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: 453
377
<< 450  451  452    454  455  456 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
So then why are you concerned about the Spy Satellite example which only was an answer to your question of satellites not taking 70mm photography, than to my previous post showing that the USSR and US were taking high definition photos of the Earth prior to Apollo 8?


Could you define what "high definition" would be exactly? I've looked at the catalog of colour images from ATS-3. They look good, especially for 1960's tech, but I don't know if I'd call them "high definition"


You may not, but thats how they are being defined.
So it could very well be that you are not seeing the originals, correct?





How do you know that? I just said many images from satellites at that time are still classified.
You have no idea what they did back in the 60's and 70's during the Cold War.


And neither do you. I prefer not to speculate on what they could have / might have / possibly been able to do. I'd rather see some actual evidence.


Yeah I guess its convenient to ask for evidence, when we all know intelligence and military agencies tends to hold on to their secrets and programs for decades. But considering what we have had access to, publically or commercially, we can extrapolate what level they were playing with.






And even if they weren't capable of doing that.
Have you considered that full Earth photos could also have been stitched together from low flying satellites?


But that would mean it would have to be done way in advance. Which doesn't work. Again, the whole point of that thread was to show that the Apollo photos, which showed Earth and it's weather patterns, matched the meteorological images from satellites like ATS-3. The times and dates match up, some Apollo photos of Earth contain things like Hurricanes/Typhoons that were news worthy. Some Apollo photos of Earth that were taken over a span of time, show that the Earth is not static, but that it's rotating and that the weather was also dynamic.


Their main point is that because satellite images matches Apollo images that proves Apollo happened.


I personally wouldn't use the word "proves", but it's most definitely compelling evidence.


Are you saying that because two sets of images of Earth matches each other means that we sent men to the moon?


Like I said, it's really good evidence that we did.


Well you have a point about the time issue.
How could the astronauts take similar satellite pictures of the Earth, if they weren't up there at the same time?
I'll get to that a little later.





It was impossible to outfit a satellite with a 70mm camera and sent it do a high enough orbit to take photos? But of course, why do that when you had, for example, ATS weather satellites!


The ATS images are what the Apollo photos are being compared to. As well as the ESSA satellites.

Last I checked, non of those flew to, orbited or landed on the Moon.


There you lost me. What does orbiting the moon have to do with photos of the Earth?

Well ok, lets get to it.
Even on the forum, they had to admit the photos were similar, but not exact.
This means time could have passed. Now I expect with large cloud formations, storms, they generally change shape and positions slowly. This is how you can get similar photos, which are not exact, because there is a difference in time.

Now here is the kicker. All Apollo photography is suspect. Why? Because nobody got to see them till some time after the missions. Plenty of time for photo manipulation. Would you agree with that? In other words, the astronauts did not take polaroids of the Earth and presented them to a TV audience live.

The only strong evidence that one could possibly use is LIVE tv footage that showed the Earth. And then matching that image of Earth to satellite imagery. Do we have any examples of that?





Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is even admitted by the French filmmaker!! It was a joke!

You really fell for it, that hard?? Like....you thought it was real??


It never seizes to amaze me how many times I see people believing this is a real documentary.



Lets get into that. Analyze what is going on here. And why I ask the question, what part of the documentary was a lie?

The last scene that Weed wants to use as proof is meaningless.
I tell you why, many documentaries use scripts. As a a matter of fact, many documentaries use staging similar to film. People have this idea that documentaries are "what you see is what you get" like its live TV report. Many cases its not. Good example is wildlife documentaries. Much of it is staged.

So what part of the documentary is the mockumentary? Is it the last scene where we see the people asking how the scenes went, or the rest of the film where we get information that Stanley Kubrick was used to create the hoax? Think about it. Eyes Wide Shut.

The answer? Neither.

Lets look at how at least Wiki defines it:



A mockumentary (also known as mock documentary) is a type of film or television show in which fictitious events are presented in documentary format.


Fictitious events.
What events were fictitious in Dark Moon?
If the documentary was meant to expose the moon hoax then it, the moon hoax, could not be fictitious in the documentary. That is the point of the documentary, to expose a hoax.

It would be similar to doing a documentary on Vampires. The documentary provides proof via eyewitness testimony that vampires exist. That documentary would not be called a mockumentary. Its not making fun or mocking anything. Its investigating a myth to see if it actually is based on fact.


Therefore Dark Moon is not a mockumentary because it is investigating the validity that Kubrick was behind the moon hoax. All other events surrounding it, the people involved and who they say they were, are real. Everyone is being themselves. Nobody is lying about who they are. There was a moon program, there was director called Stanely Kubrick, and there is a conspiracy about the moonlanding as being a hoax.

This documentary was not a mockumentary. Its the wrong label.
It cannot be compared to Spinal Tap, Arrested Development, The Office, etc
They are examples of fiction filmed as they are fact, thereby making fun of real life.

A Mockumentary would be: Ted F. Johnson, a film director, is being accused of faking the photos and videos of a manned Mars mission back in 1980. Thats would be called a Mockumentary on the Apollo moon landing hoax.

Conclusion, this film, Dark Moon, use real people being themselves discussing real events. This was an investigative documentary exposing the moon landing as a hoax. It is not a Mockumentary.

Now whether or not the people who were interviewed lied about certain events is another issue. That does not make the documentary a mockumentary, it means that people lied. Just like they lie when being interviewed on TV. So I ask, who lied and what did they lie about?




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
It's amusing to watch DodgM scramble to explain how a parody of a documentary is factual, despite evidence from the people who made it.


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Hey FoosM here is some originally broadcast ABC footage of an ABC News sponsored event for the Apollo 11 moon landing.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

and pay special attention at about 1:00 in this video down in the bottom left there are some dudes making some interesting hand signals


Notice that ABC is using TV trickery to create this historical event. This ABC network broadcast INEXPLICABLY converts to a negative image at about 6:30. Hmmmmm. At about 7:20 in the video the negative image reverts back to regular image and there seems to be an actual editing splice at 7:29 in this video just before the NASA PAO says "That's the sample return containers..."

files.abovetopsecret.com...


YT: Dqlq1gzP5bw
I like how when the OS has a possible hole in it, it's evidence of a 'spiracy, no questions asked, yet directly false statements by HBs are to be rationalized and explained away.

I also like how you ignored my post with the link to Jarrah being proven wrong on something, and posted a bunch of "evidence" to try and get people to forget it. Standard tactics for you lot.

I have no doubt you'll ignore this one too, because it has a bunch of links you can't take out of context or edit out of the quote without looking dishonest. If I'm wrong, then please address the post in question.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Pure propaganda


yes it was , and ??

the nixon / oval office radio link had no scientific merit , or mission value

it was pure propaganda - no one has ever denied that

but it was an act of propaganda that happened , exactly as the archive material shows it

you may wish to actually look up and understand what propaganda is - because you seem confused

propaganda can be , and often is true - its the way it is presented and the importance ascribed to it that defins it as propaganda


I've read Jaques Ellul I know what propaganda is. Class dismissed.


Ouch


This thread is informative and entertaining!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063
It's amusing to watch DodgM scramble to explain how a parody of a documentary is factual, despite evidence from the people who made it.


Yeah well its amusing to watch how you dodge my posts

Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
I knew this thread would take care of itself.


Amen.


Pure propaganda




I just landed on a foreign body in space for all mankind... er... the US American-kind. And since Im not doing anything important right now, I think its a good time to gather around the US flag here planted in this moon dirt and be stoic. No tears, no smiles, suppress that feeling of being overwhelmed... focus on being stoic. And at the right moment salute the US flag. When that is done, I'll go look for some pet rocks. Rocks they marked with letters.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I've read Jaques Ellul I know what propaganda is. Class dismissed.


Then why are you so bad at it? Were you implying that the crowd celebrating on the ABC coverage were making secret hand signals? So, in addition to the 400,000 people who actually worked on the space program, there were thousands of extras hired by TV networks to "fake" celebrating? Tell me, Sayonara, who wasn't in on it?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

At about 9:20 in this video the Apollo 11 TV camera is being manually by Neil handled for the upcoming panorama sequence.



Wow... how can anybody sit there and say this looks real?
So much fakery going on there its a crime. LOL.

What Neil is like doing a pan with the camera and its like nothing changes.
The lighting looks the same. Did anybody notice any hills? Why didnt he point it up for us to see Earth?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??


That's not the point of this thread. It's about a young aussie "genius" that has been shown to be a liar. Got any proof that he's merely incompetent yet?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Yep, the entire rest of my post vanished. Weird.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by 000063
It's amusing to watch DodgM scramble to explain how a parody of a documentary is factual, despite evidence from the people who made it.


Yeah well its amusing to watch how you dodge my posts

Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??

