One small step for man, one giant leap backwards for mankind

[Sharwood]

Double post.

 

[Grishnash]

Why fake the moon landing, when you got all the technology to go there with for real?

Because they really didn’t have the technology to make it to the moon, thus had to fake it to win a moral victory over the Soviet Union, which was much needed at the time.

How the hell can you explain the fact that the transmission was coming from the moon? Even the Soviets were tracking the transmission from the moon.

Good point. Well, let’s see, let’s go out there and say the transmission was coming from the moon, did it ever occur to you that maybe they placed a transmitter on the moon in one of their many unmanned trips to the moon, thus having the astronauts sending transmissions to the mitter which was then past down to the command center thus giving the transmission the appearance of coming from the moon. Also, it is really easy to bounce signals off of objects, like the moon, and have it appear to be coming from there. But really, show me them soviets saying the transmission came from the moon, matter of fact. It may be your best argument but it still falls short.

Russia isn't scoring points on the US for this, because the result will be war? Yes, because Russia didn't put missiles in Cuba, or parade a captured U2 pilot in front of cameras for the whole world to see. Russia is pretty much the only state on the world that could stand up to the US in a war, which means the US is probably more frightened of it than vice versa, despite the power differential. You don't want to lose your pre-eminent position by engaging in nuclear war.

Russia fought on grounds it could fight on. The Cold-War was a moral battle more then anything, and without solid proof that the US didn’t go to the moon, like a live TV-Feed showing the moon, they would be looked at as whiners and it would possibly be a moral hit to themselves. And there are many other circumstances surrounding this, it’s politics.

What danny said. I have a relative who worked at Parkes, where the telescope, which picked up the signal, was pointed at, you got it, the FRIGGING MOON!!! Australia actually saw the moon landings before even America did, because it took less time for the signal to reach us than elsewhere. So apparently the US is so good at faking this stuff, they are even capable of tricking satellite dishes into receiving a live signal from the moon, despite the fact no-one was there.

So, uh… That telescope picked up a signal from the moon….? A signal? Tell me, did you happened to see a flag through that telescope? You do know that a signal coming from the moon is a much proof that we went to the moon as… well… It’s not.In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and as Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper. So… Uh.. Were we just talking about Australia, or could I be wrong?

Defend yourself. I asked you to prove the bull you've been saying about Russians (Soviets?) claiming US has never been on the moon. Go on tell me when and how they did it (first time would be good enough).

I’m sorry, but I don’t remember their names (or much else, it’s been so long) But I will try to get back to you ASAP (Noting my busy schedule) with at least one name, though I’ll try to bring you more. But remember, It would be dangerous for any prominent person to rebuke the moon landing, Russian or not.

For example, you wonder about Russian motivations. An interesting question, but the we have PHYSICAL evidence of trips on the moon. Things like reflectors that were left on the moon, etc.. Evidence that even amateur astronomers can confirm (some of the Apollo missions could be tracked to some extent by amateurs).

Things like reflectors could very well be placed their by unmanned missions. “PHYSICAL evidence” is something you fall short of. In a court case, you would end up in jail. And with this ‘physical evidence’ you have yet shown me solid proof that the moon landings were real, repeating what the government of those moon landings said is not helping your case any.

In fact, people arguing with you about these motivations are in a sense missing the wider point. I would strongly encourage those arguing against you to focus on their strong points (physical evidence, etc..)

I would strongly agree with you on this point.

Grishnash, your arguments are on a fundamentally weaker level than those leveled against you.

Weaker level because those views are backed by the most powerful nation in the world? Or, because there was a live TV broadcast showing the moon landings? Tell me, how are your views fundamentally stronger then those of the people who call it a hoax?

I'm sorry Grimnash, but you are possibly the single biggest idiot I've come across on these forums. And that's not a flame, it's a simple fact. How anyone can believe this is just beyond me. The level of ignorance just defies belief, it's like you could have sex then tell the person you did it with that you're a virgin afterwards. It's just completely non-sensical.

I request a mod close this thread, because it's too damn stupid to remain open.

