| deleted user 08.07.2006 19:01 |
Three simple facts 1-You don't see any stars when the flag is being placed 2-You see the Astranots shadow when he walks about when it is Impossible to ahve a shadow in space without any lights 3-The American Flag is moveing when their is no air in space The Americans wernt the first people in sapce its the Russianslink |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 08.07.2006 19:05 |
<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b wrote: Three simple facts 1-You don't see any stars when the flag is being placed 2-You see the Astranots shadow when he walks about when it is Impossible to ahve a shadow in space without any lights 3-The American Flag is moveing when their is no air in spaceThree more simple facts: 1. Learn to spell. 2. Get yourself a brain. 3. Get a life. :) |
| M a t i a s M a y 08.07.2006 19:07 |
poppy, will you marry me? |
| Maz 08.07.2006 19:07 |
link Go spend some time over there rather than regurgitating other people's ideas on QZ. |
| Freya is quietly judging you. 08.07.2006 19:17 |
Oh, and another thing... (I remember doing this in Physics aaages ago) A possible reason for the flag being in motion is that as the flag was moved in to position it was knocked about a bit causing motion, since there isn't any atmosphere on the moon there is no friction to cause it to stop moving so it just carried on moving.. I haven't explained it very well but that's what I remember. |
| Carol! the Musical 08.07.2006 20:56 |
<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b wrote: Three simple facts 1-You don't see any stars when the flag is being placed 2-You see the Astranots shadow when he walks about when it is Impossible to ahve a shadow in space without any lights 3-The American Flag is moveing when their is no air in space The Americans wernt the first people in sapce its the RussianslinkI'm sure it was. :-) |
| RETROLOVE 08.07.2006 21:21 |
The word 'duh' came to mind when I see the title of this thread... I was born here, but THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the most crooked, 'brush everything under the carpet like it never happened' country in tha world!!!!! Nearly killed a whole race of people (Native Americans) and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm) |
| user name 08.07.2006 23:08 |
<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote: The word 'duh' came to mind when I see the title of this thread... I was born here, but THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the most crooked, 'brush everything under the carpet like it never happened' country in tha world!!!!! Nearly killed a whole race of people (Native Americans) and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm)I hope the word 'duh' didn't really come to mind when you saw the title of the thread. Don't believe everything you see on the TV, or every far fetched claim some person spouts, no matter how reasonable it may seem at the time. Instead, do a little research. I don't know the official responses to these points, but straight off the top of my head I can already see numerous rebuttals. 1) Read number 2 to get some insight on this mysterious object known as the sun. It would override the light from the stars, being the brighter source. 2) There are lights. There is a powerful source of light in this solar system known as the sun, which is known to illuminate various interplanetary objects. Perhaps there is even supplied artificial lighting provided. Without light, there would be no video, anyway, so why the hell would you even argue about the shadows? 3) There is also reduced gravity and low friction (a body in motion will remain in motion). Hence, to get the flag in the position it is, the astronauts will have had to _move_ it there. Movement wouldn't automatically freeze when the flag is put in place. 4) You have no mind. Get one. Next..."It doesn't matter..." Maybe it doesn't. It depends what you are talking about. Are these important lessons in history that should never be forgotten? Most certainly. Is anyone currently living at this time accountable or responsible for these things? Of course not. There is no real reason to even consider these things except to ensure that they do not happen again. Edit: I was just going to leave it at that, but I just had to say to Freddies son that you are quite possibly the stupidest fuck I've ever encountered yet on Queenzone. You make Jake Britt look tame. First of all, your name alone just immediately points out that you have suffered least seven cerebral hemorrhages throughout your pathetic lifetime. Secondly, link That alone pretty much takes the cake, but I am currently suffering from a tortuous dichotomy. Part of me is glad that I have only read about 1% of your total posts, but the other part is terrified that I am already abhorred at your ignorant stupidity from that mere 1%! I could only imagine all the stupid fucking things you may have said in the past! Please leave QZ. Thanks. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 08.07.2006 23:36 |
^Brian drops a nuke that would make Korea cringe XD XD XD |
| deleted user 08.07.2006 23:39 |
^I agree. Touche'! |
| Adolfo and the spiders from Mercury 08.07.2006 23:53 |
+++MatiasMay+++<h6><i>The Rainmaker wrote: poppy, will you marry me?actually poppy is quite good looking |
| john bodega 09.07.2006 00:40 |
