Google backs private Moon landing

[telecasterisation]

[TmcMistress]

[blackcat]

Anyway.... about this moon landing thingy....

[telecasterisation]

TmcMistress;

[my left bollock]

[karlos]

I am afraid to say you were watching a movie which was previously recorded in a studio.
Think about it, there was no need for the footage to be black and white in such poor quality colour films were invented in 1939 so why in 1969 was it filmed in picture quality that was more like 1919?

[my left bollock]

So you think we saw a movie for the Apollo landing, then why did we not see a movie for 911?

[blackcat]

Just a guess but whereas anyone could see if the twin towers collapsed in New York and millions could view it themselves at first hand it is a tad more difficult to visit the moon to see if man really landed there.

[karlos]

my left plum, how much fuel do you think it would have taken to get there and back?
500,000 miles
when the furthest any rocket has travelled is anout 130 miles

physically it is impossible

[TmcMistress]

[karlos]

What are you talking about?
You have not got an answer so you avoid even considering it.
There was no enough fuel to carry that craft 500,000 miles
some guy posted something saying inverse physics which is utter utter crud
If you believe that Star Trek is real then there really is no point convincing you or your kind.
When a humk of metal is lifted into the sky it has to break free of earths outermost gravity field. The moon shot is different from an unmanned probe which can travel slowly and is tiny by comparison. A moon shot has a huge payload and needs to get there and back QUICKLY before the oxygen and reserves run out.
so the point is you need the acceleration burn to last much longer than either firing a probe or a satellite
but dont forget the journey back, you need an accelaration boost to come home too, you cannot wait for gravity to pull you back because the crew would not last the journey. Yet the claim is that on the homebound journey only Hydrogen fuel cells were used.
So the science does not add up.
And why have we not been going backward and forwards to the moon since the Vietnam war ended ?
Surely if you knew how to ride a bike in 1969 you would still know how to ride a bke in 2007.

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[my left bollock]

Which one of these does Chek use?

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

http://www.dcdave.com/article3/991228.html

[chek]

[blackcat]

Meanwhile, back on the moon.....

[TmcMistress]

[karlos]

[chek]

[karlos]

[chek]

[karlos]

I am not being obtuse, i just cannot believe in something so far fetched and fantastical as the lies we were told since we were kids.
No man has ever been to the moon.
belief in the moon landings is a stupid as belief in the tooth fairy or batman.

[chek]

[karlos]

What you are saying is that despite all the evidence you are sticking to your childhood dream that man went to the moon.
Look i too used to be an avid space fan. I did projects at school about the moon landings. It was only when i saw the documentary regarding the moon landing being faked that the penny dropped. I then looked into the science and discovered that the whole NASA setup and story is a load of old cobblers.
For you you have not reached the point of the truth becoming apparant yet. You are still brainwashed, but dont worry you will awaken soon and realise that you have been lied to about many thinks. The moon landings is simply one in a long line of lies we have all been told since birth.

Luckily more and more people are waking up.

[chek]

[karlos]

Chek - are you telling us that your proof of the moon landings is moon rocks which have been collected by unmanned moon probes or probably were meteorites found here on earth.
Why not give us some science to back up your beliefs.

[chek]

[karlos]

Mine is not a belief. I DO NOT BELIEVE that man walked on the moon. Yours is the belief.
Therefore you have to prove it not me. And why do you think NASA sets up websites and appears on tv shows pleading it's case?
I dont see Ranulph Fiennes trying to prove he went to the north pole so why do NASA feel so insecure that they need to prove themselves?
The reason is simple they have no proof so they have to debunk the debunkers.
$130 Billion spent and all you have is 20 minuts of cine film a few faked photos and some 'moon' rocks.
A pretty good scam if you ask me.

Why are you so happy to believe in a total work of fiction? What proof do you think you have?

Mate do yourself a favour and wake up from your brainwashing.

[chek]

[blackcat]