| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> So much for "friendly" | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: So much for "friendly" |
| Posted By: Sara Hanlon Posted On: Feb 25, 2003 Views: 1020 | So much for "friendly" Everybody, I had some time on my hands and I went back and read all of the posts.Bart Hess is guilty of calling some posters "idiots" and "morons", but guess who first started the name calling and unproductive derogatory remarks? Keith and We Did 2 Go To The Moon.Look at the dates and times.Telling somebody,"SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!" repeatedly and calling names won't help present your case;it only makes you look like a 4 year old.Practice what you preach. I,too,have a couple questions. If the Russians got moon rocks from unmanned landers,is it not possible that we(U.S. and NASA)also obtained them the same way? My boyfriend is a photographer and he says lights were used in many of the pictures on the moon.A good example he showed me was the hot spot on the astronaut's boot leaving the ship.He said at the very least NASA faked a lot of pictures and he showed me one of a spacewalk by an astronaut from either Gemini or Apollo that was reversed and blacked out.I'll ask him which one as I am not an expert. Why would NASA sway no lighting was used?I know the light from the Earth will cause good lighting but I read more things on the web and too many people agree with my boyfriend's opinion. Why havent we gone back? I'm starting to believe we did not go in the first place.I'm going to read more on this subject but please don't call me an idiot and stupid.I just want to know what really happened. Thank you, Sara |
| Posted By: Bart Posted On: Feb 26, 2003 Views: 1014 | RE: So much for "friendly" Sara,keep reading everything out there.For every NASA "expert" they get who says radiation is not a problem,you will find dozens of scientists who disagree. That also goes for the lighting/shadows discrepencies/impossibilities in the film and photos,equipment,testimonies,etc... |
| Posted By: we did 2 go to the moon Posted On: Feb 26, 2003 Views: 1009 | RE: So much for "friendly" that's because bart is a stupid prat, that's why. i made that one specific section so bart would shut up with his moronic comments and for once not try brainwashing others. and our arguments against bart are valid, too. that one topic was created not for bart, but for other, more rational people |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 5, 2003 Views: 981 | RE: So much for "friendly" Interesting to note from the comments from Sarah that she considers that because her boyfriend is a photographer that makes him an expert on what is in the photos. Next time the Hubble Space Telescope team have a problem identifying what is going on deep within the photograph of a distant nebular, they should just send it to Sarah's boyfriend. He would know, he's a photographer! This is just so typical of the way hoax believer's think. Or should I say don't think? I think Sarah and Bart should exchange email adresses, they could chat away for hours, and all of it would be total nonsense, but they wouldn't realise. |