<font color=orange><b>Freddies son</b wrote: Three simple facts 1-You don't see any stars when the flag is being placed 2-You see the Astranots shadow when he walks about when it is Impossible to ahve a shadow in space without any lights 3-The American Flag is moveing when their is no air in space The Americans wernt the first people in sapce its the RussianslinkI love a good dogpile. You're wrong. 1). Take a photo at night on earth with a very bright flash on, and the nature of the exposure would make it very hard for you to see stars anyway. That's just how cameras operate. 2). You see the astronauts shadow... BECAUSE THE SUN IS SHINING ON HIM. Is the sun not a light? DOES IT NOT CAST SHADOW??? :P 3). The American flag moved because it was not a rigid object, it was a piece of cloth, and they were swinging it around. You'll notice that once they left it alone and momentum stopped carrying it, it didn't move an inch. There are other things you can observe. *The dust that flies up from the wheels of the lunar buggy does not travel like dust in an atmosphere, it is propelled in a perfect parabola flight pattern. This does not happen on earth. *Also, the Apollo 11 astronauts left scientific instruments on the moon, one of which being a special mirror. To this day, scientists are beaming lasers to this mirror to obtain bits of information like how far away the moon is and whatnot (I think). Sorry to burst your bubble, but yes - people landed on the moon. |
| Serry... 09.07.2006 01:07 |
The American Moon Landing is not fake. This fact was confirmed by USSR even. |
| scallyuk 09.07.2006 04:34 |
<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote: and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm)I wish someone - anyone - would get their facts right about slavery. White americans (or brits for that matter) didn't start the slave trade. When they started exploring in Africa they found a thriving trade in slaves already existing. It was Black Africans who sold their own slaves and prisoners from other tribes to "the white man". Forget the white man's burden and start pointing the finger where it belongs. Yes white people used slaves -who were sold to them by black people . Live with the guilt if you feel any otherwise accept that black people probably wouldn't be in the USA without the trade. |
| M a t i a s M a y 09.07.2006 06:48 |
Adolfo wrote:of course she is+++MatiasMay+++<h6><i>The Rainmaker wrote: poppy, will you marry me?actually poppy is quite good looking =D |
| Maz 09.07.2006 13:22 |
scallyuk wrote: Forget the white man's burden and start pointing the finger where it belongs.There may have been a thriving trade in place, but it certainly expanded greatly when a new need for slaves opened up in North and South America. I think it is fair to say that white Europeans exploited a system for their own needs. But regardless, the slave trade to the US, for which you would point the finger at Africans, ended in 1808. Slavery, however, did not end in the US for another 55+ years. The fact that continued to exist for over half a century lays some of the blame on whites. Now, just to be clear, I find Jellybean Queen's comments pretty ignorant and uneducated. But I also think "pointing the finger where it belongs" overlooks the facts as well. |
| deleted user 09.07.2006 17:52 |
scallyuk wrote:WTF?<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote: and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm)I wish someone - anyone - would get their facts right about slavery. White americans (or brits for that matter) didn't start the slave trade. When they started exploring in Africa they found a thriving trade in slaves already existing. It was Black Africans who sold their own slaves and prisoners from other tribes to "the white man". Forget the white man's burden and start pointing the finger where it belongs. Yes white people used slaves -who were sold to them by black people . Live with the guilt if you feel any otherwise accept that black people probably wouldn't be in the USA without the trade. Oh...So all in all it was a good trade? You are right: SOMEONE should get their facts right - but not just anyone. |
| user name 09.07.2006 17:54 |
Either way, the fact is, those responsible for the slave trade are long dead...all of them. There's nothing more to worry about concerning slavery. Those who have oppressed the Native Americans...all dead. Therefore, no one is left to blame. The end. No more, "Well, at least my country never did this," or "My country did this way back when before I was even born." It's all moot. Especially claims of hypocrisy. |
| blerp 09.07.2006 17:59 |
There was a documentary on all this a few years ago, sheesh |
| deleted user 09.07.2006 18:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Either way, the fact is, those responsible for the slave trade are long dead...all of them. There's nothing more to worry about concerning slavery. Those who have oppressed the Native Americans...all dead. Therefore, no one is left to blame. The end. No more, "Well, at least my country never did this," or "My country did this way back when before I was even born." It's all moot. Especially claims of hypocrisy.Well, I agree to some point. If you don't know your history you might have difficulties understanding your present and forming your future. |
| RETROLOVE 09.07.2006 20:08 |
