Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1891    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 278 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2007

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:40 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 May 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

Then, why did they lose the race with the United States to send a man to the moon?

Doh! Because the evil conspiracist from the jewish illuminated reptiloid, who are secretly in control of the USA cheated (and bribed the USSR with wheat)...


#1892    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 03 May 2013 - 10:09 PM

Hard line CTs normally don't like to research their subjects too deeply in case it brings up evidence that contradicts their beliefs. For example, anyone who had read Boris Chertok's memoirs on the Soviet space programme (Rockets & People) would be under no illusions regarding the effort put into the Soviet lunar programme nor the reasons for its failure.


#1893    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:52 PM

View Postkarrde, on 28 April 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

If i'm correct, this is your last post. What should we address here?

I said my last posts were not addressed. This isn't hard to figure out.


#1894    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:09 AM

View Postrambaldi, on 30 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

Your points were answered and sufficiently explained five years ago. you have not added anything beyond silly repetitions since then...
..

No, I'm referring to my posts on page 24 - #1846, 1847, and 1848.

I suggest you read them before you make an uninformed reply like the above.

And I'm still waiting to hear from my long-time accuser, flyingswan What about it?


#1895    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:14 AM

View PostRafterman, on 30 April 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

I'm convinced that a lot of things speak to you.

I'd much prefer mature people speaking to me. It's a little harsh to call the other people "things", though! :-*

Edited by turbonium, 04 May 2013 - 12:15 AM.


#1896    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,463 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:48 AM

View Postrambaldi, on 03 May 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Doh! Because the evil conspiracist from the jewish illuminated reptiloid, who are secretly in control of the USA cheated (and bribed the USSR with wheat)...

But, I thought that it was because we promised to sign a contract to supply regular shipments of vodka to Alcoholics Anonymous.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1897    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:05 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 May 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

But, I thought that it was because we promised to sign a contract to supply regular shipments of vodka to Alcoholics Anonymous.
Skyeagle we better give in Babe,and the others all have way too much proof,that we didnt go to the Moon. So we can tell them now that they are all right and the Entire Mass of NASA employes can forget the Grand things they really did to Get Man on the surface of the moon ! Now we can get back to the Important stuff ! Like How are we going to Get Rick Perry outta Office?

This is a Work in Progress!

#1898    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,463 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:46 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 04 May 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Skyeagle we better give in Babe,and the others all have way too much proof,that we didnt go to the Moon. So we can tell them now that they are all right and the Entire Mass of NASA employes can forget the Grand things they really did to Get Man on the surface of the moon ! Now we can get back to the Important stuff ! Like How are we going to Get Rick Perry outta Office?

I heard that! The moon is nothing more than an illusion, so there was nothing for the Apollo astronauts to visit since they could not have landed on an illusion..



Posted Image



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1899    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,763 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:57 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 28 April 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

Rajeev, when will you be returning to properly address the topic of 'weightlessness' and to cite your claim that scientists said Apollo (NOT a 'deep space' mission) was not possible?

Rajeev, not suprisingly, has not replied.

And I would invite anyone who thinks it would be worthwhile to debate this topic with Rajeev, to take a long hard look here:

http://www.unexplain...ic=183747&st=90

Note how he dodges and weaves, and refuses not only to post a link, but also completely ignores absolute and complete refutations of the many false claims he made.  Notably, look here at this excellent post by the late and sadly missed MID, which shows the extent of Rajeev's deceptions.


That is the sort of person who is left denying Apollo.  Shame on them.

My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - ChrLzs

The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - ChrLzs

#1900    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

View Postturbonium, on 04 May 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

No, I'm referring to my posts on page 24 - #1846, 1847, and 1848.

I suggest you read them before you make an uninformed reply like the above.

And I'm still waiting to hear from my long-time accuser, flyingswan What about it?
If you go back to the original thread, here:
http://www.unexplain...90#entry1684326
rather than your selective repeat of it in this thread, you'll see the problem.  You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA.  Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up.  I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying.

In other words, you let your fabricated quote stand for several days and didn't admit that you were, uncharacteristically, jesting until others queried your post.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1901    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:45 PM

ITs how the ball bounces here in the Good Old U/M sometimes ! When we refer to some of our members that have that zeal for the dramatic One never knows what one might get to read from these spinners of tales !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1902    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 05 May 2013 - 05:05 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 May 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

If you go back to the original thread, here:
http://www.unexplain...90#entry1684326
rather than your selective repeat of it in this thread, you'll see the problem.  You made a post with a fabricated quote which you ascribed to NASA.  Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek. At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up.  I accused you of trolling and Waspie, with his mod's hat on, said you had effectively admitted to lying.

In other words, you let your fabricated quote stand for several days and didn't admit that you were, uncharacteristically, jesting until others queried your post.

Wrong.

If you go back to MY original reply, rather than YOUR selective repeat of it in this thread, you'll see the problem.

I suggest you read my entire post below...

Aw, MID. I'm disappointed in you.

My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!

You're much too serious these days, my old friend....


So let's review what you just said...

"Mid queried another aspect of your post and you replied, six days after the original post, saying it was "mostly" tongue in cheek.  At that point I queried the specific quote and you admitted that you had made it up."

You skipped right over the most relevant section of my post. I'm sure you know that, right?

I specifically pointed out two of the points I meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps you need to read it in bigger fonts, so you won't have any choice but to acknowledge it...

"My post was mostly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

"Running on fumes" was one thing. But especially when I said.....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

Now, that one should have clued you in!!"


You only queried the specific quote AFTER I HAD TOLD MID THE QUOTE WAS MEANT TO BE TONGUE-IN-CHEEK!!


You skipped right over my stated intentions for that specific quote, as if I never said it!  

There was nothing for me to "admit" about the quote to you - I had already explained my intentions without anyone questioning it!!

It is entirely your fault for not reading what I said about the quote beforehand. More likely you did read it, but you ignored it so you could then accuse me of lying.

You and Waspie have falsely accused me of lying for years. I've proved that beyond a doubt.

It's time for you to own up to it, don't you think?

Edited by turbonium, 05 May 2013 - 05:13 AM.


#1903    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,463 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 05 May 2013 - 05:17 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 04 May 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

ITs how the ball bounces here in the Good Old U/M sometimes ! When we refer to some of our members that have that zeal for the dramatic One never knows what one might get to read from these spinners of tales !

I heard that!! :tu:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1904    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,463 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 05 May 2013 - 05:20 AM

View PostObviousman, on 03 May 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Hard line CTs normally don't like to research their subjects too deeply in case it brings up evidence that contradicts their beliefs. For example, anyone who had read Boris Chertok's memoirs on the Soviet space programme (Rockets & People) would be under no illusions regarding the effort put into the Soviet lunar programme nor the reasons for its failure.

Right on! :tu:

I have often said that conspiracist don't bother to do homework, nor do they do it properly when they do.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 May 2013 - 05:21 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1905    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,975 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:39 AM

View Postturbonium, on 05 May 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Wrong.

If you go back to MY original reply, rather than YOUR selective repeat of it in this thread, you'll see the problem.
Unlike you, I gave a link back to the original so everyone could see it for themselves before I gave my version.  I stand by what I said above: you let your fabricated quote stand for several days and didn't admit that you were, uncharacteristically, jesting until others queried your post.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )