You really and truly are taking the piss at the moment
I read the news today oh boy! Page 513
Quote: catskillz @ August 20 2011, 8:56 PM BSTThe NASA double-bluff theory does start to seem more likely when you look at this picture, which appears to show that the craft that landed on the moons surface was put together using sheets of paper and masking tape (use the little magnifying glass to zoom in, you won't believe this): http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
Quote: catskillz @ August 20 2011, 8:56 PM BSTThe NASA double-bluff theory does start to seem more likely when you look at this picture, which appears to show that the craft that landed on the moons surface was put together using sheets of paper and masking tape (use the little magnifying glass to zoom in, you won't believe this): http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5922HR.jpg
Tit.
Do you really think that if they were going to fake it they couldn't have done it better than that?
Answer my earlier post.
How come not one person involved anywhere, anytime, anyplace with the Moon landings hasn't broken cover and sold the story for gaztrillions of $/£ ?
Not one.
I hate the pessimisim of moonlanding deniers.
For once we little hairless monkeys escaped the surly bounds of our earth and went somewhere else.
And people shit on that for no good reason.
Er, I think some people on here have lost track. Did you watch the clip of the bloke talking? He's saying they did indeed land on the moon, but they (NASA) also started the hoax conspiracy to distract people from asking questions about why they really went. In other words they have purposely made photos like this look bad. That's not a double bluff is it? My mistake.
Quote: sootyj @ August 20 2011, 9:18 PM BSTI hate the pessimisim of moonlanding deniers.
For once we little hairless monkeys escaped the surly bounds of our earth and went somewhere else.
And people shit on that for no good reason.
Agree. For little humans to go to the moon, that you look at out of your window, that's so, so far away, is just wonderful. Why would you not want that to be true?
Quote: catskillz @ August 20 2011, 9:22 PM BSTEr, I think some people on here have lost track. Did you watch the clip of the bloke talking? He's saying they did indeed land on the moon, but they (NASA) also started the hoax conspiracy to distract people from asking questions about why they really went. In other words they have purposely made photos like this look bad.
Catskillz did you ever read about SDI or as it was better known in the 80s Star Wars.
Ronald Raygun decided to pretend he could build a satellite based laser defence system against Russian nukes. It was bullshit the technology was never upto it.
The trick was to persuade the Russian's they would have to compete and then crash their economy in the process.
It worked, it was a massive conspiracy.
That sprung leaks from day one and is pretty much acknowledged 20 years later.
That's how conspiracies work. They chunter along for a couple of years and then implode. People leak, experts make clever guesses and the whole story comes out.
Similarly Bletchley Park stayed secret till ooh maybe 20 years after it stopped operating.
Quote: catskillz @ August 20 2011, 5:38 PM BSTBig filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas have been told stuff that the average person knows nothing about. I'll find an example.
Found one for ya...
Quote: Jack Daniels @ August 20 2011, 9:58 PM BSTFound one for ya...
Actually there are people (remember, that's people, not me) who think Stanley Kubrick filmed it on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey (I think). They say that's why he had the little boy in The Shining wearing a jumper with a rocket on it, with the word "Apollo" written on it, as an inside joke. Of course, if the bloke in the last video is right, maybe the Kubrick film was just filmed to purposely look bad, to distract conspiracy theorists. Kubrick's last film was Eyes Wide Shut, which was said to be about the Illuminati. Some people (again, not me) say he was killed for making it and upsetting them.
Good grief.
Stanley Kubrik was one of the most brilliant film makers of all time.
Do you have to tar this iconaclast with your bullshit brush?
Yeah, I heard that, because of the aniversary of the release and the other clause about the film being released after his death etc. I can see how they tie it all up as it makes for good copy.
The pic was only a joke though. I am realising now that intended tone doesn't relay too well in these forums. Best now to engage solely in humourless, non-ironic exchanges that leave no room for translation or misunderstood intentions.
I find myself typing 'I was just joking' at least two or three times a day here. So clearly need to work on my writing skillz.
Hopefully, by spitting out my dummy I'll be able to speak more clearly.
Quote: catskillz @ August 20 2011, 11:04 PM BSTActually there are people (remember, that's people, not me) who think Stanley Kubrick filmed it on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey (I think). They say that's why he had the little boy in The Shining wearing a jumper with a rocket on it, with the word "Apollo" written on it, as an inside joke. Of course, if the bloke in the last video is right, maybe the Kubrick film was just filmed to purposely look bad, to distract conspiracy theorists. Kubrick's last film was Eyes Wide Shut, which was said to be about the Illuminati. Some people (again, not me) say he was killed for making it and upsetting them.
Eyes Wide Shut was a damp squib critically and commercially, so other than Time Out I'm not sure who would have cared enough to kill him over it.
When I mentioned the rumour that people like George Lucas know stuff that the average person doesn't, I was thinking of this next link. Remember how at the start of star Wars, it said, "A long time ago...: http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm
Quote: sootyj @ August 20 2011, 9:18 PM BSTI hate the pessimisim of moonlanding deniers.
For once we little hairless monkeys escaped the surly bounds of our earth and went somewhere else.
And people shit on that for no good reason.
I hate the optimism of 'moonlanding deniers'. Instead of the colossal waste of time and money of the moonlanding they have the gall to suggest all that was wasted was the price of a TV set with a paint on moonscape.
If humans visited a gaseous planet, it would be impossible to put someone on the surface, because there wouldn't be one. So we really need a different definition of what it means to be the first person to go to such places. If we take that new definition and reapply it to the moonlandings, Armstrong no longer becomes the first man on the moon, they all got there at the same time. Why is this important? It isn't.