|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 17:57:41 GMT -4
sts60 wrote: "Earth satellites and the services they provide together comprise tens of billions of dollars of business annually. Evidently, there are a lot of banks, analysts, and other people willing to commit great deals of money to things they can't see, but are guided by these principles. The fact that you are ignorant of their existence is not evidence for your position".
Hey, sts60 What craps are you saying? Earth satellites are at a ridiculous distance in comparison with 500 million kilometers of Mars. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 17:14:49 GMT -4
This thread is: "We never went to Mars", not to the moon.
Why do you never went to Mars? Because after one kilometer you can no longer see the probe going to Mars. You have no telescope that can see it in its travel of 500 million kilometers in the darkness of universe. Hubble can't see like human eyes, it "sees" only lights coming from distant places of universe. You can't see Mars, you can't see your probe, but magically your probe lands on Mars attracted by its perfume of carbon dioxide. Have you found any software that can drive your probe to a target 500 million kilometers distant? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 16:05:35 GMT -4
Bob B. wrote: "What's your real motivation for claiming it is all faked? Do you disagree with US politics?"
US should increase very much researches on hydrogen and electrical engines, should not make wars to seize oil, should stop drugs. But this is what all countries should do. I hate swindlers, all those who say a lot of craps. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 15:54:30 GMT -4
sts60 wrote: "You are begging the question, rather than offering any evidence for your claims that lunar and Mars landings have been faked..."
Hey, sts60, have you seen the movies? Well, it seems that Spirit is moving on a sphere of a few yards of diameter. ;D ;D ;D Moreover, what is that movie in the movie? An enlargement of the ground? If you film very close to the ground you can't see those images that seem like caves. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 15:21:39 GMT -4
Hey, JeyUtah, you have a problem, you are too verbose, try to be more succinct. I wrote: "we would have filmed Mars raising from the darkness of universe slightly illuminated by the sun and more and more close to us, we would have filmed that fantastic, exciting, wonderful, marvellous sight". You wrote: "First, NASA is not Hollywood. You're expecting NASA to entertain you, thrill you, and generally pander to your idle curiosities. That's not their mission. Their mission is to explore the universe scientifically, not to make pictures some random guy might think are pretty". Hey, NASA IS HOLLYWOOD. Nasa showed on TV the faked landing on the moon like a hollywood film.Why has not Nasa made another faked movie and has not filmed Mars when Spirit was close to the planet? Because today we are more witty and we can understand if a movie is faked, and it's still too difficult to make a film using Softimage, Maya or 3D Studio Max so real that they don't understand it is faked.Go to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/spirit01.html and see the videos. Also a child understands those films are faked. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 10:27:27 GMT -4
What a fantastic answers. With compliments. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 9:47:51 GMT -4
Nasa has spent a lot of money to buid that human eyed ostrich named Spirit (it seems that famous character of that celebrate science fiction film), Spirit has spent 7 months to go to Mars and has travelled for 500 million kilometers in the darkness of universe. What would you have done when you were close to Mars? Intelligent answer: "with some Sony camcorders (the most expensive, not those made in Congo that jerk along) we would have filmed Mars raising from the darkness of universe slightly illuminated by the sun and more and more close to us, we would have filmed that fantastic, exciting, wonderful, marvellous sight". Nasa's answer: "we have no time to lose, we don't take trouble to film that insignificant sight. When we will be on Mars we are going to film some thousands of stones of incredible beauty. How wonderful". ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 5, 2005 1:51:25 GMT -4
I wrote: "The fire was burning out in one of the two towers but it was the first to crash, to be destroyed. Don't you think this is a little strange?"
LunarOrbit wrote: "Not at all".
Explain, please. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 4, 2005 17:24:45 GMT -4
The fire was burning out in one of the two towers but it was the first to crash, to be destroiyed. Don't you think this is a little strange? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 4, 2005 14:49:27 GMT -4
JayUtah wrote: "The "anomaly" of moving the steel away so quickly is based partly on the circular notion of there having been something suspicious about the building's collapse. The cause of the collapse was not a mystery to engineers..." Often engineers don't understand anything. Do you believe that a ridiculous Boeing can distroy, can raze to the ground that way a powerful skyscraper 200,000 tons heavy? Since the plane went against the high part of the tower, a big or small part of it had to stand. Instead all the tower crashed as it was made by butter. Incredible. Something else distroyed the skyscraper that way.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 9:47:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 17:32:43 GMT -4
sts60 wrote: "No. You may not change the subject just because you are making no headway on this one".
I may change the subject because I can speak about all questions with intelligence. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 16:57:31 GMT -4
star wrote: "now, how did the government manage to devalue ppl's minds till this extent? I ask myself. Then I say: if the moon landing was hoaxed, then everything is possible. Our government shouldn't be blamed for this tiny lie. regards" Do you believe that a ridiculous Boeing can distroy, can raze to the ground this way a powerful skiscraper 200,000 tons heavy?
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 16:05:58 GMT -4
star wrote: "http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_26.html please Jay, explain to me how the first pic on this site depict a high quality engineering".
Hey, star doesn't it seem to you a Christmas tree? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 3, 2005 14:38:33 GMT -4
sts60 wrote: "...anti hoaxers should prove him wrong on EVERY thing to say the landings are real. Nonsense. Apollo stands on record as a matter of historical fact, with staggering amounts of written, photographic, video, hardware and personal testimony behind it. The claim that it was hoaxed is truly extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence to merit serious consideration. So far, the HBers have offered no credible evidence, none at all which stands up to examination by anyone who actually understands the topic..." Hey, sts60 go to marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/spirit01.htmland see carefully to the video named "Spirit on Mars". Doesn't it seem to you that Mars is a balloon of 20 yards of diameter? Why does Spirit use wide-angle lens to look at ground? They use wide-angle lens to look at a panorama. Nasa's art director of faked films has wanted to give the images a mysterious atmosphere. Sure, the images come from a distance of 500 million kilometers. In their travel they get deformed. ;D ;D ;D
|
|