View Full Version : Moon Landing Hoax :P
ok mates the topic is to vast and disputable all i can do is to present yas as much tucker to thinking as possible i aint encouraging u to BELIEVING OR DISBELIEVING rather to ANALISING and EVALUATING the probability of the shit they've been feeding u for ages well for decades in this case
as for me personally i had never given a time to think it over until in 1995 or 1996 i saw an interview with prof Rene on tv... it had been like: moon landing ok, why not? mars landing? no probs - u see i just didnt think into it... but after the interview i just started to weigh pros and contras and when weighed its become pretty obvious to me: that was bullshitting of the whole mankind.
as theres shitloads of info on the matter, i'll be digging it out little by little, let me start where i have been 'startet' 15 ys ago, from prof Rene postulates ;)
once again for Cruisecontrol specially, i dont believe in or to prof rene i just listen to his arguments as well as the moon landing apologets... [:p]
In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.
"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.
He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.
For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.
As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.
Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.
The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.
If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"
The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
# The cost of the entire Apollo program: USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in 2005 Dollars). See NASA Budget. (Includes Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbitar, Apollo programs.) Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rocket cost alone, was about $ 83-billion 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $ 28-billion (CS/M $ 17-billion; LM $ 11-billion), Saturn I, IB, V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo
Motives
Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
1. Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
2. Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
3. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
4. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.
The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of uncertain loyalty.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm :D
so what could be considered as undisputable proofs of moon landings?
are there any that cannot be fake or shuffled?? i cant see any [V]
so what do they have to present as the 'proofs'?
1. but of course, laser reflectors and other equipment presumely left by the supernauts :D on the moon.
http://www.asfphotos.com/upload/1273564830.jpg
the laser reflector or more precisely, angular reflector – consists of great number of the special prisms rigidly established on the panel – the holder. such reflectors have interesting property: their orientation in space can be changed within 20 … 30 degs and light fallen to it will be reflected strictly in the opposite direction all the same. they don't demand exact adjustment in relation to a falling beam. therefore it is possible to "arrange" their delivery to the moon by automatic space crafts. the weight of angular reflector is insignificant – 10 … 20 kg. so to deliver reflectors to the moon, it is not obligatory to send there astronauts!
ps ahh btw someone could tell me cant u see the foot print near the reflector?! aint it a proof??! BWAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
See ya tomorrow mate, its 10pm here.
NASA also informed that astronauts left a number of the electronic devices which were transmitrting the information from the Moon already after returning of "apollos" from the moon.
but lunar automatic modules had been repeatedly delivering to the moon the numerous electronic radio devices. in 5 months after the first moon landing by soviet module "Luna-9", there landed the first American module "Surveiler" on the Moon. In total before "lunar" "Apollo's" flights, five such modules were brought onto the moon. each "Serveiler" delivered to the moon devices with the weight not less than 60 kg. so the presence of reflectors and devices on the Moon can't serve as the proof of that on the moon there really were astronauts.
ps now its 1am up here i gotta have a nap hear yas tomorrow cheers everybuddy :)
quote:Originally posted by HOS
See ya tomorrow mate, its 10pm here.
yup Hos i know thats because ur sitting on the stonehendge built by aluims and im on the volcano made by jotun Mimir [:p] see ya! ;)
Gitzy
11-05-2010, 07:23 AM
Very interesting Surt..
Fight_fan
11-05-2010, 07:23 AM
As far as I knew, some photo's were admitted to be staged "recreations" of actual shots taken so as to get better quality photo's to be used in print ie newspapers etc...
Either way, its a whole big can worms that I couldnt be arsed arguing for. Believe what you want!
Large
11-05-2010, 08:20 AM
It's nearly 41 years since the moon landing were faked....
And not one of the thosands of NASA employeees or contractors who had to be involved have talked...
not one...
none
zip
nada
uncle pervy
11-05-2010, 08:33 AM
if they did land on the moon, why cant we see the flag they placed from earth? surely we have telescopes that can show it, it is on the light side of the moon after all
Large
11-05-2010, 08:36 AM
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/
-Dex-
11-05-2010, 08:38 AM
American made. My guess is that it fell over minutes after they left.
latheboy
11-05-2010, 09:10 AM
What if they did land and the reason they didn't go back is because, aliens are already there and told the astronauts who did land to fuck off;):D
Seifer
11-05-2010, 09:17 AM
I thought the mythbuster episode on this was interesting. They proved all the photos to be real from memory. But then trying to ocnvince a skeptic is near impossible.
sharky
11-05-2010, 09:30 AM
As I said in the mp abucted thread....
quote:
Re: Mythbusters.
