
i agree its far to fantastical to be anything but bollox.
then again if there is some sort of illuminati/new world order controlling stuff, we 'd never know....
think i better shut the fuck up before i sound anymore like david icke!
In one of the moon landings they left a refraction mirror type thing on the the surface - scientist on Earth can use lasers and light reception arrays to bounce photons off it. Even if a moon landing was faked they did get there at some point.DB10GOONER wrote:No - totally implausible, I'm afraid. Both NASA and Kodak have explained away every single shit "theory" that the retard Moon conspiracy idiots have offered up.the playing mantis wrote: the lunar theory goes that the germans got there in the early forties, and set up a base, and have apparently remained ever since, the first few usa and soviet space missions picked up warning signals from these nazis to turn back, and indeed some of the early missions were destroyed in space by some sort of moon ray from the 'moon nazis'!
The usa faked their landings and the russians faked their orbits, subsquently, through fear of attack on their space modules from the nazi moon base!
fanciful and nigh on unbeliveable stuff considering popular belief and history as we know it, unlikley, but not totally unplausible!
Nazi rocket technology, whilst being well ahead of the Americans in 1945, was still in it's infancy. The failure rate of their V1 and V2 rockets (only trying to cross the Channel) was huge. It was very much a hit or miss technology. Accepted if they had had another 5 years and more natural resources who knows what they might have developed, but in 1945 it was basic stuff in comparison to what was needed to just escape our atmosphere, never mind go t the Moon.
It took the Nazi scientists' knowledge and the NASA scientists they joined's knowledge and another 25 years of constant, massively-funded work to put a man on the moon.
No way were any of the Moon landings faked.RNTGOONER wrote:In one of the moon landings they left a refraction mirror type thing on the the surface - scientist on Earth can use lasers and light reception arrays to bounce photons off it. Even if a moon landing was faked they did get there at some point.DB10GOONER wrote:No - totally implausible, I'm afraid. Both NASA and Kodak have explained away every single shit "theory" that the retard Moon conspiracy idiots have offered up.the playing mantis wrote: the lunar theory goes that the germans got there in the early forties, and set up a base, and have apparently remained ever since, the first few usa and soviet space missions picked up warning signals from these nazis to turn back, and indeed some of the early missions were destroyed in space by some sort of moon ray from the 'moon nazis'!
The usa faked their landings and the russians faked their orbits, subsquently, through fear of attack on their space modules from the nazi moon base!
fanciful and nigh on unbeliveable stuff considering popular belief and history as we know it, unlikley, but not totally unplausible!
Nazi rocket technology, whilst being well ahead of the Americans in 1945, was still in it's infancy. The failure rate of their V1 and V2 rockets (only trying to cross the Channel) was huge. It was very much a hit or miss technology. Accepted if they had had another 5 years and more natural resources who knows what they might have developed, but in 1945 it was basic stuff in comparison to what was needed to just escape our atmosphere, never mind go t the Moon.
It took the Nazi scientists' knowledge and the NASA scientists they joined's knowledge and another 25 years of constant, massively-funded work to put a man on the moon.
Its not a friend Quartz it was on the TV.... I agree with what you say but as you and olgit have said compared to whats out there we maybe arent that advanced. Why would they wipe the memory of most people they have tested on? yet forget on others allowing them to recall and sell stories via books etc. If they were that advanced there would be no mistakes..... Same as visiting earth if they didnt want to be seen they wouldnt be and if they did they would be, not just vague glimpses that could be thought of as possibly something else?QuartzGooner wrote:Disagree with your astronomer friend Flash.
Look at people like David Attenborough and John Craven.
They walk into animal environments, do a few tests, take a few photos, film a TV segment, then go home.
Other people nab animals and keep them in zoos, some labs take animals, breed them, test cosmetics on them, then kill them.
Why not the aliens too?
flash gunner wrote:Its not a friend Quartz it was on the TV.... I agree with what you say but as you and olgit have said compared to whats out there we maybe arent that advanced. Why would they wipe the memory of most people they have tested on? yet forget on others allowing them to recall and sell stories via books etc. If they were that advanced there would be no mistakes..... Same as visiting earth if they didnt want to be seen they wouldnt be and if they did they would be, not just vague glimpses that could be thought of as possibly something else?QuartzGooner wrote:Disagree with your astronomer friend Flash.
Look at people like David Attenborough and John Craven.
They walk into animal environments, do a few tests, take a few photos, film a TV segment, then go home.
Other people nab animals and keep them in zoos, some labs take animals, breed them, test cosmetics on them, then kill them.
Why not the aliens too?
Agree with the bad hangover bit.RNTGOONER wrote:flash gunner wrote:Its not a friend Quartz it was on the TV.... I agree with what you say but as you and olgit have said compared to whats out there we maybe arent that advanced. Why would they wipe the memory of most people they have tested on? yet forget on others allowing them to recall and sell stories via books etc. If they were that advanced there would be no mistakes..... Same as visiting earth if they didnt want to be seen they wouldnt be and if they did they would be, not just vague glimpses that could be thought of as possibly something else?QuartzGooner wrote:Disagree with your astronomer friend Flash.
Look at people like David Attenborough and John Craven.
They walk into animal environments, do a few tests, take a few photos, film a TV segment, then go home.
Other people nab animals and keep them in zoos, some labs take animals, breed them, test cosmetics on them, then kill them.
Why not the aliens too?
I agree with the the whole memory wipe thing, if they are so much more advanced why bother, would we (if we had the tech) wipe the memory of a shark if we did tests on it while it was drugged / out of the water.
With the "would we ever see them bit" - technology can go wrong no matter how advanced (maybe some ships were built when an alien on that shift was on a bad hangover!)
The astronomer was making assumptions Flash.flash gunner wrote:Olgit...... I was listening to an astronomer the other day (i need to get out more i know![]()
) he said if aliens had visited the earth they must be so far advanced compared to us, as your lemmings comparison suggests, would they really be abducting humans and doing tests on us then wiping memories or even worse forgetting to wipe some farmers memories from the mid-west of the USA therefore allowing them to write books etc..... Same thing could be said about sightings, why would they be vague? surely if they we so much more advanced than us (and they would need to be as we cant travel those distances) they would be either invisible or clearly visible not somewhere in between allowing us vague glimpses
Of course he is making assumptions olgit but its an educated guess and seeing as he is a professor of some sorts i'll be more likely to accept his point of view.olgitgooner wrote:The astronomer was making assumptions Flash.flash gunner wrote:Olgit...... I was listening to an astronomer the other day (i need to get out more i know![]()
) he said if aliens had visited the earth they must be so far advanced compared to us, as your lemmings comparison suggests, would they really be abducting humans and doing tests on us then wiping memories or even worse forgetting to wipe some farmers memories from the mid-west of the USA therefore allowing them to write books etc..... Same thing could be said about sightings, why would they be vague? surely if they we so much more advanced than us (and they would need to be as we cant travel those distances) they would be either invisible or clearly visible not somewhere in between allowing us vague glimpses
Abductions.....why wouldn't they, if they are interested in our species in the same way as we are interested in lesser species? And why assume that highly advanced species would never make mistakes?
Sightings.....why would they be always invisible or always visible? What's wrong with the idea of being invisible most of the time, but not always? Same as a wildlife cameraman in a hide? Or being visible only at certain moments of transition? Or being visible in order to gauge human reaction? Or being visible for some reason we could never even guess at?
I've got an open mind, even though I'm highly sceptical of 95% of the so-called evidence we are presented with.
I'm not knocking the astronomer. I'm sure he is excellent at his job. But he doesn't know everything. None of us do.
QuartzGooner wrote:You and Red Member together on that one Flashflash gunner wrote: Of course he is making assumptions olgit but its an educated guess and seeing as he is a professor of some sorts i'll be more likely to accept his point of view.
Its such an interesting subject![]()
Flash I am shocked that you would side with "professor of some sorts" rather than a fellow Gooner.flash gunner wrote:Of course he is making assumptions olgit but its an educated guess and seeing as he is a professor of some sorts i'll be more likely to accept his point of view.olgitgooner wrote:The astronomer was making assumptions Flash.flash gunner wrote:Olgit...... I was listening to an astronomer the other day (i need to get out more i know![]()
) he said if aliens had visited the earth they must be so far advanced compared to us, as your lemmings comparison suggests, would they really be abducting humans and doing tests on us then wiping memories or even worse forgetting to wipe some farmers memories from the mid-west of the USA therefore allowing them to write books etc..... Same thing could be said about sightings, why would they be vague? surely if they we so much more advanced than us (and they would need to be as we cant travel those distances) they would be either invisible or clearly visible not somewhere in between allowing us vague glimpses
Abductions.....why wouldn't they, if they are interested in our species in the same way as we are interested in lesser species? And why assume that highly advanced species would never make mistakes?
Sightings.....why would they be always invisible or always visible? What's wrong with the idea of being invisible most of the time, but not always? Same as a wildlife cameraman in a hide? Or being visible only at certain moments of transition? Or being visible in order to gauge human reaction? Or being visible for some reason we could never even guess at?
I've got an open mind, even though I'm highly sceptical of 95% of the so-called evidence we are presented with.
I'm not knocking the astronomer. I'm sure he is excellent at his job. But he doesn't know everything. None of us do.
Its such an interesting subject