PDA

View Full Version : I am a moon hoax believer...



threepwood
2006-Jan-22, 10:34 PM
...and I'm here for healthy debate, not a slanging match. Why am I here? Because unlike most HB's, I am not a loon, or willing to believe anything thrown at me. Just that, when there is a shadow of a doubt (and I believe there is) I have a problem accepting something.

I've studied the Moon Hoax theory for years now, studying the works of people that I'm sure are familiar to you: David Percy, Mary Bennet, Jack White, Bill Kaysing (to name but a few). Now, some of the arguments they put forward are explainable by a proper understanding of science, photography, or a modicum of sense! But there are some anomalies which I cannot explain, and I'm hoping for rational debate.

So...hello!

Fortis
2006-Jan-22, 10:36 PM
Welcome. :)

Do you want to get the ball rolling and give an example of a problematic anomaly?

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 10:38 PM
Hi threepwood, welcome to BAUT Forums!:D

First of all you need evidence that is new, not the same old "But look at the shadows" crap if you know what I mean, if you don't have this, then it is going to be a mud slinging contest for sure.

TobiasTheViking
2006-Jan-22, 10:46 PM
or the deadly van allen belt. *sigh*

GDwarf
2006-Jan-22, 10:48 PM
Unfortunatly most (if not all) of the claims made by the people on your list have been thoroughly proven wrong.
Just some advice: Odds are we've all seen these arguments before, so repeating them over again, ignoring our replies, insulting us, etc. Won't work well. I'm not implying that you will do any of those things, in fact your first post makes me feel very certain that you won't, but the average person who comes here claiming that the landings were fake do those things.

So yes, please start the ball rolling by posting (preferably not linking to) the evidence that you feel makes the Moon landings a hoax.

Van Rijn
2006-Jan-22, 10:55 PM
First of all you need evidence that is new, not the same old "But look at the shadows" crap if you know what I mean, if you don't have this, then it is going to be a mud slinging contest for sure.

Given his friendly introduction, this is a bit strong. Let's wait to see what he has to present.

threepwood, please present your issues. Do understand that we have gone through basic physics issues many times (radiation, temperature, visibility of stars, shadow angles, and so on) and there is excellent information available on these issues. It is, sadly, rare that that we see something new, so there is something of a "debunker's fatigue syndrome." Here's to hoping we can learn something new!

Edited to add:

Heh. I wasn't the only one with these thoughts. It just goes to show how familiar we are with the issue.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 10:56 PM
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

View this link first, if you find something that has not already been provin wrong, feel free to post it, other wise it is just best to keep to yourself on the subject. Don't want to sound like a mean person, just trying to keep you from making a defensive mistake that will fallow you here for quite a while.

Skyfire
2006-Jan-22, 10:58 PM
Hi threepwood, welcome!

You will find many threads on here where just about every variation of every hoax theory has been discussed at length and I believe all points thoroughly debated and evidence shown to debunk all hoax theory ideas presented (so far). Because of this people tend to get a little tired of going over the same ground again and again.

If you have a point or points to put forward about any areas of doubt you may have, please do so, and people here will willingly listen and point you to any eveidence they may know of.

Anyway, we are generally a decent bunch and are always willing to discuss things in a friendly manner.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 10:59 PM
Given his friendly introduction, this is a bit strong. Let's wait to see what he has to present.

I agree, and if he has something new that would be great! I just hate seeing people getting picked apart that are new and don't know that we see one of these claims every other day. People SOMETIMES tend to be somewhat hostile on this topic.

threepwood
2006-Jan-22, 11:02 PM
Well,thankyou for your welcomes. I appreciate you have heard most of the 'evidence' before, and I won't go into stuff which the person on the street cites as concrete proof we never went to the moon. Moreover, I am not a 'solid' hoax-believer - if a telescope was powerful enough to see the LRV, or the flag, for example, then fine, I'm convinced. I'm not to-the-death obsessed like some of the HB's.

And I agree, there should be no stars in the lunar photos. The exposure time wouldn't allow for that. I do question why no star photographs were taken from the lunar surface, but, since the cameras were strapped to the astronaut's torso, maybe this wasn't physically possible.

