Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I'm having fun, Dayseed. No hard feelings I hope.

I think that the moon landings were real by the way. I've seen both sides of the issue. Again, I didn't mean to be so pompous in my riposte.

With regards to the 'C', if the picture was a fake, don't you think SOMEBODY would notice on the set? There would be what, 20-30 people around and not one of them noticed and said 'Hey lets turn rock C around'? I find that incredibly difficult to believe

Also, there is the infamous 'Face of Mars', that when viewed from a certain angle looks like a face. There have been many stories about how it was created (mostly involving advanced civilizations) but it is just rock, nothing at all is special about it. When looked at from different angles, it does not resemble a face at all. What does this tell us? That those who want to believe will believe, and those who don't, won't. It is a matter of perception, if you percieve that it is the letter C used to mark a prop, then that's what it is. If see it as an altered image, then that's what it is. If you percieve that it is just an odd coincidence that the surface of a rock on the moon bears a striking resembalance to our letter C, then that'swhat it is.

Dgthe3,

The whole point of the "C" rock is that the original photograph doesn't bear the mark. It's a copying error that hoax-believers have trumped up again and again and again and again as evidence to support their argument.

In that case, i take back most of what i said, but you still get the idea. I never knew that it was a copying error for sure, i have never seen the original but i will take your word on this one Dayseed

New evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm surprised Mario hasn't come on yet claiming the drawing is evidence of a conspiracy because the Alien doesn't cast as dark a shadow as the Astronaut.

I think the shadow's intensities are the same, but they are clearly at different angles

Hey I'm back, I was off for a few days.

Seed... I will start by - You missed the boat body...

For the last time... I didn't claimed that the moon landing was fake, I talk about the one picture, which put some doubts on that moon landing. Plus it takes two to tango... I did bring some arguments , but you didn't contribute much except for the insults and a lot of fist pounding. Speaking of insults... I didn't call other idiots... I said YOUR an idiot. Just so your clear on that. Now for the fourth times ....... that "C"... I did say that it was a fake. I don't know were you got your wires crossed three times... Take those blinders of your narrow head. I think that might qualifiy for insanity... the ability to repeat the same mistake without learning from it.... or something like that.

Till next time... looking forward to read one of your non-sense novels.

Mario,

Look at the sheer volume of photographic, historical and astrophysical knowledge in my posts refuting you at each and every turn. I didn't bring much? You brought aped photographs from others, inane ramblings and showed yourself to be just about the biggest jackass on this or any other site on the internet with your "Were you there?" historiographical analysis of Soviet foreign policy. Couple all of that to your faulty third-grade "Balki Bartokamous" English skills and you've got a human mess lurching and heaving linguistic filth all over this site.

I have to rinse my monitor with bleach after viewing one of your posts, lest the wires encrust, ray-tubes erode and screen crack. I keep a copy of Robertson Davies' The Manticore by my computer in the unfortunate case I gaze too long at one of your posts and need an antidote to the profound stupidity squeezed from your ignorant teat.

New Coke, the Ford Edsel and Beta-tapes combined don't equal the colossal failure of vision you demonstrate with but one keystroke. You have yet to demonstrate proof of ANY of your theories and you retreat to the intellectually fraudulent and morally devoid stance of, "I was just saying it could be 'possible'" when you have your ass handed to you. You questioned the historical record and you failed.

Anything else?

Mario,

Firstly, you are a truly wonderful poster. You take a smashing in the face and then you serve up even more softies to have smashed into you already bloodied face.

1. I don't have to introduce ANY pictures dummy! You claimed you had evidence of a conspiracy and you presented it in the form of a photograph. I needn't follow your lead, unless you're willing to admit your Balki Bartokamous English skills have failed you....again.

2. I'm all agog to hear your interpetation of historical knowledge as fist pounding. Since your gnattish little brain clued in on the "quote" function, you can surely produce quotes that I have written to back up your claim.