Have we not the right to debate the moon landing?
A wise man once said “We must learn to disagree without being disagreeable”
Biggest idiot? Why? Because my opinion differs from yours and you are too close-minded to even consider the slightest possibility that maybe your view is wrong? Although mine might not be necessarily correct. Instead of debating the point you’d rather dash it off is irrelevant despite any facts. What if I turned out to be Neil Armstrong? Would you still not consider my view? Remember, it was wise men that said the world was flat, not morons. Astronomers that stated Terra with the center of the universe. Great mines that declared Europe, Asia and Africa were the only lands in the seas. If everyone who disagreed with the promoted belief were idiots and condemned such, the world would be a very sad place. Albert Einstein couldn't speak until he was three years old, and couldn't read until he was nine. So what if I were an idiot? I can very well back up my view with facts, like the fact that there is no air in space or on the moon so why was the flag moving when they were putting it down? And I do not go around calling people that disagree with me idiots.
You ask: How anyone can believe this? Well, I answer but you do not listen, look at what I have shown, tap into your common senses and tell me if you can without the slightest doubt tell me that we went to the moon as a matter of fact. Instead you dismiss me outright, without giving thought to my ideas, examples and proposals.
You simply call opponents of your views a 'liar' or worse, simply out of knee-jerk reaction and for the sake of being negative.
Listen, you can believe one thing, me another, but that does not make one an idiot if both sides are back by facts in the eyes of the beholder. But let us debate, with senses and logic, with the willingness to learn as well as teach, to compromise without giving up our core beliefs that make us who we are. There are many facts, on both sides of the aisle, and as we lay them out and dissect them, we may question those that fall about, and take into consideration those which hold strong.
And now, as a side note that seem to have been forgotten, or never gotten in the first place. I am not the debater, I wanted to watch the debate between people who believed and people who didn’t. I just tried to get the ball rolling on the debate, point out some observations but it seems theres’ not a one on this here forum that questions the moon landings. Oh well.

 

[Gelion]

I’m sorry, but I don’t remember their names (or much else, it’s been so long) But I will try to get back to you ASAP (Noting my busy schedule) with at least one name, though I’ll try to bring you more. But remember, It would be dangerous for any prominent person to rebuke the moon landing, Russian or not.

I do not see this as such a great problem, but I am waiting for your reply.

 

[IglooDame]

Weaker level because those views are backed by the most powerful nation in the world? Or, because there was a live TV broadcast showing the moon landings? Tell me, how are your views fundamentally stronger then those of the people who call it a hoax?

They're fundamentally stronger because they do not require the continued silence or lies of hundreds if not thousands of participants, to say nothing of the fact that the entity with the most massive justification to cry foul and the contemporary resources to do so, did not.

The only way I'd reconsider my own position is if multiple moonwalking astronauts recanted their stories and explained everything, verifiably accounting for every current "proof" that the manned moon landings actually happened.

 

[Earthling]

Disregarding what seemed a bit of a rant at the end (like the false rumor that Einstein couldn't read, that's not really historically accurate, and comparing space age science to people who thought the earth was flat thousands of years ago isn't a great comparison) I'd get back to that point about tracking the missions.

So, you said in your first sentence, and if I remember that site and many others who claim a conspiracy, said that "we don't have the technology to get to the moon". But then your very next point is "we sent unmanned robots to the moon to fake the transimissions". These points are completely incompatible! We know we had the technology to send people into space and survive (unless you're debating the history of the rest of the space program). Then, we know that we had the technology to get to the moon if you accept that the unmanned missions and missions before the first landing existed. So, the argument falls flat on its face that we didn't have the technology to go to the moon (because if we didn't, how would we send robots either)?

I'll admit I had not heard of the Coke bottle point before; however I think it is irrelevant because random people everywhere come out with weird stories/memories about any event. This isn't even a primary source (it's not a person present at an actual event claiming something was different, and this happens often enough in history) it's just a person claiming they saw something else on TV. Basically, for these few people you can find many, many more others who saw the moon landing live would give the "normal" version of events.