My first few real points of question are the numerous photos of the lunar rover with no tracks on either side, and seemingly staged photographs of the astronauts with no footprints to the point they are at, or in the well-known 'jump salute' photo, even under the jumping astronaut. Now, I do understand that of course, human bodies and vehicles will not act the same on the lunar surface as they do here on Earth. But it seems very selective that many other photos (and video) show the tracks left by the LRV and the astronauts, but a handful of photographs do not. Furthermore, a photo from Apollo 17 (as17-140-21370) shows lunar rover tracks in front of the LEM before the LRV has been unpacked and assembled (and indeed, the covered, unused LRV is prominent in the photo). How can this be?

threepwood
2006-Jan-22, 11:04 PM
- and can I just add, it took a while to type this, so apologies that I did not see the link to the debunk. In my search for a point of view, I have read many debunking books and watched TV shows. My only points of confusion lie where I cannot find, or have not been provided with, a plausible explanation.

(Also, I'm a girl! Just so you don't all call me 'he' ;) )

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 11:10 PM
Ok, good threep, I was hoping that you were not one of those die hard believers, those are the ones that often get banned before long trying to defend themselves.

I don't believe that I have seen the photo's of the rover without tracks, or that of the no footprints jumping man, if you could will you provide some links so we can see( or me anyways)?

TobiasTheViking
2006-Jan-22, 11:10 PM
- and can I just add, it took a while to type this, so apologies that I did not see the link to the debunk. In my search for a point of view, I have read many debunking books and watched TV shows. My only points of confusion lie where I cannot find, or have not been provided with, a plausible explanation.

(Also, I'm a girl! Just so you don't all call me 'he' ;) )
Oh, so will the one who convinces you it was real and not a hoax get a date with you..

hubba hubba

Ok ok, i'll stop being pathetic now.

Sincerely
A Barstard Commie.

Count Zero
2006-Jan-22, 11:13 PM
Hello and welcome to BAUT, threepwood!


...and I'm here for healthy debate, not a slanging match.
You've come to the right place; but you'd better be prepared. Many HBs believe that "debate" consists of them asking questions, and the Pro-Apollo folks parrying each. Here we will be asking you questions, asking you to do research, and perform calculations and do experiments. This can be a really fun learning environment, if you let it.


Why am I here? Because unlike most HB's, I am not a loon, or willing to believe anything thrown at me. Just that, when there is a shadow of a doubt (and I believe there is) I have a problem accepting something.
A healthy attitude to have, in general. That is precisely why we want you to do your own experiments and calculations. A word of warning: Arguements that are based soley on belief or appeals to credulity will not fly around here. For example, if you say "there's no way the rocket carried enough fuel," or "radiation would have fried the astronauts," you will be expected to provide figures for how much fuel is needed (I don't have a college degree, but I have looked-up the formulae and worked it out to my satisfaction - a cool exeercise!) and how much radiation is out there, and what type, and what sort of shielding is effective.


I've studied the Moon Hoax theory for years now, studying the works of people that I'm sure are familiar to you: David Percy, Mary Bennet, Jack White, Bill Kaysing (to name but a few). Now, some of the arguments they put forward are explainable by a proper understanding of science, photography, or a modicum of sense!
They have been comprehensively debunked here (http://www.clavius.org), here (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html), here (http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm) and here (http://www.braeunig.us/space/) to name a few sites. You may want to read those to make sure there's not something that has already been answered.


But there are some anomalies which I cannot explain, and I'm hoping for rational debate.
OK, we can start with that word right there. "Anomalies" are those things that are not neccesarily wrong, but they do deviate from your expectations. As you list each one, explain what you see and what you would expct to see, and why your expectations make more sense.

Once again, welcome!

Skyfire
2006-Jan-22, 11:15 PM
Well,thankyou for your welcomes. I appreciate you have heard most of the 'evidence' before, and I won't go into stuff which the person on the street cites as concrete proof we never went to the moon. Moreover, I am not a 'solid' hoax-believer - if a telescope was powerful enough to see the LRV, or the flag, for example, then fine, I'm convinced. I'm not to-the-death obsessed like some of the HB's.

And I agree, there should be no stars in the lunar photos. The exposure time wouldn't allow for that. I do question why no star photographs were taken from the lunar surface, but, since the cameras were strapped to the astronaut's torso, maybe this wasn't physically possible.

My first few real points of question are the numerous photos of the lunar rover with no tracks on either side, and seemingly staged photographs of the astronauts with no footprints to the point they are at, or in the well-known 'jump salute' photo, even under the jumping astronaut. Now, I do understand that of course, human bodies and vehicles will not act the same on the lunar surface as they do here on Earth. But it seems very selective that many other photos (and video) show the tracks left by the LRV and the astronauts, but a handful of photographs do not. Furthermore, a photo from Apollo 17 (as17-140-21370) shows lunar rover tracks in front of the LEM before the LRV has been unpacked and assembled (and indeed, the covered, unused LRV is prominent in the photo). How can this be?

Have you looked at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which shows practically all the photos they took of the whole project? This even shows those when they took a picture of their hand or foot or whatever, by mistake, the out of focus ones, etc, etc... as well as all the good ones we know and love! This found at:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

I just looked at the picture you mention and one two frames before it and it is titled "Gene Cernan at the Rover prior to EVA-3 geology traverse" (as17-140-21368). This shows they were about to set off on EVA 3 therefore the rover was already unpacked and had been used for two excursions previously.

What I THINK you are referring to is the folded down flap for the MESA experiment package which just has the cover left in place, the experiments were set up during the first EVA (I THINK this is correct, but no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong!!!)

sts60
2006-Jan-22, 11:16 PM
Hi, threepwood.

I do question why no star photographs were taken from the lunar surface,

Actually, a UV telescope was carried on Apollo 16, and UV photographs of the stars were made. Since the UV wavelengths of interest for these photographs are blocked by Earth's atmosphere, there was some scientific value for this kind of astrophotography.

but, since the cameras were strapped to the astronaut's torso, maybe this wasn't physically possible.

The cameras could be moved around. But try taking a star exposure by holding a camera in your hand. All you get are squiggles. True, they could have put it on a tripod and taken star trails, but for what? The stars aren't that much brighter on the Moon than they are in a good dry dark-sky observing site on Earth. Finally, a clock-drive telescope probably could have been engineered, but would have taken a great deal of time to align on the Moon, and again, for what?

The Apollo missions, after the political Space-Race motivation, were about performing lunar science, not taking pretty star pictures that many amateur astronomers on Earth could outdo. Did you know that, in addition to the Apollo astronauts bringing back the priceless lunar samples, they left monitoring stations that performed experiments and beamed the results back to Earth through much of the 1970s?

(edited to fix some typos and grammar-os)

Obviousman
2006-Jan-22, 11:23 PM
Welcome to the board.

WRT images, you may find the following link handy:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

It addresses each of the claims that Jack White makes with his work on Aulis.com - though it is not complete yet. The original work mysteriously disappeared late last year, and it is being reconstructed.

Count Zero
2006-Jan-22, 11:25 PM
Forgive Tobias. You're among people who find Thinking attractive. ;)

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 11:28 PM
(Also, I'm a girl! Just so you don't all call me 'he' ;) )

Sorry, it's just a bad habit.

Bob B.
2006-Jan-22, 11:33 PM
Furthermore, a photo from Apollo 17 (as17-140-21370) shows lunar rover tracks in front of the LEM before the LRV has been unpacked and assembled (and indeed, the covered, unused LRV is prominent in the photo). How can this be?
AS17-140-21370 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-140-21370.jpg) was taken during the third EVA, the LRV (lunar roving vehicle) was deployed on the first EVA. The area you think is the LRV stowage bay is, in fact, the extended stay MESA (modular equipment stowage assembly). The rover was stowed in the bay to the right of the ladder.

sts60
2006-Jan-22, 11:43 PM
I was hoping that you were not one of those die hard believers, those are the ones that often get banned before long trying to defend themselves.

