Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by The Antipop, Dec 13, 2002.
Did the Americans land on the moon with neal armstrong?
what is your opinion
Hey, Castelo, can you whip up a pic that has a picture of Cheech & Chong and "TAKE THE BLUNT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH, YOU PARANOID IDIOT" written on it? Thanks.
No. I think it was Neil Peart.
No. And Elvis is alive and well.
It was fake, but they've done it since. Or so I've heard. Who knows?
What's the moon?
...and is it real?
This is my abiding childhood memory - more than Santa Claus really!!
So - I was at Junior school and we did a project on it - my Dad was really into Space Flight and we watched the whole thing on TV together - even staying up all night.
We also used binoculars and telescopes to see the Apollo spacecraft orbiting the earth and heading for the moon.
I think that at the time it was the height of the Cold War and if USSR could have got there first or stopped the Americans or put doubt in people's minds, they would have.
I think it's quite funny now, that a few net nerds have succeeded in making people doubt this, when the combined might of the Communist world at the peak of their powers couldn't!!
Well said. I'm convinced.
Ha! Too easy!!
Have you heard the arguments for the case that they didn't go to the moon that time, Bruce?
No, no - it's too dull to even contemplate again!!
Some of the arguments against them having landed on the moon are pretty convincing. As far as I'm concerned the jury's still out. Sometimes I tend to lean towards it being fake, sometimes towards it being genuine. I suppose I could believe either.
At the time, there were so many TV programmes explaining the technology developed especially for the moon shot, showing so many people involved - many of whom were British or other scientists - that the evidence was overwhelming and never doubted - as it would have been so much easier to fake a landing than all the stuff that was developed and the huge number of people involved!
I think that only people who weren't around at the time could possibly doubt it and the fact that a few photographs might have been doctored or enhanced, subsequently doesn't suprise me at all - as all the effort was on actually getting the men there/back and it was a huge effort - I am not surprised that they didn't think how it would look to posterity and that getting convincing photos wasn't high on the priorities!
Getting convincing photos wasn't high on priorities? Convincing photos is one thing... Ones with many anomalies that appear to defy physics are another...
Who cares - they were just an afterthought - I can quite believe that the astronauts were unable to get any decent photos in their cramped suits - but the live TV footage of the event was was very convincing and as I said it all matched up with telescopes in England following the details.
So - somebody faked some photos - it doesn't mean anything.
They did go to the moon but they had to fake photos to hide what they found....
There is other evidence besides the photos... Van Allen Belt, and some other stuff... I don't claim to be the expert. I'm open minded, maybe they did maybe they didn't.
I've seen a couple of TV programs that try to prove a hoax, but all photographic or video "evidence" fall flat on the ground after being explained. But if you really want to believe in a conspiracy I can understand you would to call some of it convincing. Something as big as that simply could not be kept secret.
I havent seen anything on TV about it so i probably dont know all the reasons for it being thought to be fake, but i know that there is no wind on the moon (which is why the first footstep is still supposed to be there), but the "one small step..." footage with the flag shows the flag blowing in the wind. That alone requires some explaining (which has probably already been explained but i havent seen the tv programs).