scallyuk wrote:Trust me dear, (and as being a black person myself, and no, we wouldnt be here if their wasnt a slave trade) I dont doubt anything that you are saying, but two wrong dont make it right!!!!!!!! I know that the past cannot be changed, me personally... I just think the US goverment tries to downplay everything, the US citizen here in general always downplay everything. I think the slave trave was horrible (its horrible taking away anyones freedom to do what they please, and to me personally, I think that native americans were just as enslaved as black people were, not to mention asian people during WW2, no one hardly ever talks about that!!!!) And if it were the other way around, I think it would have been just as bad (blacks enslaving whites). I just dont like the way people (that even includings other black people sadly) downplay things. I dont think they need to talk about it everyday, but I just dont like they way our goverment puts on this face like their trying to help someone, but their really just looking out for themselves!!!<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote: and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm)I wish someone - anyone - would get their facts right about slavery. White americans (or brits for that matter) didn't start the slave trade. When they started exploring in Africa they found a thriving trade in slaves already existing. It was Black Africans who sold their own slaves and prisoners from other tribes to "the white man". Forget the white man's burden and start pointing the finger where it belongs. Yes white people used slaves -who were sold to them by black people . Live with the guilt if you feel any otherwise accept that black people probably wouldn't be in the USA without the trade. Especially in relations to Iraq....they could care less about those people, as long as they get their oil, thats all G-dubbaya n' company cares about!!! MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!! And sadly, thats what the slave trade was about also....MONEY!!!! And thats the problem...people put MONEY first before respect and dignity for a basic human right like FREEDOM!!!! No offense to you about what I said, but the truth is the TRUTH!!!!!! And I cant help but tell the truth...!!!! |
| Carol! the Musical 09.07.2006 20:20 |
Right on, Jellybean! Right ON! |
| RETROLOVE 09.07.2006 22:18 |
<font color=336600>ChinesedogTorture wrote: Right on, Jellybean! Right ON!Thanks Chinese. Its not really a racial issue that I'm talking about here. Its just the simple fact that people put MONEY before basic human needs and rights. There is no reason why people (especially children) should have to go a night without eating, because the goverment is too selfish and greedy to take care of its people (not talking about the states) but under-developed countries, the 3rd world. No reason. Dont give me wrong, I love being an US American citizen ( I love being a WORLD citizen period!!), I feel very blessed to live in a country where I dont have to worry about where I'm gonna sleep, what I'm gonna eat, and where employment is out there, as long as you can find it. (And I'm not downplaying any other countries out there either)I'm just saying that the US puts on this 'face' like their perfect, and they make all over countries looks like their their bad or something...I personally dont like it, and I believe something bad is gonna happen to us one day, and the sad thing is that its not gonna be our fault... :( |
| Togg 10.07.2006 04:56 |
It has to be said that there is one born every minute, if you really believe they didn't land on the moon, then you really are pretty gullible, these conspiracy theories are very funny, but just made up by nutcases, I will not even bother to show you the evidence as others here have at least gone some way to show you. but Brother you take the biscuit. |
| sparrow 21754 10.07.2006 14:23 |
still sucks being NA lol |
| user name 10.07.2006 16:36 |
<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote:I understand where you are coming from, but from another perspective, it seems completely logical that the American people should dissociate themselves, or "downplay" such things as the oppression of the Native Americans and the slave trade. It is because the American government and the American people are wrongly being accused of such actions, or responsibility for them is being wrongly placed in their hands. If you were being held responsible for something that some person you did not even know did, then would you not try to downplay or dissociate yourself from this thing?scallyuk wrote:Trust me dear, (and as being a black person myself, and no, we wouldnt be here if their wasnt a slave trade) I dont doubt anything that you are saying, but two wrong dont make it right!!!!!!!! I know that the past cannot be changed, me personally... I just think the US goverment tries to downplay everything, the US citizen here in general always downplay everything. I think the slave trave was horrible (its horrible taking away anyones freedom to do what they please, and to me personally, I think that native americans were just as enslaved as black people were, not to mention asian people during WW2, no one hardly ever talks about that!!!!) And if it were the other way around, I think it would have been just as bad (blacks enslaving whites). I just dont like the way people (that even includings other black people sadly) downplay things. I dont think they need to talk about it everyday, but I just dont like they way our goverment puts on this face like their trying to help someone, but their really just looking out for themselves!!! Especially in relations to Iraq....they could care less about those people, as long as they get their oil, thats all G-dubbaya n' company cares about!!! MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!! And sadly, thats what the slave trade was about also....MONEY!!!! And thats the problem...people put MONEY first before respect and dignity for a basic human right like FREEDOM!!!! No offense to you about what I said, but the truth is the TRUTH!!!!!! And I cant help but tell the truth...!!!!