UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
2nd shifters
machine me a starter, please.
Last edited:
2nd shifters
My chuck is 78 inches in diameter. I wouldnt even be able to mount the housingmachine me a starter, please.
nothing right now.My chuck is 78 inches in diameter. I wouldnt even be able to mount the housing
Whats wrong with your starter?
I threw the box of cigs inthere for perspectiveCigarettes are delicious, no?
What is it? It looks like a chess piece, bishop to be exact.
What is it? It looks like a chess piece, bishop to be exact.
If that is what it is, poor choice in material. That would be very cold.It's a Butt plug.
What is it? It looks like a chess piece, bishop to be exact.
Don't knock the hustle homie. Unlike most in here, the man does his homework, and gives complete, well thought out responses usually backed up with statistics. I know you idiots hate to read, but he always comes to the argument prepared. You should try it sometime.Are you on Meth? You sit here all day whining and then start threads all night. Your posting times give the impression that you never sleep, let alone work. Who has that kind of free time?
There is a tremendous return on investment with every dollar ever put until the space program.I think the idea of throwing trillions of dollars into outerspace is stupid.
Man kind has way more problems here on planet earth that need to be handled before space exploration should have been considered.
Have you visited our "Flat Earth" Thread? It is in the Talk N Toke section. You would be a valuable participant.Look what I came across. This guy doesn't put forth any of the proof that the missions were faked but he shows very clearly that there's no proof that the missios were real.
Here's some of the proof that the missions were faked for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
-------------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
Dear sirs:
There can be many levels to an issue, and, unless you look at all of them, you cannot necessarily be said completely to understand it.
With the upcoming anniversary of the purported landing on the moon, it is understandable that there would be significant attention to that story, with replays of news broadcasts from that time and descriptions of improvements in space travel since then. But, in the way that handling of an event can be characteristic of its time, or perhaps should be approached so, discussion of the supposed landing of Apollo 11 today also includes reference to the wide-spread perception that it never took place.
Indeed, what is termed "The Moon Hoax" is a major topic on the internet, the "conspiracy theory" that the "moon landing" actually was staged. References to explanations by "conspiracy theorists" include items like the danger of traveling through the Van Allen radiation belts; the lack of stars in the sky in the photographs; the oddly intersecting or diverging shadows on the moon, suggesting mutliple light sources; and the "flapping" of the American flag set up there. Unfortunately, some "theorists" go too far afield, providing details, such as that the moon landing was filmed at Area 51, and those can and often are used to undermine the legitimacy of the inquiry.
And, to be sure, the standard points can be countered, if not definitively then at least somewhat convincingly. Actually, the amount of radiation in the Van Allen belts is not so strong it can't be countered by adequate shielding. Cameras that were calibrated to expose only long enough to collect significant light sources could fail to obtain simultaneous images of dim stars in the background. The lunar surface was evidently irregular enough that fraction of an inch long shadows in a picture could appear to intersect when they were really parallel. And even when they erected it, the astronauts described the flag as having a cross bar so the pennant could stand out from the pole and, if jostled for any reason, even in a vacuum, a suspended cloth can flap if disturbed.
Those whose job it is to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" would declare from this case closed, but, in fact, it opens the issue.
Because it is a truism that, if you can control the essence of an argument, the meaning of terms, the items to be mentioned, the way things are to be approached, you can make anything say anything. And, in fact, "debunkers" have relied very heavily on this technique to deceive the public.
In articles strewn with references to "conspiracy theorists' as "loonies" or "idiots" or "crackpots", the "debunkers" have repeatedly trotted out the standard points, sprinkling in details such as the claim about being filmed at Area 51, to "convince" the naive and dull that the "conspiracy theory" about the untruthfulness of the moon landing doesn't hold water. All predictably the same. In the article "Could the moon landings have been faked? Some still think so", by Brandon Griggs, journalistic ethic is tossed by referring to Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker who has challenged the claims about landing on the moon, as "crazy" and describing those who doubt the landing as a "cult". Phil Plait, an astronomer and contributor to Discover magazine's web site terms refusing to believe that man landed on the moon "lunacy".
The fact is, such loaded language is an historic proof of an insincere agenda, promoting an illegitimate claim. A decent individual could opine the fact that craven connivers in government have made so many so distrustful that they don't place stock in anything government says. Those who are liars and criminals simply call those who refuse to be pushed around "crackpots"!
But these always approach the issue from the one direction, the standard points. Which suggests that that is the only way a presentation "debunking" the "conspiracy theory" can be made. As if approaching from any other angle would expose the inherent weaknesses of the claim the moon was reached. It can be helpful, then, to examine the claim of a moon landing from other approaches, as well. The verifiable is the same viewed from any angle, not just from one specific direction.
continued next post...
Flat Earth does it for me much more.I am beyond amazed at the people who think the moon landing was a hoax... seriously. I find it mind boggling.