Mercifull

Be careful when generalising, I almost posted a pic just now ;) hehe

The same points come up for agument and dicsussion as did with United 93. This isnt the first time a film has been made about a disaster such as this. The first Pearl Harbour film was released very soon after the event and take a look at how many Vietnam films cam our while it was still going on. Those two things were far more tragic in regards to human life than 9/11 was. That said, it will be very sad if the movie isnt done well. It takes great skill on behalf of the writers, directors and actors to ensure that full respect if given to the events of that day without turning it into a farce. Bring it on i say and ill decide my opinion after i see it, not before...

It differs with a religion debate because there is physical evidence to prove it was real. All the claims by conspiracy theorists are pure speculation, not a thread of "evidence" they put forward is actual fact.

Oooh cooties! I was a proper geeky kid. About 13, and even then it was a dare. lol

Another easy one to explain. You assume that the camera was in the same posision both times and you also assume that the lunar landscape is like earth. On our planet we have many factors to determine depth such as haze. When you look into the distance objects seem to fade as they get into the distance but this just doesnt happen on the moon as there is no air. Its hard to explain with no pictures to a person who even if i did show them still wouldnt belive me. This is a great one to explain... First of all letters are never marked on the actual prop itself. Generally they are labels stuck ot the bottom of the item in question and never on top. Also, if the letter "C" was really marked on the rock then the perpective would be noticably different, effects crews dont mark letters at obscure angles so they show correctly in a photo., its not advertising on a football pitch. This is really clutching at straws over something so simple as a hair on the image when it was scanned in. I'm sure i read somewhere once which has a rescanned version of this image without the "C" shape. None of the compiracy ideas has even been left unexplained ;) That is something they only say to make people belive in a cover up. Or more simply take a picture of something really bright at night and see if any stars show up ;) Those that live in the country away from the cities can look up at the night sky and see the most briliant bright stars. If you go to a brightly lit city and look at the same night sky, you will see only the brightest stars. And if you go inside your house and turn on all the lights and look out the window, you wont see many stars at all. Its a simple experiment that can be done by anyone. I'll quote a little bit from someone who actually knows what they are talking about her for clarity... In the pitch blackness of the mountains your eyes are open just as wide as they can be, allowing more light to enter. In the night city, they close somewhat to adjust for the street lights. And inside the house, they are as closed as they are during the daytime in sunlight. A camera's aperture works the same way. To set the exposure for bright exposure means that subtle lights like stars simply won't show up. Because the sky on the moon is black, we tend to believe the viewing conditions are the same as night on earth. Not true. The sun shines just as brightly (slightly brighter, in fact) on the lunar surface, and so the astronauts' eyes (and camera apertures) were set for photographing in daylight conditions. Neil Armstrong reported not seeing any stars from the lunar surface, except through the navigation scopes (where the eyepiece screened out the other lights). Ed Mitchell reported seeing stars only when he specifically shut out extraneous light. This is a paraphrase of an argument in Bennett and Percy's 'Dark Moon', and you havnt even interpreted it correctly. Bennett and Percy never claim the leatherette cover would have "melted" but rather that it would have "outgassed" in the low pressure environment, producing annoying and/or toxic fumes. Weather this is ture or not doesnt really matter because the leatherette covers were removed from the Hasselblad cameras supplied to Apollo not to mention that the astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstream prior to puttin on their helmets. Photos taken of the surface beneath the descent engine show that is has been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. The foot of the ladder is over fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle. Where is your footage? Im guessing you just copied and pasted without reading again ;) Firstly the photo sometimes published as "the first footprint on the moon" is actually a of a compression test done by Aldrin. There is no photo of the first footprint ever made on the lunar surface. Wow this is a poor argument lol. Of course TV quality gets better as time goes by. TV was not a requirement of the EVA and as the high quality version wasnt finished in time they made do with a lesser quality one as better than nothing. Are you serious? This is just the nature of the contours on the lunar surface because of the lack of haze as explained earlier its not possible to distinguish colours and shading very well. Converging shadows have already been explained on this thread which makes me think even more that you are blinded by the compiracy theorists not to see for yourself. this is another experiment you can do at home with no preperation. Loiok outside at stuff like trees and bushes. The shadows are never parallel. You are a fool to belive this nonsense. I already explained this A secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly visible under the top portion of the mark ie its a frigging HAIR on the paper Easy... It wouldnt have done, thats why it was only ever extended while it was on the surface. All other times it was retracted. Ill leave the Clavius people to explain this one... No. The thermodynamics of the Apollo CSM were well known. No atmosphere is needed in order to reject heat. Spacecraft reject heat via radiation, either through specifically engineered sublimator and radiator systems or through direct radiation through their skins. The Apollo spacecraft skins reflected away most of the sunlight that struck them. It was actually necessary to use the heat from the electronics to keep the cabin at a comfortable temperature. With those electronics turned off, as for Apollo 13, the spacecraft would indeed be expected to radiate away most of its heat. Thats rubbish, of course it was tested. It was tested both in pressure chambers and also in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Of course a landing was never done before, everyhting has to has to have its first test fligt but to say it was never tested is a lie. lol http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html again this link explains it quite well http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html While slow motion can be used to give the effect of less gravity jumping upwards it cant explain how they were able to make long strides I presume you are on about the study done in the 60's about this based on a vehicle with a three-foot (one-meter) ground clearance. The Apollo rover was designed with a 14-inch ground clearance, and in fact, the Apollo rover has more lateral stability than the theoretical one. Have you actually ever sesearched any of this yourself or have you just copied and pasted form the conspiracy theorist sites without actually having a bit of common sense for yourself? I will explain the other half of your crazy claims soon.

