Sony Promises not to use Fake Movie Reviews...

Originally posted by IronFist

I agree with a lot of the things said on that show.  I am now skeptical if we really did land on the moon.  Why didn\'t they come back nice and crispy?  Why were there no stars?  There should have been stars because the moon has pretty much no atmosphere.  Why wasn\'t there a hole under the ship landing?  There was a lot of force shooting out from the bottom of the ship trying to stop it.  There should have been at least some disturbance.  Maybe I have just been fooled by FOX, or maybe I had been fooled by the government before that.  I really don\'t know.

IronFist,
that show was BS IMO, they only showed one side of the story.
All of their "evidence" can be explained,

1 Flag never waves on its own, it is always held by someone.
2 No stars on moon, they were on the bright side of the moon, day time for them, if they tuned their cameras they would have taken pics of stars, it was just day time for them...
3 They did not come back crispy because they did not stay in the radiation belt long enough to effect their health. Maybe a couple of X-Ray pictures worth of radiation is all they got ...
4 Takes much less force to land on the moon, gravity is not the same, no atmosphere, so there is no wind to create a nice lift-off or touch-down crater.
5 They said the shadows were not going in the same direction, but they were crisscrossing .. :rolleyes: the ground is not even on the moon, they have hills etc... shadows play tricks ...

there are more, but I’m lazy...

Originally posted by Toxical
1 Flag never waves on its own, it is always held by someone.
2 No stars on moon, they were on the bright side of the moon, day time for them, if they tuned their cameras they would have taken pics of stars, it was just day time for them...
3 They did not come back crispy because they did not stay in the radiation belt long enough to effect their health. Maybe a couple of X-Ray pictures worth of radiation is all they got ...
4 Takes much less force to land on the moon, gravity is not the same, no atmosphere, so there is no wind to create a nice lift-off or touch-down crater.
5 They said the shadows were not going in the same direction, but they were crisscrossing .. :rolleyes: the ground is not even on the moon, they have hills etc... shadows play tricks ...

1. Even after he let go the flag still waved.
2. Regardless of if they were on the bright or dark side of the moon they would not have taken any pictures with big black backgrounds. The moon\'s lack of an atmosphere makes that "light side of the moon" argument null.
3. The radiation belt is much more dangerous than a few x-rays.
4. The force that their rockets used to slow down and take off again should have left a blast crater. The latter should have left a particularly noticeable crater. Regardless there should have been at least SOME change.
5. The ground is not on the moon? Shadows don\'t play criss-crossing tricks. If their is ONE light source ALL of the shadows should go parallel to each other. Despite the best efforts of the hills. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Gohan
1. Even after he let go the flag still waved.
2. Regardless of if they were on the bright or dark side of the moon they would not have taken any pictures with big black backgrounds. The moon\'s lack of an atmosphere makes that "light side of the moon" argument null.
3. The radiation belt is much more dangerous than a few x-rays.
4. The force that their rockets used to slow down and take off again should have left a blast crater. The latter should have left a particularly noticeable crater. Regardless there should have been at least SOME change.
5. The ground is not on the moon? Shadows don\'t play criss-crossing tricks. If their is ONE light source ALL of the shadows should go parallel to each other. Despite the best efforts of the hills. :rolleyes:

hmmm, well i think we will know for sure soon enough i think they are supposed to send some satelite to the moon, it will take pictures of the landing site. If they faked it, then we will know.

Try putting an object on a hill and an object below the hill to the right of it, at some point you move the light source, and the shadows crisscross...

Originally posted by Toxical
Try putting an object on a hill and an object below the hill to the right of it, at some point you move the light source, and the shadows crisscross...

WHAT?!?! The shadows may overlay each other but they will never criss cross if there is one light source. What the hell are you talking about? One light source equals parallel shadows. The only exception would be if the light source was in between two objects. Then the shadows would go in different directions; but the sun was not inbetween the rocks and the hills.

BTW, They might have gone there since the original but I doubt they went there the first time.

[Evi]

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Quote taken from that web-page.



So very true. I hate not being able to tell how old someone is. It is impossible now\'a\'days, damnit.

I\'ve noticed that too...quite a scary thing.

You\'re thinking "WOW! She\'s hot!" and then you find out she\'s half your age...*shrugs* Why must they do that?

Originally posted by EviscerationX
I\'ve noticed that too...quite a scary thing.

You\'re thinking "WOW! She\'s hot!" and then you find out she\'s half your age...*shrugs* Why must they do that?

You find 8 year olds attractive? :rolleyes:

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by EviscerationX
I\'ve noticed that too...quite a scary thing.

You\'re thinking "WOW! She\'s hot!" and then you find out she\'s half your age...*shrugs* Why must they do that?

Its even scarey when you see a really hot chick and find out that was like her picture when she was 20. Then you see her come out on stage and she is like ..well..she hasn\'t take care of herself and looks nothing like her before picture. It makes you scared to get married, because I wonder if these guys married these extremely hot chicks and just woke up one day and rolled over, to find his wife had yellow teeth, gained 300lbs and smelled bad.

Scares me man.
Women change too much. Us men, we stay fundementally the same. Sure, we may put alittle weight on or lose some hair. However, our basic look stays the same.

I must of missed something, because I thought Animal was frickin hilarious.


different strokes for different folks.


Eric Jacob

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...from Sony using fake advertisers, to weither or not we really landed on the moon. Oh how nice this thread has developed. :rolleyes:

Anyways, back to the fake reviewer. I heard about it a long time ago (before the Animal was even released). The reviewer in question was named David Manning. Now, the fact that the review is fake was a stupid part on Sony. However, funny thing was, the critizim Sony got at the time wasn\'t how dishonest Sony is, but how unnesscessarily it was since they could\'ve easily just paid someone else to say good things about the movie and say that they are a "real" movie critic and be "technically" right (in fact, that is what every movie company does [at least the big ones] have done [even Sony, which took it one step further with the fake reviewer]). Afterall, have anyone read where the reviews come from?

that would be worse cause then they would be bribinb the person and personally if you see a big company bribe someone thats worse then lying cause if u bribe someone you know they got a problem

Originally posted by Toxical
4 Takes much less force to land on the moon, gravity is not the same, no atmosphere, so there is no wind to create a nice lift-off or touch-down crater

Everyone knows, we DID land on the moon.... in the early 1950s!We\'ve been using reverse-engineered alien technology to travel to the moon for quite a while.  Don\'t forget... gravity drives do not make blast craters.  

This may not be as far fetched as you think... But seriously, it\'s obvious that many many of the photographs taken on the surface of the moon were doctored.  We\'ve seen what the CIA did with the Zapruder film, how hard do you think it was for them to edit some still photographs?  As described on that television program, the etched crosshairs on the camera optics often disappear behind objects in the Lunar photos.  This would be impossible unless the pictures were tampered with at a later date.  The question is only "why."  You could say it\'s because we never went to the moon at all, or perhaps NASA just wanted to make the pictures more attractive or dramatic looking.  Either way, it seriously discredits much of what they say actually happened on the lunar missions.  You can look at these pictures yourself, right now.  They\'re posted on the NASA webservers, in high resolution scans.  I couldn\'t believe it when I downloaded these and confirmed what people have been saying.

If you think this stuff is scary, consider my roommate\'s theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was faked.  We\'re still gathering evidence on that one...  

Originally posted by Coredweller
If you think this stuff is scary, consider my roommate\'s theory that the Pearl Harbor attack was faked.  We\'re still gathering evidence on that one...  

Lol, I\'m always interested in a good conspiracy theory! Keep us updated on that one.