But, since I think it is one of the best and easiest proofs out there, I'll get back to the point of tracking the mission (and its transmissions) to the moon. Apparently you have no experience (neither do I) but not even the concept of something like a radio telescope. First, people following the progress of the missions (the US, the Russians, anyone with the equipment and this likely included hundreds of groups around the world) could follow the spacecraft a fair amount even if the spacecraft/astronauts broadcast NOTHING. Where in space/on the moon the astronauts broadcast their transmissions was of course useful, but most of the way, especially as the craft left Earth on an obvious trajectory for the moon, they could track it even without the astronauts constantly broadcasting something. So, not only would you have to posit the existence of a large number of random robot probe all over space (and not just on the moon, on the way to the moon too) to fake transmissions, you would also have to somehow "cloak" the actual Apollo craft so no one could find them. This is ridiculous.

Really, the problem with conspiracy theorists is they never ask the right questions. I have no clue of your views on this and it doesn't really matter here, but there is a comparison to the 9/11 "truthers." They come up with all sorts of tiny, irrelevant arguments (exactly how hot is jetfuel) but avoid the obvious questions. Namely, "The planes that everyone knew took off with their respective passengers - what happened to them?" and the answer: "They crashed into the buildings." The truthers come up with some crazy story like "the government flew the planes to a hidden village in Alaska" with no proof - because their whole conspiracy is based on random little details and not the big questions.

So, here are the "big" questions of the moon landing:

Did we launch the rockets with the Apollo spacecraft into space?
A: Yes

Where did these spacecraft go?
A: The moon. If the spacecraft did not go to the moon, someone would have noticed (ie. the Russians and every other country in the world). Then, you have to explain either why all these people would keep quiet, or that we had even more advanced robot probes and "cloaking" technology to fake where the spacecraft were going.

The website you originally linked to, and much of the moon conspiracy, are again focused on the wrong, and mostly irrelevant questions, like:
When they got to the moon - did the astronauts have cruddy little cameras that took poor pictures and maybe some guy touched them up a bit for press release?
At this point it doesn't matter - the major questions and answers make it obvious we went to the moon.

 

[IglooDame]

So, here are the "big" questions of the moon landing:

Did we launch the rockets with the Apollo spacecraft into space?
A: Yes

Where did these spacecraft go?
A: The moon. If the spacecraft did not go to the moon, someone would have noticed (ie. the Russians and every other country in the world). Then, you have to explain either why all these people would keep quiet, or that we had even more advanced robot probes and "cloaking" technology to fake where the spacecraft were going.

The website you originally linked to, and much of the moon conspiracy, are again focused on the wrong, and mostly irrelevant questions, like:
When they got to the moon - did the astronauts have cruddy little cameras that took poor pictures and maybe some guy touched them up a bit for press release?
At this point it doesn't matter - the major questions and answers make it obvious we went to the moon.

Heh. The Apollo rockets were launched with the astronauts aboard, and they actually did orbit the moon but didn't land. Probes sent to each moon "Apollo landing site" left the various reflectors and such there, and directionally forwarded radio calls to the moon-orbiting astronauts. Meanwhile lookalike astronauts were in Iceland or somewhere making the moon landing movies.

Yeah. Right. At this point the question becomes "if we orbited the moon a whole bunch with our astronauts, why didn't we land?" For which I'm sure the hoax supporter types have an answer.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I will make one point, and one point only (for the time being):

Assuming that the conspiracy hypothesis is true (it's not worth the title "theory"), why could a government that couldn't cover up a burglary in a Washington office complex cover up one of the biggest hoaxes in human history? It's even the same President, as you might recall (Nixon was President in '69; the break-in was a mere three years later).

 

[ThePrussian]

I will make one point, and one point only (for the time being):

Assuming that the conspiracy hypothesis is true (it's not worth the title "theory"), why could a government that couldn't cover up a burglary in a Washington office complex cover up one of the biggest hoaxes in human history? It's even the same President, as you might recall (Nixon was President in '69; the break-in was a mere three years later).

The government started getting the first hints of the Non-Landing Conspiracy Theory and then purposefully failed the Watergate Conspiracy to sow doubt about the Non-Landing Conspiracy Theory. In hopes that it could nip it in the bud, which they didn't do when their CIA hit squad took out both Kennedy brothers.

Kind of like the incompetence Bush has shown. It is all a facade to sow doubt about 9/11 Conspiracies.

/sarc

 

[Mowque]

I WISH the government was this capable and powerful!

 

[negZero]

Because they really didn’t have the technology to make it to the moon, thus had to fake it to win a moral victory over the Soviet Union, which was much needed at the time.

Good point. Well, let’s see, let’s go out there and say the transmission was coming from the moon, did it ever occur to you that maybe they placed a transmitter on the moon in one of their many unmanned trips to the moon, thus having the astronauts sending transmissions to the mitter which was then past down to the command center thus giving the transmission the appearance of coming from the moon. Also, it is really easy to bounce signals off of objects, like the moon, and have it appear to be coming from there. But really, show me them soviets saying the transmission came from the moon, matter of fact. It may be your best argument but it still falls short.

Am sorry but am just going to declare myself the winner here. If you don't believe I should be the winner read both quotes

 

[Sharwood]

Watch and marvel, as I pwn Grishnash's arguments, in every conceivable way.

Because they really didn’t have the technology to make it to the moon, thus had to fake it to win a moral victory over the Soviet Union, which was much needed at the time.

They had the technology to make it to the moon. Hell, even Russia had the technology, just not the engineering skill to put it together. And why would they give a dman about a "moral victory?" The whole point of the space race was the military applications of the technologies developed, and the moon landing was no exception. The prestige was a bonus, not the goal.

Technolpwnage.

Good point. Well, let’s see, let’s go out there and say the transmission was coming from the moon, did it ever occur to you that maybe they placed a transmitter on the moon in one of their many unmanned trips to the moon, thus having the astronauts sending transmissions to the mitter which was then past down to the command center thus giving the transmission the appearance of coming from the moon. Also, it is really easy to bounce signals off of objects, like the moon, and have it appear to be coming from there. But really, show me them soviets saying the transmission came from the moon, matter of fact. It may be your best argument but it still falls short.

No, it didn't occur to us, because we're not giant effing morons. And yes, it is easy to bounce signals off of objects, now. The technology to do that on such a scale simply didn't exist then. He doesn't have to show you the soviets admitting it, you have to show him, and everyone else, them denying it. That's how it works when you're using bullcrap as your primary argument.

Cow manpwnage.

Russia fought on grounds it could fight on. The Cold-War was a moral battle more then anything, and without solid proof that the US didn’t go to the moon, like a live TV-Feed showing the moon, they would be looked at as whiners and it would possibly be a moral hit to themselves. And there are many other circumstances surrounding this, it’s politics.

The Cold War was a geopolitical contest between the two strongest nations on Earth, both with their own security as the primary goal. Morality had not a damn thing to do with it, except in the case of dealing with Third World countries, and they were far more concerned with who could help arm and feed them than with who was standing on the moon. And how exactly is it a moral loss if the other side doesn't make it either? The Yanks could just say JFK's death set them back.

Cold Wpwnage.

So, uh… That telescope picked up a signal from the moon….? A signal? Tell me, did you happened to see a flag through that telescope? You do know that a signal coming from the moon is a much proof that we went to the moon as… well… It’s not.

That was a typo, I meant satellite dish. But now that you mention it, yes, the observatory also witnessed them waltzing around up there and planting the flag. Pwned you are, hmmm?

In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and as Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper. So… Uh.. Were we just talking about Australia, or could I be wrong?

Dude, that story's been discredited a thousand times. I see a cat in my flat every night, and I don't have one. Footstool looks a lot like one in the dark though.

And no, only that dopey biatch Una Ronald saw the coke bottle. Trust me, I kind of live here, that story didn't appear in the newspaper until 25 years after the moon landing, and no-one corroborated. And while we're on the subject of the moon landing, Australia actually has the original moon landing footage, unedited still here. One of the advantages of being the people who picked up and broadcast the thing. I've seen it, on an old 8mm - whatever it was - projector. Guess what? No coke bottle. Kung Fu - The Pwnage Continues. Man that series sucked.

I’m sorry, but I don’t remember their names (or much else, it’s been so long) But I will try to get back to you ASAP (Noting my busy schedule) with at least one name, though I’ll try to bring you more. But remember, It would be dangerous for any prominent person to rebuke the moon landing, Russian or not.

