I'm partial to the belief man has never landed on the moon.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Me too...also, no magic bullet that killed JFK it came from the front...and of course 9-11.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
The footage was shot backwards to make it seem like it was from the back, wasn't it?
And I've never looked into 9-11. My dad says the evidence points towards the Government, but I've never bothered to research it.
Posted by Beautifulfeetonline.com (Member # 13717) on :
i believe in pretty much all of them. And the sheep that are the vast majority of the U.S. will continue to take it up the ass till there is no liberty anymore.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
JFK, 9/11, Bilderberger/CFR/Trilateral Commission. And I'll give credence to just about anything else people can come up with.
I remember reading something about the dark side of the moon. So I have doubts there. But as to the landing itself, I think that was on the level. Unless someone has proof otherwise, of course.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
The JFK footage, I am not sure if it was shot backwards or forwards..but the gun/bullet blew Kennedy's head apart was from the front, remember "Back and to the Left". Go watch "Loose Change" among others regarding 9-11, some are extreme and some are more moderate but there's no denying it was some type of inside job or planned event.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Yeah I've got it, it's just getting around to watching it...
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: I remember reading something about the dark side of the moon. So I have doubts there. But as to the landing itself, I think that was on the level. Unless someone has proof otherwise, of course.
Haha
There's lots of stuff that really doesn't ring true - far too much to all be a coincidence as far as I'm concerned.
I'll go through it as best I can if you want?
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Yeah, that doesn't look fake at all. Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
For a joke that actually sums it up quite well haha
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
wait.. you guys are serious!? the moon landing was faked?!?! i'd love to hear some of the theories on how it was faked. to me, this ranks up there with the faked holocaust of WWII and the 'earth is really flat' conspiracy
9-11.. seriously?? i have watched loose change and seen ALOT of of the 'evidence' and its pretty lame. the evidence is so unsubstantiated. its alot of 'well it doesnt seem right' reasoning.
the only one i have a question about is JFK only because of the single bullet theory seems really implausible. some of the theories about it tho are pretty far fetched such as the oswald doppelganger.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Explain building 7 falling into it's own footprint after the firefighters saying "let's pull it" only a few hours after it had some damage done to the side of it and some small fires inside? Or the world trade center dust examined by leading scientist/biochemists who found thermite particles in it? Or the firefighters who heard explosions in #2 in the basement before the plane hit it lol!! come on...there's WAY too much evidence otherwise. I couldn't even make it fit in one post.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
It's not *how* it was faked that is the issue - it's how the evidence points towards it being faked. Just my humble opinion of course.
Okay if you start with the main motives America had to fake it just in list form:
To win the Space Race that the old Cold War buddies, Russia had been leading from the start.
To display (lie about) America's technical expertise in a safe without the possibility of a botched moon landing or re-entry.
To take people's minds off of Vietnam.
To make-believe that the estimated $30 billion dollars that went into the fund was not wasted - some say it could have been used to pay everyone off...I'd kind of lean more towards all but an incredibly small number of people actually knew it was never going to take off. Everyone else just built to spec.
A faking guarantees success. If they crashed and burned...it was on live television for the world to see. Big humiliation.
Kennedy made some bullshit promise about doing it before the turn of the decade in '61 for some reason...the pressure was on and a failed take-off/landing would have lowered popular opinion of him.
So that's just motives which aren't very substantial in and of themselves.
Then you get to the number of inconsistencies that I truly believe are far too many to all be grouped under "coincidence".
There's things such as
Multiple light sources (such as those seen on a ghetto 60's sound stage) which cast the shadows in numerously different directions.
The good quality of lighting despite the lack of stars (shouldn't there be stars visible on the moon? And if there's some scientific explanation as to why you couldn't see them despite no atmospheric conditions such as clouds, why is the quality of lighting so good?)
There's a picture where the + thing (I forget the name) is obscured by a rock and an astronaut's arm in two separate photos (clearly pointing towards photo editing).
The flag waving as the guy puts it in...there's no atmosphere and therefore no wind on the moon.
The fact that if you double the speed of the astronauts jumping about and driving around on their buggy, it looks as it would on earth - some retard jumping around in a heavy suit.
The absence of shadows in some pictures, despite knowing the location of the sun in reference to the picture. Again pointing towards photo editing.
The famous stage-prop mark on one of the rocks "C" - meaning...something to do with stages...I can't remember what.
[list]
Identical backgrounds on practically opposite sides of the moon.
The fact that when they left the moon, no crater is made from the blast off and it really looks like it's being pulled as opposed to propelled.
The maker of the cameras himself said that there's no way they could get the quality that they did by having it mounted to their space suits. Also...an interesting one: the cameras filmed in colour, yet all moving footage of them in space is obviously in black and white.
