Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 370
377
<< 367  368  369    371  372  373 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Really? Do you have a source for that 1 second figure for the frame advance? A citation is necessary if you expect to do a valid calculation. The shutter speed was probably 1/250 second, so I could argue that they could have taken a thousand photos in that time. Get actual facts before you start to speculate.


Are you being intellectually honest DJ?

Did they use an automatic camera on the lunar surface DJ?

And now you want to argue that their camera could take a thousand photos in one second?
Are you really a photographer? Have you ever used a (D)SLR? Im starting to wonder.

Please cite where the Apollo cameras were capable of that feat.
And while you are at it, cite which modern cameras are capable of that feat.




Or three seconds to land, bounce, and shift his position.


Bounce?

You know what, you seem to be having trouble with this.
So lets make this easy. Lets start with something simple like
where is the LRV sampler in this photo?



as a reminder, its the object in the right hand of Jack in this preceding photo:


edit on 25-2-2011 by FoosM because: spelling




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The tempest that has been raging in this teacup makes an excellent segue to my analysis of Jarrah White's "Moonfaker: Double Shot parts 1 & 2." The debate that has broken out over whether or not a photo that appears as NASA's "Astronomy Picture of the Day" graphic is intended as a canonical statement from NASA or is simply a routine PR release to remind people that NASA still has a pulse is very germane to understanding Jarrah's slight of hand in this series of propaganda videos. When examining sources, their provenance is extremely important, that is, it is necessary to know where the information originated and what its intent was. In the case of NASA's picture of the day, the intent was not to provide serious researchers with important data, but rather to get fifth graders to think: "Gee, science is cool... I want to be a scientist when I grow up!" NASA's copy writers are always very careful to attribute the source of their images, although they can sometimes make mistakes, as we shall see.

Jarrah begins the "Double Shots" series by repeating an earlier false statement so that, by familiarity, his hypnotized audience will accept it as a "fact." He alleges that "NASA sometimes re-uses images," and cites Ralph Rene's "Spacey Twins" as a supposedly proven example:


(Courtesy Jarrah White)

Here is the story behind this little bit of skulduggery as presented by an eminent hoax propagandist, "Dr." Stephen Rorke:


Dr. Stephen Rorke has provided the following text and photo to accompany his appearance on tonight's show:

Photo 1 is from the book "Carrying the Fire" by Astronaut Michael Collins. It shows Collins in a no-gravity test inside an airplane. Collins is practicing for a space walk inside an aircraft (flying a zero-g loop to temporarily eliminate gravity). Collins is seen holding the jet reaction propulsion rod in his right hand.

Another famous photograph has Collins holding the jet reaction propulsion rod with his left hand while outside his Gemini 10 capsule -- he is, according to Collins and NASA, out in space on a spacewalk in Photo 2. That photograph is NASA picture #66-40127. Photo 2 is also from "Carrying the Fire" and is allegedly of a Gemini 10 space walk.

Ralph René noticed the two photographs were essentially identical- save the fact it appeared the negative had been reversed for the 'space walk' shot and background features of the interior of the aircraft blacked out. René wondered why NASA would have to fake an image of a spacewalk? And, he thought, if the Gemini record of a spacewalk is in doubt, why shouldn't the moonwalks be held to the same scrutiny?

Coast-To-Coast, although this exact block of text is parroted endlessly on other sites.

Let's examine Rorke's statement in detail. The first paragraph is substantially correct. The photograph in question does appear in Michael Collins' book, and is appropriately captioned:


files.abovetopsecret.com...[/atsimg]]Larger version.
Scanned from "Carrying The Fire," by Michael Collins, trade paperback, 2009, ISBN 978-0-374-53194-2.
Note the caption: "The zero-G airplane- sickening!"

Now Rorke makes an interesting statement: "Another famous photograph has Collins holding the jet reaction propulsion rod with his left hand while outside his Gemini 10 capsule -- he is, according to Collins and NASA, out in space on a spacewalk in Photo 2. " If this is a "famous photo" it means you should have seen it before. Isn't that what "famous" means? When you think of famous space walk photos, the first one would certainly be:


(c) Time-Life

Is this the photo he's talking about? Certainly not, but perhaps the Life Magazine archive can produce a photo from the Gemini X mission that was widely circulated at the time, but has since been forgotten.
Life picture archives. Nope, nothing there. Must not be a very famous picture after all. Perhaps it is buried in the Nasa photo archives? Nothing there, either. In fact, there were no photos taken of Collins' space walk, nor has NASA ever claimed there were! In other words, his statement is a blatant lie. As Ralph Rene said, based no doubt on his personal experience, "The trouble with lying is that your lie changes slightly with each telling." We shall see this at work in this very episode.

In order to give his lie a polish of authenticity, Rorke continues: "That photograph is NASA picture #66-40127. Photo 2 is also from "Carrying the Fire" and is allegedly of a Gemini 10 space walk." The identification of the photo with an ID number makes it appear that one should be able to find it in the NASA archives. The problem is, #66-40127 is not a real NASA ID number. The photo in question is S66-40127:


Internet Archive

As you can see, this photograph is the original of the photo reproduced, slightly cropped ro fit the layout of the page. This is everything NASA has to say about it:



Astronaut Michael Collins, GT-10 spaceflight, undergoes zero-gravity weightlessness training aboard a KC-135 aircraft. The KC-135 flew a parabolic curve to create zero-gravity condition. WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, DAYTON, OH CN


Do you see any claim that this represents an actual space walk? No. Rorke's allegation is completely false. The original photo and its description are completely in agreement with the photo and caption in Collins' book. So where do these allegations come from? Ralph Rene, whose wisdom in lying we have already seen.


THE ZERO G AIRPLANE This photo in Carrying The Fire, a book written by Apollo Astronaut Michael Collins, was snapped by a professional NASA photographer as the plane flew an outside loop to temporarily eliminate gravity. The cabin is padded to protect the occupants from the inevi- table fall the instant the loop is terminated. Here, Collins, as he practices space walking, is holding the propulsion rod in his right hand. Note the similarity between this picture and the one on the adjoining page. Note also that the suit's wrinkles deny that it is inflated.


The GEMINI 10 SPACE WALK This picture was also extracted from Carrying The Fire and was allegedly taken during a space walk on the Gemini 10 mission exactly three years before his Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. NASA claims to have landed the first men on the Moon during this mission. He is shown holding a jet reaction propulsion rod with his left hand. On page 124 of Heroes In Space by Peter Bond, published in 1987, I discovered that Collins allegedly lost his camera on this space walk. That was a contrived excuse by NASA so they could turn a zero-g picture into one of a spacewalk so no one would ask why he wasn't carrying his camera.

[Edit for brevity-- DJW001]


THE SPACEY TWINS # 1 Following an obvious hunch I had negatives made of both previous pictures. Then I had another negative made of the first photo reduced in size and flopped over. Collins is now practicing with his left hand, the same hand he used in his alleged space walk. I then had the "Gemini 10" picture blown up until the figure of Collins was the same size as this one

[Photo deleted for brevity-- DJW001]


THE SPACEY TWINS # 2 I then rotated the blown-up photo clockwise until the propulsion rod made the same angle across the page on both pictures. Even the expression of his face is the same. Collins would have us believe that this picture was taken by a different person many months later. However, the negative of either picture placed over the print of the other produces a point to point coincidence until the binding line at the knee is reached. The missing area was re- moved when the photo was bound in his book. If I do the same to the original NASA picture #66-40127 (which took over 18 months to get from NASA), the point to point coincidence continues to the soles of his boots. Why did NASA feel it necessary to fake pictures and lie to us as early as July 1966?

NASA Mooned America

Now, where did Ralph Rene ever get the idea that NASA claimed that the second photo was taken on Gemini 10? He did a lot of work to show that the second picture was in fact a "flopped" version of the first, but he made no attempt to prove that NASA ever claimed that the photo was of an actual space walk. In fact, Rene made that part up. It was a lie.