I 100% believe that 2 'all americaans' would go to an american facility and prove with the use of an american computer that they landed on the moon.....no bias obviously....
Bit like asking OCC to prove harleys have the best motors in the world
Redmohawk
11-05-2010, 11:47 AM
As i said in the other thread re task an spy sat to take a shit load of photos ( the optics in them will do just fine!) and take all the happy snaps you want of the landing sites! I want a big blow up of the moon buggy for Burtha to be jelous of lol, Y wont they do it ? Cost = fuck all profit = silly money Imagine the cash Tv networks would pay for current photos of all the landing sites! And yet still no "REAL" photos I as Y???????????????????
mrgixxer
11-05-2010, 12:14 PM
Wow....Break out the Tin Foil Helmets
Cruisecontrol
11-05-2010, 12:41 PM
quote:Originally posted by Redmohawk
As i said in the other thread re task an spy sat to take a shit load of photos ( the optics in them will do just fine!) and take all the happy snaps you want of the landing sites! I want a big blow up of the moon buggy for Burtha to be jelous of lol, Y wont they do it ? Cost = fuck all profit = silly money Imagine the cash Tv networks would pay for current photos of all the landing sites! And yet still no "REAL" photos I as Y???????????????????
Because even the Hubble telescope is not powerful enough to pick up a footprint on the surface of the moon.
Or do you honestly expect the US government to fund a project to send a satelite close enough to the moon just to get photographic evidence to appease unbelievers? Please.
quote:Originally posted by Surt
ps ahh btw someone could tell me cant u see the foot print near the reflector?! aint it a proof??! BWAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Oh noes!
Don't tell me somebody had to actually place the reflector on the ground. All along I thought they must have just thrown them out of the lander newspaper-style [/sarcasm]
quote:Originally posted by sharky
As I said in the mp abucted thread....
quote:
Re: Mythbusters.
I 100% believe that 2 'all americaans' would go to an american facility and prove with the use of an american computer that they landed on the moon.....no bias obviously....
Bit like asking OCC to prove harleys have the best motors in the world
So people want proof but when they get it, it can't be US proof because they are all in on it? So no matter what is presented as evidence it can be easily brushed aside simply because of the country of origin? Fabulous, you can't possibly lose!
Speaking of the last thread, did you see the link I posted re the Japanese mission taking photos of the landing site? Or let me guess, the Japanese are in on it with the US now?
Redmohawk
11-05-2010, 01:10 PM
Hey there cruse i didn't say i didn't believe it didn't happen just that i wanted proof from a resnable sorce (sorry i dont believe the US gov on much at all, to much bulshit already to assume there honast) I just looked up the current photo online of one of the lander sites and I am happy at this stage to say it's a definte possablitly but till the later hi res low altitude photos turn up and show realistic evidence like the rover and its dune buggy tracks etc I think i'll still ur on the causious side . lol As i said before easy enought to get hardware there, men regualarly and back ? hmmm alot harder!
For what it's worth, they talked about getting photos of the landing sites..
Our spy satellites and other closer-range optic-equipped satellites are all facing earth, and not designed to be turned around..
Then our sats with their backs to the earth, can't focus on something as close as the moon.. their optics are designed to see deep into space.
pappas
11-05-2010, 02:24 PM
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20090903_apollo12.html
davio
11-05-2010, 03:43 PM
quote:Originally posted by Large
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/
aww dont go and spoil it with facts large :(
Redmohawk
11-05-2010, 04:36 PM
I still want a better photo one where you can see the buggy and its tracks lol I mean how cool to say hey son I did the first burnout on the moon !
bladehunter
11-05-2010, 05:22 PM
Geesh everyone knows Stanely Kubrik did the filming for the "moon landings"
rock hard
11-05-2010, 09:54 PM
Rocket told me that one large rock that was recovered had inscriptions on one side and when decoded said "fUCK OFF RANGA"
thanks for ur comments mates Cruisecontrol all u can seemingly use is sarcasm so u dont have to dispute being sarcastic is enough :D but im afraid it doesnt count for a counter argument
i would suggest to discuss all my reason one after one otherwise the thread is doomed to turn into another circus [:o)]
so no one was able or willing to deny my first reason, er? [^]
i'll continue a tad later im just of my work etc
bluemk1
12-05-2010, 03:59 AM
quote:Originally posted by Large
It's nearly 41 years since the moon landing were faked....