The plans for the shuttle were soon destroyed and the shuttle itself likewise. That would be one of the biggest cash-cows in the world. Why would you scrap something so iconic unless there's something to hide such as...it would never have been able to get to the moon safely?
There were people that during the original live broadcast swear that they saw a coke bottle being thrown across the screen - odd in and of itself. But in the repeat broadcast, that had been removed from the film. Now I understand that I am somewhat using the absence of evidence *as* evidence here, but it was either 10s or 100s of people that saw it originally from different points across America.
Why haven't we ever gone back?
There's also a shitload of scientific stuff that I don't know about to do with the surface of the moon and safety of their suits Vs. the Van Allen Radiation belt and all sorts of shit I don't understand.
But I mean this is just from memory mostly when I did a presentation about it in Science class when I was about 12. There's loads more and plenty of documentaries out there talking about all of the above and more (including mysterious deaths and fires and all sorts amongst the people within the inner-circle of the decisions for going to the moon.
I'd love to believe we as a species managed it - my favourite part of a holiday to Florida when I was young was driving down to the Kennedy Space Centre for a day - but I just can't get past the turd-pile of evidence suggesting hoax :/
[ December 15, 2010, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Andy-Laa ]
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Sorry, I've just looked into it - it was NOT the American public that saw the coke bottle thrown across the scene - it was Australia who got a different broadcast.
Mentioned (along with everything I could say that is *wrong* with the moon landing.
...fuck that web address looks retarded, but nonetheless, the evidence is plentiful and backed up.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Indeed lots of strange stuff there.. Speaking of Kennedy though, i recently shot a descendant of Kennedy...i mean...shot pics of her feet lol..she was like a relative/cousin of JFK. Scary.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
Not to veer too far off-topic...but is she as hot as Melody, wrinklesguy?
Andy, those pictures look like damning evidence to my eyes. Then again, I don't have any difficulty believing it might have been faked...so yeah.
Posted by diamond johny (Member # 27586) on :
PS Observatories bounce lasers off glass reflectors astronauts placed on the moon. More info: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html Posted by Nylon Toe Sucker (Member # 21491) on :
I truly believe the US government had a hand in Killing John Lennon. They wanted him out of the country and he beat the system(US Government), don't think too many people win when they go up against the US government. Then he went underground for 5 years. When he got his muse back in 1980,he probably thought the has been cronies, prior admimistration would not be out to get him, but I beg to differ, they probably still had an axe to grind about him, so the CIA had that low-life scumbag on a paid wavier to take out the target(Lennon) when the they decided to do it. They probably threaten the scumbag, telling him you'll get the fame, but if you open your mouth, you die mysteriously in prison. There is no on the planet like John Lennon now, that could say, I'm going to hold a peace rally(sway voters) in Central Park tomorrrow and a 100,000 people would show. To the US government, he was a dangerous man. So as I said above and as you know the history, they tried to deport him, that didn't work, so they did the next thing, assainate him. I will believe this until the day I die and I don't subscript to too many of these theories.
Posted by diamond johny (Member # 27586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nylon Toe Sucker: I truly believe the US government had a hand in Killing John Lennon. They wanted him out of the country and he beat the system(US Government), don't think too many people win when they go up against the US government. Then he went underground for 5 years. When he got his muse back in 1980,he probably thought the has been cronies, prior admimistration would not be out to get him, but I beg to differ, they probably still had an axe to grind about him, so the CIA had that low-life scumbag on a paid wavier to take out the target(Lennon) when the they decided to do it. They probably threaten the scumbag, telling him you'll get the fame, but if you open your mouth, you die mysteriously in prison. There is no on the planet like John Lennon now, that could say, I'm going to hold a peace rally(sway voters) in Central Park tomorrrow and a 100,000 people would show. To the US government, he was a dangerous man. So as I said above and as you know the history, they tried to deport him, that didn't work, so they did the next thing, assainate him. I will believe this until the day I die and I don't subscript to too many of these theories.
Like Bobby Kennedy, It was most likely an MK-ULTRA/Manchurian Candidate.
Posted by Nylon Toe Sucker (Member # 21491) on :
Right on Bros.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nylon Toe Sucker: I truly believe the US government had a hand in Killing John Lennon. They wanted him out of the country and he beat the system(US Government), don't think too many people win when they go up against the US government. Then he went underground for 5 years. When he got his muse back in 1980,he probably thought the has been cronies, prior admimistration would not be out to get him, but I beg to differ, they probably still had an axe to grind about him, so the CIA had that low-life scumbag on a paid wavier to take out the target(Lennon) when the they decided to do it. They probably threaten the scumbag, telling him you'll get the fame, but if you open your mouth, you die mysteriously in prison. There is no on the planet like John Lennon now, that could say, I'm going to hold a peace rally(sway voters) in Central Park tomorrrow and a 100,000 people would show. To the US government, he was a dangerous man. So as I said above and as you know the history, they tried to deport him, that didn't work, so they did the next thing, assainate him. I will believe this until the day I die and I don't subscript to too many of these theories.