I have to disagree with DragonStar. They get banned because they don't try to defend themselves. They make claims, the claims get refuted, they ignore the refutations and spew more random claims.

threepwood, if you listen to what people say and respond, you'll be fine.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 11:46 PM
I was hoping that you were not one of those die hard believers, those are the ones that often get banned before long trying to defend themselves.

I have to disagree with DragonStar. They get banned because they don't try to defend themselves. They make claims, the claims get refuted, they ignore the refutations and spew more random claims.

threepwood, if you listen to what people say and respond, you'll be fine.

Yes, I should have included that too, thanks for pointing that out.

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 12:03 AM
I do question why no star photographs were taken from the lunar surface...

There were.

...since the cameras were strapped to the astronaut's torso, maybe this wasn't physically possible.

No, that's really not the problem. The cameras could be moved about quite easily on their mounts, and even unmounted if necessary. No, the real problem is the exposure, as you mentioned, and the wide-angle lens. A general-purpose camera is just really bad at taking pictures of the sky.

My first few real points of question are the numerous photos of the lunar rover with no tracks on either side

In most of those cases the photos were taken after the astronauts had walked around the rover and kicked dust around. There's no guarantee you'll see tracks in a photo. If the light is behind the photographer, lots of detail is lost.

I'll post some examples tomorrow.

...and seemingly staged photographs of the astronauts with no footprints to the point they are at, or in the well-known 'jump salute' photo, even under the jumping astronaut.

Same deal. Not all the detail you expect will be visible in photographs. Sometimes your version of the photo is too small; sometimes the lighting angles obscure detail. Sometimes the astronaut just walked in from a different direction.

The thing you have to keep in mind when looking at photographs is what you're assuming and what can be considered fact. The most common mistake in photographic interpretations is to apply the wrong preconception.

Furthermore, a photo from Apollo 17 (as17-140-21370) shows lunar rover tracks in front of the LEM before the LRV has been unpacked and assembled (and indeed, the covered, unused LRV is prominent in the photo).

No. As has been pointed out, that's not the rover. Jack White, to put it politely, doesn't know his LM from a hole in the ground. He has no real expertise with Apollo and routinely makes these kinds of mistakes. He postures himself as a photographic analyst, but he's really very poor at it.

Bob B.
2006-Jan-23, 12:17 AM
Here are a couple illustrations showing the lunar module and the location of the LRV storage bay:

http://www.braeunig.us/pics/scan0001.jpg
http://www.braeunig.us/pics/scan0002.jpg

Titana
2006-Jan-23, 01:21 AM
First of all welcome threepwood.......:D


Second of all, i would like you to take a look at this:



The original prince of all things hoaxular! Bill Kaysing used to work as a writer/librarian for Rocketdyne, a company that was involved in the construction of the Apollo lunar landers. But he left in 1963, well before the majority of Apollo work. He's rather shy of explaining his somewhat unscientific job and tenuous link with NASA and doesn't mind representing himself as some kind of expert in a field he has absolutely no qualifications or experience in.


This:


David Percy is a photographer and a paid up fellow of the Royal Photography Society. Unfortunately this doesn't mean he has an ounce of common sense. Nor does it make him a official spokesperson of the R.P.S., though you'd be forgiven for thinking this, as this is how he is often presented.

Percy may, or may not, be a talented photographer but he is sadly lacking in any skill in interpreting images. He's the one responsible for most of the shadow and photography theories. He's also extremely taken by the 'whistle blower' notion, he must think he's one of those smart people who understand the clues.. We find it amazing that someone who is supposed to be a professional photographer can't understand how reflected light can provide infill to a photograph.



Another one you may also know:


Another guy who wants to sell you something, except Ralph has a book he'd like you to purchase. Content wise you won't find anything original, and plenty of poor science. Mr Rene's qualifications amount to being a "self taught engineer". I can only guess that by this he'd like you to think he's something like Issac Newton or something. Unfortunately all his daft theories and bizarre conclusions only show just how valuable a good education is. And research, it's valuable too, but it's a concept that Rene seems unfamiliar with. He'd rather guess and make things up.

You'll not be surprised to hear that Ralph's book is self published. But that hasn't stopped it becoming something of a bible for crank sites across the web.


And, so on and so on.......:wall:



And I agree, there should be no stars in the lunar photos. The exposure time wouldn't allow for that. I do question why no star photographs were taken from the lunar surface, but, since the cameras were strapped to the astronaut's torso, maybe this wasn't physically possible.


I do not believe that it has something to do with it not being physically possible. As i have read many times, the lunar surface is very bright and in comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim. which would obviously make it more difficult for the stars to appear in a photograph.



The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were also designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts............:D





It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs.




Titana.......:)

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 01:47 AM
The exposure problem answers why there aren't accidentally any stars in the photographs taken of the lunar landscape, the astronauts, the spacecraft, etc. But to answer why the astronauts didn't purposely take pictures of the stars with their 70mm cameras, you have to do an experiment to see how much exposure you need. Turns out you need 30-60 seconds at the widest f-stop in order to get stars to show up on that kind of film with that kind of camera.

The prevailing misconception is that stars would be immensely brighter as seen from space, and that there would be more of them. That's not the case. The stars as seen from space aren't necessarily perceptibly brighter than the stars as seen from, say, a high mountain on Earth. So that gives rise to two further misconceptions: that the stars would have been a photo-worthy sight, and that they would have been bright enough to make 70mm photography possible.

PhantomWolf
2006-Jan-23, 01:53 AM
I think a lot of things have already been covered. But I'll add this. It's an image of the Rover after storage on the ground. If you compare it to the first scan Bob B posted, you'll be able to make out the various features, though remember that in this configuration, the legs were folded up. :)

The second thing I'll add is ALWAYS go to the ALSJ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html) and see when and where the photos were taken. Don't trust peiple like White and Sibrel to get it right, and don't trust their cropped and rotated photos. Often they won't give a number so it might take a little searching through the Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/) to get the right photo, and also if it's availible, always, always use the High Resolution scans. They are big enough to show all the details than the tiny things the HB sites have on them, are all missing. Most of theses sites deliberately compress the images so that the details are lost.

peter eldergill
2006-Jan-23, 01:55 AM
This is the most calm hoax debate I've ever seen!

Pete

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-23, 02:02 AM
This is the most calm hoax debate I've ever seen!

Pete

I know, it's weird....:shifty:

Count Zero
2006-Jan-23, 04:27 AM
This is the most calm hoax debate I've ever seen!
Well, I think a lot of credit for that goes to Threepwood.
Many HBs who come here have a very arrogant attitude. They seem to believe that they "see through the Moon scam" because they are smarter than the rest of the "sheep" who "mindlessly believe what the Government tells them." <insert vomiting emoticon here>

Threepwood, on the other hand, came here, listed the sources she'd read so far, recognized that some of those arguements don't hold up; but expressed continuing doubts. Her questions thus far have been to the point and, where possible, reference the photo numbers so we can study the questions. It's all been very matter-of-fact.

I'd like to point out that Threepwood came here without an obvious chip on her shoulder, and people responded well to that. For our part, I understand that dealing with similar questions, especially from the hardcore my-fingers-are-in-my-ears-so-I-don't-have-to-listen-to-you HBs can be frustrating, but if we allow ourselves to get a chip on our shoulder, we may drive off those who are mearly uncertain and come here to sort things out.

Faultline
2006-Jan-23, 04:28 AM
Hellow threepwood, you've come to the right place. We can help.

JayUtah is the best PAN (pro-Apollo Nutter) I've read!

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Jan-23, 04:41 AM
Welcome, threepwood! I know there's a lot of this in this thread, but I too want to say just how refreshing your posting style is. I'm looking forward to future discussions with you.

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 05:38 AM
Glad you're having a good time so far, Threepwood. The key is that you said you had read or seen the hoax materials and had come to your own conclusion that some of them were just wrong. Regardless of any lingering questions you might have, that alone demonstrates that you're willing to think about what you see and read. That makes any discussion more fun, and more helpful even if we don't all end up agreeing at the end.

BertL
2006-Jan-23, 06:12 AM
If only all hoax believers would be like Threepwood...

Yes, sorry I got nothing more to add than kudos to Threepwood for starting the nicest discussion on the moon hoax I've read yet. :)

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-23, 06:17 AM
The first time i heard about the moon hoax, i became very interested and immediately started my research, and then i came upon this fascinating site that had my questions answered.

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/index.html

The_Radiation_Specialist
2006-Jan-23, 06:25 AM
lol, nice signature BertL :D

Count Zero
2006-Jan-23, 07:24 AM
The first time i heard about the moon hoax, i became very interested and immediately started my research, and then i came upon this fascinating site that had my questions answered.

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoax/index.html
Hey, that is a good site! It covers some of the same ground as Clavius (form follows function), but it's clearly his own work. He's especially good at the logic & motive issues. He also has a good, clean writing style. The rest of his site is also worth a gander.

Jason Thompson
2006-Jan-23, 09:29 AM
I'd just like to add two comments about AS17-140-21370. Firstly, the rover was not covered when stowed, therefore what you see cannot be the rover. Secondly, if you look back at AS17-140-21369, taken immmediately before AS17-140-21370, you can see the LM landing strut on the right of the picture and one of the astronauts working at the fully delpoyed and loaded rover on the left of the picture.

This, to my mind, shows the value of basic research and context. Researching the way the rover was stowed shows that it was not covered, and placing the picture in the context of the other pictures shows when the picture was taken during the mission. Context is critical, because you cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion about what a picture shows or what a line of conversation means if you divorce it from its context.

gwiz
2006-Jan-23, 05:09 PM
So to sum up the AS17-140-21370 question:

1. NASA's online photo documentation shows photo was taken on 3rd EVA, Rover was already on surface and is visible in the previous photo AS17-140-21369.

2. Your "covered Rover" is in fact the MESA (Modular Equipment Storage Area) on the starboard front quadrant of the LM, a fold-down-shelf-like container for lunar surface EVA equipment. Rover was stowed outside the port front quadrant, you can still see the mounting brackets there.

3. We've posted links to a few pictures showing what the LM really looked like with the Rover stowed in place.

Have we answered this one to your satisfaction, threepwood? If so, what's the next problem photo?

Monique
2006-Jan-23, 09:15 PM
Oh, so will the one who convinces you it was real and not a hoax get a date with you..

hubba hubba

Ok ok, i'll stop being pathetic now.

Sincerely
A Barstard Commie.
Should not punish poor girl for get convinced!! :neutral:

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 09:54 PM
Regarding missing tracks, I promised to post some photographs.

http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-up.jpg
http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-down.jpg

These are two photographs taken a few seconds apart of the exact same patch of ground on Earth. The only difference is the direction of the sun relative to the line of sight. The photographer took the pictures from two opposite angles.

In the first photo you can see ruts from multiple tires. That's because the sun is in front of the photographer and so the shadows are cast toward the camera. The objects stand out in sharp relief.

In the second photo the sun is behind the photographer and so shadows are cast away from the camera. More importantly, they are cast in such a way that the object casting them actually hides the shadow.

Shade and shadow are the best tools a photographer has for showing texture and contour. An artistic photographer arranges for the light to cast shadows and provide shading and thus to reveal the shapes of the objects he photographs. A journalistic photographer may not have that luxury and has to deal with the light as it is at the moment. Astronauts were more like journalistic photographers. But regardless, the absence of shade and shadow often makes details invisible in "chance" or unposed photographs.

So when you see a photograph that doesn't appear to have appropriate detail, one of the things you can check for is whether the light is falling such that details would be visible. When the light is traveling in the same direction as the camera is looking -- within a few degrees -- then detail and contour are lost. This is why so many amateur flash pictures look so flat and lifeless.

Glom
2006-Jan-23, 09:59 PM
That'll never work. They'll just say the photos aren't what you said they are.