Let's return to Rorke for a moment. Why didn't he do his "due diligence?" All he did was parrot Rene without bothering to check Rene's facts; indeed, he embellished them. Could it be that he knew it was all hogwash, but that his readers would be too lazy and gullible to investigate on their own?

In another video, Jarrah rushed to Rene's defense, and in so doing revealed just how superficial Rene's investigations were. The "smoking gun," the "proof" that NASA lied. is the cover art on the hardcover edition of Collins' book!



I ask you, does this look like it was ever intended to be documentation of anything? No. It is clearly the product of a graphic artist who wanted an eye catching cover. There was no representation that it was an actual mission photograph. In other words, NASA had nothing to do with this... and yet Rene somehow twists this into "NASA claims...."

This image is also reproduced as the endpapers to the book, and why not?



Again, there is no representation either by NASA or the publisher that this image was taken on Gemini 10. Let's get an impartial opinion on that:


The 'spacewalk' image has no caption.

Thanks, Exuberant1.

To summarize, Jarrah starts his video series by alluding to alleged "recycling" of images by NASA, when in fact the case in hand was no such thing. The primary sources are all in agreement: NASA photo S66-40127 is a picture of Michael Collins training in a "zero-G" airplane. That's what NASA says in its archives, that's what the caption says in the book. The hoax propagandists seized upon secondary sources (commercial illustrations) to create the impression that there was deception on NASA's part, Jarrah uses this slight of hand constantly during this video series; he seizes upon the product of a second or even third party, waves his hands and says: "NASA claims...."

Next up: how to prove a truth while maintaining a lie.
edit on 25-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to re-size photo.
edit on 25-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.
edit on 25-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you being intellectually honest DJ?
Did they use an automatic camera on the lunar surface DJ?
And now you want to argue that their camera could take a thousand photos in one second?
Are you really a photographer? Have you ever used a (D)SLR? Im starting to wonder.
Please cite where the Apollo cameras were capable of that feat.
And while you are at it, cite which modern cameras are capable of that feat.


I said I could argue. I didn't make that argument, I was pointing out the flaw in yours. If you cannot find documentation for the film advance speed, you are making a baseless argument. In fact, modern DSLRS are capable of taking high definition video, the Apollo cameras were not. Until you can provide a citation that gives an actual figure to work with, you have no argument. BTW, what do you think of my critique?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 


No Foosm..The pic was on the NASA site but listed as a composite..
I still think all NASA pics especially displayed as APODs should be real..
IMO it's decieving because kids go to the NASA site and believe everything they see..

CHRLZ called me a LIAR and said it didn't..

Now he has the link so I wonder what he has to say..


First up, I apologise unreservedly for the implication that you lied about it being ON a NASA site. I was in error. See, I can do it - why can't you, or JW?

And you'll note I haven't made a video about this..


I'm frankly puzzled (and a little annoyed!) that NASA has only the CROPPED version as the APOD, but then links to another uncropped one... I'll be sending a 'please explain' to them!

But anyway, let's now go back to your initial claims - here's what you said, bib...

I've personally seen quite a few pics on NASA's site that were obvious fakes..

And the only case you have shown has the image VERY CLEARLY labelled as a 'fake'. I'm failing to see the problem...


People trust that what is posted on NASA is real, yet many times they have posted images that are anything but real..

Yet you haven't been able to show even one that is MISdescribed, let alone deceptively described...


NASA never altered pics and put them on the NASA site with no explanation??

Nope, not in a way that was deceptive or deliberately misleading - the example you have shown most certainly does not fall into that category. Even scanning an image alters it, as does adjusting brightness, adding black/white space. And don't forget the Donald Duck principle... compositing a whole pile of unhelmeted astronauts onto the lunar surface for a poster probably doesn't need an explanation...


The pic on the NASA site where they photoshopped the appolo 8 moon rise pic in with a pic of astronauts..

It was a cgi version of that Apollo 17 EARTH rise pic... 'They' didn't photoshop it - It *WASN'T* NASA who created it.

Did *you* make some errors? Will *you* now apologise?


The NASA site did NOT tell the public it was a fake...

Sorry, but WHAT? That isn't a lie? Guess we have different definitions. I quote NASA:

...graphic artist Hana Gartstein (Haifa, Israel) offers this composite illustration...


Seems pretty clear to me..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Thank you for the apology..
But it's a little moot when you accuse me of lying again in the same post..
Call me wrong, call me stupid but call me a liar and you WILL get a response..
I have NO reason to lie to dots on a screen...
And that's ALL you are to me, actually you are a pathetic dot on a screen with these unfounded allegations..

Anyways, this bit..

And the only case you have shown has the image VERY CLEARLY labelled as a 'fake'. I'm failing to see the problem...


Now again I did NOT lie............
I explained how I got to the images through google search..

Please try it yourself..Go here,
www.google.com.au...

Click on the image in question..
It takes you to the NASA images site with NO explanation of the pic..
But It's an official NASA site so anyone merely browsing pics like I was would have NO reason to believe it was fake..
Why would I, NASA never lies....

How many people search images that way and are thus deceived by what they see??
The site is "NASAimages.org", not NASAfakes.org....
I'm not saying NASA do it on purpose but that is how I got to that pic..


I await your next apology but then you'll probably come up with some other unfounded crap.


Ohh, and hows our little math problem going??
edit on 25-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Are you being intellectually honest DJ?
Did they use an automatic camera on the lunar surface DJ?
And now you want to argue that their camera could take a thousand photos in one second?
Are you really a photographer? Have you ever used a (D)SLR? Im starting to wonder.
Please cite where the Apollo cameras were capable of that feat.
And while you are at it, cite which modern cameras are capable of that feat.


I said I could argue. I didn't make that argument, I was pointing out the flaw in yours. If you cannot find documentation for the film advance speed, you are making a baseless argument. In fact, modern DSLRS are capable of taking high definition video, the Apollo cameras were not. Until you can provide a citation that gives an actual figure to work with, you have no argument. BTW, what do you think of my critique?


Come on DJ, you guys are Apollo experts.
You guys already know what the speed is because you guys probably already
looked it up, or knew about it beforehand.

Instead of asking me what the speed was, why dont you tell me how long it took to take one photo? That is being intellectually honest. You guys should hold NASA to a higher standard when people discover anomalies in their record.

But ok, since you insisted that I look for this info...

this is what I found:



approx. 1 second I see there.



history.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Ah, good, then you agree that Ralph Rene is a liar, and Jarrah's quoting him undermines his credibility!



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Travlla

I'm not going buy into the moon landing debate,but,just because some people believe it was a hoax doesn't mean JW is whipping NASA,
,


The whipping part is the fact that he has been able to put together an impressive series of videos looking into many aspects of the moon landing that is attracting attention. His viewership is increasing, not decreasing.
Whether you believe in the conspiracy or not, JW is bringing the issue to people's attention on an increasing scale.



So as long as they believe it's a hoax,it doesn't matter that their opinion is based on flawed login and outright lies ?so much for denying ignorance eh,



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
... you are a pathetic dot on a screen with these unfounded allegations..

Nice. At least I research and investigate my claims a little more deeply, then explain my information, and even manage to apologise when I'm wrong...

Give those a try one day..


Anyways, this bit..

And the only case you have shown has the image VERY CLEARLY labelled as a 'fake'. I'm failing to see the problem...

Now again I did NOT lie............
I explained how I got to the images through google search..
Please try it yourself..Go here,
www.google.com.au...
Click on the image in question..
It takes you to the NASA images site with NO explanation of the pic..
But It's an official NASA site so anyone merely browsing pics like I was would have NO reason to believe it was fake..
Why would I, NASA never lies....
How many people search images that way and are thus deceived by what they see??
The site is "NASAimages.org", not NASAfakes.org....