1. No Soviet contradiction.
2. Radio telemetry from actual radio telescopes and hams around the world.
3. No whistle-blowers in 40 years, not even deathbed confessions.
4. Conspiracy would've taken a million or more men to cover up domestically, much less internationally.
5. They pulled this incredibly complex operation flawlessly or near-flawlessly off not once, but several times.
6. Somehow fooled scientists around the world for decades, even after technology marched on.
7. Moon rocks bought back to Earth in a greater amount than any known probe was capable of at the time.
8. People who were fooled by the hypothetical conspiracy include actual rocket scientists.
9. Conspiracy involved close to half-a-million people for 11 alone, which increases the risk of discovery to all but a certainty. No one sensible planning it would take that kind of risk in the first place, and they would have to be sensible if they pulled it off.
10. Jarrah's own source said that the radiation was more than survivable.
11. No vacuum chamber large enough existed, despite what that one James Bond movie said.

Now for your patented YouTube vidyas and "witticism" tactic, while ignoring the fact that Jarrah was wrong.


Originally posted by FoosM
I just landed on a foreign body in space for all mankind... er... the US American-kind. And since Im not doing anything important right now, I think its a good time to gather around the US flag here planted in this moon dirt and be stoic. No tears, no smiles, suppress that feeling of being overwhelmed... focus on being stoic.
Ah, yes, the old "too stoic" chestnut. These are men evaluated for psychological stability. What you might do in the situation might not be what they might, and assuming they would is demonstrative of the egotism demonstrated by many CTs.


And at the right moment salute the US flag.
Saluting a flag? Well, that's proof positive of a conspiracy.


When that is done, I'll go look for some pet rocks. Rocks they marked with letters.
Rocks with something over them that looks like a letter.

Hey, look, that's two qualifiers away from the truth. Amazing that these guys pulled all this off, yet somehow missed a plainly marked fake rock.
edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by FoosM
 


the only thing you have poked any holes in so far is your crebibility


What, you dont think I believe the moonlanding was staged anymore?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??


That's not the point of this thread. It's about a young aussie "genius" that has been shown to be a liar. Got any proof that he's merely incompetent yet?


No, its about a Young Aussie who is beating NASA and its Apollogists in the moon hoax debate.
Now you guys have to defend NASA and prove that they actually went. You guys cant seem to do it.

You have been given plenty of opportunity to do so. Radiation evidence, proving that the photos are genuine, etc etc.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??


That's not the point of this thread. It's about a young aussie "genius" that has been shown to be a liar. Got any proof that he's merely incompetent yet?


No, its about a Young Aussie who is beating NASA and its Apollogists in the moon hoax debate.
Now you guys have to defend NASA and prove that they actually went. You guys cant seem to do it.

You have been given plenty of opportunity to do so. Radiation evidence, proving that the photos are genuine, etc etc.
The source Jarrah misquoted (remember page 292!) says radiation was survivable. Van Allen himself said it was survivable. I think it was survivable.

Interestng that you suddenly start responding to people from a page back when I call you on your usual tactics.

12. Weather patterns in photos are consistent with those recorded on Earth at the time. Those are impossible to fake a priori. I'm not even sure it'd be possible to fake convincingly afterwards with 1969 tech.

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: ++

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +++

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: ++++



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Now you guys have to defend NASA and prove that they actually went. You guys cant seem to do it.


All you have done for the past two pages is post old videos and claim they look "fake." Fine. That still doesn't prove that Jarrah "Never Forget A Slight" White doesn't lie through his teeth. For the umpteenth time, I have no intention of proving that NASA or anyone else ever landed on the Moon. You are free to believe anything you want, so long as you acknowledge that it is not based on any fact or worldly experience. I simply try to explain things like gravity, photographic exposure, celestial mechanics, film making techniques, etc, in the hope that you will eventually be better educated than Jarrah. If you continue to believe that NASA built two identical sound stages, one with dust on the floor for still photos, the other with sand for film and video, because that's the only way Jarrah can wriggle out of the corner he painted himself in to, it will then be due to your willing suspension of disbelief.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
FoosM YouTube spam in 3...2...1...

EDIT: I love how he's stymied by the idea of arguing with actual evidence instead of just posting pictures and YouTube videos he only comprehends enough to know they're saying things he likes.

FoosM, you're going to admit Jarrah was wrong now, right?

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   



Originally posted by 000063

Yeah well its amusing to watch how you dodge my posts

Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??

1. No Soviet contradiction.


None that you know of.
plus, Apollo/Soyuz.
next.




2. Radio telemetry from actual radio telescopes and hams around the world.

Who are they and what did they record?





3. No whistle-blowers in 40 years, not even deathbed confessions.


Impossible to verify either way.
next.





4. Conspiracy would've taken a million or more men to cover up domestically, much less internationally.

How did you come up with those numbers? What did you base it on? What other conspiracies?
Next.




5. They pulled this incredibly complex operation flawlessly or near-flawlessly off not once, but several times.

What operation? Actually landing men on the moon? Well thats what is in question.

Or making photos and videos of landing men on the moon?
Filmmaking is complex, but lets not kid ourselves about it.




6. Somehow fooled scientists around the world for decades, even after technology marched on.

Whats new here? You think Scientists are beyond reproach?

You have scientists who believe in God and others who dont.
Who do you trust?

You have scientists who believe man is causing global warming and others who dont.
Who do you trust?

You have scientists who dont believe the official 911 story, and others who do
Who do you trust?

Listen, bring on your scientists, let them come here to defend and debate.
Who was that guy you admired? Brian Cocks?
Bring in those letters and degrees.
Get them to defend NASA and their Apollo missions.

And while you are at it, find me some peer reviewed articles proving the landing happened.





7. Moon rocks bought back to Earth in a greater amount than any known probe was capable of at the time.


Prove it with independent evidence.




8. People who were fooled by the hypothetical conspiracy include actual rocket scientists.


Prove it.





9. Conspiracy involved close to half-a-million people for 11 alone, which increases the risk of discovery to all but a certainty. No one sensible planning it would take that kind of risk in the first place, and they would have to be sensible if they pulled it off.


Again, I have no idea where you are pulling your numbers from.





10. Jarrah's own source said that the radiation was more than survivable.


Oh yeah? All the radiation that would be encountered? And how could you survive it?




11. No vacuum chamber large enough existed, despite what that one James Bond movie said.


Large enough for what? And what Bond film discussed vacuum chambers?



Now for your patented YouTube vidyas and "witticism" tactic, while ignoring the fact that Jarrah was wrong.



None of your questions or points are proof that a manned moon landing happened.
You wont win a debate against JW with that.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

At about 9:20 in this video the Apollo 11 TV camera is being manually by Neil handled for the upcoming panorama sequence.



Wow... how can anybody sit there and say this looks real?
So much fakery going on there its a crime. LOL.

What Neil is like doing a pan with the camera and its like nothing changes.
The lighting looks the same. Did anybody notice any hills? Why didnt he point it up for us to see Earth?


Nobody is going to be able to explain to you what things should look like on the moon because your understanding of such things, as this Ausie kid's understanding of things, is horribly lacking. What is the genius of not understanding of all of his elementary voids of knowledge akin to conspiracy circular logic? The kid is spending inordinate amounts of time making Youtube videos to display his ignorance largely because he can't get a real job in space agency. Its not rocket science to see why he's not working a real job. Its simply not worth the time to go one by one through his gaps applied physics to show where he's flawed.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



Originally posted by 000063

Yeah well its amusing to watch how you dodge my posts

Got any of that proof yet that men landed on the moon??

1. No Soviet contradiction.


None that you know of.
Argument from ignorance. The Soviets had every reason to expose the US for a pack of liars very publicly, if the landings were faked.


plus, Apollo/Soyuz.
next.
I don't understand your point.




2. Radio telemetry from actual radio telescopes and hams around the world.

Who are they and what did they record?
You're pretending they haven't been bought up a dozen times before.




3. No whistle-blowers in 40 years, not even deathbed confessions.

Impossible to verify either way.
next.
Argument from Ignorance again. Are you purporting all the potential whistleblowers were hushed up?




4. Conspiracy would've taken a million or more men to cover up domestically, much less internationally.

How did you come up with those numbers? What did you base it on? What other conspiracies?
Next.
There were 400,000 people in the space program. Public record. Making sure absolutely none of them found anything inciminating, or leaked anything, would require round the clock survaillance and monitoring of every possible communications medium. That type of monitoring would certainly take more than 2.5 agents per person. You ever seen those stakeouts on TV where two guys in a car watch a house? We're talking bugs on every possible phone the people could use, ever. And then you'd have to watch the guys watching the people, to make sure they didn't squeal.




5. They pulled this incredibly complex operation flawlessly or near-flawlessly off not once, but several times.

What operation? Actually landing men on the moon? Well thats what is in question.
No, the conspiracy.




6. Somehow fooled scientists around the world for decades, even after technology marched on.

Whats new here? You think Scientists are beyond reproach?
If thousands of scientists, verifying official results with their original research for over half a century, say something is true, I'd be pretty inclined to believe it. The conspiracy had to be so good it held up to technology that wasn't even invented yet.

Also, Argument from Ignorance. "It could be wrong" is not the same as "it is wrong".


You have scientists who believe in God and others who dont.
Who do you trust?
God isn't provable either way, really. Some skeptics take that as their reasoning for not believing in Him, and I can't really fault them for it.


You have scientists who believe man is causing global warming and others who dont.
Who do you trust?
The ones backed by evidence, logic, and research.


You have scientists who dont believe the official 911 story, and others who do
Who do you trust?
The ones backed by evidence, logic, and research. In other words, the official story. Not because I blindly trust scientists, but because I've done research myself.


And while you are at it, find me some peer reviewed articles proving the landing happened.
Moving the goalposts. There are a ton of reports confirming the results, and you know it. Jarrah's actually quoted a few.




7. Moon rocks bought back to Earth in a greater amount than any known probe was capable of at the time.
Prove it with independent evidence.
Soviets had probes, bought back small amounts of moon rocks. America claims to have proper ships, brings back big amounts that they will ship samples of to just about any scientific institution for independant testing. Both, IIRC, are public record.




8. People who were fooled by the hypothetical conspiracy include actual rocket scientists.

Prove it.
intjforum.com...
Would you like me to find actual papers, or are you just going to assume that all of the rocket scientists actually working in the program (and the Soviets) were either a)in on it b)suppressed, or c)somehow failed to notice anyting wrong? Or that there's been some sort of mass outcry of ignored rocket scientists claiming the moon landing was fake in the 50 years they've been examined and reexamined?




9. Conspiracy involved close to half-a-million people for 11 alone, which increases the risk of discovery to all but a certainty. No one sensible planning it would take that kind of risk in the first place, and they would have to be sensible if they pulled it off.
Again, I have no idea where you are pulling your numbers from.
There were 400,000 people on the Apollo 11 space program. A matter of public record.




10. Jarrah's own source said that the radiation was more than survivable.

Oh yeah? All the radiation that would be encountered? And how could you survive it?
By being in a spaceship with as little as a few millimeters of aluminium as its hull. Again, Jarrah's source, not mine. Page 292, second post by DJ.




11. No vacuum chamber large enough existed, despite what that one James Bond movie said.
Large enough for what?
Large enough to fake the moon landings. Specifically, a kilometers-wide chamber, where the astronauts would be able to drive kilometers into the distance, and dust would follow a parabolic effect without billowing, consistent with vacuum.


And what Bond film discussed vacuum chambers?
It didn't. It just had a "fake moon landing" sight gag. I'm not going into any more detail on this, except to say that it was only a few meters across, clearly meant as a joke. It ain't relevant, and I'll not have you dragging this off-topic. If you want to know the name, just Google.


None of your questions or points are proof that a manned moon landing happened.
You wont win a debate against JW with that.
He has this odd habit of never debating on a public forum, I've heard. Odd. You have produced no actual evidence to counter my claims, just asked me to prove it and speculated baselessly over and over. Conspiracy theorists rarely go look for evidence that might actually disprove their theory, prefering it to be spoon-fed to them so they might nitpick.

Also, the part where I linked to the post proving Jarrah was wrong seems to have vanished again. Weird.
edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by IllustronicIts simply not worth the time to go one by one through his gaps applied physics to show where he's flawed.


You don't have to.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Nobody is going to be able to explain to you what things should look like on the moon because your understanding of such things, as this Ausie kid's understanding of things, is horribly lacking.


On the one hand you say nobody will be able to explain it:
(Because no man has been on the moon)

On the other hand you say we lack understanding.
(as in we should know how these things should look like)

Well since you believe man has landed on the moon, and you know how this should look like,
explain why it looks so fake, or why the way it looks, looks right!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Illustronic

Nobody is going to be able to explain to you what things should look like on the moon because your understanding of such things, as this Ausie kid's understanding of things, is horribly lacking.


On the one hand you say nobody/ will be able to explain it:
(Because no man has been on the moon)
Affirming the consequent.


On the other hand you say we lack understanding.
(as in we should know how these things should look like)
Scientists have confirmed it. Repeatedly. Expecting Joe Citizen to know what it "should" look like is a recipe for disaster. For example, Christopher Columbus knew the world was round. A lot of people did. Napoleon wasn't particularly short for his day. The Salem Witch Trials never burned anyone at the stake. A lot of popular conceptions about how things "should" be are just plain wrong.


Well since you believe man has landed on the moon, and you know how this should look like,
explain why it looks so fake, or why the way it looks, looks right!
Here's a new tactic; explain what scientists have confirmed that it looks "wrong", or that the facts are incorrect. Scientists in the field of study in question, that is. No linking to Jarrah videos. I want you to find something yourself.
edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: +

edit on 2011/5/13 by 000063 because: Stupid confusing tags.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 450  451  452    454  455  456 >>

log in

join