3. Again, YOUR "VOTE" isn't needed to authenticate the moon landings. They happened independently of you. Remember when you royally fucked up by insinuating the Soviets were complicit in the conspiracy because neither of us were present? It's the same thing here. Vote against it. Who cares? Your small voice for or against is drowned out in the large tide of factual objectivity. Translation for Balki: You don't matter.

4. Wow! Mario introduced SOMEBODY ELSE'S PICTURE!! Yippee! I'm so very, very hurt that you found a generic picture of someone ELSE'S lame joke and aped it. Did you go to your 'Well-o-insults' only to find it had run dry? And what an insult too! "You suck." Oh no! If you're going to stoop to plaigarizing somebody else's humour, pick something mildly funny.

5. Lastly, if you're going to spend the majority of your Balki Bartokamous English skills trying to raise a point that insulting someone else is weak or beneath you, DON'T FINISH OFF YOUR POST WITH AN INSULT. Dang buddy, your provincial health care is there so you can get surgery if that's what it takes to get your head out of your ass.

'Till then, I'll expect more weak sauce from you. And remember, you have yet to explain in your "possible conspiracy theory" why the Soviets were complicit! Ta-ta!

Hey seed...

I see some improvements in your posts.... not mentioning the "C". Glad to see that you finally clued in. Maybe you are just a mildly insane.

For the rest of the argument, he'll just drop it. I am just wasting my time. Your last post was only fist pounding and insulting.. Its like I said (over and over); I never claimed to have the answer, just some doubts.

On a last note... your right, I shouldn't bring myself to your level. I appoligize for insulting. you. And for the Soviets... I won't waste my time there too. You will probably only get parts of it and twist it around. Plus it was before your time. I am just sorry I didn't recognize your background level until now.

Have a nice day.

Steve walks merrily down the street,
Brim pulled way down low,
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet,
Machine guns ready to go,

Are you listenin' hey?
Are you ready for this?
Are you sittin' on the edge of your seat?
Out of the doorway the bullets rip,
Rippin' to the sound of the beat,

And another one bites the dust

Folks, what we have hear is a moron capitulating using poor English. Balki never actually claimed man didn't go to the moon, just that HE had some doubts. And if Balki doubts it, then in his gnattish brain, so too should you.

However, let's see the deficiencies resident in a moron's farewell speech, shall we?

1. The first paragraph. He sees some improvement? How would Balki recognize improvement? I am A mildly insane? Mildly insane what? Uh-oh, Balki streamed outside of his skillset and looked foolish...again.

2. Paragraph the Second. This is the paragraph where he retreats to a academically wimpy position. Take note of Balki's amusing pronoun trouble in the first sentence.

3. The third paragraph. Uh-oh. Balki apologizes for insulting me. Balki is just too good of a person to have stooped so low. But, wait for it, wait for it....THERE IT IS IN THE LAST SENTENCE! It's a backhanded insult! He didn't know my "background level" until now! Also, I'll "probably" only get parts of his Soviet theory? Balki didn't HAVE a theory regarding the Soviets. Notice how Balki earlier threw out ONE instance of some airshow crash as evidence of a PATTERN of a Soviet non-communicative foreign policy AFTER the alleged incident! Note for Balki: Your first ever use of the word "pattern" was a disaster. I'll send a note to the Nova Scotia provincial legislature to have you placed on a watchlist so you shan't work as a mathematician, sociologist, seamstress or anything that involves patterns.

Back to the topic at hand: Try me Balki, write your theory down! Why would the Soviets be complicit in an alleged American conspiracy to forge evidence of a faked moon landing?

I don't know about anyone else here, but i am getting sick of bickering on this. My idea for this was so that if you had some sort of proof, one way or the other, you could post it. Someone from the other side could disprove it and so on. Could we get back to that, please? If each of you feel the other is an idiot, so what? That just makes it easier to disprove them, right?

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next