The Moon Landing Conspiracy

[HtotheNootch]

Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[RJT]

If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol- Yeah, they "found" that it takes a lot of friggin resources to get there and hasn't been worth going back to as of yet.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I believe that the landings were real, but they found "something" and that's why we haven't gone back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, exactly!!! The moon is a hollow metallic sphere, which God made as a prison for fallen angels. This is the vantage point from where the nephilim observed the daughters of men.

[malorum]

Oh yes I almost forgot, it is also possibly the source of the waters above which led to the flood.
When the moon cracked open, down came the rain.

The London bus later found on the moon can thus be seen as a typological representation of the Ark.

Elvis and Noah must thus be viewed in their patriarchal roles as leaders of mankind.

My apologies for the heterodox nature of the post, but I felt this was too important to omit.

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]

Someone asked for a thread about this in another thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was I.

So where's the thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I've seen some compelling evidence, although my mind is not made up entirely. I think the main important questions are:

1. Why did the shuttle emit a flame given there's no oxygen on the moon?
2. Why is there a glint of strings multiple times when the astronauts are jumping around?
3. Why does the flag wave without wind?
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.

...and so on. There's some other questionable things, like the appearance of numbers on rocks and Coke cans and star formations and other crap. Discuss.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the question I could never answer. I mean technology was so damn primitive, I cant believe that we landed on the moon with that limited technology. Someone care to answer this?

[ QUOTE ]
If science is questioning the moon landings, then I just got my answer to why some might not have an interest in the possibility of a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this another one of your jokes? I can never tell these days. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Wow, I think my brain is going to explode.


"I think the main important questions are:

1. Why did the shuttle emit a flame given there's no oxygen on the moon?"

A flame is the result of the product of a fuel and oxygen burning together. It's light given off during this reaction. I'll give you three guesses where the oxygen came from (hint: it's not the atmosphere of the moon)

"2. Why is there a glint of strings multiple times when the astronauts are jumping around?"

Hah?

"3. Why does the flag wave without wind?"

I don't see any flag 'waving'. If you mean the fact that it isn't limp, it's designed to stand up. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that flaccid flag doesn't look as good as a stiff one.

"4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator."

I'm itching to call you something unpleasant but I'll refrain. We built hydrogen bombs and nuclear power stations without computer modelling. What specifically is so computationally difficult about a moon flight it requires a computer?

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4. What technology did we have that could enable us to get there? The best computer we had at the time had the power of a simple calculator.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the question I could never answer. I mean technology was so damn primitive, I cant believe that we landed on the moon with that limited technology. Someone care to answer this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't tell if you are serious or not, how ironic.

That post was either idiotic or brilliant, LMFAO.

You do realize that primitive computers do the same things as the current ones, don't you? The answers just take longer to get. LOL.