Theories on the Paranormal and Cover Ups Part 1

Joey D · Apr 4, 2005

Well after having a long discussion with Brian (MrktMkr1986) about many different theories on anything and everything to do with the paranormal. I'm going to say my first post will provide information on many different topics. Just to give you a heads up if you think this stuff is off the wall, that's your opinion, but please don't post garbage in this thread. Thank you much.

A whole new world - The talk about aliens
So many people have claimed to see aliens and even more have claimed to see UFO's through out the United States each year. Other report come in from across the globe about object that come from the sky and beings that come from the heavens.

Also even ancient history suggests aliens have visited Earth, from the hyroglyphics in Egypt, to the statues and carvings of the ancient people from South America. There are so many things that suggest alien beings, even the gods these people used to worship. Think about it when the people made the gods mad the had things destroyed, but when they pleased the gods good things came of it. I think these gods very well could have been alien creatures.

Pig farmers vs. Uncle Sam - The Roswell connection
Was there a crash in Roswell in 1947? Yes. Was it covered up by the government? Yes. Was it a spaceship? Maybe, but it's not likely since that was during the Cold War and many X-planes were being tested at the time. I do believe that is what happened on that day in 1947.

Is the moon made of cheese? - The discussion about the moon landing
Did man ever go to the moon? Why I don't see why they wouldn't have, however I think the pictures were indeed faked because if you look at some of them, they are clearly faked. Anyone who saying we faked the moon landing better have better proof then just pictures.

Where were these pictures faked at? Area 51 which brings me into the next series. But that is later. These are some topics to get the ball rolling.

Duke · Apr 4, 2005

What in the name of trees makes you think the moon landing pictures are fake? And if we actually got to the moon, did they all look at each other in disbelief and say "I thought you brought the camera?"

Joey D · Apr 4, 2005

Well I think they got back from the moon and basically said "Oh s!@# the pictures didn't come out and we need proof to show those Commie Bastards." But if you look at some of the photos the cross hairs go under objects as they were added in after the fact. Shadow casting are messed up, along with many of the lighting factors. The sun should be the only light source yet it looks as if the moon has many light sources. Finally you can see reflections of things on the space helmet that no body knows what it is. Oh ya one more thing, you can see duplicated back drops in some of the scenes.

I'm not doubting we went to the moon.

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 4, 2005

Duke
What in the name of trees makes you think the moon landing pictures are fake? And if we actually got to the moon, did they all look at each other in disbelief and say "I thought you brought the camera?"

I wouldn't discount the possibility. I'm actually mentioned in a thread! :dopey:

Was there a crash in Roswell in 1947? Yes.

Of course.

Was it covered up by the government? Yes.

I believe so -- in the interest of national security, though. Whatever crashed in that desert had to have been a top secret military project born out of WW2/Cold War.

Was it a spaceship? Maybe, but it's not likely since that was during the Cold War and many X-planes were being tested at the time. I do believe that is what happened on that day in 1947.

As do I.

So many people have claimed to see aliens and even more have claimed to see UFO's through out the United States each year. Other report come in from across the globe about object that come from the sky and beings that come from the heavens.

The people who have claimed to see aliens were probably dreaming. Then when under hypnosis/therapy, the same "sighting" was somehow suggested to them. That's what I believe.

Anyone who saying we faked the moon landing better have better proof then just pictures.

I agree. Especially considering the fact that that is what all of the evolutionists in the Creation vs. Evolution thread want. Where's the PROOF?

Joey D · Apr 4, 2005

I need to do some searching around the net to find examples of what I'm talking about, or I could just dig out a book and scan some pictures. But that is left for tomarrow, since I have to be down in Warren for a 7 am meeting, and I think I should go to bed.

The people who have claimed to see aliens were probably dreaming. Then when under hypnosis/therapy, the same "sighting" was somehow suggested to them. That's what I believe.

I'm guessing 90% were on drugs, dreaming, or just wanted fame. But there are some stories that I have a hard time not taking seriously.

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 4, 2005

BlazinXtreme
I need to do some searching around the net to find examples of what I'm talking about, or I could just dig out a book and scan some pictures. But that is left for tomarrow, since I have to be down in Warren for a 7 am meeting, and I think I should go to bed.

Cool. Good night.

I'm guessing 90% were on drugs, dreaming, or just wanted fame. But there are some stories that I have a hard time not taking seriously.

That's what I figured. Perhaps tomorrow if you can post some of those stories, that'd be cool.

a6m5 · Apr 4, 2005

I used to be interested in UFOs when I was a kid, so I did read quite a bit about them.

From what I've read, I believe Roswell crash did take place. However, I believe it was an military (hot air)balloon. If I remember correctly, Japanese used an weapon called "balloon bombs" in World War II(one even hit rural Oregon). After the war, it was said that U.S. Army had tested their version of the balloons, I believe in New Mexico.

Person, who claim to have seen this wreckage(probably the pig farmer, Blazin mentioned), reported that the craft was built with some materials he'd never seen. He also saw bodies, that looked like the "gray" aliens(like in Blazins' avatar). What make this report little more believable is that there was an person(probably an soldier) from a near by base, who witnessed the wreckage and body(ies) being brought into the base.

Top secret technology doesn't become available to us for at least a decade or two, which would explain the mysterious materials found at the wreckage. Alien bodies, I think they were testing dummies.

Please note, this is the conclusion I came to, probably in the early 90's(like, when I was 16). So, they are just my personal opinion. There might be some new info or evidence, that might change my mind.

On UFOs in general, I'm sure they exist. I've never seen one personally, but there are too many witnesses to just discredit it. It's harder to believe they are all mistaken or lying IMO. However, I don't think they are "alien" crafts, probably top secret military crafts.

Tacet_Blue · Apr 4, 2005

MrktMkr1986
I agree. Especially considering the fact that that is what all of the evolutionists in the Creation vs. Evolution thread want. Where's the PROOF?

Proof of moon landing...hmmm

Well there are the moon rocks that were brought back, and of course the radio transmissions that were picked up from round the world that originated from the moon. The TV pictures that were broadcast, their source was on the surface of the moon.

And of course the one the conspiracy theorists don't like to mention...the laser reflectors that were left on the surface. They have been used for the past 30 years to measure the distance of the moon from the earth and how the moon is moving further away.
I guess they must have been put there by aliens :dunce:

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 4, 2005

Tacet_Blue
Proof of moon landing...hmmm

Well there are the moon rocks that were brought back,

I know that. We never said we didn't land on the moon. We only said the pictures could've been faked.

and of course the radio transmissions that were picked up from round the world that originated from the moon.

Of course. I don't doubt that.

The TV pictures that were broadcast, their source was on the surface of the moon.

That could easily have been staged. :sly:

And of course the one the conspiracy theorists don't like to mention...the laser reflectors that were left on the surface. They have been used for the past 30 years to measure the distance of the moon from the earth and how the moon is moving further away.

Again, we never said we did not land on the moon. We said the television broadcast could easily have been faked.

I guess they must have been put there by aliens

I don't believe in aliens. :odd:

donbenni · Apr 4, 2005

MrktMkr1986
I don't believe in aliens.

What exactly do you mean? Do you not believe that creatures from another world exist or just that they have never come to our world?

Tacet_Blue · Apr 4, 2005

MrktMkr1986
That could easily have been staged.

Again, we never said we did not land on the moon. We said the television broadcast could easily have been faked.

Staged!!! What someone sneaked up onto the moon and placed a TV transmitter :lol:

The signals came from the moon...the Russians were never going to buy photos as evidence..they monitored the whole thing.

Once again...the signals came from the moon..someone went there and placed a TV transmitter.

I believe in aliens...I just don't think they have ever been here

Funny how all reported aliens have two eyes, two legs and two arms. Thats too much of a coincidence for me. Even here on earth we have creatures with six limbs eight eyes and ten tentacles. Some of the UFO stories seriously lack imagination :lol:

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 4, 2005

donbenni
What exactly do you mean? Do you not believe that creatures from another world exist or just that they have never come to our world?

There is a 1/100,000 chance that there are "creatures from another world". In that case, yes, I believe that they exist.

