On Aug 7, 7:48 am, "Geoman" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
.. .
"mike3" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jul 5, 10:51 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "malibu" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: :
: : roups.com...
: : : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: : :
: : : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered,
for
: : : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the
surface
of
: : : this planet.
: : :
: : : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people
who
: : : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large
number
: : : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually
certain.
: : :
: : : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very
small
: : : tightly knit group of people.
: : :
: : :
: : : - Ian Parker
: :
: : Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: : them is dead.
: :
: :
: :
: : The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
: : on actual footage that had
: : gone astray.
: : It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
: : it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
: :
: : The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
: : was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
: :
: : In the more current happening, the film
: : "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
: : an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
: : supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
: : set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
: : as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
: : *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
: : We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
: : someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
: : the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
: : camera. The other astronaut
: : is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
: : of the porthole that is making this shot look
: : like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
: : they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
: : they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
: :
: : **********WAS********** it Armstrong?
: :
: : Watch that movie- it's easily available
: : on the web- if you're scared to,
: : it just means you have too much invested in
: : the fantasy.
: :
: : Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
: : when the ship is going down.
: : And this one is going down.
: :
: : John
: : Galaxy Model
: :
: : Every atom has at least ONE of you.
: : And me.
: :
: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
:
: Point ends here.
: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
complete
: and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
: But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: One star, I rate this post, for it's terrible lack of civility and
: morals.
: Your point is right, but the thing above is not necessary nor is it
: good. You like to insult people -- HURT THEIR FEELINGS -- instead
: of simply refuting their argument. Their feelings do not need to be
: hurt, their argument just needs to be refuted.
**** 'em. I never claimed to be good, just logical.
You can't hurt my feelings, many try but I have the skin
of a rhinoceros and I'm not looking for stars from you,
the sky has more than I need.
I insult those that insult the intelligence of others, especially mine.
If Ian Parker or "malibu" want to swallow and spout hoax theories
they've heard of and latched onto then they are trying to hurt the
feelings of the kinfolk of those who dedicated (and lost) their lives
in the pursuit of science.
http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/deaths.htm
I'll kick their inconsiderate and stupid ****in' arses anytime.
Why the **** should I care about their films or your ratings?
Your ploy to substitute patriotism to cover the revelation of your total
ineptness to discuss any reasonable fact only reveals just how shallow you
really are. You try to cover up your defeat of 'wits' with a display of
superiority in humanitarianism, which is pure nonsense. A true humanitarian
would not have to threaten others with different views to propagate their
agenda. Also, are you so ill informed as to believe those who are dead
really care what is said on this board? There are other things more
honoring than respecting the dead, like treating those who are ALIVE with
respect, something you severely lack.
Does this post contain any sort of respect? As if it doesn't, then
you are practicing hypocrisy -- saying someone else should respect
and not respecting them. Do you, just out of curiosity, think that he
would be capable of, if he WANTED to, *become* apt enough to discuss
reasonable fact? Ie, do you think it has to do with him not WANTING
to change, as that is in fact why he does not, since everyone is
capable of changing themselves (who else is, except that person,
themself?), it's just that some don't WANT to change?