<B>Jellybean Queen<h6>sweetbodykisses<B> wrote: and enslaved another (African Americans).. but hey, thats in the past, so it doesnt matter...(sarcasm)I wish someone - anyone - would get their facts right about slavery. White americans (or brits for that matter) didn't start the slave trade. When they started exploring in Africa they found a thriving trade in slaves already existing. It was Black Africans who sold their own slaves and prisoners from other tribes to "the white man". Forget the white man's burden and start pointing the finger where it belongs. Yes white people used slaves -who were sold to them by black people . Live with the guilt if you feel any otherwise accept that black people probably wouldn't be in the USA without the trade. As far as the money/government/GWB-thing, I'm fairly certain that it's far deeper and more complicated than you could even imagine. There are a thousand things to consider, and it's ridiculous to think that the President is acting solely under the premise of avarice. Greed is a very overused criticism that seldom holds merit. "Why are the prices for x and y so high?" "Well, large corporations are greedy so they like to gouge prices." Such conversations as these make me shiver in disgust at the blatant displays of ignorance. |
| FreMe 10.07.2006 16:47 |
Adolfo wrote:She sure is :D.. RAW!+++MatiasMay+++<h6><i>The Rainmaker wrote: poppy, will you marry me?actually poppy is quite good looking |
| Mr.Jingles 10.07.2006 16:48 |
There's a lot of of greed and corruption going on on the higher positions of power, and it's not only in America. I think Jellybean brings out a good point, althought she might get carried away on some of her statements. I wouldn't call it ignorant if you ask me. |
| user name 10.07.2006 19:07 |
I apologize if it was construed that I said that she was ignorant. The ignorance I referred to was those who engage in such conversations as I outlined (which would be the extreme case). In fact, she made a decent point, and I had liked to elaborate upon it, and also to point out a minor criticism. |
| DreaminQueen 10.07.2006 23:14 |
If i may add one other thing in regards to the slavery thing... The Dutch East (i believe) India Trading Co brought some slaves for trade to the colonies in the 1600's, and that was kinda the seedlings for slavery in the US, anyway, hope that may shed some light on things (or not i duno)... But that still doesnt make it right. And its not something that should be forgotten, but it something that we cannot place blame on anymore. We are no more responsible for what our forefathers did than what those 200 yrs from now will be responsible for what we did. They will have to deal with unfortunatly like ourselves, the backlash of certain actions. But they cannot be blamed for it. And as far as this threads concerned, good god, education has seriously gone downhill... so i wont even waste my time on such foolishness... believe what you want... its only been scientifically proven, and you cant prove other wise... |
| blerp 11.07.2006 13:32 |
Thomas Jefferson! |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.07.2006 08:22 |
<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. |
| john bodega 12.07.2006 12:53 |
PS. The lunar landing wasn't fake. |
| Carol! the Musical 12.07.2006 12:54 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Oooh, looks like you're back. :P<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. |
| M a t i a s M a y 12.07.2006 13:30 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:lmao<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. |
| user name 12.07.2006 19:05 |
How about we just agree that both communists and nazis suck, okay? They suck hard. Really hard. |
| Gone. 12.07.2006 19:11 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: How about we just agree that both communists and nazis suck, okay? They suck hard. Really hard.agree! |
| Gone. 12.07.2006 20:28 |
<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:haha!lolDeadOnTime<3 wrote:Ditto. But how about ThomasQuinn? He sucks communists and nazis' balls. At the same time. Hard.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: How about we just agree that both communists and nazis suck, okay? They suck hard. Really hard.agree! |
| Sherwood Forest 12.07.2006 20:47 |
darren shut up |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 06:12 |
<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:I'm a fundamentalist and a liar now? Too bad you can't back EITHER of them up, seeing as you're talking from your ass (granted, the part of you with the highest IQ).<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Rather a communist or me than a nazi or fundamentalist liars like you.<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. |
