Slashdot Mirror

Lets see. On one hand I can go with the basic laws of physics that CO2 and other gases do trap thermal radiation, or on the other hand I can go with global conspiracy theory claims that tens of thousands of scientists are perpetrating a hoax.

I'll go with the basic laws of physics, thankyouverymuch.

Over and over, we read of hidden, manipulated, and cherry-picked data, refusals to abide with having outsiders vet their work, and allowing naked advocacy into the IPCC reports on climate change as if they were peer-reviewed science.

I suggest you read the following links. As you say, over and over. Reading them enough times makes them true.
Global Warming: HOAX! http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
9/11: HOAX! http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
Moon Landing: HOAX! http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

-

This is the sound of the joke going over your head.

The moon is cheeze! Everyone knows it is held up by a fat old man. Wait. No. That's Santa. It is held up by a skinny old man. Skinny and tall. Yeah that's it. The moon is cheese, held up by a tall skinny old man.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm/

I know the URL doesn't inspire confidence, but you can at least search for John Constable's 1835 depiction of Stonehenge independently and compare it to modern day.

Oh yeah... We all heard that before.

You must have read this highly informative site and applied your intensive research efforts directly to the debunking of this obviously fake planetary fly-by. My hat is off to you; job well done buddy...

Dang it all, even I can't keep from laughing at that page.

I wonder if these guys are going to censor the photos the same way that nasa does? http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/airbrush.htm

Well they didn't do a very good job of that, now did they? It's obvious to most of us who made it past grade school that it was a fake. Here are just a couple of links to a good 50+ anomalies that NASA has yet to explain, but hey let's not let reason and facts get in the way here. Just go on believing what the men in white coats tell ya.

  http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

These guys were getting too close for comfort (to note, I have absolutely nothing to do with this site - I just googled it). With looming Freedom of Information act requests the only option was to "loose" the films lest the community can finally find the films. This is has been the time honored way the govt covers everything up. Expect to see more about this "loss" as we move forward with investigating.

I mean, who here *really* thinks that NASA would just conveniently loose just the moon landings when there is so much controversy. Not just the first one, but *all* of them. Now they can just claim whatever they want and there is no way to track them.

This is just further proof that Aliens have visited the planet, after all there was no other reason they would try and shift the focus away from places like Roswell, add in that it "proved" that we were alone you got a tidy package.

Well, either that or 1960's film storage wasn't too good and they are underfunded. Sad to see it go, at least there are other films of it so it's not a total loss. Hopefully little was totally lost, it's sad to realise how little of our civilisation will remain for historians and how quick it occurs now.

But we all know the Moon landings were a hoax. These researchers must be faking their results to fraudulently obtain grant money.

What is stopping you then from becoming one?... All the other folks out there, they're no smarter than you or else they'd be on TV so they're just a bunch of cooky conspiracy theorists so never mind listening to them, okay?

I actually was very intrigued when I first learned that people thought the landing was faked. I did a lot of research looking at both sides and I finally decided there was more convincing evidence on the side saying the landings were real. There definitely is still a lot of strange occurrences such as how many of the main people involved mysteriously died but I still think the landings were real.

Here are a couple links that I liked (and could still find since it has been a while since I researched) which debunked many of the "conspiracy theorists" claims:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm and http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ and http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on %20the%20Moon.htm

This is an interesting neutral site: http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003.htm

Here is one of the "conspiracy theorists" sites I found interesting:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

They should present facts, and it is a fact that some people believe evolution is the explanation of the origin of life, so it is fair to teach that and to explain what evolution is. It's also a fact that a lot of people don't believe in evolution, so they should present that fact as well.

• The class in question is a science class
  
• There is scientific evidence for evolution. Evolution has been observed in nature.
  
• There is no scientific evidence for Intelligent Design. There is no proof of a designer and there has been no observation of a designer at work in nature.
  

http://bathstonequarries.mysite.wanadoo-members.co .uk/BURLINGTON.htm

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicrudloe.html

http://bathstonequarries.mysite.wanadoo-members.co .uk/digitalspring.htm

hope that helps

In times like these, where we, the public, have lost faith in our news institutions after RatherGate and Fox News, I'm thankfull that we can still trust respected and sensible journalism sites like http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/www.ufos-aliens.co.uk for our news and information.

The whole thing was clearly faked for the publicity and for NASA to con a few extra bazillion dallars out of the Federal Government, by hiring script writers, faking some photographs, making some beeping noises and some flashing led effects, then whipping off to the pub with the difference.

See this link and scroll down to the Apollo 13 section http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Honouring these con men at this time, when China is planning the world's first manned mission to the moon is pure sour grapes.
GlobalSpec: you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Shh, don't give the nuts out there any more ideas: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html At least there's some sane ones out there too: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2 .htm

One thing I dont understand - why are the triplets out of sequence? The early pictures show the landing site! Is this just some artifact of the transmission process?

Given that claims have been made in recent years that stonehenge itself was almost completely rebuilt in the 20th century (based on evidence like constables paintings and contemporary photos), I don't understand why anyone would get their backup about a reproduction being made. (Granted there were many counter claims) [Personally I'd be interested in seeing even the techniques used even in 1902 reemployed in NZ]

As explained by this site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html