4:26 pm
 
even though we didnt win the war, fuck yeah, we beat the hell outta them.

you're an idiot.

i rest my case.
Posted: Jul 30, 2009 5:14 pm
 
you promise?
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 1:30 am
 
case closed.

until next time...
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 6:13 am
 
All you need is the Sun and Stars to guide you. Einstein. Sailors sailed around the world for thousands of years with only a Sextant. I suppose the Pyramids are fake too?

You forgot the moon.


You look at the moon, and think "that's where sir issac newton is", and that's where rocket is has a computerzied program to go............now if it were only possible.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 12:33 pm
 
"the" rocket.


I was in a hurry for terrestial travel.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 12:58 pm
 
pocket rocket
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 3:37 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
I don't know about you but I don't see stars at 4pm. I would say the sun is usually outshining them.

the moon has no atmosphere for the sun's rays to reflect. There is no obstruction to hinder celestial visualization.





I find it to be very amusing that the moon walk believers would accuse the conspiracy theorists of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 4:57 pm
 
nasas very own website has a nice picture of what the stars would look like from earth in the daytime without an atmosphere. even with the sun shining, the stars would be clearly visible. again, they had to adjust exposure for their shots, why not take even a single picture of the stars? they must have looked magnificent, albeit impossible to fake using the technology they had at the time.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

moon believers love to bag on so called conspiracy theorists intelligence, but when nasa was stupid enough to supposedly toss the only original footage of their greatest accompliishment, they just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well" as if noone in that vast orginization had the critical thinking skills to realize someone might want to see that again some day.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 6:58 pm
 
moon believers

Wow, we even have our own name now! Just like wacky conspiracy theorists!

Be careful when you get close to the edge of the world - there are monsters out there, you know.

But why doubt the moon landing? What do people get out of that? Are their lives so empty and pathetic that they can't accept that there are others, obviously smarter and braver then they are, who could pull off something like that? Do they have a need to pull down others of superior talents to their level? Does doubting the moon landing make them feel better about their sad lives? It is pathetic.

What he said.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 7:02 pm
 
astro-NOT's
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 10:20 pm
 
I HATE the moon, and I wish NASA would destroy it!

They say they're "looking for water" on the moon, but I know it's a plot against Isacc Newton and a covert attempt at universal lycanthrocide!
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 10:22 pm
 
lycanthrocide!


gimme a break, miss linda don't even know what that means.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 10:30 pm
 
yeah she do. she's a wolf!
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 10:32 pm
 
look at this thing.

just fucking look at it.

would you ride it to the moon?

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/303/lemc.jpg

i didnt fucking think so.



being that close to two other dudes would make me highly suspect of their "hedrosexuality".
Somebody might even "end up" being gay on accident.
Posted: Jul 31, 2009 11:11 pm
 
Don't you think if you were going to make a fake spaceship you would make it look sexy, like the Collier's Magazine version of the space program from the late 50s? To save weight, the LEM didn't even have seats. It was flown standing up. If you were going to design a fake lunar lander, wouldn't you give it seats? People say Kubrick make the fake footage. Here's what he thought a lunar lander would look like in 1968. Here's Kubrick's best attempt at what the lunar surface would look like.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 2:13 am | Edited by: bradx
 
Somebody might even "end up" being gay on accident.

astro-nots and the navy were born gay.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:07 am
 
Don't you think if you were going to make a fake spaceship you would make it look sexy, like the Collier's Magazine version of the space program from the late 50s?

I think a phalic-shaped rocket as tall as a building is probably the space program's idea of being super duper sexy.

To save weight, the LEM didn't even have seats.

Why would it need seats?
There's no gravity in space (supposedly) and their decent from lunar orbit to lunar-firma would be way less than an hour. In theory, the moon's gravity is supposedly far less than the earth's, so a standing landing would be no trouble at all.

You see, NASA's lies have to coordinate with the ones they've told before, otherwise people like you and those idiot communist russians wouldn't believe them.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:23 am
 
Do they have a need to pull down others of superior talents to their level? Does doubting the moon landing make them feel better about their sad lives? It is pathetic.

