It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 42
377
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


I thought I already educated you on this issue.

Anyways...
I'd like to see these alleged History books that list Russia as first in everything. What are the titles, and who published these books?

TIMELINE OF SPACE EXPLORATION:
en.wikipedia.org...

So where's the part where Russia is first at everything?

reply to post by FoosM
 



Originally posted by FoosM
Furthermore, repeating the mantra that I have not answered your questions ain't fooling anybody. A useless ploy. That goes for all you attention seekers asking for me to answer silly questions you can look up answers for yourself. If you lack the imagination or the research skills to do the work yourself, so sad too bad.


Attention seeker?
You are the one making spectacular claims, and the hiding your sources to obfuscate your fraudulence. You're the one who refuses to explain your actions. Especially when you've been caught red-handed.

Why did you quote MOONMOVIE.com affiliated with Jarrah White, and then hide the source by failing to link it?

PROOF:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This may prove that you are a shill for Jarrah White, or one of the people listed as affiliated with this sight. Heck, you might even be Jarrah White himself.

Why did you quote NASA information, to prove your point. And then purposely delete the sentence which proves it came from NASA?

PROOF:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This conclusively proves, that you are a hypocrite. Calling NASA a fraud, but using their own information to prove your point.

You've consistently cowered away from me and my questions Ever since I caught you using Jarrah White's own website as your source.

reply to post by talisman
 


Feel free to prove these edits, by finding the original source and pointing out the edited parts.

reply to post by dragnet53
 



Originally posted by dragnet53
huh what manner and how was my post off-topic?? But hey we were talking about Russians and how they were also trying to get to the moon as well. I added my opinion to the subject that we are speaking. But I guess some people just can't take the truth in some things.


I didn't report you.
You got modded all by yourself, through your own actions.

However, just so everyone is clear on what happened. Accusing someone of "blowing wind" like you did. And doing it with a one-liner, is not on-topic.

reply to post by FoosM
 


I'm going to need sources for this currently, non-credible information.

Anyways, this is an obvious attempt to hijack the thread. You are trying to derail it into a "Von Braun was XXXXXX" thread.

Why don't you stay on topic and explain your sources instead of making irrelevant claims?

Or better still, why don't you explain how anything about Von Braun, proves the Moon landings never happened?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of 'trolling'...

What exactly constitues trolling on ATS?

Perfectly described, in the thread that post is referenced.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



No you dont, otherwise you would go investigate for yourself, unless you dont believe that targeting and killing people with V2 rockets would be considered a war crime.


Once again I ask, when did WVB participate in the military targeting of the V2?




Oh Im sorry, is that distinction so important for you?


The truth? Uh, yea.




Doesnt matter, you are obviously having a hard time to see the big picture.
Lets continue this lesson in "whup ass and name taking"


"(W)hup ass"?! Good God, how old are you?

And there isn't a single thing in that quote (BTW you need to source your quotes so we can see where you get them, it's common courtesy) that backs up your claims he was a war criminal or participated in the targeting of civilians.

But you DID, however forget to include this, from the same article (no wonder you didn't give a link to the source.):



But scrutiny from journalists and scholars intensified in 1984 after one of von Braun's top men, Arthur Rudolph, left the United States and renounced his citizenship rather than face being tried for war crimes. The Department of Justice determined he was culpable for the condition of slave laborers at Mittelwerk; Rudolph, who died in Germany, said the S.S. was responsible, not him.


So when actual information came out that a German rocket scientist working in the US for the Government may have been a "war criminal", they did pursue him. Now if everything you allege is true, how can that be?



Get it now? He got a pass because he was more valuable alive than dead.
I dont know how much more one has to spell it for you. You just hate to lose arguments so you try to argue on silly points.
Lets go deeper...


For Christ's sake, you're quoting Wikipedia like you've just decoded the Rosetta Stone.

Yes, he was much more valuable to the US Space Program dead than alive. And they most certainly did cut corners to get him safely into the country.

But you STILL, after all your anonymous cut-and-paste and grade school bluster have yet to show he was a real war criminal and participated in the targeting of civilians.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 


Sooo... let me get this straight. Hitler destroyed the props for "Frau im Mond" because they would prove that the V-2 was just a special effect?
Furthermore, the US looked the other way about von Braun's past, even though they knew he couldn't deliver the goods?
Isn't it just possible that they gave him a pass because he actually knew how to build rockets? And if von Braun was just a Disney Imagineer, why did the actual Apollo program look so different than all the beautiful drawings and models that he did for the TV series... which was based on papers he had published earlier?



