The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you beleive man actually walked on the moon? This is a debatable question as there are many things which could make it all made up.
When you look at the pictures of the moon and the United States of America flag you will notice that the flag is waving in the wind but there is no wind on the moon!! Perhaps it was all set up at area 51 in the middle of the arizona desert? was it windy that day? and in the pictures there are no stars in the background! where did they all go!
I also think that there is a thing like the Ozone layer around the moon which is radioactive or something and it would kill humans who came in contact with it and also which I should mention why hasn't any one visited the moon since 1969? that is 33 years and man hasn't went back up to the moon.
There was also a program on before which I watched and they said a russian spy plane or something like that seen the lines where the props were to go. What do you think?
When you look at the pictures of the moon and the United States of America flag you will notice that the flag is waving in the wind but there is no wind on the moon!! Perhaps it was all set up at area 51 in the middle of the arizona desert? was it windy that day? and in the pictures there are no stars in the background! where did they all go!
I also think that there is a thing like the Ozone layer around the moon which is radioactive or something and it would kill humans who came in contact with it and also which I should mention why hasn't any one visited the moon since 1969? that is 33 years and man hasn't went back up to the moon.
There was also a program on before which I watched and they said a russian spy plane or something like that seen the lines where the props were to go. What do you think?
Page:
> In no way was it harsh. Anyone who has actually bothered to find out
> the real facts would know that on 9/11 the US Air Force was getting
> the radar images for inside the US from Air Traffic Control as all
> it's own radars were looking outwards from the USA for threats.
> Plane's were scrambled to intercept airliners and force them down.
> Forcing them down is all the military can do. An executive order needs
> to be given authorising the use of military force inside the USA, only
> the president can do this and we know that the order was given too
> late, and that the planes that flew that day returned with full
> weapons racks and ammo.
You are forgetting one thing, the Americans lie. That is what a CT is about. How do we know they returned with full ammo? We only have the Military's word. You say the order was given too late but that was only what we were told. The evidence about this crash suggests one of 2 things, either the plane was shot down or suffered a massive engine failure and structural collapse of the engine manafold. There is no other explination for the engine parts found miles away.
> Next, look at tv images of the day - bright clear skies, you know how
> bright a missile would look strakeing across the sky that day ? Very.
> Anyone see it ? No. Know what happens when an Air to air missile hits
> an airliner ? Explodes mid air. There'd be no impact damage to the
> Pentagon.
Look into the stinger, it is a hand held weapon that can do very little damage. It can take down a fighter but the explosion on a incomming aircraft very high in the air could easily be missed.
> Next, the stupid stinger theory. These are shoulder launched missiles
> for use against fighters and helicopters, esepcially helicopters. Fir
> a stinger at an airliner and you'd be lucky to even dent the plane,
> let alone for anyone to notice it unless it was shot into the cockpit
> - slim odds - plus intel released on monday confirms that flight 93 -
> the 4th plane - was hitting the congress building, so the 3rd one
> couldn't have been.
A stinger is capable of taking out an engine on a comercial plane. As they are heat seaking and comercial aircraft have no cares about lowering heat emmisions this would be an easy target. I didn't say it was definatly congress and it is likley it was going for the white house. If you think this is stupid explain how a very well trained piolt managed to do so little damage. If he had hit direct on rather then in a round about way he could have taken out a lot more of that structure.
> The Pentagon attack was symbolic, and killed over 100 hundred people -
> who I'm sure are not as insignificant as a certain staff member would
> like to think - It did massive damage as it was. The underground
> section fo the Pentagon could only be reached by a concentrated
> multiple warhead nuclear strike.
Symbolism would have been to take out the White House. What greater symbol is there of the American dream? And I didn't mean insignificant as in didn't matter, of course they matter as they are people. What I ment was they could have tried to take out more senior people.
