Profile
Search
Register
Log in
The moon landing WAS a hoax
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
vintge
is vintge vince? vince vintge vincge?


Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Posts: 4334
Location: LA
 Reply with quote  

^^^^ thats racism asshole. leave my people out of this.


or we'll drop moon pie bombs from the sky
Post Tue Jun 24, 2003 8:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Machiavel



Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 766
 Reply with quote  

SneebDotCom wrote:

The thing with the pictures thats really really really weird is that they had these cross hairs on the cameras... on the lenses... and yet, in some pics, the crosshairs go BEHIND some of the images... which obviously is impossible. It doesnt prove the thing was a hoax, but it proves that they were doctored for some reason or another while NASA swears they werent. This makes them liars. There is no way in physical reality that a cross hair that is IN CAMERA can go behind parts of the image and yet NASA says its ll kosher. So whether it was a hoax or not, its obvious NASA doesnt care about being straight with us.


I never heard about any "crosshairs" but for there to be crosshairs in a picture there would need to be crosshairs directly over the film (as in touching almost) Which makes little sense. Since if the crosshairs were before or after the lens (after would just throw the picture out of focus) and before would just make the picture a slightly softer focus in the crosshair area. Anyway, it is something to look into i guess.

And you guys dont wanna fuck with the moon people.
Post Tue Jun 24, 2003 11:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Mush Records



Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Posts: 8
moon hoax explanations  Reply with quote  

dust reacts different in a vacuum that it would on earth - when there is no atmosphere, all object fall at the same speed - a rock, a feather, and dust all fall straight down at the same speed. also, no atmosphere means no wearing of particles, this explains why dust clumps making footprints. the photo markings always disappear over white backgrounds, never over dark. this is a function of bleed in photographic development - the cross hairs are very, very thin and white bleeds over top of the line - check some photography books for proof.

check these two pages:
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm

they explain fairly clearly using real science every bullshit piece of "evidence" people have to prove the moon landing was fake.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 3:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Machiavel



Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 766
 Reply with quote  

That site still doesnt explain the moon people.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SneepSnopDotCom
COCKRING WRAITH


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 3087
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

Hey mush... it takes just as much faith to believe what you have read as it does for what I've read. You have to figure things out for yourself.... a geek can sit there and tell me that the moon's atmosphere or lack thereof is why there is no dust cloud when they took off.... but that is bullshit. We are talking about what? Thousands of pounds of pressure being pushed down.... DUST WOULD RISE. But no dust rose... nothing at all. If a man's foot causes a footprint, then a rocket blast would cause a rocket print... that's my word.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
am01ne



Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 563
Location: Cybertron
 Reply with quote  

At first I thought this thread was made out of sarcasm. I guess somebody watched that stupid special that aired on Fox...

Well I saw that too and I'm not sure whats more embarassing, the fact that a group of idiot conspiracy theorists decided to get together and produce such a stupid program or that so many people actually believed it could be true...

The moon landing was NOT a fake, it wouldve been easier to send people to the moon than to fake it. What would the effects really have been eitherway? Do you really think that this had anything to do with the Cold War? If so, please explain rather than just expressing the idiotic assumptions posed by others..

It would have been pretty easy to tell whether the Apollo radio signals were coming from the direction of the Moon, and whether the time delays in conversation matched the distance the signals had to travel. If anything had seemed wrong, if they were being broadcast over some desert in Arizona, surely these unfriendly countries would have mentioned something to the gullible citizens of the world... When even your enemy gives you credit for something, it's pretty convincing!

Also, people travel long distances for the privilege and excitement of seeing a rocket blast into space... Recovery of a mission such as Apollo takes place in the ocean and typically involves a large navy ship with lots of sailors. Did all those thousands of people lie about it too? Did they throw a huge meeting somewhere to discuss what they were gonna say? This is just common sense...

As for the flag thing... it was waving despite the fact that there is no atmosphere in space for a pretty blatantly obvious reason... it was in motion and an object in motion will remain in motion without the laws of gravity to work against it. That's the first law of physics right there.

The rocket crater thing... since when are you guys engineers? There's no gravity on the moon, why would they need a rocket blast powerful enough to blow a crater through the moon's surface when all it would take was a little boost? You realise that these space shuttles have an instrument called a "throttle" right? When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? No. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. Also, there is no vacuum in space, the blast is spread out over a wider range as opposed to on Earth where the pressure is more concentrated causing a greater "blast" force.

Crosshairs... I dont even understand the argument being made here? Are you suggesting that Nasau went and added in crosshairs behind the astronauts for no apparent reason? Cameras equipped with crosshairs have been used for a long time, and it would have been easy to simply use some to take pictures on the faked set. It's not such a great mystery... The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too.

I'd be happy to explain every other stupid theory that "proves" why the government faked the moon landing but I dont remember them all...
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 2:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Ben



Joined: 14 Aug 2002
Posts: 93
Location: Maine
loonie moon theory  Reply with quote  

looks like am01ne just spanked you Sneeb.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 3:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Krang
THE ORC BREATH


Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Location: NSW, australia
 Reply with quote  

Yes the moon landing was real.

But the crosshairs on the film proves one thing.

It was filmed through a sniper scope.

The real purpose of the moon landing? To hunt moon people.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
SneepSnopDotCom
COCKRING WRAITH


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 3087
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

nah, amo1ne's post was all smoke and mirrors... he said nothing.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
sextilliondollarman
Guest




 Reply with quote  

SneebDotCom wrote:
nah, amo1ne's post was all smoke and mirrors... he said nothing.
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:38 pm
 
am01ne



Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 563
Location: Cybertron
 Reply with quote  

SneebDotCom wrote:
nah, amo1ne's post was all smoke and mirrors... he said nothing.


face it dude, you got sneebed!
Post Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
duck_shoe



Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 1362
Location: Right here, fool.
 Reply with quote  

Explanations = smoke and mirrors? Quoi?
Post Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TILTEDmurder



Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 427
Location: San Jose, Cali
 Reply with quote  

sneeb, you're done.

am01ne just fucked your ass up.
Post Thu Jun 26, 2003 2:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SneepSnopDotCom
COCKRING WRAITH


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 3087
Location: Wisconsin
 Reply with quote  

eh? All he did was state his opinion in a forceful way... he didn't state any facts at all. If you guys think he told me off then that's cool... but you are living in a sad dreamland filled with hopeful ideas that sneeb will finally receive his comeuppance. It certainly didn't happen here though.
Post Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
am01ne



Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 563
Location: Cybertron
 Reply with quote  

I didnt tell you off nor did I state opinions, that was common sense.
Post Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:06 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon