Moon Landings

[washed up contractor]

Hold on a minute. Why are you saying that there were no conspiracies before Capricorn One, when that is clearly not true? What are you hiding?

Haha. The fact remains, irrespective of the exact date you want to select for the first conspiracy theory arises is at least 9 years after the first landing. It is also 4 years after the last landing if you want to go with your 1976 surfacing of a conspiracy theory. That's one year before Capricorn One was made.

Your attempt to play the year card is what conspiracy theorist usual do, try and divert attention away from the substanence and concentrate on minutial.

Once again, how many stars should you see in the background of pictures from the surface of the moon at the times of the landing?

[northernladyuk]

Haha. The fact remains, irrespective of the exact date you want to select for the first conspiracy theory arises is at least 9 years after the first landing. It is also 4 years after the last landing if you want to go with your 1976 surfacing of a conspiracy theory. That's one year before Capricorn One was made.

So you're quite incorrect about Capricorn One.

.

Your attempt to play the year card is what conspiracy theorist usual do, try and divert attention away from the substanence and concentrate on minutial.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

Once again, how many stars should you see in the background of pictures from the surface of the moon at the times of the landing?

No idea. WGAS.

[SueEllen]

Haha. The fact remains, irrespective of the exact date you want to select for the first conspiracy theory arises is at least 9 years after the first landing. It is also 4 years after the last landing if you want to go with your 1976 surfacing of a conspiracy theory. That's one year before Capricorn One was made.

Your attempt to play the year card is what conspiracy theorist usual do, try and divert attention away from the substanence and concentrate on minutial.

Once again, how many stars should you see in the background of pictures from the surface of the moon at the times of the landing?

Didn't look as wasn't alive.

Did you count them?

[WTFH]

Haha. The fact remains, irrespective of the exact date you want to select for the first conspiracy theory arises is at least 9 years after the first landing. It is also 4 years after the last landing if you want to go with your 1976 surfacing of a conspiracy theory. That's one year before Capricorn One was made.

1976 - 9 != 1969
1977 - 9 != 1969

Your first guess was 10.
Your second guess was 9.
Want to try again?

[northernladyuk]

What a load of bollocks hypothesis. The US sent Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 to the moon. All but 8, 10 & 13 landed. 8 was to test Lunar inception and return was possible. 10 was to test descent via the Lunar Module and return was possible. 13 aborted the mission to the 'problem.' The missions lasted into the 70's until NASA's budget was cut.

Anyone was has seen 1960's / 70's 'special effects' in sci fi films knows they couldnt have been filmed in a studio.

I love to destroy doubters and conspiracists over the Moon landings. Not one has been able to correctly answer these relatively simple questions; given the times of the Lunar landings, how many stars do you expect to see in the landing sites background and why?

1976 - 9 != 1969
1977 - 9 != 1969

Your first guess was 10.
Your second guess was 9.
Want to try again?

For somebody who takes pleasure from destroying ridiculous nut job conspiracies, he's not very good at it.

[washed up contractor]

Didn't look as wasn't alive.

Did you count them?

I dont need to count them sueellen and it doesnt matter whether you were alive or not. But it's a simple question that stumps conspiracy theorist all the time. They always avoid the question.

[Lance]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

They all say that.

[northernladyuk]

They all say that.

That just shows how deep the conspiracy goes.

[washed up contractor]

For somebody who takes pleasure from destroying ridiculous nut job conspiracies, he's not very good at it.

Well, Ive destroyed you posting anything of substance. All you have done is point to the consiparcy theory may have surfaced in a self publicised book in 76 as opposed to a film made in 77!

[northernladyuk]

Well, Ive destroyed you posting anything of substance. All you have done is point to the consiparcy theory may have surfaced in a self publicised book in 76 as opposed to a film made in 77!

What else is there to say. What kind of nut job believes the moon landings were faked? What kind of sad being GAS about these nut jobs?