> Scepticism isn't healthy in the most part, ever since the X Files more
> and more people seem to think they know the truth - when they don't
> even know any facts at all. We're seeing increasing numbers of small
> time authors publishing conspiracies to sell books and the idiots buy
> them. There's a 9/11 conspiracy that says no plane crashed into the
> Pentagon. Evidence ? Don't make me laugh. There's a misundesrtnding
> that the US government is some super powerful all knowing covert
> force. It isn't, if they were that good then 9/11 wouldn't have
> happened. AS for the release of controversial documents ? Er...one
> woman isn't the whole government.
Scepticism is very healthy. Look at Germany in the 1930's. The people were brainwashed by propoganda. If they had sat down and thought, wait a min, could they be lieing to us, then maybee Germany would at least have had a decent resistance movement. In the 1920's the americans launched mass advertising campains stating that both alcohol and cannabis were evil. They later retracted there words on alcohol and thanks to scepticism the american people are now forcing there government to look into the issue of cannabis. The moral is don't allways believe what your government say as they DO lie. Thats not a wacky statement its the truth.
> Conspiracy theorists always blow out of proportion their statements,
> and ignore evidence to the contrary. In most cases those who agree
> only do so because they read a web page. Find the facts and you'd see
> the truth, there is and never was a 9/11 conspiracy and you're
> dishounouring all who died that day by suggesting there was.
I will admit that a lot of people do take too much as fact but the same goes for you. You are just believeing the official line without really considering the chance that it could be a lie.
> the real facts would know that on 9/11 the US Air Force was getting
> the radar images for inside the US from Air Traffic Control as all
> it's own radars were looking outwards from the USA for threats.
> Plane's were scrambled to intercept airliners and force them down.
> Forcing them down is all the military can do. An executive order needs
> to be given authorising the use of military force inside the USA, only
> the president can do this and we know that the order was given too
> late, and that the planes that flew that day returned with full
> weapons racks and ammo.
You are forgetting one thing, the Americans lie. That is what a CT is about. How do we know they returned with full ammo? We only have the Military's word. You say the order was given too late but that was only what we were told. The evidence about this crash suggests one of 2 things, either the plane was shot down or suffered a massive engine failure and structural collapse of the engine manafold. There is no other explination for the engine parts found miles away.
> Next, look at tv images of the day - bright clear skies, you know how
> bright a missile would look strakeing across the sky that day ? Very.
> Anyone see it ? No. Know what happens when an Air to air missile hits
> an airliner ? Explodes mid air. There'd be no impact damage to the
> Pentagon.
Look into the stinger, it is a hand held weapon that can do very little damage. It can take down a fighter but the explosion on a incomming aircraft very high in the air could easily be missed.
> Next, the stupid stinger theory. These are shoulder launched missiles
> for use against fighters and helicopters, esepcially helicopters. Fir
> a stinger at an airliner and you'd be lucky to even dent the plane,
> let alone for anyone to notice it unless it was shot into the cockpit
> - slim odds - plus intel released on monday confirms that flight 93 -
> the 4th plane - was hitting the congress building, so the 3rd one
> couldn't have been.
A stinger is capable of taking out an engine on a comercial plane. As they are heat seaking and comercial aircraft have no cares about lowering heat emmisions this would be an easy target. I didn't say it was definatly congress and it is likley it was going for the white house. If you think this is stupid explain how a very well trained piolt managed to do so little damage. If he had hit direct on rather then in a round about way he could have taken out a lot more of that structure.
> The Pentagon attack was symbolic, and killed over 100 hundred people -
> who I'm sure are not as insignificant as a certain staff member would
> like to think - It did massive damage as it was. The underground
> section fo the Pentagon could only be reached by a concentrated
> multiple warhead nuclear strike.
Symbolism would have been to take out the White House. What greater symbol is there of the American dream? And I didn't mean insignificant as in didn't matter, of course they matter as they are people. What I ment was they could have tried to take out more senior people.
> Scepticism isn't healthy in the most part, ever since the X Files more
> and more people seem to think they know the truth - when they don't
> even know any facts at all. We're seeing increasing numbers of small
> time authors publishing conspiracies to sell books and the idiots buy
> them. There's a 9/11 conspiracy that says no plane crashed into the
> Pentagon. Evidence ? Don't make me laugh. There's a misundesrtnding
> that the US government is some super powerful all knowing covert
> force. It isn't, if they were that good then 9/11 wouldn't have
> happened. AS for the release of controversial documents ? Er...one
> woman isn't the whole government.
Scepticism is very healthy. Look at Germany in the 1930's. The people were brainwashed by propoganda. If they had sat down and thought, wait a min, could they be lieing to us, then maybee Germany would at least have had a decent resistance movement. In the 1920's the americans launched mass advertising campains stating that both alcohol and cannabis were evil. They later retracted there words on alcohol and thanks to scepticism the american people are now forcing there government to look into the issue of cannabis. The moral is don't allways believe what your government say as they DO lie. Thats not a wacky statement its the truth.
> Conspiracy theorists always blow out of proportion their statements,
> and ignore evidence to the contrary. In most cases those who agree
> only do so because they read a web page. Find the facts and you'd see
> the truth, there is and never was a 9/11 conspiracy and you're
> dishounouring all who died that day by suggesting there was.
I will admit that a lot of people do take too much as fact but the same goes for you. You are just believeing the official line without really considering the chance that it could be a lie.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Harsh. I don't know the military's exact protocol for authorising the
> shoting down of a plane, but the reason the fighters were in the sky
> at all was for the purpose of bringing down other rogue passenger
> aircraft.
> That would certainly apply to the plane in question, and the evidence
> would better fit the explaination that it was shot down.
In no way was it harsh. Anyone who has actually bothered to find out the real facts would know that on 9/11 the US Air Force was getting the radar images for inside the US from Air Traffic Control as all it's own radars were looking outwards from the USA for threats. Plane's were scrambled to intercept airliners and force them down. Forcing them down is all the military can do. An executive order needs to be given authorising the use of military force inside the USA, only the president can do this and we know that the order was given too late, and that the planes that flew that day returned with full weapons racks and ammo.
Next, look at tv images of the day - bright clear skies, you know how bright a missile would look strakeing across the sky that day ? Very. Anyone see it ? No. Know what happens when an Air to air missile hits an airliner ? Explodes mid air. There'd be no impact damage to the Pentagon.
Next, the stupid stinger theory. These are shoulder launched missiles for use against fighters and helicopters, esepcially helicopters. Fir a stinger at an airliner and you'd be lucky to even dent the plane, let alone for anyone to notice it unless it was shot into the cockpit - slim odds - plus intel released on monday confirms that flight 93 - the 4th plane - was hitting the congress building, so the 3rd one couldn't have been.
The Pentagon attack was symbolic, and killed over 100 hundred people - who I'm sure are not as insignificant as a certain staff member would like to think - It did massive damage as it was. The underground section fo the Pentagon could only be reached by a concentrated multiple warhead nuclear strike.
> I don't agree with this at all. The us government doesn't offer its
> citizens complete transparency, so there is always room for
> speculation as to what really goes on behind their closed doors.
> While it is a sensetive subject, and nobody means to make light of the
> tragedy, i think a healthy does of scepticism is healthy. As the uk
> government's timing of the release of controversial documents shows,
> we shouldn't naturally expect governments to act with upmost integrity
> at these times, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.
Scepticism isn't healthy in the most part, ever since the X Files more and more people seem to think they know the truth - when they don't even know any facts at all. We're seeing increasing numbers of small time authors publishing conspiracies to sell books and the idiots buy them. There's a 9/11 conspiracy that says no plane crashed into the Pentagon. Evidence ? Don't make me laugh. There's a misundesrtnding that the US government is some super powerful all knowing covert force. It isn't, if they were that good then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. AS for the release of controversial documents ? Er...one woman isn't the whole government.
Conspiracy theorists always blow out of proportion their statements, and ignore evidence to the contrary. In most cases those who agree only do so because they read a web page. Find the facts and you'd see the truth, there is and never was a 9/11 conspiracy and you're dishounouring all who died that day by suggesting there was.
~~Belldandy~~
> Harsh. I don't know the military's exact protocol for authorising the
> shoting down of a plane, but the reason the fighters were in the sky
> at all was for the purpose of bringing down other rogue passenger
> aircraft.
> That would certainly apply to the plane in question, and the evidence
> would better fit the explaination that it was shot down.
In no way was it harsh. Anyone who has actually bothered to find out the real facts would know that on 9/11 the US Air Force was getting the radar images for inside the US from Air Traffic Control as all it's own radars were looking outwards from the USA for threats. Plane's were scrambled to intercept airliners and force them down. Forcing them down is all the military can do. An executive order needs to be given authorising the use of military force inside the USA, only the president can do this and we know that the order was given too late, and that the planes that flew that day returned with full weapons racks and ammo.
Next, look at tv images of the day - bright clear skies, you know how bright a missile would look strakeing across the sky that day ? Very. Anyone see it ? No. Know what happens when an Air to air missile hits an airliner ? Explodes mid air. There'd be no impact damage to the Pentagon.
Next, the stupid stinger theory. These are shoulder launched missiles for use against fighters and helicopters, esepcially helicopters. Fir a stinger at an airliner and you'd be lucky to even dent the plane, let alone for anyone to notice it unless it was shot into the cockpit - slim odds - plus intel released on monday confirms that flight 93 - the 4th plane - was hitting the congress building, so the 3rd one couldn't have been.
The Pentagon attack was symbolic, and killed over 100 hundred people - who I'm sure are not as insignificant as a certain staff member would like to think - It did massive damage as it was. The underground section fo the Pentagon could only be reached by a concentrated multiple warhead nuclear strike.
> I don't agree with this at all. The us government doesn't offer its
> citizens complete transparency, so there is always room for
> speculation as to what really goes on behind their closed doors.
> While it is a sensetive subject, and nobody means to make light of the
> tragedy, i think a healthy does of scepticism is healthy. As the uk
> government's timing of the release of controversial documents shows,
> we shouldn't naturally expect governments to act with upmost integrity
> at these times, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.
Scepticism isn't healthy in the most part, ever since the X Files more and more people seem to think they know the truth - when they don't even know any facts at all. We're seeing increasing numbers of small time authors publishing conspiracies to sell books and the idiots buy them. There's a 9/11 conspiracy that says no plane crashed into the Pentagon. Evidence ? Don't make me laugh. There's a misundesrtnding that the US government is some super powerful all knowing covert force. It isn't, if they were that good then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. AS for the release of controversial documents ? Er...one woman isn't the whole government.
Conspiracy theorists always blow out of proportion their statements, and ignore evidence to the contrary. In most cases those who agree only do so because they read a web page. Find the facts and you'd see the truth, there is and never was a 9/11 conspiracy and you're dishounouring all who died that day by suggesting there was.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Be ashamed of even writing this rubbish. Whilst F16's were by this
> time airborne the President gave no command authorisation to shoot
> down airliners at that time.
Harsh. I don't know the military's exact protocol for authorising the shoting down of a plane, but the reason the fighters were in the sky at all was for the purpose of bringing down other rogue passenger aircraft.
That would certainly apply to the plane in question, and the evidence would better fit the explaination that it was shot down.
> There is no conspiracy here. Only terrorists. You have to be braindead
> to think otherwise, or simply attention seeking.
I don't agree with this at all. The us government doesn't offer its citizens complete transparency, so there is always room for speculation as to what really goes on behind their closed doors.