the question to ask, is that does anyone else even WANT that? ;)

Petey you are seriously seriously ill informed. Perhaps this lunchtime I might be able to explain every single one of your comments. But dont count on it, they are so preposterous and have already been explained many times before I dont know if i can be bothered. The fact of the matter is that you are wrong. Its that simple

Here's my intelligent opinion... GO POST THIS ON A FORUM OF PEOPLE WHO CARE!!!! Im sick of all these emo posts which just end up in flaming.

You have to ask the magic fairy because she is the only person that can read your mind and know exactly what you are stuck with. none of us mere mortals can help you unless you give a bit more detail into exactly what you want help with. You also need to ask yourself again do you really need a clan website?

mmmm I didnt think V for Vendetta was actually that good, certainly not enough to warrant spending any more than ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã10 on a regular DVD of it.

I never said that though, I said "possibly the biggest band in the world" which is true. Well done Daan ^_^ Heres a comparison...

You are thinking far too deply into it. Its not cryptic, it looks almost exactly like the cover its representing...

Unless thou hast been blessed by the spork or holyness

Its got some similarities, but when you find the actual album it is you will be amazed at how close my version is to the real thing :D

Didn't give it away that much then ;) Its NOT Rolling Stones - Exile on Main Street

Its not a metal band or an obscure indie band. This album is from quite possibly the biggest band in the world.

I belive Mattel still hold the copyright for the trademark Hoverboard ^_^

With the exception of high altitude long haul flights I went to Yosemite National Park which has a peak of 13,114 feet (4000 m) Ive also been at the top of the Empire state which is the tallest ive been on a building.

At my parents house... another bed which opens out At my house... nothing as yet

To be fair to tomdavies90, many of the Bond Gadgets did actually work in real life.

Nope, not bon Jovi ^_^

Here is mine Took me a while to make it so i hope it takes people at least a little while to get it hehe

:D Its a great album Necro, but it still not as good as The Human Equation :D I will post my new one shortly...

Its probably something else people on Tip.It dont have hehe Sony Ericsson K800i 3.2 Mega Pixel Camera Phone :D

You said "widely belived..." not "I belive..."