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 10:25 PM
That's why I describe how to make your own versions of these photos. It's hard to argue against something that people can just go prove for themselves.

TobiasTheViking
2006-Jan-23, 10:29 PM
Should not punish poor girl for get convinced!! :neutral:
tthat was just mean :(

Titana
2006-Jan-23, 10:40 PM
Ok, here is everyone posting their heads off, but where's Threepwood??......:wall:



Maybe a hit and run?....:D



Titana.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-23, 10:44 PM
That would be odd...hit and runs are usually violent in nature, and this is the most peaceful moon hoax thread ever.

Grashtel
2006-Jan-23, 10:52 PM
Ok, here is everyone posting their heads off, but where's Threepwood??......:wall:



Maybe a hit and run?....:D
Or maybe she does other things in her life rather than checking message boards constantly. She did reply a couple of times yesterday and she might well have a job and a life outside the internet.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-23, 11:06 PM
Or maybe she does other things in her life rather than checking message boards constantly. She did reply a couple of times yesterday and she might well have a job and a life outside the internet.


:eh:

Meow! Someone wake up on the wrong side of the litter box? :p

Titana
2006-Jan-23, 11:18 PM
Or maybe she does other things in her life rather than checking message boards constantly. She did reply a couple of times yesterday and she might well have a job and a life outside the internet.




You said it, Maybe.






Titana.

JayUtah
2006-Jan-23, 11:19 PM
I think she should be allowed to post according to a schedule that's comfortable for her.

Titana
2006-Jan-23, 11:29 PM
That would be odd...hit and runs are usually violent in nature, and this is the most peaceful moon hoax thread ever.




Uhg! of course it is, That is why i said what i said.......





Titana.

korjik
2006-Jan-24, 03:39 AM
I've got it!

This thread is an attempt to keep us all distracted while dastardly deeds are done deliberately!

:D

yall gave her a bunch to read, hopefully she'll be back soon

peter eldergill
2006-Jan-24, 03:58 AM
Titana, you've changed your avatar...

What happened to the big fat cat doing "stuff" while your guests are sitting in the living room watching the show?

Pete

Monique
2006-Jan-24, 04:45 PM
Should not punish poor girl for get convinced!! :neutral:

that was just mean :(
You are right...... :whistle:

long live the queeb
2006-Jan-26, 02:55 PM
How very strange, perhaps the sheer force of our arguements have been enough to persuade threepwood of the invalidity of moon hoax theories? be nice to know for sure though.

TobiasTheViking
2006-Jan-26, 03:00 PM
You are right...... :whistle:
*sniff*, i hope you are happy now, i'm crying myself to tears now, and have been for days.

Titana
2006-Jan-27, 05:36 AM
Titana, you've changed your avatar...

What happened to the big fat cat doing "stuff" while your guests are sitting in the living room watching the show?

Pete


Doing "stuff" ?......hummm..I wonder what you mean by "stuff".....Anyway, I got kind of tired of seeing the fat cat around, so I found a substitute...:D



Titana.

Titana
2006-Jan-27, 05:39 AM
Or maybe she does other things in her life rather than checking message boards constantly. She did reply a couple of times yesterday and she might well have a job and a life outside the internet.


Cough! cough.........:whistle:




Titana.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-27, 10:23 AM
Doing "stuff" ?......hummm..I wonder what you mean by "stuff".....Anyway, I got kind of tired of seeing the fat cat around, so I found a substitute...:D



Titana.

Me thinks somebody has a certain (fake) web video in mind in which a cat is sitting in a comparable posture as the fat kitty :)

Bob B.
2006-Jan-27, 02:09 PM
How very strange, perhaps the sheer force of our arguements have been enough to persuade threepwood of the invalidity of moon hoax theories? be nice to know for sure though.
You are right. This thread started out like it might be a good discussion but has quickly died.

Threepwood, where are you?

PhantomWolf
2006-Jan-27, 03:31 PM
Well her profile says she hasn't returned since the day of starting this thread, so.....

BertL
2006-Jan-27, 05:49 PM
[insert crying emoticon here]