Sigh. Do I really need to explain about search engnes and jpegs? (Nasaimages is a SEARCH ENGINE). Hopefully someone else may find this useful...

An image search engine finds jpegs, gifs and the like on the basis of your search query, and it tries to match that to whatever nearby text it finds ON THE PAGE IN WHICH IT IS PRESENTED. That page is NOT the link to the image. In this case, the page is this one - the APOD page WHERE THE IMAGE IS FULLY EXPLAINED, eg:

Illustration Credit & Copyright: Hana Gartstein
...For a moon-based observer's view, graphic artist Hana Gartstein (Haifa, Israel) offers this composite illustration.


OK so far? Pretty clear that it is 'graphic art'?

Now a search engine also realises that you are searching for the actual image file, so it shows you..? Yes, THE ACTUAL IMAGE FILE LINK. That is a link to a GIF or JPEG... Now, nobody, not even NASA, can have supporting text on a direct gif or jpeg link, unless the text is actually added to the image itself )- and if it is not their image (as in this case), they cannot legally do that - the image is copyright to Ms Gertstein).

So what does a REAL researcher need to do to get the provenance for an image...? The real researcher needs to find the actual page from which that image is linked. Because simply posting a link to a gif or jpeg CANNOT show them the supporting or explanatory text.

Do a Google Image search right now - is all the explanatory text showing for each image? No, of course it isn't - you need to first click on any image - do you see the text now? Probably not - you may have to scroll down on the linked page, or find the actual page that references the image file. It's NOT up to the search engine to do that for you.

This sort of stuff is pretty obvious really, and may I point out that it is how I found out who was the owner of the image, and that it was definitely CGI + composite. I certainly made an error in thinking that the version on the APOD page was the full image, and for that I have apologised.

But the point is that you, bib, claimed it was deceptively presented by NASA. It was NOT.

Your inability to find the page from which it came and then simply read the text, does not translate to deception, except perhaps by.. you.

So let me downgrade the 'problem' as much as I can - you simply didn't look very hard to find where the image came from, and then you inaccurately claimed that NASA used it to deceive.

It is notable that you claimed NASA had done this on many occasions, but that's the only example you came up with...


I'm not saying NASA do it on purpose


Good grief. So I guess there's the nearest we'll see to "I was wrong and I'm sorry.."? And previously bib said:

...I've personally seen quite a few pics on NASA's site that were obvious fakes..
...many times they have posted images that are anything but real..
...The NASA site did NOT tell the public it was a fake...

Oh yes they did. But bib doesn't want to call that a lie. Ok, anyone else have a suitable name for it? 'Biased error' perhaps?

Welcome to the Interweb, bib. There's a little more to 'investigation' than whatever it is you are currently doing..


you'll probably come up with some other unfounded crap.

I'll let others decide.

And do you think that sort of comment makes you look more credible?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I love it how Jarrah's honest beliefs freak some people out.

Me thinks they protest too much.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Mate I've already pointed out this thread is nothing but a back slapping star feast for you guys..
You get stars even when you are wrong and later apologies and get stars for that too..

I clearly showed how I got to that image and it WAS a NASA site..
That's it, my point was proven..

I did NOT lie despite what you claim..

I said call me stupid if you wish but don't call me a liar..
Now you say I'm just bad at researching but that's not what you said..
You said I lied...
Are you getting this CHRLZ???
I DO NOT LIE......

Now carry on with your long winded posts..Stars are awaiting....



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Ohh, and I'm still awaiting that little math problem you keep avoiding..

Don't be shy, say you were wrong..
Worst that will happen is that you will get a few more stars..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
I love it how Jarrah's honest beliefs freak some people out.

Me thinks they protest too much.



manmental, I'd just like to personally thank you for the incredibly insightful display of knowledge you have given here. Fact after fact, citations, information, arguments from an expert - you've got it all. I don't think there's anything you have missed....

