Moon landings

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What's harder?

 

1) Making a movie about going to the moon?

2) Going to the moon?

3) Making a complete arse of yourself on here

 

The above post has been edited for reasons of sense.

[CB Fry]

What's harder?

 

1) Making a movie about going to the moon?

2) Going to the moon?

 

 

 

 

I answered that. 1) is harder in the context of a fifty year cover up. Far harder.

[pap]

But Pulp, the forum finds your so called answers to be evasive or grossly inadequate - so no change there then. 2/10

 

Bless ya, Charlie - you've unwittingly wandered into another modern trap!

 

Pulp are a band that released most of their discography in the 1990s. Their lead singer famously pulled a mooner at the King of Pop while Jacko was pretending to be Jesus at the Brits, earning him the respect of millions. I'm sure you had the worst of intentions when crafting that moniker for me, but you've mistakenly given me cred through association with a much loved band!

[Horley CTFC Saint]

No-one is lying about a blue light. The following points aren't congruent.

 

1) Astronauts cannot see the moon

2) Astronauts cannot see the sun

3) Craft 72 hours into mission

4) Loads of blue light coming through the panels ( literally nothing else )

5) Light appears to be coming through side facing portals.

 

I think we can both agree that by any definition, visible means observable through a window.

 

Before we go any further, where do you think that light is coming from?

 

[video=youtube;-czSAgTtQmk]

 

All done within about 2mins of video starting.

 

This thread appears to have been hijacked by the popinjays of forum humour which is a shame because I think that it’s important that these (what I consider) preposterous conspiracy theories are not left to fester unchallenged.

 

So with that in mind.....

 

Papsmeister – you appear to accept that the radiation issue is not unsurmountable. You also seem to have accepted that Jodrell Bank did track Apollo 11 to the Moon, so I am having a little difficulty understanding why you consider the Moon landings so unlikely.

Okay onto the video ‘evidence’ I’ve also taken a look at the JW video you’ve posted – firstly the one spot appears to be more likely something insider the command module rather than external (and in the unlikely event that it was external my money would be on the them having just jettisoned the LEM - academic though as its not external). To be honest to be visible from outside with the lights on it would have to be considerably brighter than the moon – try opening your curtains/blinds sometime after dark but with the lights on and tell me what you can see outside.

 

As for the blue light through the window yes that does look external and I would suggest for the reasons mentioned above would need to be pretty bright so it would likely be Earth, the Sun or both – what is not clear is when the video was taken as JW has not told us he has just made an enormous leap in the dark to suggest it was about 72 hours in with no apparent rigour as to how he arrived at this conclusion other than the astronauts look beardy. I would find it more interesting if you could match the comments about not being able see the Sun and the Moon with the video shown – can you? No thought not QED

 

Oh and there were 5 portals and they’re all on the side unless Airfix have been lying all these years! Worth bearing in mind that the inner panes were Aluminosilicate whilst all were treated with optical coatings with the aim of cutting our infra red and ultra violent – any idea as to what effect that may have had on them?

 

I’ve already stated that I’m impressed with the credibility of the main protagonists so here are some CVs of the main ones associated with Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory - there are load of ‘em but I guess the most famous are:

 

Bill Kaysing

http://billkaysing.com/biography.php

This is a tribute site but even in light of its obvious bias gives you a flavour of the guy - technically unqualified but with good links to JPL

 

Bart Sibrel

http://www.sibrel.com/sibrel/

Not a lot here to suggest that he has any technical knowledge of cosmology or space flight at all

 

Also for anyone interested in CVs for the others take a look at Wikipedia where there are a number of other potted histories for other theorists some more credible than others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

 

Jarrah White – nothing ‘cept an interesting definition in Urban Dictionary, an apparent belief that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

 

And finally especially for Halo Sticksman a few religious scientists:

 

Sir Robert Boyd – a pioneer in British space science

Richard Smalley – Nobel Laureate in chemistry

Allan Sandage – astronomer

Charles Hard Townes – Nobel Prize physics

Freeman Dyson – Lorentz and Max Plank medals winner

John T Houghton – Gold Medal from RAS

John D Barrow – cosmologist

 

There are many many more the two aren’t mutually exclusive!

[The Kraken]

But Pulp, the forum finds your so called answers to be evasive or grossly inadequate - so no change there then. 2/10

 

Just a bit of a suggestion, Chaz. How about you stick to your own opinion rather than speak for the rest of the forum? Probably for the best, considering the way you're somehow fouling up a defence to what is surely one of the most entrenched and practically incontrovertible facts going.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Bless ya, Charlie - you've unwittingly wandered into another modern trap!

 

Pulp are a band that released most of their discography in the 1990s. Their lead singer famously pulled a mooner at the King of Pop while Jacko was pretending to be Jesus at the Brits, earning him the respect of millions. I'm sure you had the worst of intentions when crafting that moniker for me, but you've mistakenly given me cred through association with a much loved band!

 

It's also a damp papery mush - which coincidently sums up your argument very nicely.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Just a bit of a suggestion, Chaz. How about you stick to your own opinion rather than speak for the rest of the forum? Probably for the best, considering the way you're somehow fouling up a defence to what is surely one of the most entrenched and practically incontrovertible facts going.

 

But we all thought you agreed with us - oh well you're not much of a loss.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Is the only way of getting close up images of the moon to send up a rocket with a probe attached to orbit and take pictures from there?

 

As trousers rightly says; presenting images that look like were taken on a 1970s polaroid is hardly "hi-res", however you're looking to adapt the definition. And given that we have the technology to take photos of the deep space field, showing galaxies trillions of miles away and billions of years ago, I am a little surprised that mankind hasn't yet been able to point some telescopes in the right direction and capture a decent image that the whole planet would surely have interest in.

Really why - the scientific and astronomical community don't see it as a priority issue and why should they - the whole conspiracy thing bearing warrants a mention for most of them? Its a waste of valuable booked time on any scope capable of doing what you want.

 

Suggest if you really want someone to point the scope in the right direction you try and persuade a serious astronomer or astrophysicist to use some of his valuable booked scope time to do so - good luck with that!!

[The Kraken]

But we all thought you agreed with us - oh well you're not much of a loss.

 

I do agree with you. I'm just amazed the defence of it has gone so badly.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I do agree with you.

 

Good to have you back aboard. The truth marches on !!!!

[The Kraken]

Really why - the scientific and astronomical community don't see it as a priority issue and why should they - the whole conspiracy thing bearing warrants a mention for most of them? Its a waste of valuable booked time on any scope capable of doing what you want.

 

Suggest if you really want someone to point the scope in the right direction you try and persuade a serious astronomer or astrophysicist to use some of his valuable booked scope time to do so - good luck with that!!

 

If you're asking me why the scientific community don't find it that interesting, I have no idea why. I'm not one of them. The general public; well that's perhaps different, isn't it? Lets face it the public are pretty ambivalent to the billions spent on space exploration; hell, it took Apollo 13 to reinvigorate the US public who, after two moon landings, then found they really weren't that bothered to watch a third set of fellas doing exactly the same thing. So perhaps that interest needs to be piqued every now and then.

 

I'd love to see some HD shots of the moon sites; not to prove it happened, I don't need that, I'd just find it genuinely interesting. I think from a commercial view it could even make a huge amount of money; if a TV or publishing company got hold of it and made a documentary about a "return" to the moon; that would be really interesting. Wouldn't it?

 

I'm genuinely surprised its not been done in years. That we haven't been back to the moon, well I can kind of understand that. But to not have a look where we've been? Yep, I do find that surprising, and personally a little disappointing from a self-interest point of view.

[pap]

I answered that. 1) is harder in the context of a fifty year cover up. Far harder.

 

JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This was the ruling of the last US committee to investigate the issue. We do not know who orchestrated the conspiracy, and we probably never will. That's an example of a 50 year conspiracy that the American people wanted to investigate, and there's still no official outcome, save the fact that a conspiracy was involved.

 

The best time to prove anything is around the time it happens. The pool of eyewitnesses for any event diminishes to zero over time, happening very quickly in the case of JFK. We can't prove who killed him because contrary to your statement, JFK proves that conspiracies are easier to maintain over time, not harder.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Umm....

 

Some of the reasons the scientific community displays such a resolute refusal to entertain preposterous ideas such as those proposed by Pulp:

 

1 - they are intelligent people

2 - they have real work to do

3 - they are over the age of 15

[buctootim]

If you're asking me why the scientific community don't find it that interesting, I have no idea why. I'm not one of them. The general public; well that's perhaps different, isn't it? ..........

I'm genuinely surprised its not been done in years. That we haven't been back to the moon, well I can kind of understand that. But to not have a look where we've been? Yep, I do find that surprising, and personally a little disappointing from a self-interest point of view.

 

imo Im not sure there is much more to see or know about the Moon thats new or interesting to the general public. Mars however is a different proposition abnd with both private companies and governments looking at it I reckon it could be a possibility by 2020.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This was the ruling of the last US committee to investigate the issue. We do not know who orchestrated the conspiracy, and we probably never will. That's an example of a 50 year conspiracy that the American people wanted to investigate, and there's still no official outcome, save the fact that a conspiracy was involved.

 

The best time to prove anything is around the time it happens. The pool of eyewitnesses for any event diminishes to zero over time, happening very quickly in the case of JFK. We can't prove who killed him because contrary to your statement, JFK proves that conspiracies are easier to maintain over time, not harder.

 

Go on Pulp - tell us your theory about the 'magic bullet' and how it did in fact both Kill JFK and wound the Governor. Methinks you and fanboy probably have a top class imagine of the gunman on the grassy knoll too.

 

We all know you want to.

[The Kraken]

imo Im not sure there is much more to see or know about the Moon thats new or interesting to the general public. Mars however is a different proposition abnd with both private companies and governments looking at it I reckon it could be a possibility by 2020.

 

As I said if you'd have followed on through the whole post; I don't think there's much value in going back which is why I'm not surprised no-one has. But to not have a look where we've been; to not have a really good look (when it is technologically possible to do so), I find that a bit surprising.

[pap]

It's also a damp papery mush - which coincidently sums up your argument very nicely.

 

You should have just gone with "pap", which means:-

 

1) Midland U.S. A teat or nipple.

2) Something resembling a nipple.

3) Soft or semiliquid food, as for infants.

4) Material lacking real value or substance

5) Slang Money and favors obtained as political patronage

6) worthless or oversimplified ideas; drivel

 

I think you'll have particularly good fun applying #4 to this superb composite depiction you're building of me.

 

Then you should perhaps wonder if a man who self-applies the name "pap" is going to be particularly bothered by "pulp".

 

First one's free, Charlie - but if you need any more help insulting me, the service is available at a reasonable cost and I know the b@stard well.

Edited 18 December, 2012 by pap
Didn't want to deprive Charlie of #6

[buctootim]

As I said if you'd have followed on through the whole post; I don't think there's much value in going back which is why I'm not surprised no-one has. But to not have a look where we've been; to not have a really good look (when it is technologically possible to do so), I find that a bit surprising.

 

Oh right, yeah i didnt read it properly. These two satellites werre up taking pics recently. No idea what level of detail.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22210199/gravity-probes-built-colorado-crash-moons-surface

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You should have just gone with "pap", which means:-

 

1) Midland U.S. A teat or nipple.2) Something resembling a nipple.

2) worthless or oversimplified ideas; drivel

3) Soft or semiliquid food, as for infants.

4) Material lacking real value or substance

5) Slang Money and favors obtained as political patronage

 

I think you'll have particularly good fun applying #4 to this superb composite depiction you're building of me.

 

Then you should perhaps wonder if a man who self-applies the name "pap" is going to be particularly bothered by "pulp".

 

First one's free, Charlie - but if you need any more help insulting me, the service is available at a reasonable cost and I know the b@stard well.

 

Well as you posted on it twice now it would seem to be a direct hit - this pleases me.

 

From now onwards you will always be 'Pulp' - it kinda fits you somehow.

[pap]

Well as you posted on it twice now it would seem to be a direct hit - this pleases me.

 

From now onwards you will always be 'Pulp' - it kinda fits you somehow.

 

Work away, my good man.

[The Kraken]

Oh right, yeah i didnt read it properly. These two satellites werre up taking pics recently. No idea what level of detail.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22210199/gravity-probes-built-colorado-crash-moons-surface

 

Indeed, and this has been discussed in this post already (in fact twice, I believe) so I'll let you catch up on that if you wish rather than repeat it all ad finitum.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Work away, my good man.

 

I fully intend to - just wait until the Xmas holidays start and I can devote more time to the cause.

 

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

[CB Fry]

JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This was the ruling of the last US committee to investigate the issue. We do not know who orchestrated the conspiracy, and we probably never will. That's an example of a 50 year conspiracy that the American people wanted to investigate, and there's still no official outcome, save the fact that a conspiracy was involved.

 

The best time to prove anything is around the time it happens. The pool of eyewitnesses for any event diminishes to zero over time, happening very quickly in the case of JFK. We can't prove who killed him because contrary to your statement, JFK proves that conspiracies are easier to maintain over time, not harder.

 

 

You're going on about what now?

 

But suffice to say at the time it happened, the moon landings were proved because they happened and there was and is a vast pool eyewitnesses who say it happened around the time it happened.

Edited 18 December, 2012 by CB Fry

[Thedelldays]

pap...loves to stick it to the man

[pap]

You're going on about what now?

 

But suffice to say at the time it happened, the moon landings were proved because they happened and there was and is a vast pool eyewitnesses who say it happened around the time it happened.

 

When you say vast pool you're talking about 12 astronauts.

[CB Fry]

When you say vast pool you're talking about 12 astronauts.

 

 

I'm talking about a fu ck of a lot more people than have ever come forward as eyewitnesses to a movie shoot of not one, but several moon landings.

 

Anyway. Great trolling.

[pap]

I'm talking about a fu ck of a lot more people than have ever come forward as eyewitnesses to a movie shoot of not one, but several moon landings.

 

Anyway. Great trolling.

 

So who are these other eyewitnesses that have been to the moon?

 

I dunno if you've read further up the thread. Chapel End Charlie likes to make a thing about Japan, completely missing the point that Japan, like the ISS, is verifiable in all sorts of ways the lunar missions are not. I've expanded on that enough, but suffice to say, the evidence is weak compared to the standards we'd want in other historical events. All the primary evidence has been supplied by one source, endlessly regurgitated and used as proof of itself.

[CB Fry]

So who are these other eyewitnesses that have been to the moon?

 

Who are the eyewitnesses that have built the sets/did the catering/wrote the shooting script/worked the cameras/fixed up the lighting on these movies of moon landings.

 

If I'm allowed twelve astronauts, then see if you can find 13 eyewitnesses for the movie. Then you win.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

What really amazes me about threads like this is that at the time it all happened nobody ever questioned the veracity of the moon landings as they quite clearly were happening before our very eyes and there were any number of independent sources to demonstrate the truth of these events - the whole worlds eyes were on what happened yet now with all the advances in technology and such things as satellite pictures of the landings sites, years of studying moon rock samples, first hand testimony and any number of additional proofs as outlined by various contributors above that we get a people who were probably not even a twinkle in their father's eyes at the time it all happened suggesting that it was all just so much hogwash and who are unable to believe the facts before their very eyes.

 

Should we question the WWII or the fact that Southampton lost the - 1901 FA Cup Final - because we weren't there and never experienced it ourselves?

 

The credulity of these people is what the conspiracy theorists rely on to make their money - there's been a whole lot of these guys seeking to make a fast buck from Erich Von Daniken to Henry Lincoln on a never ending range of subjects with theories that simply do not stand up to scrutiny and for some reason we lap it up without even the slightest degree scepticism. People nowadays will believe anything if someone writes a book about it or sets up a website saying its all true simply because its there in black and white before them - even better if its in colour!

 

 

Okay its really time I pointed out something to everyone on here regarding this earlier post of mine. When I wrote it I highlighted the 1901 FA Cup Final because I wanted to see the degree of rigour that posters were using when responding to posts on this thread and I think you've all proved a point to me at least.

 

Not a single query as to the date - 1901? Not even from CB Fry

 

This really does show how easy it is to misrepresent the facts - people are all to readily prepared to take things on face value - I had expected Pap at least to come back with a correction but no nothing, not a sausage, bu88er all - disappointing really as I had thought that he would naturally want to check the veracity of the statements!

 

This is basically how the conspiracists work - no need to tell us the facts when they can misrepresent and obfuscate to then build tenuous fantasies around the actual facts - there's been a whole load of these charletans over the years and they will continue to make money out of the credulity of the general public because really it ain't gonna change.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So who are these other eyewitnesses that have been to the moon?

 

I dunno if you've read further up the thread. Chapel End Charlie likes to make a thing about Japan, completely missing the point that Japan, like the ISS, is verifiable in all sorts of ways the lunar missions are not. I've expanded on that enough, but suffice to say, the evidence is weak compared to the standards we'd want in other historical events. All the primary evidence has been supplied by one source, endlessly regurgitated and used as proof of itself.

 

But you have as yet presented absolutely no evidence that anybody lives in Japan. If you have any incontrovertible proof that they do, then you better make that case now.

 

I will of course refute any evidence you care to offer that supports your hypothesis, employing exactly the same (utterly unreasonable) tactics you have seen fit to employed on here.

 

This is only fair.

[pap]

Who are the eyewitnesses that have built the sets/did the catering/wrote the shooting script/worked the cameras/fixed up the lighting on these movies of moon landings.

 

If I'm allowed twelve astronauts, then see if you can find 13 eyewitnesses for the movie. Then you win.

 

Just looked through my contacts list and nothing there

 

I'm not trying to beat you CB Fry - just ramming home the difference between primary evidence and secondary evidence for the umpteenth time.

 

Repeating another meme, we haven't been sent anyone back in 40 years. According to some, that doesn't matter - it's not important. But according to the same people, this is mankind's greatest achievement, and shouldn't be rubbished in any way.

 

People say that the moon is virtually worthless, and there's no point going back. Yet those same people rightly point out all the technological advances that fell out of previous space programs.

 

I hold the view that a permanent moonbase would be a source of enduring inspiration to the entire planet. It's not just the symbolism. There are practical reasons; jump-point for deeper space exploration, new scientific advances, mineral exploration and excavation. Not only that, but if your long-term intention is to get further out into the galaxy, absent any extremely handy anti-gravity technology, the moon is a no-brainer for large scale construction, especially if you can procure and process a lot of the raw materials in situ.

 

So I have to wonder, why haven't we been back? Why, when we've seen every other field of technology improve, miniaturise, refine, get better and more accessible, has nothing happened on long distance manned space travel since the early 1970s? The moon must be unique in the sense that it is the one thing that the Americans have touched that hasn't ended up with advertising hoardings all over it. Let's brush aside any notions of Moon-sized Coke ads for the moment. Where's the commercial exploitation, or the groundwork to get commercial exploitation underway?

 

The Wright brothers got their Flyer off the deck in 1903. Forty years afterward the skies were filled with Spitfires, Zeros, Corsairs. Not only that, but entire industries had sprung up to support this new innovation, everything from mechanical supply chain to these new-fangled "runway airports" ( Chapel End Charlie picketed these in protest at the withdrawal of the zeppelin ). The world changed.

 

Forty years after Apollo, how much have we refined on this interplanetary space travel lark?

Edited 18 December, 2012 by pap
"industry" to "innovation"

[pap]

Okay its really time I pointed out something to everyone on here regarding this earlier post of mine. When I wrote it I highlighted the 1901 FA Cup Final because I wanted to see the degree of rigour that posters were using when responding to posts on this thread and I think you've all proved a point to me at least.

 

Not a single query as to the date - 1901? Not even from CB Fry

 

This really does show how easy it is to misrepresent the facts - people are all to readily prepared to take things on face value - I had expected Pap at least to come back with a correction but no nothing, not a sausage, bu88er all - disappointing really as I had thought that he would naturally want to check the veracity of the statements!

 

This is basically how the conspiracists work - no need to tell us the facts when they can misrepresent and obfuscate to then build tenuous fantasies around the actual facts - there's been a whole load of these charletans over the years and they will continue to make money out of the credulity of the general public because really it ain't gonna change.

 

So you misrepresent a fact, point out that we didn't point out your misrepresentation of facts, then use a combination of the two to prove that's how conspiracy theorists work?

 

That's some interesting logic there; but you may have excluded one possibility. People may not be reading your posts, or at least, not giving them their full attention. I switched off a bit when you moved off the facts and onto the character assassinations. Bit of a common trait in the valiant defender of the record, isn't it?

[pap]

But you have as yet presented absolutely no evidence that anybody lives in Japan. If you have any incontrovertible proof that they do, then you better make that case now.

 

I will of course refute any evidence you care to offer that supports your hypothesis, employing exactly the same (utterly unreasonable) tactics you have seen fit to employed on here.

 

This is only fair.

 

I dunno if The Kraken is still following this nonsense, don't wanna bung words down people's cakeholes, and invite him to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that this might be one of those "badly argued" things he refers to.

 

For the record, this is why I believe that Japan exists.

 

1) The islands of Japan are visible on global maps, satellite imagery.

2) The existence of the Japanese people has been recorded by multiple nations. Millions of international eyewitnesses have verified its existence through personal accounts or collected evidence.

3) Japan's history is recorded in some detail, verified by physical evidence, millions of eyewitness accounts, archive footage. (Of course, the CEC response to your own suggestion that Japan might not exist would be an aghast cry, idly wondering how anyone could stoop so low as to deny the rape of Nanking)

4) I know people that have been to Japan or have lived in Japan.

5) Thousands of movies have been filmed on location in Japan.

6) Millions of people claiming to be from a place called Japan arrive as tourists in other countries

7) I can go to Japan and see it for myself.

[The Kraken]

"I imagine that this might be one of those "badly argued" things he refers to."

Tick.

[CB Fry]

 

I'm not trying to beat you CB Fry - just ramming home the difference between primary evidence and secondary evidence for the umpteenth time.

 

Are you? There is no primary evidence whatsoever to support any of the conspiracy theories. But there is tons to support the moon landings. And no, its not just the 12 astronauts that can provide primary evidence.

 

Not sure how you can put yourself up as the guardian of any evidence at all. Apart from pointless trolling.

[pap]

Are you? There is no primary evidence whatsoever to support any of the conspiracy theories. But there is tons to support the moon landings. And no, its not just the 12 astronauts that can provide primary evidence.

 

Not sure how you can put yourself up as the guardian of any evidence at all. Apart from pointless trolling.

 

Be sure to roll in with that other primary evidence that we have then.

 

You're free to characterise my points as you see fit, CB Fry; but you might do a little better if you qualified any of your points.

[Saint in Paradise]

http://events.slooh.com/

 

[CB Fry]

Be sure to roll in with that other primary evidence that we have then.

 

You're free to characterise my points as you see fit, CB Fry; but you might do a little better if you qualified any of your points.

 

Well rather than qualify any points, I thought I would go off on a tangent based on a raft of new questions unrelated to the previous point. That's what you've been doing brilliantly on this thread. Do your JFK stuff again, because that, like, really proved the moon landings were fake. Or something.

[Turkish]

There is every chance that these moon landings were real, didn't someone once say Saints would never achieve back to back promotions?

[pap]

Well rather than qualify any points, I thought I would go off on a tangent based on a raft of new questions unrelated to the previous point. That's what you've been doing brilliantly on this thread. Do your JFK stuff again, because that, like, really proved the moon landings were fake. Or something.

 

The only reason I mentioned JFK after your post is because you said a fifty year cover-up would be very hard to maintain. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

[CB Fry]

The only reason I mentioned JFK after your post is because you said a fifty year cover-up would be very hard to maintain. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

 

Of course. One spurious conspiracy proves the existence of another. Great. Close the thread.

 

Shall we start on the 7/7 bombings now?

[pap]

Of course. One spurious conspiracy proves the existence of another. Great. Close the thread.

 

Shall we start on the 7/7 bombings now?

 

The only person trying to make that case is you, sir.

 

You've had your points answered, I haven't asserted that one conspiracy proves another, just that your claim, that a 50 year conspiracy being difficult to cover up might be slightly undermined by the existence of a 49 year old conspiracy.

[CB Fry]

The only person trying to make that case is you, sir.

 

You've had your points answered, I haven't asserted that one conspiracy proves another, just that your claim, that a 50 year conspiracy being difficult to cover up might be slightly undermined by the existence of a 49 year old conspiracy.

 

 

 

....neither conspiracy "exists". So one can't undermine the other. That is the point.

[trousers]

Jesus. Existed or conspiracy?

[pap]

....neither conspiracy "exists". So one can't undermine the other. That is the point.

 

In 1979, the Senate Committee on Assassinations concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Many consider that report to be something of a whitewash, but the official view is that a conspiracy was very likely. Massive departure from the lone gunman theory.

[CB Fry]

In 1979, the Senate Committee on Assassinations concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. Many consider that report to be something of a whitewash, but the official view is that a conspiracy was very likely. Massive departure from the lone gunman theory.

 

 

 

So not a 49 year cover up then. Any Senate Commitee reports on who put the lighting rig up for filming the fake moon landings? Because thats been awful quiet.

[PhilippineSaint]

Jesus. Existed or conspiracy?

 

It was and is all lies

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I dunno if The Kraken is still following this nonsense, don't wanna bung words down people's cakeholes, and invite him to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that this might be one of those "badly argued" things he refers to.

 

For the record, this is why I believe that Japan exists.

 

1) The islands of Japan are visible on global maps, satellite imagery.

2) The existence of the Japanese people has been recorded by multiple nations. Millions of international eyewitnesses have verified its existence through personal accounts or collected evidence.

3) Japan's history is recorded in some detail, verified by physical evidence, millions of eyewitness accounts, archive footage. (Of course, the CEC response to your own suggestion that Japan might not exist would be an aghast cry, idly wondering how anyone could stoop so low as to deny the rape of Nanking)

4) I know people that have been to Japan or have lived in Japan.

5) Thousands of movies have been filmed on location in Japan.

6) Millions of people claiming to be from a place called Japan arrive as tourists in other countries

7) I can go to Japan and see it for myself.

 

 

Winning more converts over every day I see Pulp. But to address your so-called 'proofs':

 

1 - Any alledged maps of the Japanese islands would not prove current inhabitation to my satisfacton

2 - The existence of the Apollo moon landings has also been recored internationally

3 - And the history of the Apollo moon programme is both well understood and freely available to all too

4 - So what? One of your fellow forum members has personnaly spoken to Buzz Aldrin

5 - Hour after hour of film has been shot on the moon by NASA astronauts

6 - All of them Chinese imposter's traveling on fake Japaneses passports

7 - This would then mean that one person (you) were visiting Japan - not the "millions" you claim

 

If you want to convince me of your argument you will have to try a lot harder than this my Pulpy boy.

[pap]

I don't want to convince you of my argument.

[Halo Stickman]

Never before have I witnessed a dead horse getting such a flogging… and from both sides as well!

 

It’s almost becoming too painful to watch!