However, I REJECT the notion that "alien beings" from another planet have visited Earth. Although, if an alien DOES come knocking on my door, I'll be sure to leave out the "welcome" mat. :sly:

Tacet_Blue
Staged!!! What someone sneaked up onto the moon and placed a TV transmitter

Just because aliens haven't visited Earth doesn't mean aliens haven't visited the Moon. :sly:

The signals came from the moon...the Russians were never going to buy photos as evidence..they monitored the whole thing.

We could have faked what the Russians were monitoring as well. :sly:

Once again...the signals came from the moon..someone went there and placed a TV transmitter.

That's just what they want you to believe! :crazy:

I believe in aliens...I just don't think they have ever been here

Explained above.

Funny how all reported aliens have two eyes, two legs and two arms. Thats too much of a coincidence for me. Even here on earth we have creatures with six limbs eight eyes and ten tentacles. Some of the UFO stories seriously lack imagination

I agree!

Tacet_Blue · Apr 4, 2005

MrktMkr1986
We could have faked what the Russians were monitoring as well.

You think so :crazy:

Yes the content of the broadcasts could have been faked...but their origin..I don't think so...Russia was a Superpower at the time with many satellites and some of the most sophisticated radar and listening devices, you are giving the US too mmuch credit if you think they could have fooled them about the origin of a transmission

You know as well, that there are thousands of amateur astronomers and radio "Hams" around the world that all monitored the event independently of what the official channels broadcast. They all agree on one thing...the signals came from the moon.
It is very easy to work out if a radio signal comes from the earth or not :sly:

Besides I'd have thought the Russians would have been the first to blow the whistle if they had even sniffed of an attempt to fake it...they would have absolutely loved it

The reflectors were placed there by Apollo 11...how did they get there?

So you are saying that man has been to the moon, but they faked the pictures for the fun of it...that is truly bizarre :lol:

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 4, 2005

Tacet_Blue
You think so

It's a possibility, but there are no absolutes. Truth vs. fact.

Yes the content of the broadcasts could have been faked...but their origin..I don't think so...Russia was a Superpower at the time with many satellites and some of the most sophisticated radar and listening devices, you are giving the US too mmuch credit if you think they could have fooled them about the origin of a transmission

Maybe...

You know as well, that there are thousands of amateur astronomers and radio "Hams" around the world that all monitored the event independently of what the official channels broadcast. They all agree on one thing...the signals came from the moon.
It is very easy to work out if a radio signal comes from the earth or not

That's true.

Besides I'd have thought the Russians would have been the first to blow the whistle if they had even sniffed of an attempt to fake it...they would have absolutely loved it

That's true.

The reflectors were placed there by Apollo 11...how did they get there?

Magic! We ALL know the US government is capable of magic! *cough* Kennedy '63 *cough* :sly:

So you are saying that man has been to the moon, but they faked the pictures for the fun of it...that is truly bizarre

PS · Apr 4, 2005

MrktMkr1986
It's a possibility, but there are no absolutes. Truth vs. fact.

Maybe...

That's true.

That's true.

Magic! We ALL know the US government is capable of magic! *cough* Kennedy '63 *cough*

Are you just debating for the sake of debating, or are you actually refuting his testimony that what we saw on TV was fake? I don't think it is. People claim you see the fag waving, but that's because when you move fabric, and you transfer the energy from your hand to the staf and into the fabric, it continues to move for a much longer time without (or much less) gravity or friction. Not to mention the fact it was held up by another stick when they planted it on the moons' surface, so it would droop down.

And yes, Oswald is magic. Just because for once, your government can't get 99.9999% recreation and evidence, doesn't mean it's magic.

Now what I would like to know is, why in god's name is the Army/Airforce hiding the Aurora? What is there to hide? You don't want us to find out that your top secret airplane may or may not be what it's cracked up to be? What will it be used for? Will we care?

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 5, 2005

PS
Are you just debating for the sake of debating, or are you actually refuting his testimony that what we saw on TV was fake?

Maybe a bit of both. :sly:

I don't think it is. People claim you see the fag waving, but that's because when you move fabric, and you transfer the energy from your hand to the staf and into the fabric, it continues to move for a much longer time without (or much less) gravity or friction. Not to mention the fact it was held up by another stick when they planted it on the moons' surface, so it would droop down.

I think you meant to type "F-L-A-G". Otherwise, I see what you're saying.

And yes, Oswald is magic. Just because for once, your government can't get 99.9999% recreation and evidence, doesn't mean it's magic.

I'm not the one who said that, they did. :sly:

Now what I would like to know is, why in god's name is the Army/Airforce hiding the Aurora? What is there to hide? You don't want us to find out that your top secret airplane may or may not be what it's cracked up to be? What will it be used for? Will we care?

It is in the interest of national security.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

I know we went to the moon, I would never doubt that. That's why there was transmission and what not, but I just don't think the moon landing pictures are real.

Segment 1

If you look at the rock that is labeled R you will clearly see the letter C. A gag by the prop crew perhaps?

The S label shows the rover tire tracks which seems a little to defined for a dusty planet with no water.

Here is a close up of section Q

The label P shows that the cross hair goes behind the rover. :yikes:

Section 2

The most famous moon landing picture.

Letter B shows: The shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. If the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker. No?

Letter C shows: The surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Letter D shows: You can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there. Weird huh?

Close up of the helmit

Section 3

Areas 6 and J you can clearly see there are no stars and the astronauts never once made mention of the stars on the moon. Since man has always been fasinated by stars, I wonder why they wouldn't say anything.

In area K you will notice that one side of the Lander is covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job or just showing respect to the flag.

Also if there is no wind on the moon how come the flag waves, I'm sure there is a very good explination for this.

ND4SPD · Apr 5, 2005

Whoa...

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

See to make a compeling arguement one must give examples.

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 5, 2005

That's the first thing I said when I saw those pictures. The shadow in Aldrin's helmet looks like a man without a space suit. He could have been the one taking the pictures. All of the other evidence is clear and convincing.

Joey D
See to make a compeling arguement one must give examples.

Precisely.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

What I was talking about for the helmet reflection is the white object floating out in space. Apparently the astronauts had the cameras strapped to their chest while on the moon.

MrktMkr1986 · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
What I was talking about for the helmet reflection is the white object floating out in space. Apparently the astronauts had the cameras strapped to their chest while on the moon.

My mistake, I didn't notice that... :boggled:

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
I know we went to the moon, I would never doubt that. That's why there was transmission and what not, but I just don't think the moon landing pictures are real.

Why on earth would they fake them if they landed :crazy:

BlazinXtreme
If you look at the rock that is labeled R you will clearly see the letter C. A gag by the prop crew perhaps?

You see the letter C, others would say its the hoofprint of Satan :lol:

To me it looks like a squiggle

BlazinXtreme
The S label shows the rover tire tracks which seems a little to defined for a dusty planet with no water.

Really...a little too defined..how would you like them

BlazinXtreme
Letter B shows: The shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. If the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker. No?

Do you know what type of film they were using..have you heard of specular or diffused light. The moons surface is very reflective...ever seen a full moon

BlazinXtreme
Letter C shows: The surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Maybe the film

BlazinXtreme
Letter D shows: You can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there. Weird huh?

You see, one man sees the shadow of a man without a suit :crazy:

you see a strange floaty white object. It looks exactly like the one to the left of it to me. You can see the the shadow below it, but not the support...

BlazinXtreme
Areas 6 and J you can clearly see there are no stars and the astronauts never once made mention of the stars on the moon. Since man has always been fasinated by stars, I wonder why they wouldn't say anything.

Take a picture of the night sky yourself you won't see any stars. The human eye is far more sensitive than a camera...in 1969 what type of camera do you think they had...

BlazinXtreme
In area K you will notice that one side of the Lander is covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job or just showing respect to the flag.

I've never seen that pic before..it does look odd. In other photos they claimed the "multiple light source" thing because the US flag was lit from both sides. It turns out that it was made from a semi transparent material and the light was passing through...maybe that is a fabric flag that..I don't know about that one

BlazinXtreme
Also if there is no wind on the moon how come the flag waves, I'm sure there is a very good explination for this.

oh dear...even PS can grasp that one...there is nothing to STOP it from moving :lol:

Edit: On your theory of the week. Do you really think that the US government has the power to silence an intergalactic intelligence :lol:

What's in it for the aliens..If I were them, I'd just park a dirty great big spaceship in a low orbit and say "cover that up" :lol:

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

Why on earth would they fake them if they landed

First off flim can't even survive a trip to the moon without being destroyed completely with radiation and temperature differtials. So I think they found that out once they got back to Earth, which meant they gave the "Holy S!@# we jacked it up" face. They had to come up with a way to prove the pictures.