Indeed, this last post has me gobsmacked. I am simply unable to present anything to refute your claims.

Thanks so much for your additions to the thread, it's all now worthwhile. In fact I think you have now convinced me that Jarrah really does believe what he has posted at his Youtube castle. Which is, of course, the most important thing.. Yes, I think he believes all of it, including all the proven-wrong stuff.

Which I think pretty much explains the whole situation...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by manmental
I love it how Jarrah's honest beliefs freak some people out.

Me thinks they protest too much.



manmental, I'd just like to personally thank you for the incredibly insightful display of knowledge you have given here. Fact after fact, citations, information, arguments from an expert - you've got it all. I don't think there's anything you have missed....

Indeed, this last post has me gobsmacked. I am simply unable to present anything to refute your claims.

Thanks so much for your additions to the thread, it's all now worthwhile. In fact I think you have now convinced me that Jarrah really does believe what he has posted at his Youtube castle. Which is, of course, the most important thing.. Yes, I think he believes all of it, including all the proven-wrong stuff.

Which I think pretty much explains the whole situation...


And I'd also like to thank you for that 2 minutes I'll never get back reading your reply..



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I am enjoying you trying desperately to discredit an honest individual who has strong beliefs and is willing to go to great lengths, both personal and financial, to defend those beliefs in the face of extreme vitriol based on what I can only think is some sort of warped jealousy.

He's no genius but he's far cleverer than you.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I love it how Jarrah's honest beliefs freak some people out.
Me thinks they protest too much.


What makes you think Jarrah's "beliefs" are honest? Do honest people deliberately lie? Jarrah does, that's a proven fact, or have you not read any of this thread? What makes you think anyone is freaked out by his cynical behavior?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



I am enjoying you trying desperately to discredit an honest individual who has strong beliefs and is willing to go to great lengths, both personal and financial, to defend those beliefs in the face of extreme vitriol based on what I can only think is some sort of warped jealousy.


Why would you enjoy watching an honest individual be discredited? Talk about warped....



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
 



I love it how Jarrah's honest beliefs freak some people out.
Me thinks they protest too much.


What makes you think Jarrah's "beliefs" are honest? Do honest people deliberately lie? Jarrah does, that's a proven fact, or have you not read any of this thread? What makes you think anyone is freaked out by his cynical behavior?


Well I've been outright called a liar in this thread more than once and I can honestly say I did NOT lie..
Not by you DJW but that's not the point..
Saying someone is lying seems like an easy way out in this thread..
It kinda P's me off to be honest...



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Prove that he has KNOWINGLY lied.

Jarrah has, time and time again, corrected and apologised for his HONEST errors of judgement which you call lies.

He has also corrected and apologised for his HONEST embellishments which you call lies.

He has also corrected and apologised for his HONEST grammatical and research errors which you call lies.

What you call lies most normal people call making errors. You fail to acknowledge Jarrah's many apologies for getting things wrong.

That's why he ain't no genius.

Now mister DJ... do think it's possible that NASA faked some of the lunar photos? (As opposed to going to the moon.)

edit on 26-2-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Prove that he has KNOWINGLY lied.

Done.


Jarrah has, time and time again, corrected and apologised for his HONEST errors of judgement which you call lies.


Provide an example. One would suffice.


He has also corrected and apologised for his HONEST embellishments which you call lies.


Again, one single example.


He has also corrected and apologised for his HONEST grammatical and research errors which you call lies.


Ditto.


What you call lies most normal people call making errors. You fail to acknowledge Jarrah's many apologies for getting things wrong.


Again, show me one.


That's why he ain't no genius.


I agree. His claim of having an IQ of 150 was not only pathetic, it was laughable.


Now mister DJ... do think it's possible that NASA faked some of the lunar photos? (As opposed to going to the moon.)


Possible, although far more expensive than actually going to the Moon.
edit on 27-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.
edit on 27-2-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 367  368  369    371  372  373 >>

log in

join