Lots of people rebuke the moon landing, nothing dangerous about it at all. Unless you think the US will nuke Moscow if Putin says "Lulz, I's proved youse dint land on the moon yo." Just don't do it to Buzz Aldron's face, he'll pwn you good.

Things like reflectors could very well be placed their by unmanned missions. “PHYSICAL evidence” is something you fall short of. In a court case, you would end up in jail. And with this ‘physical evidence’ you have yet shown me solid proof that the moon landings were real, repeating what the government of those moon landings said is not helping your case any.

No, in court they'd laugh you out of it. I've already explained the physical evidence, as have others. But you've just dug a giant hole for yourself. You see, I have no physical evidence that my mother gave birth to me. None at all. No doctors were present, just other family members. By your logic, I simply appeared out of thin air, and my mother and her family invented some wild tale that I was born. You took that to court, they'd laugh at you too, because there is far more supportive evidence - namely, me - than there is disportive evidence, that is, the lack of medical professionals and video footage.

Pwned-natal.

I would strongly agree with you on this point.

Weaker level because those views are backed by the most powerful nation in the world? Or, because there was a live TV broadcast showing the moon landings? Tell me, how are your views fundamentally stronger then those of the people who call it a hoax?

Weaker because it would be far more impressive, technologically, politically, logistically, etc., for the US to have faked this, than for it to be true. If the moon landing was faked, it is a hoax involving literally thousands of people, across the world in all walks of life. AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS CRACKED! No selling the story, no deathbed confessions, nothing.

The evidence supports the fact that we landed on the moon. Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is usually the correct one. Ergo, WE LANDED ON THE FRIGGING MOON!!! PWNED!!!

Have we not the right to debate the moon landing?

The right? Yes. Any possible reason? No. It's like debating whether or not not Kennedy is dead. Of course he is. You can debate the exact details, but not that it happened, because of the conclusive proof. As in the moon landing. Pwned!

A wise man once said “We must learn to disagree without being disagreeable”

Another wise man once said: "Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" You would be said follower.

My personal favourite. Obi-Wan Kenpwnage!

Biggest idiot? Why? Because my opinion differs from yours and you are too close-minded to even consider the slightest possibility that maybe your view is wrong? Although mine might not be necessarily correct. Instead of debating the point you’d rather dash it off is irrelevant despite any facts. What if I turned out to be Neil Armstrong? Would you still not consider my view?

Dude, if you were Neil Armstrong, I'd let you sodomise me. I mean that. Because if Neil Armstrong is on an internet gaming messageboard, impersonating a Russian arguing against the greatest thing he'd ever done in his own life, then I'm a raging homosexual. Hompwned.

Remember, it was wise men that said the world was flat, not morons. Astronomers that stated Terra with the center of the universe. Great mines that declared Europe, Asia and Africa were the only lands in the seas.

And given the evidence they had available to them at the time, the conclusions they reached were logical, just as the conclusion that Mars had water on it was logical in the 19th century. But when knowledge progresses to the level that such theories are proved correct, they are forgotten. As this theory will be, when we start colonising space, and I unfreeze you from your cryochamber and personally frigging show you the damn landing site.

Running out of ways to say pwned.

If everyone who disagreed with the promoted belief were idiots and condemned such, the world would be a very sad place. Albert Einstein couldn't speak until he was three years old, and couldn't read until he was nine.

Bullplop, disproven many times. Einstein was a fairly normal child, development-wise. And you're not an idiot for disbelieving the promoted belief. You're an idiot for believing an idiotic belief. Albert Einspwned.

So what if I were an idiot? I can very well back up my view with facts, like the fact that there is no air in space or on the moon so why was the flag moving when they were putting it down? And I do not go around calling people that disagree with me idiots.

Easy. Simple momentum. In a vacuum, if you shake a stick with some cloth on the end of it, it will keep shaking. A pendulum works just fine and dandy in a vacuum, you just have to start it moving. As the astronauts did when they josteld the flag. You'll note, if you look through a telescope, that the flag is still moving. Go on, explain that one with your uber-logic, oh wise and omnipotent one. Momentpwned.