And not one of the thosands of NASA employeees or contractors who had to be involved have talked...
not one...
none
zip
nada
this alone is proof enough for me.
quote:Originally posted by Cruisecontrol
did you see the link I posted re the Japanese mission taking photos of the landing site? Or let me guess, the Japanese are in on it with the US now?
u kunt play a beaten card matey! i've just presented a pobability of that the reflectors coulda been delivered by surveyer as well as by apollo chances r 50/50 but according to the bull shit accumulation law, every piece of bull shit multiplies the probability of the whole sale bullshitting ;)... i've just discovered the law [^]
btw unlike the court, in science theres another presumption - the presumption of guilt - u MUST prove ur discovery, priority etc thats why any scientist or team r very serious on collecting proofs, evidences, intermidiate results (sorry for long words), the course of experiment, if they r caught on hoax, they r fucking disgraceful schmoes for the rest of scientific community, fucking cheaters! so u cant expect to be trusted in ur dubious evidences especially if u were caught shuffling them like yanks were caught repetedly
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 05:11 AM
You obviously missed this one:
quote:Originally posted by Large
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/
And what does a Japanese mission taking photos of the moon have to do with the reflectors?
quote:Originally posted by Surt
i've just presented a pobability of that the reflectors coulda been delivered by surveyer
btw unlike the court, in science theres another presumption - the presumption of guilt - u MUST prove ur discovery,
Presented the probability?!!
You simply said it, that is all. So where is your proof?
ok what else could serve for a proof of ur visit to sulavesi or to elsewhere? apparently, some pressies to ur bloody relatives, some souvenirs. so what supernauts brought us from the moon? let us see! ;)
2. pressies from the moon - regolit - lunar soil.
an attempt of the USSR to receive the lunar soil was undertaken by automatic interplanetary station (ÀÌÑ) Luna-15 that started to the Moon on three days prior to Apollo-11, but on July, 20th crashed at landing attempt - during that time when Armstrong and Oldrin, under NASA version, were on the Moon's surface. The following AMS Luna-16, started 9/12/1970 soft-landed on the Moon's surface on September, 20th. On September, 24th the returning capsule returned with 100 gr lunar soil to the Earth.
In samples of the lunar soi delivered by "Luna-16" was found pure, not oxidised iron, in Moscow's Geological Institute of Vernadsky. those were pressies from commies [}:)]
so the pure, restored iron occupies the thinnest layer appr 20 angstrom (1A=0.1nm!) thick on the moon's surface. Farther there r ordinary oxides. comparing to earth's samples, where oxides r in upper layer, and under it - pure metal, on the Moon its all to the contrary. that were the rusults of the lunar soil expertise obtained by ruskies [8D]
so what about seppos?
Apollo-11 delivered 21,7 kg of ostensibly lunar ground. Apollo-12 delivered 34,4 kg moon ground (ostensibly - hell yeah! [^])
i mean seppos did not know about the existence of the superficial not oxidised films of metals, characteristic for the Moon ground! The restored iron and other not oxidised metals in a thin layer is a visit card of a lunar ground, therefore arises a natural conclusion - laboratories of the world have not found out the phenomenon because it was not in the tested samples. The soil brought by À-11 and À-12 was not of a lunar origin!!!
there also a well known incident with "the lunar" stone, presented to the prime minister of the Netherlands Willem Drejsu after Apollo-11's return.
The exhibit was presented to the prime minister of Holland by the ambassador of the USA in this country. The ambassador, in his turn, had received a stone from astronauts of "Apollo-11" mission soon after their returning from the Moon in 1969. After death of the prime minister the stone was passed to a museum. It was insured for 500 thousand dollars. Experts have doubted authenticity of a stone in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by the analysis of an exhibit undertaken by experts of Amsterdam free university
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
http://www.asfphotos.com/upload/1273611685.jpg
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
[:p]
Large
12-05-2010, 09:13 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
there also a well known incident with "the lunar" stone, presented to the prime minister of the Netherlands Willem Drejsu after Apollo-11's return.
The exhibit was presented to the prime minister of Holland by the ambassador of the USA in this country. The ambassador, in his turn, had received a stone from astronauts of "Apollo-11" mission soon after their returning from the Moon in 1969. After death of the prime minister the stone was passed to a museum. It was insured for 500 thousand dollars. Experts have doubted authenticity of a stone in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by the analysis of an exhibit undertaken by experts of Amsterdam free university
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
http://www.asfphotos.com/upload/1273611685.jpg
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
[:p]
Maybe you could test one of the other 99 stones and let us know what you find.
Also we all know the Russians are the biggest liars of all...how do you know they did what they claim?
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 09:28 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
How do you know it was the same stone given to them 40 years ago?