Of course Werner knew how to build rockets.
Nobody disputes that.
Thats why the US used him to build rockets.
But not for space... for the military.

Here is a little secret about why NASA was created, because as you know, most if not all space related activities prior to NASA was under the War Department.
But what issue do most idealistic scientists have?
Thats right, they don't like using their brilliant minds to create weapons to kill people.

Especially not after Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Anyway...



On December 30, James Killian wrote a memorandum to Eisenhower in which he noted that many scientists held "deeply felt convictions" opposing Defense Department control of the space program because they felt it would limit space research strictly to military objectives and would tar all U.S. space activity as military in nature. He then offered some organizational alternatives for space that he believed would provide "the means for non-military basic space research while at the same time taking advantage of the immense resources of the military missile and recon satellite programs." Killian proposed a Defense Department operated "central space laboratory with a very broad charter," which he likened to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He wrote that the administration might also "encourage NACA to extend its space research and provide it with the necessary funds to do so


And nobody said that von B was JUST a Disney Imagineer, he used Disney to get the masses behind the idea of man in space, on the moon, and on mars. It was psychological programming.

Secondly, anyone can tell you, once you go into production, some designs change. Due to budget constraints, artistic reasons and other practical issues. Go look up early Star Wars concepts and see how different they are visually from the final product. But what is important is that the core concept remains. This is what happens when you work with other people. And with Apollo, they had to work with thousands.

And that is what is so remarkable about the 1929 production and the 1969 production how similar they are after 40 years. One could say, its a remake


And I must say, the special FX for the 1929 movie is pretty astonishing for the time. And people think they couldnt fake it. Lol.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
And remember everyone, Werner Von Braun was such an integral part of Apollo, the head of everything, the puppetmaster, etc., that when it came time to decide exactly how they would get to the moon, Von Braun decreed that it would be the Earth orbit rendezvous technique.

NASA promptly adopted the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.

Oooops.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Anyway...



On December 30, James Killian wrote a memorandum to Eisenhower in which he noted that many scientists held "deeply felt convictions" opposing Defense Department control of the space program because they felt it would limit space research strictly to military objectives and would tar all U.S. space activity as military in nature.




Really? Are we back to this again?

Okay, here's the part I say something clever and then prove you're using a source that proves your hypocrisy.

SOURCE OF FoosM's QUOTE:
history.nasa.gov...

SECOND SOURCE, ALSO NASA:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Yes, that's right folks for the eleventy billionth time. FoosM has proved that he is a hypocrite.

He decries NASA as the grand liars, who tricked a world into believing in the Moon landings. Yet, here he is using NASA's own websites.

So which is it FoosM?
Is NASA an organization full of fraudulent Nazi liars?
Or is it a credible source of reliable information?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
In response to TOMBLVD

Once again I ask, when did WVB participate in the military targeting of the V2?
-----
Moving goalposts are we?


The truth? Uh, yea.
------
You dont have to have gone to Nuremberg to be called a War Criminal.



War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"


So if your running a base with slave labor, guess what, your a War Criminal.

Again incase you missed it the first time:


An estimated 20,000 inmates at the Mittelbau-Dora plant died constructing V-2s. Of these, 9,000 died from exhaustion and collapse, 350 were hanged (including 200 executed for acts of sabotage) and the remainder were either shot or died from disease or starvation.


And there isn't a single thing in that quote that backs up your claims he was a war criminal or participated in the targeting of civilians.
But you DID, however forget to include this, from the same article (no wonder you didn't give a link to the source.):



But scrutiny from journalists and scholars intensified in 1984 after one of von Braun's top men, Arthur Rudolph, left the United States and renounced his citizenship rather than face being tried for war crimes. The Department of Justice determined he was culpable for the condition of slave laborers at Mittelwerk; Rudolph, who died in Germany, said the S.S. was responsible, not him.


Thats alright baby, because I got something for ya



In a late reaction, former prisoners of Dora living in the USA protested against the nationalistic euphoria regarding the successful NASA space program. Due to that success, criticism regarding the 'dirty past' of the rockets and their designers had been pushed into the background. In the Dutch press critical articles were published. More and more evidence piled up and the anti- feelings were very strong. In 1977 Wernher von Braun died of cancer and consequently escaped to stand trial for his war crimes. Rudolph, the former production leader in Dora, was forced to leave the USA in order to escape judicial prosecution. His citizenship was thereby revoked


BAM!

The US Justice Department would've investigated the father of the Apollo program Werner von Braun for war crimes had he lived after 1979.


So when actual information came out that a German rocket scientist working in the US for the Government may have been a "war criminal", they did pursue him. Now if everything you allege is true, how can that be?
----
How that can be is because they were too late for von Braun baby.
But you would have known that if you would have bothered to go to the library and pick up a book, or bothered to watch the documentary that I so easily handed to you in your lap. You fear facts that dont support your world view.

Yes, he was much more valuable to the US Space Program dead than alive. And they most certainly did cut corners to get him safely into the country.
But you STILL, after all your anonymous cut-and-paste and grade school bluster have yet to show he was a real war criminal and participated in the targeting of civilians.
---
Oh I have done so in spades brotha-man



In September 1946 Colonel Holger N. Toftoy, head of the US Army Rocket Development Division... ‘By using German V2 missiles …… our designers will save years of research and millions of dollars. We profit by the 12 years of intensive German research and gain practical knowledge of what not to do as well as what to do in developing the weapons which are revolutionizing the art of war"

If you want to stick up for murdering scumbags thats demons you have to live with.
Im done with bum.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Have you contacted Jarrah White to find an answer to your question?

Or do you think posting it on a thread somewhere on an internet forum where Jarrah White is not a member will make up for actually contacting him?

The man was clearly alive when he was interviewed and that interview is in MoonFaker Exhibit D - which you apparently did not watch.


[edit on 9-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


I don't think there's a better way possible to show your intellectual laziness than with this incident. As soon as you posted that quote, I looked up Frank Byrne, and immediately found his decade old obit. Of course, that throws up many red flags as far as the provenance of the quote. I knew you didn't know nor didn't care where the quote came from, as long as you could use it as a club to beat out your hoax theories. Well, just like max2m and his brilliant treatise on gravity fields, you have shown your stripes. Nice job.

BTW, do you believe the late Frank Byrne?


It would be good if Exuberant1 learnt a lesson from this incident, where he has clearly and deliberately misled the forum. This shows the depth of deception that Apollo deniers will descend to. 'Quoting' biased sources and not checking the provenance of something is bad enough, but even if such a quote did exist, the complete lack of context and his continued refusal to properly research and debate the issue, reveals the agenda of Exuberant1. He has posted this MANY times as 'truth', after being asked long ago to cite it - he simply ignored that request.

Anyone care to guess if he will now apologise, or go and annotate his previous posts to acknowledge that the only place this quote can be found, is JW? Of course he won't.

And there you have the Apollo denier's modus operandi.

The word BUSTED isn't enough... But I thank you, Exuberant1, for showing your true colours.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Yes, I know, but I didn't want to water down the impact of my rhetoric!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman

Originally posted by FoosM
Anyway...



On December 30, James Killian wrote a memorandum to Eisenhower in which he noted that many scientists held "deeply felt convictions" opposing Defense Department control of the space program because they felt it would limit space research strictly to military objectives and would tar all U.S. space activity as military in nature.




Really? Are we back to this again?

Okay, here's the part I say something clever and then prove you're using a source that proves your hypocrisy.

SOURCE OF FoosM's QUOTE:
history.nasa.gov...

SECOND SOURCE, ALSO NASA:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Yes, that's right folks for the eleventy billionth time. FoosM has proved that he is a hypocrite.

He decries NASA as the grand liars, who tricked a world into believing in the Moon landings. Yet, here he is using NASA's own websites.

So which is it FoosM?
Is NASA an organization full of fraudulent Nazi liars?
Or is it a credible source of reliable information?



Your turn Byteman

To answer your question
Its both.

And the problem that I have is, you know it.
Fact: NAZIs were enlisted into NASA
Fact: NASA has within its personnel plenty of decent
honest scientists doing their job.

And I know you know this. You and many of your ilk just play dumb as a tactic. Like George Bush and his Clan regarding the missing Weapons of Mass destruction... "who knew..." right?

I dont see how you can be on this website, and debate about Apollo, when it has been said over and over and over again:

Compartmentalization


In matters concerning intelligence, whether public or private sector, compartmentalization is the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.
The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank.


and

Need to know


The term "need to know", when used by government and other organizations (particularly those related to the military or espionage), describes the restriction of data which is considered very sensitive. Under need-to-know restrictions, even if one has all the necessary official approvals to access certain information, one would not be given access to such information, or read into a clandestine operation, unless one has a specific need to know; that is, access to the information must be necessary for the conduct of one's official duties...

The Battle of Normandy in 1944 is an example of a need-to-know restriction. Though thousands of military personnel were involved in planning the invasion, only a small number of them knew the entire scope of the operation; the rest were only informed of data needed to complete a small part of the plan.


But let me enumerate the reasons why I might use NASA as a source:

1. Apollonutters find NASA credible. So I contradict their own concepts of the Apollo program with NASA itself. Sure, sometimes I use other sources like J.W. and Moonmovies, but I find they relish in escaping debates by attacking the messenger.
Messengers who they (Apollonutters) usually find not credible, regardless of their credibility or the evidence they offer.

2. Sometimes NASA happens to the be only source. Well they are the only ones who have claimed to land men on the moon right? So, I have to use their own findings, statements, etc to debate their own finding, statements etc.

So now you can stop spamming this thread with the same requests.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
In response to TOMBLVD

Once again I ask, when did WVB participate in the military targeting of the V2?
-----
Moving goalposts are we?


In your post at 11:29 AM today you said this:


No you dont, otherwise you would go investigate for yourself, unless you dont believe that targeting and killing people with V2 rockets would be considered a war crime.


To which at 11:45 AM I responded:



Can you give any evidence he was responsible for the actual choosing of targets for the V2?


So I haven't moved any goalpost, just responded almost word for word to your allegation, which you still have not substantiated.

You brought targeting up long ago, I'm just awaiting your proof.

Once again Foos is caught in a lie.




So if your running a base with slave labor, guess what, your a War Criminal.

Again incase you missed it the first time:


An estimated 20,000 inmates at the Mittelbau-Dora plant died constructing V-2s. Of these, 9,000 died from exhaustion and collapse, 350 were hanged (including 200 executed for acts of sabotage) and the remainder were either shot or died from disease or starvation.


Oh, now you have him not only picking out military targets for the V2, but running the slave labor camps as well. Quite a busy guy.






BAM!


Great, we have a 12 year old Emeril Lagasse pretending to debate the moon hoax.



The US Justice Department would've investigated the father of the Apollo program Werner von Braun for war crimes had he lived after 1979.


And as I pointed out earlier, when he decided as the FATHER OF THE APOLLO PROGAM!!1!! that Apollo, which he was, of course, the FATHER of, would use Earth Orbit Rendezvous as the technique to get to the moon (you know, the actual reason for its existence), he was told to take a hike.

Yep, old Werner, the most important man EVAH! at NASA.
.




Oh I have done so in spades brotha-man



How old are you?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 

I agree with your reply here. I have also been reading this for entertainment value as the proof and real science is being argued/presented from only one side showing that we did go to the Moon and men did walk on the Moon. There is really no challenge in this discussion because only one side is actually offering evidence of real science and logical explanations.

I realize that there are a lot of very ignorant people running around but with some of the replies here in favor of a Moon HOAX is just too much. I really do not believe that these few members are actually that stupid, at least I hope they are not, so the only conclusion is that they are intentionally attempting to deceive us. The type of debate tactics that a few of the members here are using will show an observant reader one thing for sure, a deliberate attempt to confuse.

There have been many times I wanted to reply to some of the more blatant false or ignorant claims but there is no need because all of these have been well addressed. The bottom line is this, and a good debater will know this, the discussion (debate or argument if you prefer) is one that cannot be proven as fact. In other words there is no such thing as historical fact.

Even if we were to go to the Moon ourselves and physically look at the lander equipment one could then claim that these items were recently planted there as a continuing element of this supposed HOAX. What we have here is a thread that from the start is looking for proof of a negative and requiring any deniers of this false logic to "prove" what cannot be proven as fact.

My point of observation is this;

  • Chances are you will not find what you are not looking for.
  • If you are looking for 'proof' that we did not go to the Moon then you are looking for what cannot be found, proof for a negative.
  • Looking for positive proof in favor of a theory or claim is the only constructive means of research.
  • Therefore the only constructive means of debating is also looking for positive proof in favor of a theory.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
First of all, I fail to see how von Braun's political history has anything to do with the materiality of the lunar landing program. If Korolev defected they would have used him, too. The "war criminal" angle is a deliberate attempt to derail the thread. Period.

Secondly, von Braun himself makes no secret of his talent for self promotion. He was all too happy to take advantage of Disney to achieve his stated goal, the exploration of space. It doesn't make him a fraud, just a very canny technocrat. Again, just because Disney helped von Braun persuade Washington to open the purse strings in no way means that the moon landing didn't happen. Yet another attempt to derail the thread. Period.

You are showing your age, because von Braun was extremely controversial at the time. Satirists of the day would say things about him like: "I aimed for the stars, but hit London."