I don't get how he "beat the system"...?
And if it was simply a deportation thing, couldn't they have kind of arrested him and escorted him to a plane.
I know Elvis felt threatened by The Beatles and was pally with the Director of the CIA and through him, tried to keep them out of America...so there is some circumstantial evidence there, I suppose...I've just never heard that one before.
Want to know something else that is unbelievable bullshit?
Global-pissing-Warming.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Remember, you are looking at a three-dimensional scene, projected on a two-dimensional photograph. That causes distortions.
When trying to "prove" that one light source can appear to be two...
Also he says the flag waved as it was put in - I've heard the theory about the struggling with it would cause movement before. Thing is, it's waving for a few seconds after too. In a vacuum, it would stop as soon as he let go...
As for his explanation of crosshairs...well
By his explanation, this BLACK cross-hair should contrast against the astronaut's WHITE spacesuit (vertically I mean). He wrongly infers that the only possible way that these were faked was to have them painted on the set. I'd say it's more likely that the image of the astronaut was superimposed onto a picture (perhaps an actual picture of the moon's surface - I don't know).
Similarly:
Also, he didn't explain why the cameras COULD have filmed in colour, but they made it so that they filmed in black and white.
I just find it incredibly difficult to believe unfortunately.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Why wouldn't his wife or the other guys riding with him see/hear the driver shoot her husband? Where's the flash? Why is this the only camera that picked this up? How can he aim so perfectly whilst driving and no one can even tell he did it?
[many more unanswerable questions]
Fuck conspiracy theories are fun.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: Want to know something else that is unbelievable bullshit?
Global-pissing-Warming.
It's just a natural cycle?
I'm on the fence about it. I mean, I can see some logic to the argument that what humans are doing (as a whole) can affect the environment in a negative way. But there are also cyclical changes in temperature that run for millions of years. I dunno, I guess I take it all with a grain of salt.
I don't understand the Lennon "conspiracy" at all.
As far as Elvis goes...he flushed his own career down the toilet. Or was aided and abetted.
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
*sigh. i have one response to anyone who could even question that the moon landing was faked.. there are literally thousands of people who would have had to been 'in' on the hoax. Do you really think that out of those thousands, no one has ever come forward to back this ridiculous theory?
quote:Multiple light sources (such as those seen on a ghetto 60's sound stage) which cast the shadows in numerously different directions.
Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust. Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon. Watch Mythbusters episode 104 to see real life debunking.
quote:The good quality of lighting despite the lack of stars (shouldn't there be stars visible on the moon? And if there's some scientific explanation as to why you couldn't see them despite no atmospheric conditions such as clouds, why is the quality of lighting so good?)
This one is just common sense. Go the middle of the city and look up. Don't see many stars, do you? Head out to the deep country. Look up.. tons of stars, right? Light pollution. The amount of ambient light washes out the light from the stars which is less intense.
quote: * There's a picture where the + thing (I forget the name) is obscured by a rock and an astronaut's arm in two separate photos
Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film. Fairly simple to understand.
quote:The flag waving as the guy puts it in...there's no atmosphere and therefore no wind on the moon.... I've heard the theory about the struggling with it would cause movement before. Thing is, it's waving for a few seconds after too. In a vacuum, it would stop as soon as he let go...
You kind of explained the original movement. Of course planting the flag pole will create movement if the fabric, but I am not sure where you get the idea that there is no movement in a vacuum. There is inertia in the flag so even tho it's not receiving any external energy to move, the energy already in the flag still needs to be expended so yes, it will flap for a couple of seconds to expend that energy. Additionally if you can find footage of the flag, the ripple that is shown stays as a ripple for close to 30 mins before the lesser gravity of the moon pulls it straight.
quote:The fact that if you double the speed of the astronauts jumping about and driving around on their buggy, it looks as it would on earth - some retard jumping around in a heavy suit.
Again see Mythbusters episode 104. Debunked with visual evidence. Try watching the film of them sliding down the slope of a hill in double speed and see unrealistic it looks.
quote:The absence of shadows in some pictures, despite knowing the location of the sun in reference to the picture. Again pointing towards photo editing.
See above explanation.
quote:The famous stage-prop mark on one of the rocks "C" - meaning...something to do with stages...I can't remember what.
Hey wait.. check that out.. it looks like there's a hair on the film or something.. matter of fact, that's pretty much the answer. Error in photodeveloping. Honestly, why would ANY prop be marked with such a vague reference and would NASA release that photo with such an obvious mistake.
quote:Identical backgrounds on practically opposite sides of the moon.
Speaking personal experience, in Seattle, Washington you can see Mt Ranier everywhere you go and it's 50+ miles away but it is huge in the horizon. No matter where you do, its there. It makes every picture look has the same backdrop. Now take out atmosphere, pollutants and a sense of scale and you have the same situation.
quote:The maker of the cameras himself said that there's no way they could get the quality that they did by having it mounted to their space suits. Also...an interesting one: the cameras filmed in colour, yet all moving footage of them in space is obviously in black and white.
I'm not sure where you got that but he said he had no idea why they came out so perfect. Not that they shouldn't have. Also the comparison between color and B&W isn't evidence of anything.
quote:There were people that during the original live broadcast swear that they saw a coke bottle being thrown across the screen - odd in and of itself. But in the repeat broadcast, that had been removed from the film. Now I understand that I am somewhat using the absence of evidence *as* evidence here, but it was either 10s or 100s of people that saw it originally from different points across America.
Utterly false. There was one witness named 'Una Ronald' (a fake name) who claims this.. and that is a second hand source. No witness ever came forward, never mind 10's or 100's.
quote:Why haven't we ever gone back?
I think that's common sense too. You have to weigh cost vs benefit. Is there any benefit at this point at spending billions to go back? What is to be gained by sending people back there when anything we've needed/wanted has been done by remote operated or planned missions.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: Do you really think that out of those thousands, no one has ever come forward to back this ridiculous theory?
In a word? Yes.
That's not compelling to me. Why? Well, just imagine if I was one of them, and somebody either A.) paid my ass off or B.) threatened my life, and it doesn't seem too likely that I would talk.
That's just an example that I came up with after reading the top of your post. I'm not saying that's what happened, of course, just a theory.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter:
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: Do you really think that out of those thousands, no one has ever come forward to back this ridiculous theory?
In a word? Yes.
That's not compelling to me. Why? Well, just imagine if I was one of them, and somebody either A.) paid my ass off or B.) threatened my life, and it doesn't seem too likely that I would talk.
That's just an example that I came up with after reading the top of your post. I'm not saying that's what happened, of course, just a theory.
Well I'd lean more towards a VERY select handful of higher-ups knowing about it and filming it.
Not the entire team - in my theory (I should probably call it the one I follow as opposed to exclusively mine I suppose) those working on the spacecraft were doing just that. They just didn't know it would end up being a hoax and were building a craft to their best abilities.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by nusuth: *sigh. i have one response to anyone who could even question that the moon landing was faked.. there are literally thousands of people who would have had to been 'in' on the hoax. Do you really think that out of those thousands, no one has ever come forward to back this ridiculous theory?
quote:Multiple light sources (such as those seen on a ghetto 60's sound stage) which cast the shadows in numerously different directions.
Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust. Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon. Watch Mythbusters episode 104 to see real life debunking.
quote:The good quality of lighting despite the lack of stars (shouldn't there be stars visible on the moon? And if there's some scientific explanation as to why you couldn't see them despite no atmospheric conditions such as clouds, why is the quality of lighting so good?)
This one is just common sense. Go the middle of the city and look up. Don't see many stars, do you? Head out to the deep country. Look up.. tons of stars, right? Light pollution. The amount of ambient light washes out the light from the stars which is less intense.
quote: * There's a picture where the + thing (I forget the name) is obscured by a rock and an astronaut's arm in two separate photos
Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film. Fairly simple to understand.
quote:The flag waving as the guy puts it in...there's no atmosphere and therefore no wind on the moon.... I've heard the theory about the struggling with it would cause movement before. Thing is, it's waving for a few seconds after too. In a vacuum, it would stop as soon as he let go...
You kind of explained the original movement. Of course planting the flag pole will create movement if the fabric, but I am not sure where you get the idea that there is no movement in a vacuum. There is inertia in the flag so even tho it's not receiving any external energy to move, the energy already in the flag still needs to be expended so yes, it will flap for a couple of seconds to expend that energy. Additionally if you can find footage of the flag, the ripple that is shown stays as a ripple for close to 30 mins before the lesser gravity of the moon pulls it straight.
quote:The fact that if you double the speed of the astronauts jumping about and driving around on their buggy, it looks as it would on earth - some retard jumping around in a heavy suit.
Again see Mythbusters episode 104. Debunked with visual evidence. Try watching the film of them sliding down the slope of a hill in double speed and see unrealistic it looks.
quote:The absence of shadows in some pictures, despite knowing the location of the sun in reference to the picture. Again pointing towards photo editing.
See above explanation.
quote:The famous stage-prop mark on one of the rocks "C" - meaning...something to do with stages...I can't remember what.
