The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yeah, it's China, they did a test flight of an unmanned rocket back in March tis year and they are currently preparing a manned mission, think its for like 2005 ? Might be wrong on that date....
~~Belldandy~~
~~Belldandy~~
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...
As for the moon landings, well yes there is allot of evidence that suggests a cover up of a non-existent moon landing, but there are also a few inconsistencies, which don't add up.
I watched a program the other day which had scientists explain some of the claims made by conspiracy theorists about what really happened, and they gave much more believable answers than the people who believed the landings where fake.
Some of the theories given to what really happened just don't seem that believable. I don't know, I guess we'll just have to wait and see until someone goes to the moon again, hopefully that should clear things up.
I watched a program the other day which had scientists explain some of the claims made by conspiracy theorists about what really happened, and they gave much more believable answers than the people who believed the landings where fake.
Some of the theories given to what really happened just don't seem that believable. I don't know, I guess we'll just have to wait and see until someone goes to the moon again, hopefully that should clear things up.
Mr Ripper wrote:
> On the conspiracy theory note, anyone see that program last night
> about 9/11?
Yeah I saw it, just how stupid was that conspiracy. Basically, no plane hit the pentagon; it was a missile, yet the conspiracy theory couldn’t explain where the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon, disappeared to. Also, no terrorist flew the two planes into the Trade Towers, they where remote controlled by the government.
Now I'm all one for a good old conspiracy theory, but they at least have to be believable. The US government killing thousands of it's own citizens to justify a war in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq just sounds absurd. The US is one of the biggest super powers in the world; it doesn't need to do something like that to go to war.
I'd put this conspiracy up there with the UN taking over the world (new world order I think it's called), the centre of the Earth being hollow and a tropical paradise and a tunnel which leads from Washington DC all the way over to China. Those are some of the silliest conspiracy's I've ever heard; this sept 11th one now sits with them.
> On the conspiracy theory note, anyone see that program last night
> about 9/11?
Yeah I saw it, just how stupid was that conspiracy. Basically, no plane hit the pentagon; it was a missile, yet the conspiracy theory couldn’t explain where the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon, disappeared to. Also, no terrorist flew the two planes into the Trade Towers, they where remote controlled by the government.
Now I'm all one for a good old conspiracy theory, but they at least have to be believable. The US government killing thousands of it's own citizens to justify a war in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq just sounds absurd. The US is one of the biggest super powers in the world; it doesn't need to do something like that to go to war.
I'd put this conspiracy up there with the UN taking over the world (new world order I think it's called), the centre of the Earth being hollow and a tropical paradise and a tunnel which leads from Washington DC all the way over to China. Those are some of the silliest conspiracy's I've ever heard; this sept 11th one now sits with them.
Cant be bothered reading through all these posts (sorry) but just wondering if anyone mentioned that programme on the subject a few weeks back? After seeing that and the evidence they showed (Mainly moon photos with more than one light source and camera crosshares appearing behind objects/people) I now have my doubts.
And I saw a few minutes of the September 11th programme (Bit where they were talking about the plane going into the Pentagon, but turned it off as I missed most of it.
And I saw a few minutes of the September 11th programme (Bit where they were talking about the plane going into the Pentagon, but turned it off as I missed most of it.
Armatige Shanks wrote:
> Of course, you could always have a look though a cheap
> telescope/binoculars and see if you can spot any of the objects left
> behind from the moon mission... moon buggy, etc..
Or you could ask one of the millions of people around the world who watched it through their own telescopes as it was happening?
> Of course, you could always have a look though a cheap
> telescope/binoculars and see if you can spot any of the objects left
> behind from the moon mission... moon buggy, etc..
Or you could ask one of the millions of people around the world who watched it through their own telescopes as it was happening?
On the conspiracy theory note, anyone see that program last night about 9/11?
Pointless Babble wrote:
> Carbon dating does *NOTHING* in determining the origin of the sample
> it is used on, it merely indicates the age, and there are countless
> rocks specimens here on earth that are of that age, many of them
> mineral rich, especially in volcanic regions. Your fancy little sulk
> about composition means nothing, as you could take any chunk of
> volcanic rock, or meteorite and claim it came from the moon. The point
> which you so vehemently avoid addressing, is how could scientists test
> a sample of rock allegedly from the moon, and verify it was infact
> from there, when there had been NO previous landings or excursions
> there to take a rock sample for comparison
Unmanned craft have brought back samples from the moon. Russia Luna 2 landed 1959 and further craft sent back imagery. In 1967 the US Surveyor's 3 and 5 collected samples of the moon. 3 sinply allowed photo analysis of the moon's surface whilst 5 chemically analysed the sample. The Russian Luna 16 landed in late September of 1970 and collected material that was then launched back to the USSR. So, in fact, there were other samples of rock, and non US ones as well. So try getting some facts eh ? In addition, the moon has a weak magnetic field and samples of rock from the moon share this property, whilst rocks of a similar composition on earth have ahigher magnetic field. Again, Russian samples show the same properties, and the USSR would have no reason at that time to collude with the US.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but for your information, shadows do not
> run perpendicular to each other when there is only one lightsource
> available. They all run parallel, yet in all the landing photographs,
> they defy this simple law of physics. Nor does steadying a flag pole
> produce enough motion to violently flap a thick, cloth flag around as
> if it were blowing in a gust of wind, nor would it create the rippling
> effect produced by air blowing along it's surface.
After ranting on about proof an comparisons you say this ? Er' who'd actually physically gone ther and taken photographs before ? How many people have actually taken photographs on the moon ? If they were faked, which they weren't, then there wouldn't be wind to flap the flag anyway. As for rippling, creases anybody ? I doubt the crews first idea was to iron the flag.....
>Plus, a rocket
> engine of ANY description, would not be silenced completely by 1 inch
> of tinfoil and plastic - they produce highly audible noises, many
> decibels in strength, even in their smallest form. No radio
> transmission from within 3ft of such an engine would be silent with
> the exception of a speaker, they would be drowned out by the
> background noise.
Ever heard of sound filters ? NASA would probably want to hear their guys talking once they got there, and sound doesn't carry in space. Internal sound inside the capsule would be low once they were in space, and the suits they wore were insulated and would also dull the sound, again, no air could get into them. No air, no sound, basic science.
As for the photographs, see the page I mentioned earlier in this topic as it saves me repeating everything. Regarding the dust. THERE IS NO AIR ON THE MOON. Anything disrupted by the lander would simply float back down to the surface or disappear. It's also quite possible to a light source behind you for photograph's being taken in front of you.
> Do yourself a favour kid, before you start spouting off about others
> not having sufficient grasp of scientific fact, finish your GCSEs and
> pull your finger out of your nose. Maybe then you won't look such a
> pleb.
Well I really are what you think......your own argument has nothing you actually know yourself and more questions than answers. All you know are the same boring silly arguments repeated by the conspiracy idiots. You all forget that the US government couldn't hide Vietnam, Watergate, Area 51's existence for more than 10 years at the most, yet you believe they hide this still ? It also clashes with another set of conspiracy theories that when they landed on the moon the crew encountered UFO's, aliens...yawn...
Another good website, with real science instead of "someone said it on TV or in a book by some unknown author so its true science" is so its true is http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/ foxapollo.html (Remove the space by foxapollo)
So, check your facts before shouting your mouth off next time, because you obviously don't at the moment.....
~~Belldandy~~
> Carbon dating does *NOTHING* in determining the origin of the sample
> it is used on, it merely indicates the age, and there are countless
> rocks specimens here on earth that are of that age, many of them
> mineral rich, especially in volcanic regions. Your fancy little sulk
> about composition means nothing, as you could take any chunk of
> volcanic rock, or meteorite and claim it came from the moon. The point
> which you so vehemently avoid addressing, is how could scientists test
> a sample of rock allegedly from the moon, and verify it was infact
> from there, when there had been NO previous landings or excursions
> there to take a rock sample for comparison
Unmanned craft have brought back samples from the moon. Russia Luna 2 landed 1959 and further craft sent back imagery. In 1967 the US Surveyor's 3 and 5 collected samples of the moon. 3 sinply allowed photo analysis of the moon's surface whilst 5 chemically analysed the sample. The Russian Luna 16 landed in late September of 1970 and collected material that was then launched back to the USSR. So, in fact, there were other samples of rock, and non US ones as well. So try getting some facts eh ? In addition, the moon has a weak magnetic field and samples of rock from the moon share this property, whilst rocks of a similar composition on earth have ahigher magnetic field. Again, Russian samples show the same properties, and the USSR would have no reason at that time to collude with the US.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but for your information, shadows do not
> run perpendicular to each other when there is only one lightsource
> available. They all run parallel, yet in all the landing photographs,
> they defy this simple law of physics. Nor does steadying a flag pole
> produce enough motion to violently flap a thick, cloth flag around as
> if it were blowing in a gust of wind, nor would it create the rippling
> effect produced by air blowing along it's surface.
After ranting on about proof an comparisons you say this ? Er' who'd actually physically gone ther and taken photographs before ? How many people have actually taken photographs on the moon ? If they were faked, which they weren't, then there wouldn't be wind to flap the flag anyway. As for rippling, creases anybody ? I doubt the crews first idea was to iron the flag.....
>Plus, a rocket
> engine of ANY description, would not be silenced completely by 1 inch
> of tinfoil and plastic - they produce highly audible noises, many
> decibels in strength, even in their smallest form. No radio
> transmission from within 3ft of such an engine would be silent with
> the exception of a speaker, they would be drowned out by the
> background noise.
Ever heard of sound filters ? NASA would probably want to hear their guys talking once they got there, and sound doesn't carry in space. Internal sound inside the capsule would be low once they were in space, and the suits they wore were insulated and would also dull the sound, again, no air could get into them. No air, no sound, basic science.
As for the photographs, see the page I mentioned earlier in this topic as it saves me repeating everything. Regarding the dust. THERE IS NO AIR ON THE MOON. Anything disrupted by the lander would simply float back down to the surface or disappear. It's also quite possible to a light source behind you for photograph's being taken in front of you.
> Do yourself a favour kid, before you start spouting off about others
> not having sufficient grasp of scientific fact, finish your GCSEs and
> pull your finger out of your nose. Maybe then you won't look such a
> pleb.
Well I really are what you think......your own argument has nothing you actually know yourself and more questions than answers. All you know are the same boring silly arguments repeated by the conspiracy idiots. You all forget that the US government couldn't hide Vietnam, Watergate, Area 51's existence for more than 10 years at the most, yet you believe they hide this still ? It also clashes with another set of conspiracy theories that when they landed on the moon the crew encountered UFO's, aliens...yawn...
Another good website, with real science instead of "someone said it on TV or in a book by some unknown author so its true science" is so its true is http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/ foxapollo.html (Remove the space by foxapollo)
So, check your facts before shouting your mouth off next time, because you obviously don't at the moment.....
~~Belldandy~~
Agreeable H wrote:
> Conspiracy theories are for loners with over-active
> imaginations.......
And 90% of the population say the same about gamers!
> Conspiracy theories are for loners with over-active
> imaginations.......
And 90% of the population say the same about gamers!
I think that man did walk on the moon.
Conspiracy theories are for loners with over-active imaginations.......
Conspiracy theories are for loners with over-active imaginations.......
Page: