rush
Venus
Posts: 25 
|
Post by rush on Jul 20, 2009 23:09:11 GMT -4
www.imdb.com/title/tt0455906/Watch this movie and let me know what you think. Its written by Lewis Lapham, editor of Harpers Magazine. He went to Yale with Bush Sr. I think, he is a bonesman as many other people in that film. They'll tell you themselves. Features Cronkite too, btw. Fascinating film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 20, 2009 23:18:54 GMT -4
Didn't you ask us to watch this in the Walter Cronkite thread?
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 20, 2009 23:20:36 GMT -4
Yes but I thought it deserved a separate thread.  |
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 20, 2009 23:36:52 GMT -4
When you watch it pay attention to how Hodding Carter jokingly calls Lapham Lucifer and other big shots call him Lu or Lew. A little titbit for the Satanic Conspiracy theorists. |
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 20, 2009 23:42:30 GMT -4
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 21, 2009 18:00:56 GMT -4
Crickets...
I guess no one wants to engage.... I wonder why?
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 21, 2009 21:55:12 GMT -4
Damn this place is really dead! Comon get your sorry "debunkin" butts out!!! I can talk all kinds of shyt, conspiracies I mean. Lets do something! Sheeeeeeet |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 21, 2009 23:14:55 GMT -4
I'm not going to watch a movie that seems, based on what's said, full of misinformation to discuss a conspiracy that I don't find interesting. Besides, shouldn't this go in a conspiracy section, not the general discussion area?
|
|
rush
Venus
Posts: 25
|
Post by rush on Jul 22, 2009 0:49:42 GMT -4
Based on what? I didn't even say anything but to watch it and respond with your own conclusions.
Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 22, 2009 3:55:12 GMT -4
Based on what? I didn't even say anything but to watch it and respond with your own conclusions. Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! Good luck with that. Telling people to watch a movie isn't going to achieve anything for you, henace the lack of comments. If you want to discuss various claims the movie makes, then feel free to post those and people might respond, but virtually no one is going to waste their time watching rubbishy movies. As to the correct part of the forum (not blog) this should be in Other Conspriacies because that it what you are advocating. General Discussion is for general non-conspriacy based topics. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 22, 2009 6:56:54 GMT -4
Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! No. 1. Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, quite a few of us have been extremely busy the last few days regarding Apollo 11 and may be busy for a few days yet. No. 2. Not all of us have broadband, so cannot watch movies online -- not even five-minute clips. In my case, that's a price I pay for living in the countryside, far from concrete, steel, and glass canyons, noises, traffic, sky-destroying lights, and diesel fumes. And I don't mind at all! No. 3. As has already been pointed out, you've gone about it the wrong way. Had you brought up the particular points that interest you, you might have had a response, especially if you had waited a few more days. No. 4. It's not uncommon to post things on forums and not get an immediate response -- or even get none at all. It all depends on what people are doing and what interests them. A simple link with little information doesn't exactly turn everyone on. We see that all the time. No. 5. Forgive me for being forthright, but that post makes you sound as if you are a petulant, hot-tempered, overly-impatient, name-calling, bad-mannered, bossy child, tossing your toys out of the cot then pouting and complaining about them being on the floor. Why should we bother with that? No. 6. Personally, I think you owe Lunar Orbit -- who does an excellent job of running this forum at his own expense -- and the rest of us, an apology. Finally, care to explain the definition of "hokey" as you've used it? It's not an expression we use in this part of the world and it's not in either of my British English Collins or American English Webster's dictionaries. And "tricky dick" -- is that an insult that has something to do with Richard Nixon? I used "Tricky Dickie" recently when talking about a certain phone call to the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 22, 2009 8:08:15 GMT -4
Based on what? I didn't even say anything but to watch it and respond with your own conclusions. Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! Good luck with that. Are you dense? This is clearly a conspiracy theory, it belongs in the "Other Conspiracy Theories" section. If anything more people will find it here. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 22, 2009 14:35:33 GMT -4
Finally, care to explain the definition of "hokey" as you've used it? It's not an expression we use in this part of the world and it's not in either of my British English Collins or American English Webster's dictionaries. And "tricky dick" -- is that an insult that has something to do with Richard Nixon? I used "Tricky Dickie" recently when talking about a certain phone call to the moon. "Hokey" as in religion and old superstitions? |
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Jul 23, 2009 17:40:07 GMT -4
Based on what? I didn't even say anything but to watch it and respond with your own conclusions. Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! Good luck with that. I'm not going to bother looking at a clip of indeterminate content/length without a compelling reason and outside of hints involving terms such as "American Ruling Class, " "bonesman," "Lucifer," "Satanic Conspiracy" and just plain "conspiracy" - which makes me think you stuck your foot in the mouth (so to speak) during your rant about moving this thread into a suitable "conspiracy" fora - you provided nothing yourself outside of trashing the board and it's administrator. Take it from this "hokey" arrow-slinger: You need to work on your sales pitch. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 24, 2009 23:30:10 GMT -4
Based on what? I didn't even say anything but to watch it and respond with your own conclusions. Look this whole blog is hokey! Im sorry lunarorbit, but there was no reason to move anything out of general discusson. Its bogus. The only reason I see is to confuse the issue and get away from answering and people responding. Youre just another tricky dick! Good luck with that. Whoah, there... People who are interested will watch it, people who aren't - will not. I've started a few threads myself that got almost no replies and I didn't feel slighted in the least. Insulting Lunar Orbit like that is not only disrespectful but totally uncalled for. As mentioned, this week is the 40th anniversary of the Moon Landings, and what with the latest LRO pictures that just came out most of us are interested in that. BTW I've just come back from camping for three days so I haven't had time to look at the movie. I might give it a looksee - might. |
|