You ask: How anyone can believe this? Well, I answer but you do not listen, look at what I have shown, tap into your common senses and tell me if you can without the slightest doubt tell me that we went to the moon as a matter of fact. Instead you dismiss me outright, without giving thought to my ideas, examples and proposals.
You simply call opponents of your views a 'liar' or worse, simply out of knee-jerk reaction and for the sake of being negative.

I am tapping into my common sense. And I can say, unequivocably, that one of the few things in this world that I am 100% certain of, is that the United States landed men on the moon in 1969. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldron were the first, and more followed. I have just pwned you, using logic.

Listen, you can believe one thing, me another, but that does not make one an idiot if both sides are back by facts in the eyes of the beholder. But let us debate, with senses and logic, with the willingness to learn as well as teach, to compromise without giving up our core beliefs that make us who we are. There are many facts, on both sides of the aisle, and as we lay them out and dissect them, we may question those that fall about, and take into consideration those which hold strong.

There is no such thing as "facts in the eyes of the beholder." Facts are things which absolutely are. Truth is subjective, facts are objective. The truth, from your point of view, is idiotic. That's what makes you an idiot, believing in something idiotic. My truth, is based on factual evidence. That we landed on the moon is a fact, not simply a truth. There are no facts on your side of the aisle, just bullcrap conspiracy theories, all of which have been discredited multiple times. Eyes of the beholdpwned.

And now, as a side note that seem to have been forgotten, or never gotten in the first place. I am not the debater, I wanted to watch the debate between people who believed and people who didn’t. I just tried to get the ball rolling on the debate, point out some observations but it seems theres’ not a one on this here forum that questions the moon landings. Oh well.

You are the debater. Because no-one else on the boards is stupid enough to question the moon landings. If you start a discussion thread, and state your opinion, you are involved in the debate on that side. If you just mentioned the theory, and invited people to discuss, you are not a debater.

Pwnage now complete. You may return to your duties.

 

[Annex]

Yeah. Right. At this point the question becomes "if we orbited the moon a whole bunch with our astronauts, why didn't we land?" For which I'm sure the hoax supporter types have an answer.

I would really like to know their answer to this question.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Dude, if you were Neil Armstrong, I'd let you sodomise me.

Me too. Because you'd be Neil friggin' Armstrong.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Have we not the right to debate the moon landing?
A wise man once said “We must learn to disagree without being disagreeable”

Said wise man probably lived prior (ha ha) to [wiki]Aumann's Agreement Theorem[/wiki]. And another wise man once said "A witty statement proves nothing".

You can certainly debate, but if you still disagree on a non-moral question afterwards, I would say that you are being disagreeable.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Pwnage now complete. You may return to your duties.

Well, that was some fantastic uberpwnage you gave Shari.

 

[Mowque]

What about all the moonrocks? Plenty of scientists are still analyzing them today.

 

[Sharwood]

Well, that was some fantastic uberpwnage you gave Shari.

Thanks. But, to reuse an analogy I made once before, it was like Mike Tyson beating up a ******ed, midget child in a wheelchair.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hell, I still don't believe that we ever went to the so-called New World. The America we know today is just a Coca Cola commercial.

And I believe I have more evidence for this than the moon hoax conspiracy.

edit: I have to give credit and mad kudos to the pwneronishow Sharwood put on there. I haven't seen pwnerage like that since Pwnedmania 5.

Thanks. But, to reuse an analogy I made once before, it was like Mike Tyson beating up a ******ed, midget child in a wheelchair.

I'd pay to see that.

 

[Sharwood]

Hell, I still don't believe that we ever went to the so-called New World. The America we know today is just a Coca Cola commercial.

And I believe I have more evidence for this than the moon hoax conspiracy.

edit: I have to give credit and mad kudos to the pwneronishow Sharwood put on there. I haven't seen pwnerage like that since Pwnedmania 5.
I'd pay to see that.

You do remember you were the next poster, and said exactly the same thing, last time I proposed that fight? And thanks.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You do remember you were the next poster, and said exactly the same thing, last time I proposed that fight? And thanks.

No I don't, if I'm honest, but it does prove the idea has merit and stayingpower.