Hey wait.. check that out.. it looks like there's a hair on the film or something.. matter of fact, that's pretty much the answer. Error in photodeveloping. Honestly, why would ANY prop be marked with such a vague reference and would NASA release that photo with such an obvious mistake.
quote:Identical backgrounds on practically opposite sides of the moon.
Speaking personal experience, in Seattle, Washington you can see Mt Ranier everywhere you go and it's 50+ miles away but it is huge in the horizon. No matter where you do, its there. It makes every picture look has the same backdrop. Now take out atmosphere, pollutants and a sense of scale and you have the same situation.
quote:The maker of the cameras himself said that there's no way they could get the quality that they did by having it mounted to their space suits. Also...an interesting one: the cameras filmed in colour, yet all moving footage of them in space is obviously in black and white.
I'm not sure where you got that but he said he had no idea why they came out so perfect. Not that they shouldn't have. Also the comparison between color and B&W isn't evidence of anything.
quote:There were people that during the original live broadcast swear that they saw a coke bottle being thrown across the screen - odd in and of itself. But in the repeat broadcast, that had been removed from the film. Now I understand that I am somewhat using the absence of evidence *as* evidence here, but it was either 10s or 100s of people that saw it originally from different points across America.
Utterly false. There was one witness named 'Una Ronald' (a fake name) who claims this.. and that is a second hand source. No witness ever came forward, never mind 10's or 100's.
quote:Why haven't we ever gone back?
I think that's common sense too. You have to weigh cost vs benefit. Is there any benefit at this point at spending billions to go back? What is to be gained by sending people back there when anything we've needed/wanted has been done by remote operated or planned missions.
Well the only one I can answer with minimal effort (I'm tired tonight lol) would be why they'd leave a pretty tell-tale photo in the bunch - they didn't have the basic knowledge of photography manipulation that we do now. They could barely run a train service back then...well not much has changed in those regards, but still
And their leaving that photo in despite it looking like it depicts a prop is not evidence that they didn't fake it. It makes them retarded either way - leaving evidence, or using a picture with an imperfection.
If we take out the theories and opinions as to fake/real and just focus on it, they have left a picture that on second glance you wouldn't want to include in the bunch in. So it's not a question of why they left it in either way. It's just a 50-50 as to what it shows.
Plus there's always going to be people on both sides of the fence who can find evidence to the contrary of anything; same with God, conspiracy theories, political debates, UFOs, ghosts, anything.
EDIT: except with God, the "evidence" is a book of unknown origins.
[ December 16, 2010, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Andy-Laa ]
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: Global-pissing-Warming
lol Call me Surely!...coming from a Liberal Communist in the U.K.? WTF? you are a rare commodity, however..don't express that feeling too loudly or the Global Police will arrest you for thought crime.
On the moon, think about how hot the surface gets...then think about the fabric that makes up a flag...POOF! 350 degrees it's gone..even on a cool "day" as the light was fading out..it's still awfully hot there and the fabric would be smoking and fraying.
[ December 16, 2010, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Wrinklesguy ]
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy:
quote: Global-pissing-Warming
lol Call me Surely!...coming from a Liberal Communist in the U.K.? WTF? you are a rare commodity, however..don't express that feeling too loudly or the Global Police will arrest you for thought crime.
I don't follow popular trends just because they're popular, I just believe what appears to be the right thing: I'd like to believe karma exists and think cannabis should be legalised (especially and fundamentally for medicinal purposes). My views on a greed-based Capitalist society I have made clear to at least you and am happy to accept a different theory other than evolution (excluding Creationism) if the evidence made itself apparent. I think the world is farrrr too P.C especially with regards to race and religion.
I'm not sure which direction you're taking there...I think it's against global warming, certainly against the idea of man-mad global warming anyway.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: am happy to accept a different theory other than evolution (excluding Creationism)
Pray tell dear buddy..this should be interesting to hear your theory about theories on this topic.
quote: I'm not sure which direction you're taking there...I think it's against global warming, certainly against the idea of man-mad global warming anyway.
Like Combine mentioned, the Earth goes through cyclical changes every few thousands of years weather man injects his poisons into the waters or sprays his chemtrails in the skies or uses HAARP to change the jetstream patterns. To some degree man can alter the weather..but whatever major changes {if they are even happening} will occur because it's a natural cycle of this planet. So yes, against it as you are.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy:
quote: am happy to accept a different theory other than evolution (excluding Creationism)
Pray tell dear buddy..this should be interesting to hear your theory about theories on this topic.
?
There aren't any others? I said I wouldn't have a hard time if someone debunked evolution and presented another non-fictional theory.
...for all we know, we're on top of that motherfucker of a giant turtle.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
"Aliens" don't equal "God", though. I know, any species with technologically substantially greater than our own would appear to be "godly"...but it's still different, even if only semantically.
I'm a firm believer in karma (and in my own fallibility).
As far as UFO's, there are a whole shitload of alien "species" out there. But I think the ones that came/come here the most are the little grey ones.
I wouldn't know where to begin with Lady Diana. Is there anything there, really?
Posted by kingler (Member # 40920) on :
I know a lot of people are silly.
People have landed on the moon. No footage was faked. Part of my family now work for NASA, I'm under some NDAs so I can't speak further. But it has certainly been done!
I think there's more to 11/9 than meets the eye.
Of course aliens exist. I don't understand why people think they've visited here yet though.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: If it's "Creation", it's wrong.
Really? Where's evidence it's wrong? yeah I know opening a can of worms but that statement is fairly offending to people.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by kingler: I think there's more to 11/9 than meets the eye.
YESSSS!!! You said it right XD.
Sorry, private moment there.
quote:Originally posted by kingler: Of course aliens exist. I don't understand why people think they've visited here yet though.
I have never seen hard evidence for "Of course" to be put at the start of that sentence...I'm open to the idea, but there's no reason to my knowledge that I should believe they do at this point in time.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by kingler: Of course aliens exist. I don't understand why people think they've visited here yet though.
Roswell & Area 51 come to mind.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: I don't get offended at someone saying that God does exist.
Then be more respectful to the 4 Billion on earth who do..by not using words to describe it as "Wrong"..that is merely your opinion and has nothing to do with PC, that is common sense.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
I give him the benefit of the doubt; he was just expressing an opinion, not trying to be a prick.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
If it Quacks like a Duck...it usually is one LOL!
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: I wouldn't know where to begin with Lady Diana. Is there anything there, really?
Well I was thinking originally of the theory that The Queen had her whacked. But there's also the theory that...Harry I think it is isn't Charles' son...the guy people claim might be his father is the SPIT of him. The Queen wont allow a DNA test to be performed.
Posted by kingler (Member # 40920) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter:
quote:Originally posted by kingler: Of course aliens exist. I don't understand why people think they've visited here yet though.
Roswell & Area 51 come to mind.
I really don't think so. I've read some brilliant books and articles that put those events down to testing new planes.
There are modern day equivalent projects - pulse engines etc. 50 years ago people would have thought they were aliens too when they really aren't. It was a great way of hiding projects when they went wrong. "Oh Russia, it wasn't a spy plane it was a UFO"... or rather get others to spread that.
Easy really.
And regarding my previous post - I, and 2 of my relatives, have worked for a European firm that dealt with either communicating or developing the equipment to communicate with astronauts (it's actually a small world. One of my other forum buddies moved to the US when he was offered a job developing new rocket fuel tech with NASA). People have been to the moon.
And regarding God etc. I believe there are some weird coincidences that sparked our existence, but I could never put that down to a being that demanded be worshipped or else you go to Hell for all eternity (which doesn't exist; study physics). If there is/was a God then people fudged that up by creating the rules of which to follow. Once man is involved it can become corrupt. Just like there's no real proof that Jesus existed (doesn't appear in records), and that all the religious rules were important at the time but have no place in current society.
Sort of like the US constitution. Full of ye olde laws that, up until 2003, prevented oral sex in many states (seriously guys, wtf! Land of the free my arse!).
Ok I'm done! Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by kingler: Just like there's no real proof that Jesus existed (doesn't appear in records), and that all the religious rules were important at the time but have no place in current society.
Ackkkkkk! I hate to do this because you're on my side but there *are* records of Jesus' existence. In |Roman diaries (who didn't really have a reason to lie about it) and some other stuff.
BUT, the saving grace, there were quite a few other men at the time who claimed to be messiahs and sons of God and all the rest of it. In fact, I've seen a study of the original accounts of "miracles" and all that other bullshit and...the bible excludes some accounts of Jesus and includes some of some of the other guys.
And, as with any good story, there were drafts of the bible and passages taken out from the original version...erm if the bible is the word of God...is it not ALL relevant and should be shown in its entirety?
So...
[ December 17, 2010, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Andy-Laa ]
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by kingler: Sort of like the US constitution. Full of ye olde laws that, up until 2003, prevented oral sex in many states (seriously guys, wtf! Land of the free my arse!).
Ahhhhh fellow Englishman, now I get why you wrote 11/9 correctly
And for this statement, I wish to bum you.
Oh no wait. I go to hell for not fighting the natural urges that God gave me, don't I?
Dammit!
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: Atheism is classified as a religion too
Ok so then you understand, how Faith works. Faith to either not believe based on "no evidence or to believe in the existance of a God based on a preponderance of evidence. Now that we clarified that.. Of course there have been some atrocities and idiotic things in the past 2000 years resulting from MEN who were "religious" by name only.
It is funny how most people who don't believe in Creationism or what have you seem only to be concerned with the Bible and no other book threatens their existance beliefs..lol must be something special about it.
Posted by Fwrinkledsoles (Member # 101) on :
God & Globe Warming!
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fwrinkledsoles: God & Globe Warming!
A "wrinkle" guy who I can get on board with!
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Thank you for voicing your opinion in a conspiracy theory thread...at least you put it in the right category. Funny how you call me a "prick" in another thread for being Patriotic or what have you when I voiced opinion...should I turn the other cheek now? WWJD?
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: Young Earth Creationism
For instance, and you can read this yourself to find out. But according to Genesis, the earth was created in 6 literal 24-hour period days..{by the wording}. That is where the support of this begins...and goes out farther into more. The dinosaurs and garden of eden is a little far fetched..I am not sure about this theory unless they were actually tame and had no interests in humans. Don't forget cultures called them "dragons" before the 1800's when the term "Dinosaur" came about.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote:Please stop being a condescending prick
Page 2 of the "commie fascist" thread..please tell me you're not still mad that the whole British Fleet couldn't shoot down the American flag pole in the 1700's lol
[ December 17, 2010, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Wrinklesguy ]
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: People justify the death of a newborn with "It's God's plan" or whatever. It's just sickening
Not as sick as a mother ripping a fetus out with a coat hanger and tossing the dead baby in a dumpster...or...an abortion period.
quote: Despite the above paraphrase, religious organisations are given state funding: examples include teaching Creationism in science classes
lol..again, a European commenting on what the American textbooks teach. Creationism was NEVER taught in Science classes here. It might mention it in one sentence at the end of a chapter as a possible "theory"..but by and large Evolution is taught as fact in all schools in America.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: I'm of course not saying this was the original intent of those parables/"events". I'm just saying if you piss around with the meaning, you can make anything become apparent. It's like analysing poetry.
It's not open to Interpretation..unfortunatly too many do though.
quote:To call into question that it was 6 days is for Christians who believe this to say that the word of God is flawed and therefore fallible, in which case the whole belief system is based upon a flawed logic and the big man fucked up. Except he can't. He's the only thing in this universe that is infallible...the conclusion: he can't logically exist.
A} That is your opinion B} God could have created everything in 6 million years or 6 days, doesn't bother me any. C} Unless you are all Omnisient and Omnipresent yourself, you can't say a God "doesn't" exist. Logically to you, He doesn't.
quote: You, seemingly a religious person who gives the bible some thought own and operate a porn site (very against Christian values)...
I'm not religious really, in the word sense. And I do not operate a porn site. There's nothing pornographic or really adult on or about my site.
quote:Quote me where I called you a prick please.
Already did, look up...and on page 2 of that other thread in "other" topics.
You are now trolling, and insulting and totally off topic, I knew you couldn't resist yourself. Mods you have a PM.
[ December 17, 2010, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Wrinklesguy ]
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: No - if I'm totally honest with myself, I can be a prick about Creationsism. I make no bones about it (though thank you for defending me there).
I guess I misinterpreted you, then. Damn this internet and lack of tonal variation.
You backed me, so I returned the favor.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter:
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy: You are now trolling, and insulting and totally off topic, I knew you couldn't resist yourself. Mods you have a PM.
Huh? I don't understand this at all.
What has Andy done to justify those accusations, or being reported?
We've made a decision through PM - or at least I suggested just now through PM that we just delete our own posts, saves mess and we can just get past it.
I get that religion is the one topic I cannot control myself with, so we'll just leave it and no one wins.
I'll just say: no I was not trolling, these are my opinions and I am not doing it to get a "reaction" I was doing it to get a debate which I really do love.
ANYWAY
Back to conspiracy theories muthafuckers!
Lady Di: quite clearly bumped off by the queen...
(I don't really know enough about her death, but why not? )
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy: Funny how you call me a "prick" in another thread for being Patriotic
Just to address this so you don't get the wrong idea - you were being very condescending and talking down to me. I don't generally appreciate that. That's all. No one's a "prick" for their opinion - only what they do with it.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa: Lady Di: quite clearly bumped off by the queen...
(I don't really know enough about her death, but why not? )
I wonder.
Maybe it was just a coincidence? OK, maybe not.
Oh, and about Prince Harry...he doesn't look like Prince Charles? Really?
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
Well, I'll be damned. Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
Look up Eugenics and Blue Blood interbreeding..it's been happening quite assuredly for many hundreds of generations. This barely touches conspiracy it's actually more fact that their spouses are picked for them.. {IE:Royal English families bloodlines}
Posted by Patrick (Member # 1169) on :
Everyone please play nice or I'll start putting black boxes over all the sensitive information! For reasons of national security.
