Thanks for saying what I said: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...5&postcount=18

:glugglug

Yeah, the whole of the human race hasn't been back to the moon, and you're so narrow minded that you think I only consider the US in my thoughts.

And I'm the idiot? :1orglaugh

Reason for not going back: they found no cheese.

Thread closed.

It anything truly worth any value if there's no cheese?

Professionals built the Titanic.

An amateur built The Ark.

'nuff said.

Must be one of those flash units that lights up an object but still retains the shadow cast in front of the object, huh?

That's a neat trick.

Light bounces off the moon you retard. Hence seeing the moon in the sky.

Another retard. Hmmm, last time I checked, he was touching the flag and last time i checked you can make a flag ripple without wind, especially in low gravity.

'nuff said....?

uhm... well one might add to that, that the Titanic was actually real and the story of Ark is fable in a book of fables.

honestly I can't wait to see what happens at the new private shuttle pad they are building here in Canada, and it's funded PRIVATELY, which means that the technologies that have been pretty much restricted to government agencies and strapped down in buerocracy and bullshit can go forward even faster with private interest/funding. Bet there will be tours to the moon before 5 years is out :)

You guys need to watch this if you want to know the truth:

Edit: board software won't let me link, you'll have to cut+paste

gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg

So...by your reasoning - you touched them both and verified this firsthand, right?

Your ASSertion demonstrates how little you know and understand about lighting and photography.

If an object standing in front of a very bright light source is photographed, it appears mostly in silhouette unless it is also lit from the front with another light source (such as flash or reflector). In the photo in question, there's an obvious bright light source behind the astronaut (hence the foreground shadow)...yet the astronaut himself is brightly lit from another light source. But then why does this secondary frontal light source not wipe out the shadow?

Or are you too busy calling people juvenile names to provide us with a feasible explanation?

how old are you? 6? 10? what kind of stupid remark is that. I have never touched a eskimo whaler from greenland either... but i am pretty sure that they are out there.

"my reasoning" suggests that what is claimed by the Bible to be the Ark for which YOU are using to compare with the Titanic is that one factually existed and that is not disputable... the other could not have possibly existed by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, unless you are going to argue that God helped.. if you are going to go that far, then you may as well argue anything you want since it can be proclaimed to be fact and can't be disproven.

Does someone really need to explain to you the overwhelming number of obstacles that would need to have been overcome to build the Ark as the bible describes it?

this breaks my heart a little. i'm sorry. really sorry. i have to let you in on a little secret... the bible is just a collection of fictional and/or grossly exaggerated stories used to bring people together, inspire people and provide a basic framework in terms of a basic code of law, moral guidelines etc for a civil society

Die thread die.

The amount of idiotic posts in this thread is higher than any other thread on the mainpage.

I always thought there were a small group of old rednecks, a few 1000 conspiracy nuts, who never even touched a computer, thought the landing was fake. Now it turns out that young people in 2006 still think its fake.

Its crazy. How does the flag get on the moon? And the laser reflection thing? Why doesnt anyone of these idiots answer that.

Stuartd who claimed no more than 3 people needed to be involved in the conspiracy hasnt post since in this thread has he? Ahahaha. I wonder why.

Sounds as though you really have your finger on the pulse of all that is factual.

Thanks for letting us all in on that "little secret". It must've been a burden keeping that under wraps for so long.

Congrats.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

For every disbeliever - there's an equal number of truly gullible, willing to swallow anything the administration feeds them.

Let's face it...YOU ain't been to the moon. I ain't been to the moon, either. So we're both left to base our opinions on evidence neither of us can personally verify or disprove to the satisfaction of the other.

In the absence of verifiable proof - its always easy to simply name-call the opposition, label them rednecks or conspiracy nuts.

Christopher Columbus was also considered a heretic...until he discovered the New World.

It happened. Think of the other similar wonders that we take for granted that are indisputable. I'm always in awe when I look into the sky and I see a few thousand pounds of metal called a airplane flying thru air. We also put satellites up in space. The technology to make a moon landing happen existed in 1969.

We could write another encyclopedia series of what really happened in American history.

Mr. Romance

The Titanic hit an iceberg and was built with substandard rivets..

The ark didn't hit an iceberg..

No comparison..

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe they just ain't all that interested in getting it up there in a hurry.. ???
they ain't racing against anyone now... it's obv not as important to do it now!
Either that... or they're all lazy gits! :P

I for one won't dispute the fact that we had the technology..

The major factor was the time frame..

Just playing the, "what if" game...
If we were in a race to reach the Moon, and saw that we wouldn't have the craft ready to launch before Russia, and wanted soooo bad to be the first..
Only one other option...

Anything's possible.. Afterall... Bush Sr. admin. used an actor of sorts to make the taking babies out of incubators story appear real to gain suppport for the Kuwait deal...

Maybe but 10 to 1 there were a group of hecklers at the local forum meet rubbishing the fact that he actually went to the New World and that in reality he bummed around the Med for a bit and that really how anyone could be dumb enough to fall for the 'official' story that he 'sailed to the New World and back' I mean come on with 'our current technology?' damn people are 'nothing but sheep these days'

Well... actually he was headed for India and got mixed up; still thinking he was in India ..

But who's countin'...

I saw some of the actual Moon rocks they brought back at the Smithsonian in DC.

:thumbsup

But there had to be 100s of people at mission control.

You think they managed to find 100s of trained professionals to say that they did work for mission control that day we landed.

Wait wait wait... You think "The Ark" was real???

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Well, Europe crashed into the moon yesterday.

I touched it ..but then the same people that don't believe we went would say it was fake and the scientists that studied it were lying.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

You have proof it isn't?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

wait the ark isn't real??? :Oh crap

I think the truth is in the stars

just because you can't disprove a negative, doesnt mean its fact. i can claim all day long that there is a long lost civilization that lives in the core of the sun and use your painfully stupid logic to defend that idea.

I think it was faked.

Wait, are you saying that 2 of each kind of animal didn't get saved by a boat built in the desert by one man?

Say it ain't so.

actually the moon doesn't exist they just projected it up there like the batman sign to make everyone think there was a moon they could fly to

you may be on to something