You still haven't explained the logistics of faking the launch, making the craft vanish from orbit, synching all the SFX in real time, etc. I just spent two days doing a one minute long traffic safety spot. I shudder to think of how complicated it must have been to co-ordinate 178 consecutive hours of live television with a cast and crew that is in the dark that it isn't real.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
BTW, thanks to ka9q at Apollo Hoax, we now have a reasonable answer to Gene Cernan's statement that not shutting off the LM's engines prior to touchdown may have caused a crater deep enough to damage the LM.

It seems that when they redesigned the LM for the J-series missions, one of the changes was to lenghten the descent engine nozzle extension to allow for more thrust given that the later missions were much heavier.



J-SERIES MODIFICATIONS
Descent Stage: Increased supplies of oxygen and water; extended electrical life. Quad 1 re-arranged to permit stowage of folded Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). Quad 4 - new 50 kg water tank, waste container and additional oxygen pressure tank and gaseous oxygen module replaces Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). A re-designed MESA is fitted outside Quad 4, includes tool pallet, sample containers, batteries for personnel life support systems, and cosmic ray detector. Four descent engine propellant tanks lengthened by 8.6 cm providing 521.5 kg extra fuel and oxidizer. Descent engine burned for longer period; combustion chamber modified to reduce erosion; expansion skirt modified.


So with a hard landing that could have over-compressed the landing gear, and uneven ground, along with an extended shroud, the shroud could have come close to the surface, causing an explosion.

Cernan's response is still, IMO, well-deserved exaggeration, but this new information makes it much more understandable.

Thanks again to my "boys" at Apollo Hoax.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


You still haven't explained the logistics of faking the launch, making the craft vanish from orbit, synching all the SFX in real time, etc. I just spent two days doing a one minute long traffic safety spot. I shudder to think of how complicated it must have been to co-ordinate 178 consecutive hours of live television with a cast and crew that is in the dark that it isn't real.


If I may say.....

BAM!!!

Anyway, let's not forget the Ham radio operators. Foos ridiculed the idea and then when he had it shoved down his throat, he promptly forgot all about it:


Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



And regarding the whole HAM and Satellite issue,
no im not taking it back, why?
What's is it so hard to fake?


On the way out and back, there is a moving spot in space you have to aim at. You know where becasue NASA published the trajectory information ahead of the launch. In addition, as has been shown, some amateur astronomers have pictures of separations, burns, water dumps, etc. exactly where NASA said the spacecraft should be.



Show me!

Considering:



The USB system used with 85-foor antennas will provide the ONLY means of tracking and communications at lunar distances.


So tell me, no show me, link it, quote it, which HAM operators tracked Apollo near or on the moon? And how did they do it? And what did they claim they heard or saw?




Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions

Tracking Apollo 17 From Florida

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.

Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle Jr. received voice transmissions from the Command Service Module in lunar orbit on the morning of August 1, 1971. In an article for QST magazine they provide a detailed description of their work, with photographs.

Bochum Sternwarte in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the TV downlink from Apollo 16. The extrapolated TV signal was converted to black and white PAL and was recorded onto 2" videotape via 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).



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I can't believe this thread is still going, .... what is there to debate ??

Anyone who is arguing against the moon landing is also arguing for their lack of intelligence.

Their prolly either 14 year old sensationalists, or they've recently had the internet installed in mental institutions.

it's ludicrous, all of the evidence presented in this thread is biased and flawed.

I can understand having different views on religion and politics, but to argue against stone cold scientific and historic fact boggles my mind.

its one thing to have an open mind, ... but its obvious that some members are so open their brains are spilling out.

this thread is riddled with brain matter, and ensuing lack thereof.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst


I can't believe this thread is still going, .... what is there to debate ??



I do it for a few reasons.

1. It beats kicking the dog, and is easier.

2. You almost always learn something, no matter how long it takes. Some of the changes to the LM on the J series missions were new to me.

3. You are able to keep a lot of misinformation from becoming too widespread.

4. You almost always come across one of those all-time great posts like the max2m gravity post where he just cannot believe I would think two objects of different weights would fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That's Hall of Fame stupid material right there.

5. This is about the only place I can actually answer an HB before JayUtah. ;-)



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

You still haven't explained the logistics of faking the launch, making the craft vanish from orbit, synching all the SFX in real time, etc. I just spent two days doing a one minute long traffic safety spot. I shudder to think of how complicated it must have been to co-ordinate 178 consecutive hours of live television with a cast and crew that is in the dark that it isn't real.


Again, use your imagination.
Who says it was live?

God this is too easy people.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join