You see the letter C, others would say its the hoofprint of Satan
To me it looks like a squiggle

That is clearly a craved C in that rock, maybe the astronauts did it with their pocket survival super dooper 1 million dollar space knife.

Really...a little too defined..how would you like them

If I drove my truck over a dusty, dry area, with lose dirt, and low gravity I'm sure my truck would put tracks in the ground that defined.

Edit: On your theory of the week. Do you really think that the US government has the power to silence an intergalactic intelligence

What's in it for the aliens..If I were them, I'd just park a dirty great big spaceship in a low orbit and say "cover that up"

Yes yes I do.

Do you know what type of film they were using..have you heard of specular or diffused light. The moons surface is very reflective...ever seen a full moon

Letter C shows: The surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

All the film in the world and all the camera tickery can't defy the laws of physics when it comes to light.

You see, one man sees the shadow of a man without a suit you see a strange floaty white object. It looks exactly like the one to the left of it to me. You can see the the shadow below it, but not the support...

How do you explain this?

Take a picture of the night sky yourself you won't see any stars. The human eye is far more sensitive than a camera...in 1969 what type of camera do you think they had...

In some pictures you do see a few stars, never more then 3 though. And I can take a picture of the night sky and get stars, it just needs longer expouser. They had a camera that could take pictures on the moon, but not get the stars :odd:

?

I've never seen that pic before..it does look odd. In other photos they claimed the "multiple light source" thing because the US flag was lit from both sides. It turns out that it was made from a semi transparent material and the light was passing through...maybe that is a fabric flag that..I don't know about that one

I'm talking about the flag on the lander.

oh dear...even PS can grasp that one...there is nothing to STOP it from moving

There is no breeze on the moon is there?

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
First off flim can't even survive a trip to the moon without being destroyed completely with radiation and temperature differtials. So I think they found that out once they got back to Earth, which meant they gave the "Holy S!@# we jacked it up" face. They had to come up with a way to prove the pictures.

That's just not true. Plenty of film comes back from the space shuttle.
They also said that the radiation from the Van Allen belts would kill them...again not true...

BlazinXtreme
That is clearly a craved C in that rock, maybe the astronauts did it with their pocket survival super dooper 1 million dollar space knife.

That's clearly a U on its side :lol:

Or a hoofprint. Do you actually think that props are labled a-z...what happens if there are more than 26...if it was "C232" I would believe you

BlazinXtreme
If I drove my truck over a dusty, dry area, with lose dirt, and low gravity I'm sure my truck would put tracks in the ground that defined.

Yes, tracks can be left in dry dust...I thought you were saying that wasn't possible

BlazinXtreme
Yes yes I do.

WOW

BlazinXtreme
All the film in the world and all the camera tickery can't defy the laws of physics when it comes to light.

err...OK

BlazinXtreme
In some pictures you do see a few stars, never more then 3 though. And I can take a picture of the night sky and get stars, it just needs longer expouser. They had a camera that could take pictures on the moon, but not get the stars ?

They had a fixed exposure...the cameras were WWII. They had to modify the shutter button so that they could actually press the thing with their gloves. They were fixed to the chest plate. I think only Neil Armstrong had a camera, that is why there are no pics of him...except in the reflection of the helmet. Do you think he had time to play with exposures...

BlazinXtreme
I'm talking about the flag on the lander.

I know...I was just saying that if it was made of material it may be picking up light from behind

BlazinXtreme
There is no breeze on the moon is there?

No...but you are supposing that the astronaut who planted it had a perfectly steady hand

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 5, 2005

I'm not sure why you think the picture of the reflection in the helmet is a structure. If you look closely you can see poles, and a shadow of them on the ground, plus a white thing on top. They must have been placed there for the picture, extra light source for the photo maybe?

Anyways, I'm not sure about the other ones. As far as I can tell, most of it could be due to other light sources that were brought along, like a flash works on a camera. And if there were other light sources, that could explain not being able to see the stars, the extra light would drowned out the stars light.

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

That's just not true. Plenty of film comes back from the space shuttle.
They also said that the radiation from the Van Allen belts would kill them...again not true...

Ok and now adays film is much better and they've been to space for almost 45 years. I think they would spend Nasa's insane budget on getting good film by now. I should have said for the time. Also for the Van Allen's bellet, I didn't say we never went to the moon did I?

Yes, tracks can be left in dry dust...I thought you were saying that wasn't possible

While possible it's not very likely to get detailed tracks, they would be more groves in the dust. Unless the camera man had a great trigger finger.

err...OK

Pick up a physics book, I'll get my college one outta my truck tomarrow and read it to find some stuff.

They had a fixed exposure...the cameras were WWII. They had to modify the shutter button so that they could actually press the thing with their gloves. They were fixed to the chest plate. I think only Neil Armstrong had a camera, that is why there are no pics of him...except in the reflection of the helmet. Do you think he had time to play with exposures...

Then those pictures are aweful clear without photo technology and did they even have colored film in the 1940's. I don't know.

No...but you are supposing that the astronaut who planted it had a perfectly steady hand

The flag was blowing, not just wobboling.

I'm not sure why you think the picture of the reflection in the helmet is a structure. If you look closely you can see poles, and a shadow of them on the ground, plus a white thing on top. They must have been placed there for the picture, extra light source for the photo maybe?

Anyways, I'm not sure about the other ones. As far as I can tell, most of it could be due to other light sources that were brought along, like a flash works on a camera. And if there were other light sources, that could explain not being able to see the stars, the extra light would drowned out the stars light.

So they would have time to set up lights, focus them in correctly, aim them, and get to take a picture? Seems like something a stuido would do.

Tacet_Blue · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
Ok and now adays film is much better and they've been to space for almost 45 years. I think they would spend Nasa's insane budget on getting good film by now. I should have said for the time. Also for the Van Allen's bellet, I didn't say we never went to the moon did I?

Then those pictures are aweful clear without photo technology and did they even have colored film in the 1940's. I don't know.

All you need is a metal case...and the film is fine. The camera was picked because it was practically indestructable

It was so simple and reliable.
And yes you can put colour film in an old camera...it'll still work, trust me :lol:

BlazinXtreme
The flag was blowing, not just wobboling.

How can you tell

Go that book then...

PS. The best photo you have there is the crosshairs one...that I can't explain

Joey D · Apr 5, 2005

And yes you can put colour film in an old camera...it'll still work, trust me

Me = idiot on that one

All you need is a metal case...and the film is fine. The camera was picked because it was practically indestructable It was so simple and reliable.

Seems resoniable enough. More then likely a lead box, but that isn't hard to manage.

How can you tell

It's sticking straight out and no one is holding it, with the low gravity on the moon it would be drooping slowly. It's straight out and appears wind is going over it. Maybe there is slight wind on the moon, beats me I've never been there but it doesn't seem logical.

69Dodge_Charger · Apr 5, 2005

BlazinXtreme
So they would have time to set up lights, focus them in correctly, aim them, and get to take a picture? Seems like something a stuido would do.

I'm sure they would, I mean they spent all that time getting there right? If it was done in a studio (i.e. indoors) then the flag wouldn't be blowing anyway. If it was in space, and the astronauts waved it or something it would probably stay upright because there is nothing to stop it from doing so.

Theories on the Paranormal and Cover Ups Part 1

Joey D

Duke

Keep 'em separated

Joey D

MrktMkr1986

Joey D

MrktMkr1986

a6m5

#ChopOn

Tacet_Blue

MrktMkr1986

donbenni

Tacet_Blue

MrktMkr1986

Tacet_Blue

MrktMkr1986

PS

MrktMkr1986

Joey D

ND4SPD

Joey D

MrktMkr1986

Joey D

MrktMkr1986

Tacet_Blue

Joey D

Tacet_Blue

69Dodge_Charger

Joey D

Tacet_Blue

Joey D

69Dodge_Charger

Similar threads

Latest Posts