While it is a sensetive subject, and nobody means to make light of the tragedy, i think a healthy does of scepticism is healthy. As the uk government's timing of the release of controversial documents shows, we shouldn't naturally expect governments to act with upmost integrity at these times, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.
> Be ashamed of even writing this rubbish. Whilst F16's were by this
> time airborne the President gave no command authorisation to shoot
> down airliners at that time.
Harsh. I don't know the military's exact protocol for authorising the shoting down of a plane, but the reason the fighters were in the sky at all was for the purpose of bringing down other rogue passenger aircraft.
That would certainly apply to the plane in question, and the evidence would better fit the explaination that it was shot down.
> There is no conspiracy here. Only terrorists. You have to be braindead
> to think otherwise, or simply attention seeking.
I don't agree with this at all. The us government doesn't offer its citizens complete transparency, so there is always room for speculation as to what really goes on behind their closed doors.
While it is a sensetive subject, and nobody means to make light of the tragedy, i think a healthy does of scepticism is healthy. As the uk government's timing of the release of controversial documents shows, we shouldn't naturally expect governments to act with upmost integrity at these times, particularly when evidence suggests otherwise.
Bob wrote:
> On the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy. I don't believe it was a missile
> as how would anyone get such a weapon into the US, let alone near to
> that building. The Americans may not be good at some things but at
> secureing there top buildings there are great. My theory is that the
> pentagon was not the target. The ammount of damage done to that
> building was minamal. The terorists had attacted such a large scale
> target in NY, why take out a side of a building that has no one
> important ....... blah blah blah
Be ashamed of even writing this rubbish. Whilst F16's were by this time airborne the President gave no command authorisation to shoot down airliners at that time.
There is no conspiracy here. Only terrorists. You have to be braindead to think otherwise, or simply attention seeking.
~~Belldandy~~
> On the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy. I don't believe it was a missile
> as how would anyone get such a weapon into the US, let alone near to
> that building. The Americans may not be good at some things but at
> secureing there top buildings there are great. My theory is that the
> pentagon was not the target. The ammount of damage done to that
> building was minamal. The terorists had attacted such a large scale
> target in NY, why take out a side of a building that has no one
> important ....... blah blah blah
Be ashamed of even writing this rubbish. Whilst F16's were by this time airborne the President gave no command authorisation to shoot down airliners at that time.
There is no conspiracy here. Only terrorists. You have to be braindead to think otherwise, or simply attention seeking.
~~Belldandy~~
On the issue of the 9/11 conspiracy. I don't believe it was a missile as how would anyone get such a weapon into the US, let alone near to that building. The Americans may not be good at some things but at secureing there top buildings there are great. My theory is that the pentagon was not the target. The ammount of damage done to that building was minamal. The terorists had attacted such a large scale target in NY, why take out a side of a building that has no one important working there. You see the pentagon is mostly under ground and even if you did want to hit the top half, why scrape the side rather then slamming the building properly. I believe that that plane was headed for the white house or congrees. The Secret Service agents around these buildings have a small hand held anti-arcraft weapon called a Stinger. This is powerfull enough to take out a fightert plane but not to blow up a comercial air-liner. I think that one of these was fired at the incoming plane and that the pilot of this plane aimed at the pentagon when he realised he would not make his real target. There is alos the story of the 4th plane. Apparently the passengers got control from the highjackers and then the could not control it. A couple of problems with this. One, there were serveral people on that plane who could have flown it well enough to have at least mad a successful emergeny landing, second one of the engines was found miles from the crash site which should not have happened unless it had fallen off and lastly there were reports of a flash in the sky. I believe that in the panic of this day one of the F16's that were in the air less then 10 miles away was authorised to bring down this plane.
The problem is that the Americans cannot admit to these facts. Looking at it from the perspective of National Security both the stinger and F16 theories would be acceptable to stop further large scale damage. The issue is that most American citizens will not look at it this way and will just see that there government shot down 2 planes full of innocents.