Your obviously retarded opinion is beneath me, and gives us a glimpse at why you believe everything you're told.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:48 am
 
So the question for everybody else who is sane, rational, and/or intelligent, is why would anybody doubt the occurrence of what is one of the most well-documented and verified events in modern history? I would say that it's a lack basic critical thinking skills, but it has to go beyond that. What is to be gained? What is the benefit of clinging to such an easily dis-proven idea?


retarded liar
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 11:30 am
 
Why would it need seats?
There's no gravity in space (supposedly) and their decent from lunar orbit to lunar-firma would be way less than an hour. In theory, the moon's gravity is supposedly far less than the earth's, so a standing landing would be no trouble at all.


So you're saying the "tinfoil-wrapped studio prop" is actually designed with practicality in mind?
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 12:27 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
I honestly believe there was a moonwalk. If not in 1969, at least in the early 70's.
What I DON"T believe is that the bullshit film footage the government expected me to accept to be actual film of neil & buzz landing, and ascending from the moon was done on the moon.



This is just one example of my suspicion.......
I saw a brief clip of the 1st lunar ascent from the moon, and the camera tilts up to track the craft on it's voyage back to the orbiting module and from there,to earth. Was this robotically done?
I doubt it.
I think the government , or NASA is too arrogant to admit to any mistakes (as a sign of weakness in the eyes of our russian enemies),had some unforseen technical problem,and lied about it. Then made some film that wasn't very well planned in order to save face.
I also think people in the pre-watergate era felt it was unpatriotic to believe the government is capable of lying.There are many examples of blind, patriotic acceptance from that generation, and time period.

I think those films are fake, and that dose NOT make me a conspiracy theorist ,dtrain is.
I don't trust (or even like) most people, and I don't believe everything I'm told.


So you're saying the "tinfoil-wrapped studio prop" is actually designed with practicality in mind?

I see what you're saying, but the fake one would have to look like the real one, otherwise we would'nt be having this conversation.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 12:35 pm
 
I'm also a terrible spellar
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 6:06 pm
 
I saw a brief clip of the 1st lunar ascent from the moon, and the camera tilts up to track the craft on it's voyage back to the orbiting module and from there,to earth. Was this robotically done?
I doubt it.


This footage? It was taken with the remotely controlled camera on the lunar rover.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 7:45 pm
 
bullshit.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:33 pm
 
I saw a brief clip of the 1st lunar ascent from the moon, and the camera tilts up to track the craft on it's voyage back to the orbiting module and from there,to earth. Was this robotically done?
I doubt it.

This footage? It was taken with the remotely controlled camera on the lunar rover.


I wish I could have seen that a long time ago.
No, it wasn't the same footage, it was a different mission. probably the first.
I'm glad you posted that. Thanks.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:37 pm
 
I think they filmed that in the arizona desert at night. Probably near Roswell or some shit.
Posted: Aug 1, 2009 9:58 pm
 
THAT'S RIGHT, ROSWELL ARIZONA!!!!
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 9:52 am
 
and that dose NOT make me a conspiracy theorist ,dtrain is.

Tough night at the bus station linda? No action in the CK's parking lot?

You know Barbara Bush is Aleister Crowley's daughter right?

Can't wait to see ya in a week and a half ya hippie!
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 4:13 pm
 
I've gone back and forth on this and I have to say the tin hat collective has provided me with more believable explanations than NASA. Also, if you are SURE we landed on the moon in 69 you are an idiot. How the fuck would you know?
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 5:53 pm
 
tin hat collective is a pretty damned good name.
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 6:37 pm
 
was it 1492 for columbus? did we really sign the declaration in 1776? i don't get the argument. how do i know that rockets can go into space at all? i never rode on one, or worked on one or even knew somebody who did. but i can say that i'm as sure of space flights as i am of air travel. i don't know how surgeons operate on babies while they are still in the womb. i don't know how they get airplanes to break the speed of sound. i don't know how they build 100 + floor skyscrapers. there are people who are experts in their field and sometimes it can be difficult for the rest of us to imagine how things are possible, but i'll slap my dead grandmother's ass if brad x was able to crack the mystery.
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 6:45 pm | Edited by: littlemisslinda
 
[u][/u]You know Barbara Bush is Aleister Crowley's daughter right?

Can't wait to see ya in a week and a half ya hippie!



HAIL SATAN!!!!
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 7:07 pm
 
was it 1492 for columbus? Probably not
did we really sign the declaration in 1776? Im pretty sure the History Channel claimed we did not. Maybe it was PBS.
i don't know how they build 100 + floor skyscrapers it's like legos only on a larger scale and less colorful
i don't know how surgeons operate on babies while they are still in the womb. Fiber-optic cameras and tools that look like pipe-snakes


If you were to take the evidence that supports that footage being authentic and the evidence that is calling it out one side of the scale is resting firmly on the ground. Ground on the Earth. Probably Arizona or Nevada. I know, this is all new to you and you need a while to come to grips with it so I will just let it settle in while I watch and re-watch tapes of the Kennedy assassination
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 7:07 pm
 
tin hat collective is a pretty damned good name. (c)
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 7:36 pm
 
I watch and re-watch tapes of the Kennedy assassination
one of my fav beat films ever:
Posted: Aug 2, 2009 10:19 pm
 
tin hat collective is a pretty damned good name.

TIN FOIL HAT ASSASSINS

should be the real juggallooo name!
Posted: Aug 3, 2009 1:17 pm
 
Also, if you are SURE we landed on the moon in 69 you are an idiot. How the fuck would you know?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's the tons of physical evidence, thousands of photographs and hundreds of miles of film and video footage that convinced me. Or maybe it's the sheer improbability of thousands of government employees keeping a secret this big for this long.
Posted: Aug 3, 2009 6:35 pm
 
nice alec, thanks for letting it sink in, and i spose since you didn't get what i was saying i did a very poor job of explaining it. but i'm glad you responded like a complete arrogant dick about it and let me know how much smarter you are than everybody, otherwise i would still be wondering.
Posted: Aug 3, 2009 7:34 pm
 
how about "Group-Think Dumbasses"
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 9:04 am
 
AlecHolland is dumb as a brick and twice as gullible. Can't even detect the fact that Brad and Linda are fucking around.

Go to a debunking site where scientists have analyzed each tin hat claim - that's what I did when I first heard about this conspiracy years back, I checked with what the experts had to say, not a couple people trolling a music message board. And then I thought about it some more and realized that it's preposterous that the USSR, which is the entire reason we raced to the moon, wouldn't have come out publicly with this information as it fucking happened...they had a comm link! The fact that we made it there before them was a colossal embarrassment to our arch enemies! Give it up!
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 4:11 pm
 
There are probably people out there who think the world is flat, and they're not worth writing about. The "birthers" wouldn't be, either, unless you believe a poll released last week by Research 2000 revealing that an astounding 28 percent of Republicans actually think that Obama was not born in the United States and a separate 30 percent are "not sure." GOP officials need to order more tinfoil.
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 4:25 pm | Edited by: bradx
 
todd, as much as i respect you i have to say you have no clue about the vastness of the conspiracies pitted against us. the answer to your riddle is obvious!

why didnt the soviets come out against the fake moon landing?

because they were in on it! the new world order actually stretches farther back than that. even today we are up in space with the russians. hell, buzz aldrin is probably russian himself! the whole thing was a big distraction while they were putting a one world government into place and turning the earth into a prison planet.

speaking of the russians, why didnt they beat us there? our space program was a shambles when they first landed on the moon in 1959.

neil armstrong is a robot i guess because thats the only thing we ever put on the moon. man has not, and will not, ever, walk on the moon. God forbids it, and he put the van allen radiation belt in place for the very purpose of confining us to earth. even trying to go to the moon only invites His wrath, just look what He did when they built the tower of babel!

further evidence we never went to the moon is the fact they never exposed the aliens or alien artifacts up there. its accepted fact that the majority of the new world order leaders are subhumaniod shape shifting reptilians. their purpose on earth is to clone themselves and interbreed with humans.

anyways, the russians have been trying to expose the hoax for some time, but the new world order controls all the news you see and read, so you probably never even knew it, unless you read russian.

http://www.volgograd.kp.ru/daily/24217.4/419158/

2 pictures, same place in the arizona desert (not the moon), yet the LEM is only visible in photo 1?
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 4:29 pm | Edited by: fredrick of hollywood
 
Barak has NEVER shown a birth certificate certifying him as a U.S. citizen

prove me wrong.

stupid liberals
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 4:47 pm
 
of course he hasnt, he is an alien. pay attention.
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 5:23 pm
 
Go to a debunking site where scientists have analyzed each tin hat claim - that's what I did when I first heard about this conspiracy years back, I checked with what the experts had to say, not a couple people trolling a music message board. And then I thought about it some more and realized that it's preposterous that the USSR, which is the entire reason we raced to the moon, wouldn't have come out publicly with this information as it fucking happened...they had a comm link! The fact that we made it there before them was a colossal embarrassment to our arch enemies! Give it up!

Gee, I don't know. Maybe it's the tons of physical evidence, thousands of photographs and hundreds of miles of film and video footage that convinced me. Or maybe it's the sheer improbability of thousands of government employees keeping a secret this big for this long.[/i]
AlecHolland is dumb as a brick and twice as gullible. Can't even detect the fact that Brad and Linda are fucking around.

Exactly waht they want you to think
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 5:26 pm
 
speaking of the russians, why didnt they beat us there?

Because their lead astronautical engineer and resident space genius Sergey Korolyov died unexpectedly in 1966.
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 5:30 pm
 
most of their "firsts" werent that impressive anyways. first woman in space? wow, thats scientifically valid. big deal.
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 5:31 pm
 
Haha, nice New World Order spin.

I guess Alec's in on it too. Hmmmm.

As for Obama, I believe there were birth announcements when he was born in Hawaii, but I don't have time to search that shit right now...
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 5:35 pm
 
As for Obama, I believe there were birth announcements when he was born in Hawaii, but I don't have time to search that shit right now...

they were probably just tapped out on coconuts or something
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 7:15 pm
 
Put the lime in the coconut...

You guys need to get to living and do some drugs!!!!!
Who gives a rat's ass about whether we landed on the moon or Obama's birth certificate?
It's ALL subjective!
(I do believe in Roswell, NEW MEXICO, though.)
Posted: Aug 4, 2009 7:39 pm
 
(I do believe in Roswell, NEW MEXICO, though.)
i BELIEVE, it's on the moon!!!
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 3:57 am
 
As for Obama, I believe there were birth announcements when he was born in Hawaii, but I don't have time to search that shit right now...

Your search is in vain, but still interesting to me.
No one wants to admit that Obama is a liar, and a shitty president because he's black.
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 4:07 am
 
Who gives a rat's ass about whether we landed on the moon or Obama's birth certificate?

I DO!
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 6:38 am
 
Yeah, planes don't really fly either. They just show you a movie outside the windows and change the scenery when they let you out.

and when you get off the plane they dress up where you left from to look like where you wanna go.

that's why you can't never go into the cockpit ; that's where they hide the costumes
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 6:47 am
 

linda, she's an evil girl
& that's a fact
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 12:24 pm
 
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 2:04 pm
 
linda, she's an evil girl
& that's a fact



girl, huh....
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 5:36 pm
 
snopes is just some guy and his wife sitting at their kitchen table. they are wrong all the time. they have an online blog, that doesnt give them credibility.

Snopes said it doesn't "expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic

http://patterico.com/2004/07/27/snopes-going-down-the-tubes/

http://thetenoclockscholar.blogspot.com/2005/04/snopes-gets-it-wrong.h tml

http://www.easyfunschool.com/snopes_is_wrong_about_the_cpsia_spoof_seu ss_story.html

http://overlawyered.com/2009/02/snopes-and-cpsia/

The Snopes conclusion refers to an image posted on another website, FactCheck, which in turn cites as documentation of Obama's Hawaiian birth a "Certification of Live Birth" that the Obama campaign posted during 2008.

Critics, however, have pointed out that the "Certification of Live Birth" posted online is not, in fact, the same as a "Birth Certificate," and COLBs have been issued by Hawaii to parents whose children are not even born in the state.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, whose work is on her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation website, has written to state lawmakers across the nation, confronting the Snopes explanation directly:

"The State of Hawaii, statute 338, allows foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get a Hawaiian birth certificate. Mr. Obama has never presented any corroborating evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. His paternal grandmother in Kenya and the ambassador of Kenya made statements that he was born in Kenya," she said.

"The image that Mr. Obama has posted on the Internet was not a valid birth certificate, but rather a limited value document, called Short Version Certification of Live Birth. The Certification of Live Birth does not name a hospital, name a doctor, have any signatures or a seal of the Hawaiian Health Department on the front of the document. This document is usually given to parties that don't have a proper hospital birth certificate and it is given based on a statement of one relative only. Even the state of Hawaii doesn't give full credit to these documents," she continued.


---------------------------------------

Wikipedia is unable to evidence forth Barack Obama's birthplace and admits that Obama's official birth certificate is the subject of current litigation. So Wikipedia is unable to confirm Obama's hospital and even admits his official birth certificate is in dispute as Snopes.com links to wikipedia as proof that Obama was born in Kapiolani Medical Center and not only that but the very source that Snopes.com cites for the hospital of birth also contradicts Snopes.com report on the issue of Obama's birth certificate. For more on that see Snopes and FactCheck caught misrepresenting the position of those after Obama's birth certificate....

-------------------------------------------

A birth announcement in a newspaper means nothing. Although Michelle Malkin waxed a little snarky on this, "Did a fortune-teller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?", it is fairly common to run such announcements for babies born outside the area of the announcement or even the US. Proud grandparents, for example, could have run the announcement just to let people know they are now grandparents.
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 6:11 pm
 
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 6:14 pm
 
bradx is just some guy sitting at his kitchen table. he is wrong all the time. He only posts this shit to bait people.
Posted: Aug 5, 2009 8:22 pm
 
Yes, bradx. Bring the crazy.
Posted: Aug 6, 2009 5:39 am
 
Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?
Posted: Aug 31, 2009 7:18 pm
 
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 10:58 am | Edited by: bruce
 
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 1:12 pm
 
Never mind that.

They still haven't solved the mystery of Flight 33. It was shown the same day of Obama's birth!

http://tzone.the-croc.com/tzeplist/odyssey.html
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 3:08 pm
 
As for Obama, I believe there were birth announcements when he was born in Hawaii, but I don't have time to search that shit right now...

Announcements in the paper just mean his birth was made public, and it would have been the standard operating procedure if a child was born abroad, regardless of whether the parent was attempting to falsify place of birth or not. Same with the certification of live birth, short form. Those are provided as documentation for a resident/citizen paper trail in the US.

Although the time line of Obama's Mama enrolling in college in Seattle Seattle, WA just two weeks after his Hawaiian birth is suspect, it proves nothing. Energetic 19 year old's often do impulsive and confusing things. The issue is that Obama is not expected to divulge the information expected of any employee seeking a job in the US, like proof of his citizenship or place of birth, a requirement unique to the office of president. Just like everything else, the rules don't apply to Obama. He gets a pass despite calling for a new level of openness.

I'm 90/10 favoring his birth in Hawaii, and feel being coy is a tactic to make his detractors look loony tunes and be consistent with his covering up of college records. He is trying to keep under wraps is his web of contacts he knew during his college years. He did not just become the anointed one in 2004 on the convention floor. He has been groomed for this position since his before going to Columbia University. Bill Clinton had a similiar history and career trajectory.
Posted: Sep 17, 2009 3:49 pm
 
Rod Serling had pretty dark skin...
Posted: Sep 18, 2009 3:18 pm
 
the idea that nasa erase the tape of the first moon landing to save the cost of a video tape is way more ridiculous than any conspiracy theory

Maybe not:

Archivist Saves, Restores Original NASA Moon Pictures

She kept them IN HER GARAGE.
Posted: Oct 10, 2009 1:44 pm
 
I hope they blow the moon to smithereens
Posted: Oct 10, 2009 1:51 pm
 
I hope they moon the Smitherines
Posted: Oct 12, 2009 8:24 pm
 
I've been watching "Evidence Of Revision", which details familiar conspiracy theories...JFK, RFK, Jonestown, MLK, etc. using mostly news footage from the time of the incidents. Pretty interesting stuff!

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=evidence+of+revision&emb=0&aq=1& oq=evidence+of+#
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®