Patrick
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy: Look up Eugenics and Blue Blood interbreeding..it's been happening quite assuredly for many hundreds of generations. This barely touches conspiracy it's actually more fact that their spouses are picked for them.. {IE:Royal English families bloodlines}
Yeah they "Keep it in the family"
Finally though we may have an attractive future Queen Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: Well, I'll be damned.
Guy had an affair with Di. I'm not sure if that's alleged or fact, but it's generally accepted.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa:
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: Well, I'll be damned.
Guy had an affair with Di. I'm not sure if that's alleged or fact, but it's generally accepted.
I looked him up on Wikipedia, and it seems to be fact.
Of course, there's also an article that states he met her AFTER Harry was born.
Posted by Keyfeet (Member # 27313) on :
i hate conspiracy theories more than anything. i dont believe any of them. the one that gets me the angriest is when people say 9/11 was an inside job.
how ever i do believe everyone in hollywood has veneers or fake teeth
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
There's plenty of proof it was either an A}Inside Job or B} Allowed to happen no question.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy: There's plenty of proof it was either an A}Inside Job or B} Allowed to happen no question.
Tolerance.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Keyfeet: i hate conspiracy theories more than anything. i dont believe any of them. the one that gets me the angriest is when people say 9/11 was an inside job.
how ever i do believe everyone in hollywood has veneers or fake teeth
Oh yeah?
Not just whitened/excellent dental care? Interesting one.
Posted by Wrinklesguy (Member # 732) on :
quote: Tolerance
Yes, mother teresa..
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa:
quote:Originally posted by Wrinklesguy: There's plenty of proof it was either an A}Inside Job or B} Allowed to happen no question.
Tolerance.
Eh, he's got a point. Unlike Key. Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Paul McCartney died in '66 and was replaced by a lookalike and sound-alike...isn't true.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
Didn't they record something backwards on one of their albums as a "clue" to his "replacement"? Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: Didn't they record something backwards on one of their albums as a "clue" to his "replacement"?
I've heard this, yeah.
Considering when I used to run into him when walking the dogs with my Godparents...I doubt it
(His mum lives around there).
Oh yeah. I name-dropped.
Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
Oh, yeah, I don't believe that one.
Name-dropper. Posted by Keyfeet (Member # 27313) on :
quote:Originally posted by Andy-Laa:
quote:Originally posted by Keyfeet:
how ever i do believe everyone in hollywood has veneers or fake teeth
Oh yeah?
Not just whitened/excellent dental care? Interesting one.
I mean, I guess they could whiten. But you have to keep doing that over, and over. what is the point of that when you can just have permanent white veneers put in. It is really easy. This is not a viable option for most people, considering they are very expensive, and purely cosmetic. However their job depends on it, and they can afford it.
But I actually wasn't talking about the whiteness of the teeth. most people already whiten their teeth to begin with. I was actually talking about the size and shape of their teeth. They are all perfectly shaped and are the perfect size. they all line up at the bottom completely straight. and who can be mad at them for that? I don't want to watch a movie where the actors have effed up teeth?
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, bc most people will own up to it. there is nothing wrong with wanting to look attractive. But I wore braces for 4 years and my teeth don't even look as good as theirs do.
[ December 20, 2010, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Keyfeet ]
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by Keyfeet: I mean, I guess they could whiten. But you have to keep doing that over, and over. what is the point of that when you can just have permanent white veneers put in. It is really easy. This is not a viable option for most people, considering they are very expensive, and purely cosmetic. However their job depends on it, and they can afford it.
But I actually wasn't talking about the whiteness of the teeth. most people already whiten their teeth to begin with. I was actually talking about the size and shape of their teeth. They are all perfectly shaped and are the perfect size. they all line up at the bottom completely straight. and who can be mad at them for that? I don't want to watch a movie where the actors have effed up teeth?
I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, bc most people will own up to it. there is nothing wrong with wanting to look attractive. But I wore braces for 4 years and my teeth don't even look as good as theirs do.
Hehehehehe @ "I don't want to watch a movie where the actors have effed up teeth"
That's quite an interesting one. Something different. And I agree about the perfect alignment thing.
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
quote:Originally posted by combine_hunter: Oh, yeah, I don't believe that one.
Name-dropper.
I don't know how to convince you
His mum lives near them and he visits her reasonably often, takes her dogs for a walk. My Godparents are dog-mad and so do likewise.
My bad, I meant that I didn't believe McCartney had "died" or been replaced. Oops!
Posted by Andy-Laa (Member # 31511) on :
Ahhhh makes more sense now
I love this one:
Hendrix never did drugs (to any excess anyway) and the song, "Purple Haze" was in reference to a sci-fi novel by the same name about a mind ray that...does what he sings in the song...
"All in my brain..." etc
I of course don't believe it Posted by combine_hunter (Member # 39526) on :
There are so many stories about Hendrix that it's difficult to know what to believe.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Blush]](blush.gif)
![[Cry]](cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)