Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

And again I would point out that this supposedly high-level pressurisation is in the order of much less than 1 ATM (14.7psi) - the Apollo suits ran at about 3-4 psi! It's not like it's a truck tyre, more like a half-flat air mattress...! Anyone suggesting that sort of pressure differential would cause the suit to become significantly less flexible just hasn't thought it through.

And someone who then keeps bringing it up over and over and over, simply isn't debating in good faith.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't got the hang of the burden of proof have you. I'm bored repeating it but here goes.

As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Since Apollo is considered proven it is sufficient say, "Apollo happened, therefore, since the footage is considered to be genuine it must, therefore be possible for the knees of an Apollo suit to bend to that angle when pressurised".

It is up to you to prove that the suit isn't pressurised since yours is not the accepted version of events. If you want to claim that your argument is logical and scientific you must be confined by the conventions of logic and science.

If you wish to argue from a point of belief then you are not constrained by those conventions, but you can not claim that your argument is logical and scientific.

.

You try again with this.....nonsense...

"As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven"

What is the "accepted truth", in regard to Apollo? It is the official account of Apollo, which (most) people accept as true.

That is all it means.

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

Something accepted as truth still has a burden of proof, even your glorious Apollo story.

Many of our previous 'accepted truths' were found to be completely wrong, many years, even centuries, later..

Apollo is accepted as truth by fewer people today than ever before. In the past, it wasn't held up to scrutiny.

Clearly, Apollo has the burden of proof. ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You try again with this.....nonsense...

He is right on the money! In fact, there are documentaries featuring physical demonstrations in pressurized spacesuits.

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

Of course it does and it explains why a number of countries around the world have validated the Apollo moon missions by tracking the Apollo spacecrafts or photographing Apollo landing sites.

Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel

This section contains reports of the lunar missions from facilities that had significant numbers of non-NASA employees. This includes facilities such as the Deep Space Network, which employed (and still employs) many local citizens in Spain and Australia, and facilities such as the Parkes Observatory, which were hired by NASA for specific tasks, but staffed by non-NASA personnel.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

space-suit-mmua.jpg

Astronaut Bruce McCandless II floated freely in space while testing the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) during an early shuttle flight.

Seems to me those knees are bent in a pressurized spacesuit.

Project Apollo Space Suit

Because Apollo astronauts had to walk on the moon as well as fly in space, a single space suit was developed that had add-ons for moonwalking. The basic Apollo space suit, which was worn during liftoff, was the backup suit needed in case cabin pressure failed.

The Apollo suit consisted of the following:

  • A water-cooled nylon undergarment
  • A multi-layered pressure suit: inside layer - lightweight nylon with fabric vents; middle layer - neoprene-coated nylon to hold pressure; outer layer - nylon to restrain the pressurized layers beneath
  • Five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dacron for heat protection
  • Two layers of Kapton for additional heat protection
  • A layer of Teflon-coated cloth (nonflammable) for protection from scrapes
  • A layer of white Teflon cloth (nonflammable)

The suit had boots, gloves, a communications cap and a clear plastic helmet. During liftoff, the suit's oxygen and cooling water were supplied by the ship.

For walking on the moon, the space suit was supplemented with a pair of protective overboots, gloves with rubber fingertips, a set of filters/visors worn over the helmet for protection from sunlight, and a portable life support backpack that contained oxygen, carbon-dioxide removal equipment and cooling water. The space suit and backpack weighed 180 lb (82 kg) on Earth, but only 30 lb (14 kg) on the moon.

The basic Apollo space suit was also used for spacewalking during the Skylab missions.

114118main_image_feature_322_ys_4.jpg

ku-large.jpg

Are there bent knees in pressurized spacesuits?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

Reasons? You've emotionally bought in to the hoax theory and lack the moral fibre to admit that any of the"evidence" you've presented is dubious.

Contrast and compare to how most contributors on here refer to the laser reflectors. It is no longer presented as proof, where it may have in the past. It's presented as evidence, since there is the albeit small chance that the reflectors could have been placed remotely. That's a sign of a genuine objectivity in assessing the evidence, rather than an approach hampered by emotional attachment.

Try it. You might like it. Admit you're wrong on the spacesuit issue. Doesnt mean you have to admit Apollo did happen. Do you have the courage to admit when your arguments fail, or are you really here just to pull our collective pud?

Documents of note..

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v80n10/s9.pdf?expires=1364516947&id=73543740&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=A0721E1F4A0DF695352CD74C7511C4E5

In the above document, flexibilty is an issue.

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v76n4/s11.pdf?expires=1364516566&id=73543703&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=E255F933EEFF1D8BDAE9E92D3392FB16

Above document is on gloves.

So if Apollo suits were flexible enough for deep knee bends, and had gloves capable of closed fists....

Why is it not yet possible, decades later??

A big conflict here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Documents of note..

http://docserver.ing...52CD74C7511C4E5

In the above document, flexibilty is an issue.

http://docserver.ing...AE9E92D3392FB16

Above document is on gloves.

So if Apollo suits were flexible enough for deep knee bends, and had gloves capable of closed fists....

Why is it not yet possible, decades later??

A big conflict here...

10076111.jpg

5267749623_d53365f7ae.jpg

spacewalk_1.jpg

SpaceWalk.jpg

ap17-72-H-253.jpg

Fig. 2 -Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan has his space suit fitted. The outer white covering has been removed to expose the pressure-containing garment. Note the accordion joints at the elbows and the knobby knuckles on the gloves. The knobs allow him to flex his fingers even though the suit is inflated. (NASA: 72-H-253)

Buzz_Aldrin_Apollo_Spacesuit.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that link because in it, it says:

Dust

Dust (on the moon) proved to be extremely hazardous on previous EVA missions, and Apollo astronauts found that it quickly abraded suit coverings, scratched helmet visors, covered external displays, degraded outer layer absorptivity and emissivity and contaminated seals and bearings. After two EVAs, astronauts reported that the outer layers of their spacesuits were“severely worn by lunar dust abrasion”.

On Apollo 17, Jack Schmitt had trouble securing his gloves and found that outer layer and worn through after 3 EVAs.

An Apollo suit weighed 100 kg on earth, but only 17 kg on the lunar surface. Schmitt (2002) noted that the total weight of the suit was acceptable, however Apollo astronauts were not subject to the physical deconditioning expected to occur on long-duration Martian missions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

That came from your own link, which confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions. In addition:

astronotkneebend2nn4.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that link because in it, it says:

Dust

Dust (on the moon) proved to be extremely hazardous on previous EVA missions, and Apollo astronauts found that it quickly abraded suit coverings, scratched helmet visors, covered external displays, degraded outer layer absorptivity and emissivity and contaminated seals and bearings. After two EVAs, astronauts reported that the outer layers of their spacesuits were“severely worn by lunar dust abrasion”.

On Apollo 17, Jack Schmitt had trouble securing his gloves and found that outer layer and worn through after 3 EVAs.

An Apollo suit weighed 100 kg on earth, but only 17 kg on the lunar surface. Schmitt (2002) noted that the total weight of the suit was acceptable, however Apollo astronauts were not subject to the physical deconditioning expected to occur on long-duration Martian missions.

Any reason for posting this crap escapes me. Not on topic, nor anything else I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reason for posting this crap escapes me. Not on topic, nor anything else I can see.

You missed the point. Your link actually confirms the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story before you posted your link.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point. Your link actually confirms the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story before you posted your link.

You think briefly mentioning Apollo somehow "confirms the reality" of it!

How could I have missed such an obvious point as this?!? :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think briefly mentioning Apollo somehow "confirms the reality" of it!

In the link you'd posted, yes!

In addition:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJBbIEhWAAE[/media]

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Documents of note..

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v80n10/s9.pdf?expires=1364516947&id=73543740&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=A0721E1F4A0DF695352CD74C7511C4E5

In the above document, flexibilty is an issue.

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/asma/00956562/v76n4/s11.pdf?expires=1364516566&id=73543703&titleid=8218&accname=Guest+User&checksum=E255F933EEFF1D8BDAE9E92D3392FB16

Above document is on gloves.

So if Apollo suits were flexible enough for deep knee bends, and had gloves capable of closed fists....

Why is it not yet possible, decades later??

A big conflict here...

No-one is disputing that flexibility is an issue. Once again, you are conflating the concepts of "difficulty" and "impossibility". It takes a lot of work to get the deep knee bends seen in Apollo suits. Look at the videos, the astronaut is clearly struggling to get up. He is able to achieve the deep knee bend required once he gets his body weight in a position to help him.

If you disagree, perhaps then you could explicitly point out where in the documents you linked to it proves that pressurised suits can't bend more than ninety degrees at the knee. In particular, please point out why your argument doesn't apply to the pressurised Sokol spacesuit, as shown below:-

7351356906_5b41b0328f_z.jpg

Sky Eagle provided a link to an interesting video that will hopefully help the penny drop for you on this issue. I've included a still below, taken when the suit is pressurised at 3.5psi. It's at the 4:18 point in the video. EDIT:- There is an even clearer example at 9:18 in the video. Check it out.

apollo-suit-knee-bend_zps9d245667.jpg

So, three things for you.

1. Where in the documentation you linked to does it explicitly state that pressurised suits can't do what we clearly see being done with the Sokol and Apollo suits?

2. Why is the Sokol suit able to be so visibly bent at the knee while pressurised?

3. Why does the pressurised suit in simulated lunar gravity show a knee bend similar to that shown in the Apollo videos?

Or, you can just stop this charade now, grow a set and admit you were wrong about the space suit issue. I'm not holding my breath on that one...

Edited by postbaguk
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could I have missed such an obvious point as this?!? :-*

That's what you do best

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, don't you have life and business, but waste your time with this turbo-broken kid? It doesn't matter what you do, it is just untreatable. If you launched it in orbit and send it to the moon, it will still believe it is in some holywood studio... until you make a hole in its spacesuit.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, don't you have life and business, but waste your time with this turbo-broken kid? It doesn't matter what you do, it is just untreatable. If you launched it in orbit and send it to the moon, it will still believe it is in some holywood studio... until you make a hole in its spacesuit.

We aren't wasting our time with him. We know he is beyond logic and reason. We know that he will make himself look foolish by ignoring the facts presented and by dishonestly shifting the goal posts every time he is proven wrong. But that is kind of the point. turbonium, by highlighting the fact that he has no facts, no logic and no credibility does a far better job of showing how truly idiotic the hoax believer position is than any of us. He is in fact a better weapon for destroying the myth than any of the rest of us.

It's not about turbonium, it is about those with a doubts, but with an open mind. Those people should be allowed to see the facts, they should be allowed to see how poor the hoax believer position is. To allow people like turbonium a free reign to spread their falsehoods without reply would be to do thinking people with doubts a dis-service.

Mind you if you think turbs is bad, you should have been here when straydog was still around.

p.s. turbonium is a "he" not an "it". No matter how much you disagree with his point of view he is still a human being, at least show him that small amount of respect.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You try again with this.....nonsense...

I'm not trying any nonsense I leave that to you, you've had much more practice at it.

The problem for you is that the burden of proof is an inconvenient truth. You do with it what you do with facts, cherry pick. You try to apply it when you think it is convenient and ignore it when it isn't. It doesn't work that way.

"As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven"

Ah, you've posted something that is actually correct. Oh, wait a minute, those aren't your words they are mine. Still it's the only logical sentence in your post.

What is the "accepted truth", in regard to Apollo? It is the official account of Apollo, which (most) people accept as true.

That is all it means.

Well it's a start. What is the accepted truth if it is not that which is accepted as true? Since by you own admission Apollo is accepted as true by the vast majority then you are making yourself look even more illogical and even more daft arguing against it.

But it isn't all. You are wrong. It's easy to tell when you are wrong about Apollo... you've posted something.

In the case of aeronautical and astronautical records there is an official body which ratifies them. It is not controlled by the US government and isn't even American. It is the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) and it is an international body based in Paris.

The FAI have ratified Apollo 11. Thus Apollo has to be considered accepted truth unless enough evidence can be found to overturn that ratification. Fancy dropping them a line? Do you think you can prove to them that Apollo was fake?

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

And he's back. I wondered how long before you resorted to dishonest tactics. Here we have a straw man argument. I didn't say that because it was the accepted truth it must be the truth? Why do you think I used the word accepted?

Something accepted as truth still has a burden of proof, even your glorious Apollo story.

Even by your standard this is moronic. What you are saying is that which has been accepted as true must be proven as true. That is quite ridiculous. If something is accepted as true it is because it has passed the tests set of it. It has no burden of proof as it has already been accepted as true. To the vast majority of the population of the planet and to the official ratifying body Apollo is true. NASA do not need to prove anything to them as it is "accepted" that they have already proven their case.

Many of our previous 'accepted truths' were found to be completely wrong, many years, even centuries, later..

Yes, but the new theories which over turned them did so because they had the burden of proof and they passed it. They over turned the perceived truth because they presented evidence which was a better fit than the previous theory. The hoax theory has not done this. It does not have the weight of evidence on it's side.

Apollo is accepted as truth by fewer people today than ever before. In the past, it wasn't held up to scrutiny.

If you are the best on offer it still isn't,

Clearly, Apollo has the burden of proof. ,

Clearly as it is the ACCEPTED TRUTH it doesn't.

You do.

You know you do and you can't meet that burden which is why you try to turn it on it's head. If you REALLY believed you had a case you would accept the burden of proof with open arms. The fact you run away from it is a clear indication that you know your case is not supported by the evidence... and if you don't believe it how are you going to persuade others to?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't wasting our time with him. We know he is beyond logic and reason. We know that he will make himself look foolish by ignoring the facts presented and by dishonestly shifting the goal posts every time he is proven wrong. But that is kind of the point. turbonium, by highlighting the fact that he has no facts, no logic and no credibility does a far better job of showing how truly idiotic the hoax believer position is than any of us. He is in fact a better weapon for destroying the myth than any of the rest of us.

It's not about turbonium, it is about those with a doubts, but with an open mind. Those people should be allowed to see the facts, they should be allowed to see how poor the hoax believer position is. To allow people like turbonium a free reign to spread their falsehoods without reply would be to do thinking people with doubts a dis-service.

Mind you if you think turbs is bad, you should have been here when straydog was still around.

p.s. turbonium is a "he" not an "it". No matter how much you disagree with his point of view he is still a human being, at least show him that small amount of respect.

i agree with most of this except having to show any amount of respect to turbs. respect is earned not given and in my shortish time here he sure as hell hasn't done anything to earn my respect. he dodges questions, and waves off post after post after post of people refuting his own posts. you tell me what he has done to earn any amount of respect from anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

They did return, for a total of 6 landings. They stopped because their budget was cut by a shortsighted government.

This is also the reason why no other country has been able to - lack of funding. What other country at the time or even until recent years has had anything near the financial backing and / or political willpower to put such a mission together from scratch? The Soviets tried, but they couldn't build a launch vehicle that could withstand more than 2 minutes of flight time before blowing itself to bits. After that failure (which was just another in a long, long list of failures by the Soviets), their Lunar program imploded upon itself.

You're free to believe whatever the heck you want, but unless you have any hard, verifiable facts to back up your speculation, you just have a belief, nothing more.

So do you have any actual facts (with sources) to bring out? Burden of proof is yours.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

Congress approves the entire US space budget. They cut funding for Moon trips before Apollo was even finished. They haven't been interested in paying for it since. Politicians are more concerned with what will help them in the next election and not what will have a payoff 2 or 3 elections later. Only Russia has had the infrastructure to get there. They tried and continued to try until 1974 when they finally shut down their program. They couldn't keep their heavy lifting booster ( the N-1) from exploding. A little hard to get there that way. No other country has had the infrastructure, money, and/or political will since then to even try. China says they do now but we'll see. Your argument holds no water.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

I could use exactly the same argument to prove they didn't fake it.

If the US had faked the moon landings why hasn't any other country faked sending people to the moon? Surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have done it for real.

Edited by postbaguk
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

Money for reason, however, there have been nations that have sent spacecraft to the moon and they have confirmed the Apollo landing sites on the moon.

* Sternwarte Bochum Observatory in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observator

* The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.

* Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the Apollo 11. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.

* Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.

Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tonesheard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth

* Corralitos Observatory photographed Apollo 14

* Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16

* The Madrid Apollo Station, now part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11

* Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions.

* China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings.

* n 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings. On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3-D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Facts and evidence from around the world that confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the US land on the moon or was it a hoax ? Personally I am beginning to think they didn't and my reasons for this are simple.

If the US has been to the moon then why haven't they returned ? or why hasn't any other country sent people to the moon ? surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have hoaxed it.

I can answer to this question with a well known example: Concord. The plane was created in the 60s and flew up to several years ago. In spite of our technology now, 40+ years after first Concord flight, no one is trying to build another supersonic passanger plane (russians tried and failed). So, two questions:

1. Does this make Concord a hoax?

2. Why were we able to build such a plane 40 years ago, but are not able to build it now?

P.S. Waspie_Dwarf, my english is very bad ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ! Here ! Well put Waspie ! Without the C.Ts and Septics what would we have to read and laugh at ? Its part fun,part sad fun most of the time we read these threads about Who did this or what can do that. Some do gain a bit of knowledge in here just by the process.

Afterall Look at me , I was a simple one cell squiggley thing once,all that DNA just waiting to bust out and impress the planet with the brain the Size of a Planet !

We all can dream,some just dream better than others.

This Forum is by far one of the best going, no If`s ands, or Butts !

We Rule the Electron air waves,and I know we shall be around on the Day that E.T. decides were grown up enough to recieve there message. I hope?

Keep it up Waspie Always enjoy your information,and post !

justDONTEATUS :tu:

Oh ! p.s. Welcome karrde to the greatest Show on Earth ! Spellingh optional !

Edited by DONTEATUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could use exactly the same argument to prove they didn't fake it.

If the US had faked the moon landings why hasn't any other country faked sending people to the moon? Surely after the US did it every other country would want a piece of the action. So they must have done it for real.

lmfao you got me there :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.