Hillsy
12-05-2010, 09:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by Cruisecontrol
quote:Originally posted by Surt
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
How do you know it was the same stone given to them 40 years ago?
Nice twist - calling conspiracy on the conspiracy theorist ;)
Redmohawk
12-05-2010, 09:58 AM
Which one surt the flag waving in the wind or the golf ball slicing ? both seem a little strange in a enviroment with no atmosphere lol
Large
12-05-2010, 10:21 AM
quote:Originally posted by Redmohawk
Which one surt the flag waving in the wind or the golf ball slicing ? both seem a little strange in a enviroment with no atmosphere lol
I've provided a link which refutes the flag bullshit. You could do a google search on golf ball slice on moon like I did that shows that bit to be bullshit as well....
...or not and continue to believe the conspiracy crap.:)
Redmohawk
12-05-2010, 10:46 AM
Large I did look em up , Just enjoying the thread gotta have some fun . The best part is I couldn't give a monkeys if they did or didn't go! There are far worse conspiracys and "facts" out there than a moon landing lol
quote:Originally posted by Large
quote:Originally posted by Surt
there also a well known incident with "the lunar" stone, presented to the prime minister of the Netherlands Willem Drejsu after Apollo-11's return.
The exhibit was presented to the prime minister of Holland by the ambassador of the USA in this country. The ambassador, in his turn, had received a stone from astronauts of "Apollo-11" mission soon after their returning from the Moon in 1969. After death of the prime minister the stone was passed to a museum. It was insured for 500 thousand dollars. Experts have doubted authenticity of a stone in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by the analysis of an exhibit undertaken by experts of Amsterdam free university
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
http://www.asfphotos.com/upload/1273611685.jpg
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
[:p]
Maybe you could test one of the other 99 stones and let us know what you find.
Also we all know the Russians are the biggest liars of all...how do you know they did what they claim?
bigger than oz larrikins? [:0] ok the samples r available for tests and have special structure, not terrestrial, not meteorite so they r probably authentic... but yanks' specimens r 100% terrestrial origin thus fake!
quote:Originally posted by Cruisecontrol
quote:Originally posted by Surt
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
How do you know it was the same stone given to them 40 years ago?
ask nasa? i guess there some fotos, measuments, analisis were held before presenting the lunar woodrock to the dutch, its not like hey dan lookie wat a funny rockie i of found! - gimmie that!!! :D
like i said i'd come to the flag and other bullshit gradually now we have a hard evidence that the pressies from the moon r fake, according to which fact nasa already cant be taken seriously as the dirty cheaters [:p]
Large
12-05-2010, 01:35 PM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
quote:Originally posted by Large
quote:Originally posted by Surt
there also a well known incident with "the lunar" stone, presented to the prime minister of the Netherlands Willem Drejsu after Apollo-11's return.
The exhibit was presented to the prime minister of Holland by the ambassador of the USA in this country. The ambassador, in his turn, had received a stone from astronauts of "Apollo-11" mission soon after their returning from the Moon in 1969. After death of the prime minister the stone was passed to a museum. It was insured for 500 thousand dollars. Experts have doubted authenticity of a stone in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by the analysis of an exhibit undertaken by experts of Amsterdam free university
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm
http://www.asfphotos.com/upload/1273611685.jpg
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
[:p]
Maybe you could test one of the other 99 stones and let us know what you find.
Also we all know the Russians are the biggest liars of all...how do you know they did what they claim?
bigger than oz larrikins? [:0] ok the samples r available for tests and have special structure, not terrestrial, not meteorite so they r probably authentic... but yanks' specimens r 100% terrestrial origin thus fake!
Aussies being "larrikins" hasn't cost millions of lives
Large
12-05-2010, 01:36 PM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
ok what else could serve for a proof of ur visit to sulavesi or to elsewhere? apparently, some pressies to ur bloody relatives, some souvenirs. so what supernauts brought us from the moon? let us see! ;)
2. an attempt of the USSR to receive a lunar ground was undertaken by automatic interplanetary station (ÀÌÑ) Luna-15 that started to the Moon on three days prior to Apollo-11, but on July, 20th crashed at landing attempt - during that time when Armstrong and Oldrin, under NASA version, were on the Moon's surface. The following AMS Luna-16, started 9/12/1970 soft-landed on the Moon's surface on September, 20th. On September, 24th the returning capsule returned with 100 gr lunar ground to the Earth.
In samples of the lunar ground delivered by "Luna-16" was found pure, not oxidised iron, in Moscow's Geological Institute of Vernadsky. those were pressies from commies [}:)]
so the pure, restored iron occupies the thinnest layer appr 20 angstrom (1A=0.1nm!) thick on the moon's surface. Farther there r ordinary oxides. comparing to earth's samples, where oxides r in upper layer, and under it - pure metal, on the Moon its all to the contrary. that were the rusults of the moon's soil expertise obtained by ruskies [8D]
so what about seppos?
Apollo-11 delivered 21,7 kg of ostensibly lunar ground. Apollo-12 delivered 34,4 kg moon ground (ostensibly - hell yeah! [^])
i mean seppos did not know about the existence of the superficial not oxidised films of metals, characteristic for the Moon ground! The restored iron and other not oxidised metals in a thin layer is a visit card of a lunar ground, therefore arises a natural conclusion - laboratories of the world have not found out the phenomenon because it was not in the tested samples. The ground brought by À-11 and À-12 was not of a lunar origin!!!
Where's the link?
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 02:11 PM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
quote:Originally posted by Cruisecontrol
quote:Originally posted by Surt
eat the "moon stone" cruise matey!
How do you know it was the same stone given to them 40 years ago?
ask nasa? i guess there some fotos, measuments, analisis were held before presenting the lunar woodrock to the dutch
But what about after it was given to the Dutch?
Large
12-05-2010, 02:21 PM
They ground it up and smoked it
RevHead
12-05-2010, 05:31 PM
hang on all whot about th radiation field between the moon n the earth ,,its all bullshit its taken 50yrs just to learn how to orbit the earth ,hey all of nasa old employees are dead so whos can talk ..lol,
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 05:43 PM
quote:Originally posted by revheadpete
hang on all whot about th radiation field between the moon n the earth
quote:Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)
The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).
(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and SI units like grays and sieverts - that measure different things, but roentgens, rems and rads turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)
Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.
Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.
Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.
Large
12-05-2010, 05:44 PM
Why did Nasa insist that the astronauts bring all their bodily waste back with them?
Because they were scared that if they left a random turd on the moon, it might evolve into another fucking conspiracy theorist[:p]
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 05:46 PM
quote:Originally posted by Large
Why did Nasa insist that the astronauts bring all their bodily waste back with them?
Because they were scared that if they left a random turd on the moon, it might evolve into another fucking conspiracy theorist[:p]
I heard it was to give to the Dutch as a pressie.
Large
12-05-2010, 05:56 PM
That one had a peanut in it
RevHead
12-05-2010, 06:28 PM
fancy being the camera man or the guy who built the set ,,,then the genius ,,who said lets turn on a fan to get th flag to move ,,,bahahahaha
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 06:52 PM
That's the way.
No matter how many of your claims are refuted with facts, just ignore them and come up with something else.
Regarding the flag waving, there'd be kenetic energy from the astronaut transfered to the flag when he plants the pole to start it waving in the first place and because there's no atmosphere, there's no air to slow the flag down or stop it. It'd only be fibre friction in the material that would slow it down.
Large
12-05-2010, 07:56 PM
quote:Originally posted by Bear
Regarding the flag waving, there'd be kenetic energy from the astronaut transfered to the flag when he plants the pole to start it waving in the first place and because there's no atmosphere, there's no air to slow the flag down or stop it. It'd only be fibre friction in the material that would slow it down.
We've already been over that one. Unless you can post up a vid of the flag moving you haven't added anything dude
RevHead
12-05-2010, 08:39 PM
i wanna see landing marks from the motors that they used to land the craft,its highly compressed air that they used ,when you see it on take off and it blows shit everywere in the film,and there arnt isnt any dirt disturbed also kenetic energy,the astronaut is nowere near the flag when its moving,,like stated earier theres no stars,the shadows are all ova the place,its crap,easy anyone got acsess to a telescope,a fuckin big one ,my mate works at stromlo in canberra n he reckons hes looked atevery part of the moon an he cant see shit he,s been there for 29yrs,as an astronmer
Cruisecontrol
12-05-2010, 08:43 PM
Once again for the cheap seats:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/16/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/
davio
12-05-2010, 10:02 PM
so if i have this right,,
the yanks built a saturn rocket which is not now secret at all and WAS capable of launching a large payload (see ICBM) and send it into orbit,put astronauts in it,with all the systems needed to keep them alive to stay up there for a day or a week
then bring them home again the next day in secret,
presumably somehow fooling the russians ,
who until that time had been the foremost spacefaring nation and were set up to defend from an ICBM missle attack and so would most definately have had every available tracking device watching,
then they start a secret involving ,to begin with
CIA ,president, senate oversight commitee,treasury,air force
ALL nasa staff who could have known via their job tasks (including the ones who brought back the astro boys 5 days early)
3 international radio tracking stations, pretty well anyone with a telescope who knew where to look,did the same with the film crew ,set makers etc. for the pretend landing
a secret which they went on to successfully keep for 50 years,, 50 years!!!
