Eve Of The War
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/

Backward Interlects
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=135
Page 7 of 8

Author:  Loz [ Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sounds like one of the reviewers thinks the Martians or whatever ther are in the new parramount one are a little backward too. it's in parramount section under bad review.

Author:  Loz [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Perhaps the only Backward Interect at the end of the day was Hines. :a009:

Author:  oever532 [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:56 am ]
Post subject: 

I shall second that.

Author:  Loz [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Its funny but a lot of people have a problem with the parramount version. The decisions that the ET's make, seem less than superbrained.

Author:  oever532 [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, In my opinion, as far as I know, Paramount is better...

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jul 08, 2005 8:19 pm ]
Post subject: 

It is believe. Me but this thread is basically about the fact that although we all love the book so much, the science of the martian tachnology has somewhat dated, because Wells could only imagine so far ahead. And I was implying that if you are totally faithful to the book when making a film nowadays that some people might think the Martain Invaders are a little bit backward. Even when the astonauts came back from the Moon they went into quaranteen, in case they had picked up extraterrestrial germs.

Author:  oever532 [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Yeah? All I know is that they did land on the Moon. I was born in 1986, but I learned from school the most important stuff of history, including the landing on the moon.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

oever532 wrote:
including the landing on the moon.

Or did they?

Author:  oever532 [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:26 am ]
Post subject: 

Now what is that supposed to mean? Do you think America set up some kind of studio in one of the back rooms, and thus pretended the landing on the moon, therby fooling everyone in the world?

Author:  Loz [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

What is the Moon anyway?

Author:  oever532 [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

A moon is a 'sattelite' which has an orbit around a planet. Earth has one moon, Mars has two of them, Jupiter and Saturn have even more moons!

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well there are some theorys that say N.A.S.A. faked the whole thing, I have watched a couple of programes with quite convincing evidence.
in one of the photos from 1969 (the first landind) you can see a range of hills in the background and in another photo from one of the 70's landings you can see the same range of hills although the landing sites were hundreds of miles apart. :-k
In another photo you can see the camera puts little + signs on the surface of the picture and in one of the pics the Moon buggie is obscuring one of the +. This is not possible.
there are many, many more things like these that don't add up :-s

As it happens, I do think the US landed on the moon but I think a lot of the photos they brought back were unusable so they faked them.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

This is not the photo I was talking about, but you can see the little + signs the camera puts on the surface of the photo.

Author:  oever532 [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 

I see them. What do they mean? :-s

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:48 am ]
Post subject: 

I think the evidence that the american went to the moon and landed on it when and where they sais far outways the evidence against. If those photos are fakes then its for the reason Lonesome suggests.

Russia would have exposed the moon landings as fake, back in the day.

Has anyone seen the TV Series Ffom the Earth to the Moon? Or the Documentory For all Mankind?

Author:  McTodd [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

The moon buggy appears to obscure the little cross hairs because they are very thin, and the moon buggy is very bright - the (relatively) huge amount of light reflected from the bright buggy has caused the photographic emulsion to 'bleed' over the thin cross hairs. And I don't think they faked any photos. Remember, the astronauts took thousands of photos, of which probably 99% are crap - we only ever see the same dozen or so, after all. To have faked any would have been far too risky. And what would have been the point? If they even only got one decent photo from each mission, it would have been enough.

As Loz says, the Soviets would have pounced on the opportunity if the US really had faked anything (and bearing in mind the entire machinery of the US government couldn't even keep a hotal burglary secret for more than about 10 minutes, what chance something like this?).

I've seen a documentary on C5 about the so-called hoax - funny how the guys who claim to have discovered NASA and the US govt lied are all, how can I put it? Renegades? Loose cannons? Ah, nutters, that's it. And their so-called evidence was rot, if you start really thinking about it. Nothing but misleading analogies and downright distortion of the facts.

All in all, I think the idea that the Yanks faked the moon landings (and remember, there were several, not just Armstrong's, so they'd have to have repeated it several times over a period of years) to be utterly absurd for the following reason: when you think about how complex it would be to fake the landings, and then cover them up for decades, with thousands of people involved, well, it seems pretty clear that it would actually be easier just to go to the bloody moon for real.

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

I agree with that 100%

Aldren and Armstrong would have been bumped off a long time ago if they were part of the "conspiracy."

Author:  oever532 [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Right. I second that.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

After I posted that message yesterday, I looked a little deeper into the hoax theory and found this site http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/main.html which explains all the things that puzzeled me it's well worth a visit. and I also saw the documentary on C5 and yes they do come across as nutters :wink: does this meen I'm one of them? :-k :shock:

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

fraid so. :mrgreen:

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

oever532 wrote:
I see them. What do they mean? :-s


This is the photo I was talking about, you see the white object apears to be in front of the little black cross it should be the other way round. but N.A.S.A.s explanation satisfied me. it's the same explanation that 'McTodd' gave :D

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Just been having a good look and its a great site. i'd worked some of the explanations out for myself in the past but there were a good few I hadn't.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes it is good, I wish I had visited it before I posted my first remarks :oops:

Author:  oever532 [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 

I don't doubt it. :-s

Author:  Loz [ Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

Imagine what it must feel like to walk on the moon. The later missions spent more time there. and the last mission took a scientist/geolagist. He must of been over the moon. :a112:

Page 7 of 8 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/