The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
1) THE LAUNCH
The rocket must have been launched. There is no way it wasn't launched. Thousands of people were at the launch, every telescope in range in the world was trained on the rocket. And there would have been special interest from the Soviet Union, who would be keeping a very close eye on the mission, using any slip up to make ridicule of the United States. It launched, and went into space. There is no possible argument to that. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2) THE LANDING
The proof for this is the same as for the launch. It simply would have been noticed if the rocket hadn't landed. And if anyone thinks that the CIA, FBI or any other government organisation could have covered it up, then they are deluding themselves. They would like you to think that they have that much power, but they don't, and can't have. It just isn't possbile. So, they definitely landed on the moon. No arguments, it's proof beyond reasonable (And most unreasonable) doubt.
3) THE VIDEO
The main point of most people who claim that the landing was a hoax is based around the video footage from the mission. Well, let me point out that even if the footage is fake, it is no proof whatsoever that there was no moon landing. It just means the footage is fake.
I can quite imagine a pannicky government trying to avoid the embarrasment of getting all the way to the moon and then not being able to transmit their video for one reason or another. They may well have created the video as a mock up as a solution, to let them avoid embarrasment. But, lets face it, there is no proof that the video is fake, and nobody here has gone to the moon, so they really can't say whether it looks like the lunar surface or not.
But, whether it is fake or not, it is neither proof for or against the lunar landing.
Now that I have given this, the logical and correct (Beyond most doubt) occurance of things, lets see what other 'Conspiracies' we can put a stop to (But please not the JFK one, I'm sick to death of that).
> 3) THE VIDEO
>
> The main point of most people who claim that the landing was a hoax
> is
> based around the video footage from the mission. Well, let me point
> out that even if the footage is fake, it is no proof whatsoever that
> there was no moon landing. It just means the footage is fake.
> I can quite imagine a pannicky government trying to avoid the
> embarrasment of getting all the way to the moon and then not being
> able to transmit their video for one reason or another. They may
> well
> have created the video as a mock up as a solution, to let them avoid
> embarrasment. But, lets face it, there is no proof that the video is
> fake, and nobody here has gone to the moon, so they really can't say
> whether it looks like the lunar surface or not.
> But, whether it is fake or not, it is neither proof for or against
> the
> lunar landing.
>
>
> i have 1 question if neil armstrong was the first man on the moon then
> how did the camera get on the moon to film him going down the steps?
the fact of the matter is it never happened its all fake its easy to notice cause of the flag it moves like theres a wind on the moon even though it aint got any atmosphere
>
> The main point of most people who claim that the landing was a hoax is
> based around the video footage from the mission. Well, let me point
> out that even if the footage is fake, it is no proof whatsoever that
> there was no moon landing. It just means the footage is fake.
> I can quite imagine a pannicky government trying to avoid the
> embarrasment of getting all the way to the moon and then not being
> able to transmit their video for one reason or another. They may well
> have created the video as a mock up as a solution, to let them avoid
> embarrasment. But, lets face it, there is no proof that the video is
> fake, and nobody here has gone to the moon, so they really can't say
> whether it looks like the lunar surface or not.
> But, whether it is fake or not, it is neither proof for or against the
> lunar landing.
>
i have 1 question if neil armstrong was the first man on the moon then how did the camera get on the moon to film him going down the steps?
> How many organisations had the technology to accurately track the
> rocket all the way to the moon? If there weren't many, they could be
> in on it too. If it could be reliably done with a common(ish)
> telescope, I'll admit that the rocket must have gone to the moon. If
> not, then it could conceivably have gone elsewhere.
There were plenty of people with that technology. It isn't hard. Anyone with a half decent telescope could do it. So it wouldn't just be a rival nation trying to expose it, any anonymous astronomer could, and would cash in on it. (Rather a large story for the tabloids, I think)
>
> If the rocket went to the moon, were the astronauts definitely in it
> all the way there? There are many ways that they could bail without
> being noticed, particularly if the rocket was significantly far away
> from the earth.
Why Bother?
>
> If they could have bailed out, then the rocket may well have gone to
> the moon. I doubt anyone had powerful enough technology to watch the
> moon landing events from a telescope on earth though, so you can't
> prove if anyone was in it at the time.
See above
>
> The Russians and Americans were both crippling their economies with
> the space race. It was in both of their interests to end it, so you
> cannot rely on the Russians definitely looking to disprove the
> landing.
As far as the soviets were concerned, the economy could go to hell as long as they could look better than the americans. And, as i said, it wouldn't just be the russians that would be willing to expose it.
>
> As for what the CIA etc can or cannot do, are you doubting what the
> government of the most powerful country in the world can do?
Yes I am. And the USA wasn't the most powerful in the world then, countries such as the UK and Switzerland held negotiating sway with both sides, and could influence any decision. Military power is no power at all compared to negotiation.
As for what the CIA etc can or cannot do, are you
> doubting what the government of the most powerful country in the world can do?
Soryy, Ive no point to make here... Its just that statement made me laugh :)
Something launched, that's for definite. I'll assume there were enough witnesses and coverage to prove that the astronauts were indeed in it when it launched, too.
How many organisations had the technology to accurately track the rocket all the way to the moon? If there weren't many, they could be in on it too. If it could be reliably done with a common(ish) telescope, I'll admit that the rocket must have gone to the moon. If not, then it could conceivably have gone elsewhere.
If the rocket went to the moon, were the astronauts definitely in it all the way there? There are many ways that they could bail without being noticed, particularly if the rocket was significantly far away from the earth.
If they could have bailed out, then the rocket may well have gone to the moon. I doubt anyone had powerful enough technology to watch the moon landing events from a telescope on earth though, so you can't prove if anyone was in it at the time.
The Russians and Americans were both crippling their economies with the space race. It was in both of their interests to end it, so you cannot rely on the Russians definitely looking to disprove the landing.
As for what the CIA etc can or cannot do, are you doubting what the government of the most powerful country in the world can do?
1) THE LAUNCH
The rocket must have been launched. There is no way it wasn't launched. Thousands of people were at the launch, every telescope in range in the world was trained on the rocket. And there would have been special interest from the Soviet Union, who would be keeping a very close eye on the mission, using any slip up to make ridicule of the United States. It launched, and went into space. There is no possible argument to that. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2) THE LANDING
The proof for this is the same as for the launch. It simply would have been noticed if the rocket hadn't landed. And if anyone thinks that the CIA, FBI or any other government organisation could have covered it up, then they are deluding themselves. They would like you to think that they have that much power, but they don't, and can't have. It just isn't possbile. So, they definitely landed on the moon. No arguments, it's proof beyond reasonable (And most unreasonable) doubt.
3) THE VIDEO
The main point of most people who claim that the landing was a hoax is based around the video footage from the mission. Well, let me point out that even if the footage is fake, it is no proof whatsoever that there was no moon landing. It just means the footage is fake.
I can quite imagine a pannicky government trying to avoid the embarrasment of getting all the way to the moon and then not being able to transmit their video for one reason or another. They may well have created the video as a mock up as a solution, to let them avoid embarrasment. But, lets face it, there is no proof that the video is fake, and nobody here has gone to the moon, so they really can't say whether it looks like the lunar surface or not.
But, whether it is fake or not, it is neither proof for or against the lunar landing.
Now that I have given this, the logical and correct (Beyond most doubt) occurance of things, lets see what other 'Conspiracies' we can put a stop to (But please not the JFK one, I'm sick to death of that).