The problem is that the Americans cannot admit to these facts. Looking at it from the perspective of National Security both the stinger and F16 theories would be acceptable to stop further large scale damage. The issue is that most American citizens will not look at it this way and will just see that there government shot down 2 planes full of innocents.
I don't think we did, here's one bit of evidence to support my theory. It may have already been mentioned, so sorry if this is just a repeat.
Have you seen any of the video clips of the landing and first walk? Notice that there is no time delay in the sound between the man at Houston speaking, and the man on the moon speaking. It's as quick as if they were on the telephone. Get what I mean?
Right, now remember when the World Cup was on in Japan. When they went live to someone out there from the studio in London, the interviewer would ask a question, and there would be a delay of several seconds before the answer was heard.
Why is this?
Well, essentially, transmitted waves take a finite time to travel anywhere. In the case of the world cup, they had to go up to a satellite in space, and then back down to Japan. The reply then had to come back the same way.
Now, with all the rechnology gains we've made since th emoon landings, how come we still get a delay in hearing the reply, when 30 years ago the reply was instant? Especailly as the moon is thousands of times further away?
Remember, waves travel at a set speed, there is no way of changing that. Therefore, the waves were not travelling to the moon and back.
Which either means that Houston was on the moon, or the man on the moon was actually on earth.
See?
Have you seen any of the video clips of the landing and first walk? Notice that there is no time delay in the sound between the man at Houston speaking, and the man on the moon speaking. It's as quick as if they were on the telephone. Get what I mean?
Right, now remember when the World Cup was on in Japan. When they went live to someone out there from the studio in London, the interviewer would ask a question, and there would be a delay of several seconds before the answer was heard.
Why is this?
Well, essentially, transmitted waves take a finite time to travel anywhere. In the case of the world cup, they had to go up to a satellite in space, and then back down to Japan. The reply then had to come back the same way.
Now, with all the rechnology gains we've made since th emoon landings, how come we still get a delay in hearing the reply, when 30 years ago the reply was instant? Especailly as the moon is thousands of times further away?
Remember, waves travel at a set speed, there is no way of changing that. Therefore, the waves were not travelling to the moon and back.
Which either means that Houston was on the moon, or the man on the moon was actually on earth.
See?
XRAli!! your one smart guy! you even knew the correct name for the radiation belt. nice one
Right, here is my view on the matter compiled from things I have read, seen, heard etc.
1.The Van Allen belt would NOT have been a problem to the astronauts travelling in the Apollo moon missions. This is because the majority of the radioactive particles contained in the belt are too large to pass through the apollo's shell or the astronauats skin. The radiation(sp?) that did get through would not have exceeded the exposure limit issued by the US for people working in Nuclear Power Plants. The Astronauts would have not felt remotely ill as the radiation absorbed by their skin would not have been enough to poison them. It may be enough to cause cancer in later life but that's currently an unknown factor.
(I can post the scientific/mathematical facts on this if anybody wants to argue the points but I didn't in this post as it is long and complicated).
2. The flag flying in the 'wind' is explained easily for me. Would a limp USA flag look good on a photograph? Not really, the government decided to put some flexible wire into the top of the flag to make it appear as if it was 'flying'.
3. The multiple shadow thing I can't explain easil as I'm no photo analyst, but more shadows can be created through relections. Also you do get multiple shadows when the sun is low in the sky in the evening aswell.
4.No sound coming from the rocket boosters? Now forgive me if I'm wrong but sound can't actually travel in a vacuum, ever heard the expression 'No one can hear you scream!' ? This in conjunction with the sound insulation could easily block out the sound created.
5. The russians would be concentrating on the moon SO closely they would have noticed if it was an unmanned mission or if nothing actually reached moon, they would ahve caused a total uproar. But they made little comment.