| M a t i a s M a y 13.07.2006 06:29 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:You're back!!!<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:I'm a fundamentalist and a liar now? Too bad you can't back EITHER of them up, seeing as you're talking from your ass (granted, the part of you with the highest IQ).<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Rather a communist or me than a nazi or fundamentalist liars like you.<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. Rough as always can I be the next in being insulted by you?? CAN I? CAN I?? PLEAAAAASE |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 06:43 |
I don't have to insult you. The unchallenged genius at making you look stupid is you. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 07:16 |
Oooh. That was almost within a lightyear of being witty. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 07:29 |
Thank you, Thijs. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 07:31 |
Back on topic: Interesting to know, whether the moon landing is a fake or not (I don't think it was, but if you want to believe it was faked, go ahead): Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks. |
| john bodega 13.07.2006 10:28 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Back on topic: Interesting to know, whether the moon landing is a fake or not (I don't think it was, but if you want to believe it was faked, go ahead): Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.He would have to have done it several more times though to accommodate the other landings. Besides, as I wrote earlier in the thread before it was derailed, there are easy ways to counter pretty much any 'theory' about the landing being faked. At least - I have had this conspiracy crap explained to me to my satisfaction, easily, and I don't believe *anything* usually. People landed on the moon. Ordinarily I'd say "it's not rocket science", but in this case it was, and it worked, and people who don't believe in it have to invent better reasoning because the current theories don't work. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.07.2006 15:10 |
Well, I do believe that it is possible the footage got messed up in the process of being sent here (remember, the signal was so weak that it had to be received using radio-telescopes, which could mean static with some slight movement in it is your image), and Kubrick's version COULD have been aired. I don't know. I just know there are some oddities on the film, but there are also oddities on PICTURES from the moon, so that could just Luna being odd. |
| Queen are the Champions 13.07.2006 16:45 |
We actually had to study that documentary in my media class from the Conspiracy Theory point of view. There are definitely oddities. i don't know what the truth is, maybe i'll find out when i go to the Moon. The truth is out there. :P |
| Ian R 13.07.2006 23:31 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I just know there are some oddities on the film, but there are also oddities on PICTURES from the moon, so that could just Luna being odd.and... Queen are the Champions wrote: There are definitely oddities.As far as the Moon landings are concerned, there really aren't any 'oddities' on either the live television transmissions or the Hasselblad lunar photography. People consistently make mistakes when it comes to analyzing these photographs. Things that don't seem right, appear that way simply because you don't completely understand the distortions that can occur when a 3D scene is projected onto a flat surface (the film) via a lens. If there are any particular 'oddities' that you have in mind, please bring them up and I'll endeavour to address them. I studied this subject in depth for five or six years, so I should be able to elucidate you! Ironically, the TV footage is perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Apollo missions were genuine. The behaviour exhibited by the astronauts and the lunar dust is impossible to recreate in a 1G, air-filled environment. Ian. |
| Ian R 13.07.2006 23:36 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here: link Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere. Ian. |
| john bodega 14.07.2006 02:03 |
Yah I tried saying that before the racism discussion started - the flight pattern of the dust is a give-away that it was shot on the moon. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.07.2006 06:36 |
Ian R wrote:Kubrick HIMSELF stated in (I think) 3 different interviews (could be 2, but I thought 3) that he was asked to film it and did so, but refused to go into details regarding this.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Stanley Kubrick was asked to film a lunar landing, in case something went wrong with either the landing itself or the transmission of footage from the lander. He did, and to this day it remains unknown which version was broadcast, the real thing, or Kubricks.Sorry Thomas, but this claim really is bollocks, and a common urban myth expounded by conspiracy theorists. See here: link Kubrick did not film (or fake) a lunar landing, and he wouldn't have been able to recreate the behaviour of the dust particles anyway. In the vacuum of space, the tiny particles follow obvious ballistic trajectories - here on Earth, they exhibit chaotic behaviour due to interactions with the atmosphere. Ian. |
| M a t i a s M a y 14.07.2006 08:39 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I don't have to insult you. The unchallenged genius at making you look stupid is you.yay! ^^ |
