I think we can go to the Moon

[Texan]

There is a good documentary that was shown here in the uk,about the moon conspiracy and in part of it it mentions several top people who all died from mysterious accidents.

Some of the points they made were.

How does the flag flutter when there is no gravity or wind on the moon.

Why are the shadows pointing in several directions when there is only one light source the sun,some of the pictures taken had shadows pointing in different directions in the same frame suggesting several light sources.

Back in the 60s sending a tv signal more than 60miles resulted in poor picture quality and yet they managed to send tv pics 150,000 miles.

Most important how did they manage to pass throught the Van Allen radiation belt without harm.

There are many more examples.

First of all, there is gravity and wind on the moon. It's not the same as earth's gravity and wind, but there is still gravity and wind.

Second, nobody denies the event was filmed; it is perfectly logical to assume there were other lights at the scene. Why would they need lights to film a fake, but no lights to film the real thing? That doesn't make sense.

As for the TV signal thing... I don't think NBC was using NASA equipment to broadcast Dick Van Dyke or Gunsmoke.

As for the Van Allen radiation belt... why do you think they couldn't pass through it without harm? If it is that harmful, perhaps the measures that keep the suns direct UV radiation from cooking them, or kept them from burning up exiting/entering the earth's atmosphere also blocked that radiation, or at least blocked enough radiation to make their brief exposure harmless. It's not like they lived in the radiation belt for a month.

It's all a matter of what you want to believe, plain and simple. I am not trying to ridicule anyone for their beliefs... I personally believe there was a cover up in JFK assassination.

 

[Shafty]

First of all, there is gravity and wind on the moon. It's not the same as earth's gravity and wind, but there is still gravity and wind.

Second, nobody denies the event was filmed; it is perfectly logical to assume there were other lights at the scene. Why would they need lights to film a fake, but no lights to film the real thing? That doesn't make sense.

As for the TV signal thing... I don't think NBC was using NASA equipment to broadcast Dick Van Dyke or Gunsmoke.

As for the Van Allen radiation belt... why do you think they couldn't pass through it without harm? If it is that harmful, perhaps the measures that keep the suns direct UV radiation from cooking them, or kept them from burning up exiting/entering the earth's atmosphere also blocked that radiation, or at least blocked enough radiation to make their brief exposure harmless. It's not like they lived in the radiation belt for a month.

It's all a matter of what you want to believe, plain and simple. I am not trying to ridicule anyone for their beliefs... I personally believe there was a cover up in JFK assassination.

Texan, how is there wind on the moon? I'm not saying that I have any doubts regarding the authenticity of the first moon landing, but the last time I checked, the moon didn't have atmospheric phenomena of any kind. Not wanting to sound like a smart ass, but please elaborate, in case I misunderstood what you were referring to.

 

[Shithead]

there is no wind on the moon, but there also would have been no wind in a big studio.

 

[Texan]

there is no wind on the moon, but there also would have been no wind in a big studio.

There is wind on the moon, contrary to Shithead's end-all declaration.

This is what I was talking about. As I said it is different from earth wind. Click here.

 

[Shithead]

k, ya proved me wrong, but it is very very different wind to what we have on earth.

 

[kfarrelldba]

Im going to start saving the documents and such that I scour through instead of keeping them in my mind and start showing people what is going on as most think im crazy.

I don't even think Iraq exists. Prove it to me. So a plane lands in Iraq and the pilot says "ok, we've landed in Iraq" but have you?

When I use to watch the news, and see the cases that make it into court, the bills being passed, the guberment and its ass backwards operations I was convinced for months that I flashed back to a bad acid trip of a bad movie rerun that would not end. I'm on the Kausion train for sure. You guys really want to get ya heads spinnin? Check this out lol lol lol lol lol lol

Now, keep an open mind and listen to what they have to say, most of which is unbiased fact. Listen to the description of a conspiracy theory at the beginning and then watch what they have to convey.


Click here ROBOTS

 

[Texan]

I watched this video last night (by following the link). It was interesting, but silly in many ways. I would like to know what he thinks happened to the commercial airliners, since he doesn't think they hit the buildings.

His little intro was cute... about "conspiracy theory" and how he builds assumption on top of assumption and then just starts basing other premises on them as if they were facts... he a clever manipulator.

I don't buy into what he said, personally. Big surprise to you guys, I'm sure.That said, I will not say it couldn't have happened that way, I just don't think so... but I'm wrong often, just ask my wife

 

[kausion_420]

Was an alright 9/11 documentary. I didn't really like the focus on it though. There are more important issues that can be proven with documented evidence yet he focuses on a possible missle hitting the pentagon..??

Why focus your time on something you can't prove one way or another. To me that is a true conspiracy theory. If he would have shown documents that were passed after 9/11 like [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]PA[/words]/HydromaxS or documents from before 9/11 like W199I/PNAC/RAD, then he would have made a better case.