These points are all I can think of now, if you want to argue do but remember this is not complete fact - I wasn't there, but this is the impression I got from the evidence presented by NON-NASA bodies.
Ali
1.The Van Allen belt would NOT have been a problem to the astronauts travelling in the Apollo moon missions. This is because the majority of the radioactive particles contained in the belt are too large to pass through the apollo's shell or the astronauats skin. The radiation(sp?) that did get through would not have exceeded the exposure limit issued by the US for people working in Nuclear Power Plants. The Astronauts would have not felt remotely ill as the radiation absorbed by their skin would not have been enough to poison them. It may be enough to cause cancer in later life but that's currently an unknown factor.
(I can post the scientific/mathematical facts on this if anybody wants to argue the points but I didn't in this post as it is long and complicated).
2. The flag flying in the 'wind' is explained easily for me. Would a limp USA flag look good on a photograph? Not really, the government decided to put some flexible wire into the top of the flag to make it appear as if it was 'flying'.
3. The multiple shadow thing I can't explain easil as I'm no photo analyst, but more shadows can be created through relections. Also you do get multiple shadows when the sun is low in the sky in the evening aswell.
4.No sound coming from the rocket boosters? Now forgive me if I'm wrong but sound can't actually travel in a vacuum, ever heard the expression 'No one can hear you scream!' ? This in conjunction with the sound insulation could easily block out the sound created.
5. The russians would be concentrating on the moon SO closely they would have noticed if it was an unmanned mission or if nothing actually reached moon, they would ahve caused a total uproar. But they made little comment.
These points are all I can think of now, if you want to argue do but remember this is not complete fact - I wasn't there, but this is the impression I got from the evidence presented by NON-NASA bodies.
Ali
CDouch wrote:
> Yup if there's no ship or flag there...we will know. I heard the
> russians or someone else are sending up a satelight (or something
> similar) to the moon which should give us all the evidence we need...
??? What do you need a satellite for?
Like Ive posted here already... just get hold of a telescope or half decent pair of binoculars, and look for yourself...
> Yup if there's no ship or flag there...we will know. I heard the
> russians or someone else are sending up a satelight (or something
> similar) to the moon which should give us all the evidence we need...
??? What do you need a satellite for?
Like Ive posted here already... just get hold of a telescope or half decent pair of binoculars, and look for yourself...
What's all this fuss about the moon? It's just a ROCK. Personally I didn't think there's enough EDDIEVANce to disprove the moon landing, but I was very interested in reading about this VAN HALEN belt, and it really made me consider that man really never has landed on the moon.
I mean, what would it be like to be on TOP OF THE WORLD, looking down? I'm sure you'd feel like DANCING IN THE STREET, wouldn't you? But the astronauts have been very reserved in their conversations about the moon landing. If you were on the moon, with considerably lower gravity, well, you might as well JUMP, go ahead and JUMP.
When I started reading some of the counter arguements I thought YOU REALLY GOT ME, but then I realised, we AIN'T TALKING ABOUT LOVE, and that the USA want the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
Whether anyone has landed on the moon or not I'm really not sure, RIGHT NOW there are way too many SECRETS.
And what the hell are the Chinese going to do when they get up into space and realise that their wall isn't straight?
I mean, what would it be like to be on TOP OF THE WORLD, looking down? I'm sure you'd feel like DANCING IN THE STREET, wouldn't you? But the astronauts have been very reserved in their conversations about the moon landing. If you were on the moon, with considerably lower gravity, well, you might as well JUMP, go ahead and JUMP.
When I started reading some of the counter arguements I thought YOU REALLY GOT ME, but then I realised, we AIN'T TALKING ABOUT LOVE, and that the USA want the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.
Whether anyone has landed on the moon or not I'm really not sure, RIGHT NOW there are way too many SECRETS.
And what the hell are the Chinese going to do when they get up into space and realise that their wall isn't straight?
Page: