|
Post by rick on Sept 7, 2011 17:50:53 GMT -4
According to Apollo 18, the reason why we never went back to the moon was because there was a secret Soviet mission to the south pole of the moon because water might be there and they were going to trump us.
But they also found life. Here is the fun part. Some of the moon rocks were alive.
So the DoD stepped in and decided to send on more Apollo mission to check things out. The Astronauts families were told that they were going to go to Japan on a special mission to get Japan set up for manned space exploration.
None of the astronauts were told that the rocks were alive in some dark cool areas on the moon.
The mission was going along nice and smoothly until they picked up some samples and the next morning one of the rocks was found outside the plastic baggie inside the LM.
"hey, did you take this rock out"
"no, you must have"
"I didn't"
"well, this is a mystery. Label this one as contaminated"
Of course it not long until all hell breaks out.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Sept 6, 2011 17:59:39 GMT -4
The movie combines several real things. - The fact that we have been looking for water in dark areas on the Moon and if there is water, there could be life
- The fact that there were some secret space missions during the cold war during that time.
- And, of course, the blare witch project
- And the fact that moon rocks are distributed now all over the planet.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Sept 2, 2011 13:07:31 GMT -4
I always find Bill Thompson's posts to be worth a laugh. He's an arrogant self-righteous Ess Oh Bee on every forum where I find his posts, but sometimes his annoying petulant opinioneering is amusing. I vote: Don't punish "Rick" for the sins of "Bill" but let him hoist his own petard under the new name if he feels the need to do so. Oh, and "rick:" don't push you're luck. LO wields a heavy ban-hammer around here, as I'm sure you've seen. Who is the arrogant one? The one who you named or the one you gave a more tangable example of? What is a petard? Anyway, for the record, I will say that I think LO is engineering his own reality here at the cost of others repuatations.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Sept 2, 2011 13:02:37 GMT -4
the warnings are more or less "hey, this guy seems like a nice guy who is defending the religion he choose and you are a meany for hurting his feelings"
You repeatedly made personal comments to that regard saying time after time that you were tired of what he said.
So you were basically saying "this is my house and free speech is what I decide it to be"
It would appear that Thompson enjoyed being a member of his forum.
the posts that got him banned do not reflect either his personality or writing style.
I think he is not lying.
What is more, is there an email addres for LO? Is this web forum's admin open to the public?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Sept 1, 2011 19:14:11 GMT -4
He does not seem the type. What is the past post "he" made? I wonder if it would sound like something he would say. I also imagine we can tell based on when it was made and how soon he was banned. I am leaning towards what he says. If only a second passed from when the post was made to when he was banned, that is pretty suspicious. Does LO have a good rep outside this web forum? He says he was discussing religion and LO felt sorry for some Mormon. There was not enough done to justify banning him, so in order to safe face, LO invented some additional posts to make Bill Thompson look worse than he was and then straightaway ban him. Kind of seems plausable to me. Sounds like "Pious Fraud". Someone is claiming a religon is unethical and wrong and in doing so does something unethical and wrong? Yeah, right
|
|
|
Post by rick on Aug 31, 2011 21:34:34 GMT -4
Bill Thompson says you edited his posts and even addes some that he never made. Then you used the faux posts to ban him. Why would he lie about that?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Aug 12, 2011 16:10:23 GMT -4
Granted there are advantages and disadvantages to having contact with the rest of humanity, but if we are to treat them as human beings, surely we have to give them the option of whether they want this contact, rather than making the choice for them? I think any contact with them at all would be bad. Even a small tiny amount. First of all, we might make them sick and kill them all off. Secondly, if they decide to become modern and even love it, it would be horrible, even if they thought it would be good for them. A whole way of life and maybe even language will be gone forever.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 7, 2011 1:49:09 GMT -4
I do not understand. Quakers, I assume the breakfast food is named after them, were a noble and simple folk. The prophet Joesph Smith (PBUH) insisted that the people living on the moon were just like him.
Ironically, SOME people who frequent this web site insist that HE is the source of all truth. So we cannot have it both ways. I don't see how someone can be a faithful Mormon and also believe the Apollo moon landings were real at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 6, 2011 23:31:44 GMT -4
It has been revealed to me that we could not have walked on the moon yet because the greatest seer who ever lived had insisted that we would find Quakers there. This was one of Joesph Smith's prediction. So also said Brigham Young who replaced him after he was martyred. In fact, if we walked on the moon then the entire American Educational system is flawed since there is a University named after him.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 6, 2011 23:27:34 GMT -4
you got your tech terms mixed up, echnaton.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 6, 2011 19:12:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 20, 2010 14:42:14 GMT -4
it is all good harmless fun until the "ghost" starts scratching and hurting people. people do anything to get on TV, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 20, 2010 14:34:53 GMT -4
The biblical Noah was a doomsday forecaster and he was right once, but when he was right, his detractors perished. So, if you believe that story, doomsday forcasters can be right. Two problems with that analogy: 1. In the Biblical narrative, Noah doesn't actually tell anyone that they're all about to be drowned. So he didn't really forecast anything to anyone and he didn't have any detractors. 2. Noah wasn't anything like a modern environmentalist. There is no indication he tried to limit his carbon emissions at all. So would you buy a modern version of Noah who rounded up species and said that we were all in danger -- kind of like Noah but a blabbermouth. I kind of recall that he DID warn people -- either that or people thought he was wacky noodles. Isn't that part of the story that people thought he was crazy? By the way, if someone told you that God told them to tell everyone to limit carbon emissions, would you believe them? If not, why not? Does God talk to you?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 20, 2010 14:30:00 GMT -4
I caught a glimpse of Obama's speach about what lies ahead for the space program. He seems to be cutting the space program to shreds. I had to turn away when he mentioned not returning to the moon by "we have already been there.... we need to look beyond"
It does not seem like a good idea to me.
WHat do you think?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 8, 2010 14:33:25 GMT -4
Apollo 8. Those were the days. I wonder how many people think like I do that it is so cool that we have been to the moon. We have done something that would otherwise be thought of as mythical. We have decided not to be a mere creature on this Earth but to step outside -- so to speak -- and go where no man would be able to go if not for technology and science and rational thought and understaning of physics and mathematics. We took the proverbial bull by the horns. We choose to rise above Nature and take charge.
Things regarded and dismissed as being myths and magic can really come true, if we use our brains.
It really was a great leap for Mankind. That was not just something to say as a cliche.
|
|