Listen to that which no one can explain and surmise the truth without ignorance... And with much patience.

grow earnest in your desire for truth but beware the gains of knowledge.


[edit on 8/8/08 by rezial666]

[edit on 8/8/08 by rezial666]

Originally posted by Boom Slice
And since we have already made safe, cheap, reliable Helium 3 power sources, we know it can be properly harnessed.

Really??? Do you have any links about these existing He3 power sources? I thought that research is not that much advanced, huge fusion reactors based on ITER are not expected to be operational before 2050.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by zendog]

Originally posted by Kryties
Dont want to rattle any cages here

But you dont mind doing so.

it seems that an important point was missed here.

There are a plethora of points that could have been raised but I chose one. Sorry to disappoint. If I only i had thought to include every wrong in my post. However, we are limited to 6500 characters maximum.

I believe you should rephrase your rant

The party is over. You have turned up with a four pack of shandy and a red face.

war isn't terribly good for one's health, unless you are the one benefiting from it.

Erm. Thank you. I think. Actually. What? Have you been drinking?

Did you read that on a lollypop stick?

The Moon pictures. God dammit!

Do they look real?

Is there life on the Moon?

Has there been a coverup?

Quit fighting shadows and get with the P G.

infintesmal

Ok. And stop making up words.

Taxi for Kryties.

EDIT: Kryties - if you want to discuss off topic stuff then U2U me please.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by skibtz]

not sure if this has been addressed before on this particular pic; however, i know it's been a point of contention within the Apollo missions.

Why aren't the stars in the background??

Using pure logic, it's not logical.

Occam's razor="All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Something just doesn't jive when we can CLEARLY see the stars through our atmosphere....

and we come full circle.. again. If, NASA removed the background, why? If they didn't where' are the stars.

Moon pictures are very odd and these pictures usually dont look like real life pictures. Usually horizon lines etc. looks very stupid, sharp lines etc. Here is one example. How they edited photos really?

Originally posted by Kryties
I was simply responding to your likewise off-topic post earlier

If you start branding peoples posts 'rants' then expect a kick in the balls.

Just don't start crying when it hurts.

But if you want my opinion then yes I believe there is some form of cover-up involving the moon landings, but no I do not believe they were faked - just 'altered' perhaps.

I do want your opinion Kryties.

And I appreciate and respect your opinion on the topic.

I wont go branding it a 'rant' or the like.

Apologies for that earth-shattering mistake.

Hmmm. I think I can forgive that.

Two Hail Mary's and an Our Father for you.

Peace.

It is from the length of the exposure, nothing more. Of course with a short exposure the camera wouldn't pick up dim stars.

No wait, let's not forget NASA faked everything right. They were smart enough to fake the moon landings but not smart enough to paint in stars, is that it?

turn gamma all the way down and bright and contest all the way up in ms photo editor intesting pic when you do it. my guess it looks like out line of buildings maybe at nasa training area at night maybe.