| M a t i a s M a y 14.07.2006 08:39 |
<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:LMAOOM a t i a s M a y<h6><i>QZ's Rainmaker wrote:You shouldn't even bother, Matias... Caspar was generated through anal sex.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:You're back!!! Rough as always can I be the next in being insulted by you?? CAN I? CAN I?? PLEAAAAASE<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:I'm a fundamentalist and a liar now? Too bad you can't back EITHER of them up, seeing as you're talking from your ass (granted, the part of you with the highest IQ).<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Rather a communist or me than a nazi or fundamentalist liars like you.<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote: Avoid the communiiiiiiiiiiiiiists.........Rather a communist than a nazi...or you. xDDDD |
| Ian R 14.07.2006 18:35 |
<font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Kubrick HIMSELF stated in (I think) 3 different interviews (could be 2, but I thought 3) that he was asked to film it and did so, but refused to go into details regarding this.Can you go into more details about these interviews? Thomas - this is almost DEFINITELY an Urban Myth. Many individuals have looked into this issue over the years and found not one iota of evidence linking Kubrick to any aupposed effort to produce faked lunar TV transmissions. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.07.2006 06:14 |
I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed. |
| That guy who digs energy domes 16.07.2006 00:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed.Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited |
| john bodega 16.07.2006 02:43 |
It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.07.2006 07:52 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:Can you read? There is no suggestion that the moon LANDINGS were fake, but that an 'alternative version' was shot in the studio, in case the FOOTAGE was unusable.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: I saw one interview broadcast recently on Belgian television (was about 6 minutes long), the two other s I've only heard of. In the interview Kubrick said something along the lines of "Well, they asked me to shoot a lunar landing. So I just stared at them for a minute, and when I figured they weren't joking, I said yeah, ok. Why not?" when the issue was discussed.Then they would've had to film more to account for the other times it was visited |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.07.2006 08:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon.And did I deny that? No. |
| john bodega 16.07.2006 09:43 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:(Belly laugh) and I was talking to you? Ha-ha.Zebonka12 wrote: It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon.And did I deny that? No. |
| Carol! the Musical 16.07.2006 10:13 |
<font color=lime>KillerKing840 wrote:Har, har, har, OWNEDDD! XDZebonka12 wrote:link XD<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:(Belly laugh) and I was talking to you? Ha-ha.Zebonka12 wrote: It's all bumpkis. People landed on the moon.And did I deny that? No. |
| john bodega 16.07.2006 10:44 |
Now now it was not my intention to either get owned or initiate ownage. However - to address the Kubrick part of this discussion... it's largely a bumpkis idea, because the subsequent landings would have looked significantly different from the 'original'. To say nothing of the fact that the original Lunar footage exhibits tell-tale signs of having been shot in a vacuum environment (even Kubrick wouldn't have been able to fake that). Sure who knows, maybe locked in a NASA vault is a reel marked 'Kubrick's Lunar Video', but I'd bet my kidneys on it having never been shown anywhere. |
| user name 16.07.2006 20:38 |
Also, nobody said that the contents of Kubrick's interviews hold any actual veritable merit. I mean, I could rather convincingly say that the FBI hired me as a secret agent bounty hunter, but that doesn't mean it's true. |
| thomasquinn 32989 19.07.2006 12:55 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Also, nobody said that the contents of Kubrick's interviews hold any actual veritable merit. I mean, I could rather convincingly say that the FBI hired me as a secret agent bounty hunter, but that doesn't mean it's true.What would he gain from lying about it? |
| That guy who digs energy domes 19.07.2006 22:34 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:If only Nixon would've asked himself that<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Also, nobody said that the contents of Kubrick's interviews hold any actual veritable merit. I mean, I could rather convincingly say that the FBI hired me as a secret agent bounty hunter, but that doesn't mean it's true.What would he gain from lying about it? |
| thomasquinn 32989 20.07.2006 06:39 |
The Artist Formerly Known As Paul JR wrote:That response was completely useless.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:If only Nixon would've asked himself that<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Also, nobody said that the contents of Kubrick's interviews hold any actual veritable merit. I mean, I could rather convincingly say that the FBI hired me as a secret agent bounty hunter, but that doesn't mean it's true.What would he gain from lying about it? |