they did all this as a trip to the moon was impossible even though they had solved the problems of;
escaping earth orbit
life sysyems
reentry
accurate trajectory control (for the secret reentry)
communications
and so only leaving the problem of actually going
now the reason they did this was cause they didnt want the world to laugh at them
so obviously the above is the easiest answer to that problem after all they had no experience at all in propaganda
and its not like the cia could shoot the president whos idea it was ,mmmmmm
and then,,,
ohhh i love this bit
they give a rock to a dutchman that they know is a fake ,brilliant ,what could possibly go wrong?
i tell ya ,you guys are really onto something there
quote:Originally posted by Large
Aussies being "larrikins" hasn't cost millions of lives
whose lives r y talking about ftfh? russians? germans? japanese? vietnamese? koreans? speak up not so vague mate and btw u called russians liars not mass murderers! though its an obvious off top and i dont feel like standing on the communist government's side, i'd advise u not to mix russian people with 'politburo' which didnt even included not a single russian by nationality cept that clown khrustchev theres a mental disease called 'russophobia' :Du can find a lot about it on the web [}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Large
quote:Originally posted by Surt
ok what else could serve for a proof of ur visit to sulavesi or to elsewhere? apparently, some pressies to ur bloody relatives, some souvenirs. so what supernauts brought us from the moon? let us see! ;)
2. an attempt of the USSR to receive a lunar ground was undertaken by automatic interplanetary station (ÀÌÑ) Luna-15 that started to the Moon on three days prior to Apollo-11, but on July, 20th crashed at landing attempt - during that time when Armstrong and Oldrin, under NASA version, were on the Moon's surface. The following AMS Luna-16, started 9/12/1970 soft-landed on the Moon's surface on September, 20th. On September, 24th the returning capsule returned with 100 gr lunar ground to the Earth.
In samples of the lunar ground delivered by "Luna-16" was found pure, not oxidised iron, in Moscow's Geological Institute of Vernadsky. those were pressies from commies [}:)]
so the pure, restored iron occupies the thinnest layer appr 20 angstrom (1A=0.1nm!) thick on the moon's surface. Farther there r ordinary oxides. comparing to earth's samples, where oxides r in upper layer, and under it - pure metal, on the Moon its all to the contrary. that were the rusults of the moon's soil expertise obtained by ruskies [8D]
so what about seppos?
Apollo-11 delivered 21,7 kg of ostensibly lunar ground. Apollo-12 delivered 34,4 kg moon ground (ostensibly - hell yeah! [^])
i mean seppos did not know about the existence of the superficial not oxidised films of metals, characteristic for the Moon ground! The restored iron and other not oxidised metals in a thin layer is a visit card of a lunar ground, therefore arises a natural conclusion - laboratories of the world have not found out the phenomenon because it was not in the tested samples. The ground brought by À-11 and À-12 was not of a lunar origin!!!
Where's the link?
here r thy links! :D:D:D:
http://mo---on.narod.ru/
http://news.aif.ru/news.php?id=8169
funny detail from tv news: right now american space modules flying arond the moon, said looking for the reflectors, as always the info is vague and controversial, no official confirmation from nasa: nasa is keeping silence. some hints theyve spot the russian 'lunokhod' lunar vehicle some says reflectors, when forced to come clean by a reporter, just wryly smiled [}:)]
u says evidences confirmed by selena or else... imagine what a perfect alibi could fabricate the most stupid criminal if had an opportunity to come back to the crime scene to clean up and 'correct' evidences?! nasa have had 41 ys to do that and theyve been repeatedly noticed 'washing up' their evidences, audio foto and video materials, so one day they may present 'normal' specimens of the real lunar ground... brought by who/or what?/ when?? ;)
Hillsy
13-05-2010, 09:18 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
.....funny detail from tv news: right now american space modules flying arond the moon, said looking for the reflectors, as always the info is vague and controversial, no official confirmation from nasa: nasa is keeping silence. ......
Maybe they're watching this thread Surt and are trying to prove they went.....:D
Large
13-05-2010, 09:35 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
quote:Originally posted by Large
quote:Originally posted by Surt
ok what else could serve for a proof of ur visit to sulavesi or to elsewhere? apparently, some pressies to ur bloody relatives, some souvenirs. so what supernauts brought us from the moon? let us see! ;)
2. an attempt of the USSR to receive a lunar ground was undertaken by automatic interplanetary station (ÀÌÑ) Luna-15 that started to the Moon on three days prior to Apollo-11, but on July, 20th crashed at landing attempt - during that time when Armstrong and Oldrin, under NASA version, were on the Moon's surface. The following AMS Luna-16, started 9/12/1970 soft-landed on the Moon's surface on September, 20th. On September, 24th the returning capsule returned with 100 gr lunar ground to the Earth.
In samples of the lunar ground delivered by "Luna-16" was found pure, not oxidised iron, in Moscow's Geological Institute of Vernadsky. those were pressies from commies [}:)]
so the pure, restored iron occupies the thinnest layer appr 20 angstrom (1A=0.1nm!) thick on the moon's surface. Farther there r ordinary oxides. comparing to earth's samples, where oxides r in upper layer, and under it - pure metal, on the Moon its all to the contrary. that were the rusults of the moon's soil expertise obtained by ruskies [8D]
so what about seppos?
Apollo-11 delivered 21,7 kg of ostensibly lunar ground. Apollo-12 delivered 34,4 kg moon ground (ostensibly - hell yeah! [^])
i mean seppos did not know about the existence of the superficial not oxidised films of metals, characteristic for the Moon ground! The restored iron and other not oxidised metals in a thin layer is a visit card of a lunar ground, therefore arises a natural conclusion - laboratories of the world have not found out the phenomenon because it was not in the tested samples. The ground brought by À-11 and À-12 was not of a lunar origin!!!
Where's the link?
here r thy links! :D:D:D:
http://mo---on.narod.ru/
http://news.aif.ru/news.php?id=8169
thanks
quote:Originally posted by Hillsy
quote:Originally posted by Surt
.....funny detail from tv news: right now american space modules flying arond the moon, said looking for the reflectors, as always the info is vague and controversial, no official confirmation from nasa: nasa is keeping silence. ......
Maybe they're watching this thread Surt and are trying to prove they went.....:D
bwahaha thats i was about to claim but after a bit thinking decided that'd be to fast for then to get there for 2 days... unless the ALLUMINS [:p] helped em out!
ok what elses expected from u cheaters when u claim that uv spent ur vacations on bali not at redfern (though i'd personally prefer redfern! :D)? rightto pics and vids we all luvs pics and vids we says pics or never happened!!!
so what fotos and movies have they brought us wankers from their escapades?
3. audio, photo and video documents.
leaving apart the scepticism on the authentity of the place where they have been made, there r curious things happening to the originals: they r vanishing then popping out somewhere they r having been erased(?!), burnt, but like phoenix they ressurect even more beautiful! :D they r being edited to 'remove' uncomfortable details, like on one pic there was a scaling cross with a longer leg so after nasa were asked wtf's wrong with the cross (on the objective), they didnt answered a fuck but on the next almanac the bloody cross was mended! i saw these two editions with my own eyes, on tv, naturally , not in washington's national nasa's library (or how it calls), but of course u dont have to believe me coz i'm a mass murderous liar by origin [}:)] nonetheless i'll try to spot those pics or some one else could help me?
here r a few vids and pics from u-tube:
nasa version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4&feature=fvw
strange schizmatic [}:)] version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM
a vid from ur fellow country man, the janitor general :) ProtectAus, nice work btw [8D]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veoeOWvTqO8&feature=fvsr
some alleged reconstruction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related
actually dozens of vids on u-tube some r more reasonable some r over enthusiastic u have ur brain use it! ;)
bwahaha ur fellow country man is a larrikin - i havent seen the vid to the end until now, in the begining he points out the same oddities noticed by many before, but in the end he suddenly changes his point and his proof is that the 'supernaut' throws up a piece of shit, but cant u see that the shit flys up too slow (and too low - on the moon!)? then he says that the landscape's the same, but they were shot by surveyers, so even moonbusters could reproduce the landscape within a few hours (in miniature) so how about nasa with .5 billion bucks budget?!
GO SWEEP THE STREETS JANITOR GENERAL! :)
ok he's upset me! [}:)] now get it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5MVVtFYTSo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b309_YspwMk&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1CpNoI4WGc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qzDJwYjro&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiCKy41zZMU&feature=player_embedded
Cruisecontrol
13-05-2010, 12:27 PM
Why a conspiracy?
quote:To account for variations in observation. Anyone who studies history seriously knows that there is rarely a completely reliable, authoritative version of the facts surrounding any notable occurrence. The tidbits of inconsistency upon which most conspiracy theories rely occur constantly in connection with any activity we undertake. It's only when important activities are closely scrutinized that these details receive close attention. In other words, it's natural for people to believe that there should be no inconsistency in legitimate activities. So if we observe an inconsistency, we take that alone as evidence that the intuitive explanation must be flawed and we should search for a more complicated answer.
As entertainment. Real life is boring. We constantly seek to embellish it, whether formally through media such as motion pictures or fictional literature, or informally through the exaggeration of our personal experiences. It's more exciting to believe that strange lights in the sky are visiting aliens and not an airliner's landing lights. As astounding as the moon landings were, it's even more astounding to suppose that the entire thing was falsified.
To seem intelligent. Conspiracy theories are often much more elaborate than what's commonly believed about something. And they usually require the listener to expand his understanding to accept the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who casually examine photographs of the lunar landings are impressed when they are led to discover discrepancies. This inflates the ego and gives one the impression that he is smarter than the dozens who look at the same photographs and see nothing special.
To be "on the inside." The conspiracist fancies himself to be elite, to be privy to secret information that few others have.
To express distrust for authority. Americans especially take delight in distrusting authority, particularly governments.
s'that a common place observation? u ought to ask nasa why they classified the info for a life term" not my expression i aint that good in their casuistics
well i spose its not quite hystory its todays political and scientific swindle lasting for 40 years, not some mysteries of the 3rd reich or stalins gulag of course there lots of conspirasies plots close protocols etc wat really piss me of with the moon hoax is its not some secret conspirasy like molotov-ribbentrop's pact, its an insolent rat shit thrown into the face of all mankind the bigger lie the more probability that people will believe it ;) aint the same shits happening with religion? u can present as many evidences that theres no god, bible wasnt written or dictated by angels :D every word in it is a hypocrisy and lie - they will find countless tricks to evade answering uncomfortable questions why to ask? u gotta BELIEVE! [V]
Cruisecontrol
14-05-2010, 05:18 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
s'that a common place observation?
quote:Originally posted by Surt
wat really piss me of with the moon hoax is its not some secret conspirasy like molotov-ribbentrop's pact, its an insolent rat shit thrown into the face of all mankind the bigger lie the more probability that people will believe it
And that is why it is a common observation for non-conspiracy theorists. Because all through this thread there are factual and legitimate explanations for everything that has been said against the moon landings yet not a single one has been agreed with. If the evidence seems irrefutable then it is just ignored and another ridiculous piece of reasoning about a completely different thing takes its place.
It is no longer about whether they went but what motivation some people have for somehow "knowing" that they didn't.
nup thats my aim to present as many reasons that the moon landings were false as possible, to summarise them if u wish! (and its not over yet!) but its up to u or anyone else to beat my (not just mine sure) arguments ONE BY ONE! ;) and mind u, theres a domino principle: if some element of an experiment or discovery is false - just one! - the whole thing is as forged as a 3 dollar note [:p] so welcome to beat it Dan or do u prefer to make a mocking face: "c'mon keep talking blah blah blah!" [:o)]
Large
14-05-2010, 12:42 PM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
nup thats my aim to present as many reasons that the moon landings were false as possible, to summarise them if u wish! (and its not over yet!) but its up to u or anyone else to beat my (not just mine sure) arguments ONE BY ONE! ;) and mind u, theres a domino principle: if some element of an experiment or discovery is false - just one! - the whole thing is as forged as a 3 dollar note [:p] so welcome to beat it Dan or do u prefer to make a mocking face: "c'mon keep talking blah blah blah!" [:o)]
This is known as the 20:20 principle.
You post up 20 seconds worth of crap, then we're expected to spend 20 minutes researching and refuting it. Everything that you've posted has been shown to be a load of utter bullshit but still you persist. Go ahead and believe what you like.
yup sure just like that calling it bullshit :D ur a bolshevik mate! [:p]
Local Barramundi fillets...3.50/kg.
its rather a 2:2 principle - i spend 2 hours to gather and translate tech info and one spends 2 secs to call it crap not caring a rap even to assert ones point of view /cos of not having it - just a sudden twist :D
quote:Originally posted by davo
Local Barramundi fillets...3.50/kg.
it takes u to the moon? [8D]
Hillsy
15-05-2010, 09:56 AM
quote:Originally posted by Surt
quote:Originally posted by davo
Local Barramundi fillets...3.50/kg.
it takes u to the moon? [8D]
Only if you smoke them [}:)]
Jeez - $3.50 a kilo? Wanna go halves in a kilo davo?? :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.