Liverpool FC Forum

by **Judge** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:09 pm

s@int wrote:I just need to say no to the wife and I see stars

i know she told me about you

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat May 03, 2008 2:58 pm

I think I may have just seen a conspiracy take place at Mould Trafford.

by **dawson99** » Sat May 03, 2008 3:03 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:I think I may have just seen a conspiracy take place at Mould Trafford.

nah, west ham are just cr@p

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat May 03, 2008 3:07 pm

I don't know. Curbishley seemed to want Manure to win with some statements he made recently.

He also said that Fergie's book was better than Tolkien.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat May 03, 2008 5:51 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:I don't know. Curbishley seemed to want Manure to win with some statements he made recently.

He also said that Fergie's book was better than Tolkien.

Well, there would be tales of more hideous looking monsters in Fergie's book.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat May 03, 2008 7:03 pm

I would say something comical here, but I'm suddenly dazzled by that Liverbird and Stars thing in Emerald's sig

by **Sabre** » Mon May 05, 2008 11:59 am

Kharhaz wrote:
Judge wrote:
taff wrote:I reckon the yanks landed on the moon

in that case where are the stars, and i dont mean on the flag?

Ever stood in endless fields on earth and seen nothing but darkness when it is night? you have to look up to see the stars, everytime, to see the stars, look up.

Easy to debunk, mate.

1.- Just like in a city it's harder to see stars than in a village due to light, the surface of the moon reflects a lot of light and there's not atmosphere to make the effect smoother. Quite simply, the stars are too dim to appear in the photograph.

2.- Even when you take a photo at night, it's hard stars appear on it, if you want to photograph stars, you have to focus the sky on purpose and make adjustments (which I think modern digital cameras do).

3.- Americans wouldn't be as dumb as to make that mistake and it could have been easy for them to add stars in a fake film.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon May 05, 2008 12:15 pm

The "moon landings were a conspiracy" theories are so absurdly elaborate and complicated, it would have been simpler to just build a rocket and go to the Moon.

by **Big Niall** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:35 pm

A secret that big would never be kept.

I do believe that Oswald was set up for JFK shooting (might have shot him but didn't act alone).

I also blame the Brits for anything that pi$$es me off e.g bus being late etc and usually manage a conspiracy theory by the time it arrives.

by **Big Niall** » Mon May 05, 2008 4:40 pm

While Bush is obviously a wa*ker - as in George Walker - what did you think the "*" stood for

and the invasion of Iraq a case of mass stupidity, I think it is insane that people believe the US government planned 9/11, we all know governments tend to screw up any projects and they'd probably have crashed the planes into Canada if it was planned by them.

by **Emerald Red** » Mon May 05, 2008 5:41 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:The "moon landings were a conspiracy" theories are so absurdly elaborate and complicated, it would have been simpler to just build a rocket and go to the Moon.

Maybe that's the point. Maybe it was impossible to get there, and still is. The science, or scientific fact, contradicts them even being there.

by **Emerald Red** » Mon May 05, 2008 5:43 pm

Sabre wrote:3.- Americans wouldn't be as dumb as to make that mistake and it could have been easy for them to add stars in a fake film.

You think?

The general population of America couldn't even tell you where Iraq is on a map, and think England is a place in London.

by **Kash_Mountain** » Mon May 05, 2008 6:11 pm

Bilderbergs run the world. A couple of people they employ are Bush and our PM. They are responsible for all that's going on right now (economic turmoil, Iraq etc etc).

Well that' a train of thought anyway from some conpiracy theorists.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon May 05, 2008 6:18 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
The Manhattan Project wrote:The "moon landings were a conspiracy" theories are so absurdly elaborate and complicated, it would have been simpler to just build a rocket and go to the Moon.

Maybe that's the point. Maybe it was impossible to get there, and still is. The science, or scientific fact, contradicts them even being there.

No it doesn't.

Science backs up the moon landings on every single point.

The conspiracy theories relating to the moon landings are completely baseless and have been easily debunked time and time again.

by **Emerald Red** » Mon May 05, 2008 9:46 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
The Manhattan Project wrote:The "moon landings were a conspiracy" theories are so absurdly elaborate and complicated, it would have been simpler to just build a rocket and go to the Moon.

Maybe that's the point. Maybe it was impossible to get there, and still is. The science, or scientific fact, contradicts them even being there.

No it doesn't.

Science backs up the moon landings on every single point.

The conspiracy theories relating to the moon landings are completely baseless and have been easily debunked time and time again.

Sure they have.

What about the Van Allen radiation belts? If they're real as dangerous as what scientists say, wouldn't it be impossible for a rocket with people in it to pass through them without serious consequences? I'm a bit hazy with what I learned in science class, but doesn't it require several inches of lead to block those rays? Those space suits hardly looked up to blocking out any radiation at all.

Why haven't we been back since?

Liverpool FC Forum

Conspiracy theories - Which do you believe

Who is online