The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok, this is an article taken from www.telegraph.co.uk.
It's a bit long, so I'm going to put it in the next post, so it's not on the same page twice.
Bacially, I think it's quite interesing, but I don't really understand *all* of the technical details.
It's certaonly interesting that NASA is at least taking it seriously, but a multi-generation journy?
You start off on it, knowing that you'll die before you get there? That you'll die on the spaceship, away from the majority of your friends and family? No thanks.
But maybe you think differently?
Have a read and let me know.
It's a bit long, so I'm going to put it in the next post, so it's not on the same page twice.
Bacially, I think it's quite interesing, but I don't really understand *all* of the technical details.
It's certaonly interesting that NASA is at least taking it seriously, but a multi-generation journy?
You start off on it, knowing that you'll die before you get there? That you'll die on the spaceship, away from the majority of your friends and family? No thanks.
But maybe you think differently?
Have a read and let me know.
Page:
So an agency which can create an artificial moon, then fly the astronauts to the moon, couldn't land on the real moon ? I hope this was a joke reply !
Maybe NASA built a model of the moon with lower gravity and pretended to fly the astronauts there. Then they wouldn't realise and so would not reveal the trick!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>Why not tell the truth about it though?
> "We can't show you, because radiation destroyed the >film." At least
> it would have stood up to the facts.
No one would belive them, and now we'd all be sitting here typing away about "they didnt bring any photo's back so they never went"
>My opinion is: People believe it because
> they want to believe it. In reality, there is far more >evidence (not
> speculation, but evidence) to say that it *didn't* happen >than there is to say
> that it did.
Evidence which only started to really come to light around the time X files became popular, evidence is subjective and there's little to no proof it was faked, I mean hard actual evidence that will stand up in court. Like you say people believe it because they want to beleive it, and that sums up the whole daft conspiracy idea.
When you bare in mind the technology and scientists America "liberated" after the war its surprising they took so long to get to the moon (Britain was equally guilty of "liberating" cetain people foritself mind you) , if they wanted to fake it then why give the Soviets time to catch up ?
Of all the people on the planet the Soviets would have loved to have proved this was faked, yet they didnt and had moles in the Whitehouse and the FBI, the CIA e.t.c at this time. They had the equipment to disprove it yet didnt, why ?
The space program took a hell of a lot of cash which could have been used elsewhere, why if it was going to be faked ? To divert elsewhere ? That was possible without this being faked.
The actual launch - that rocket had to splash down somewhere and if it wasn't in space where did it land ? Because the Russians were watching that launch very closely, and never detected it coming back down.
The astronauts themselves - none of the three ever said a word about this, stay silent all these years ? No chance at all, they went to the moon and you can tell when you see them talk about it.
Theres plenty more holes in this theory......
>Why not tell the truth about it though?
> "We can't show you, because radiation destroyed the >film." At least
> it would have stood up to the facts.
No one would belive them, and now we'd all be sitting here typing away about "they didnt bring any photo's back so they never went"
>My opinion is: People believe it because
> they want to believe it. In reality, there is far more >evidence (not
> speculation, but evidence) to say that it *didn't* happen >than there is to say
> that it did.
Evidence which only started to really come to light around the time X files became popular, evidence is subjective and there's little to no proof it was faked, I mean hard actual evidence that will stand up in court. Like you say people believe it because they want to beleive it, and that sums up the whole daft conspiracy idea.
When you bare in mind the technology and scientists America "liberated" after the war its surprising they took so long to get to the moon (Britain was equally guilty of "liberating" cetain people foritself mind you) , if they wanted to fake it then why give the Soviets time to catch up ?
Of all the people on the planet the Soviets would have loved to have proved this was faked, yet they didnt and had moles in the Whitehouse and the FBI, the CIA e.t.c at this time. They had the equipment to disprove it yet didnt, why ?
The space program took a hell of a lot of cash which could have been used elsewhere, why if it was going to be faked ? To divert elsewhere ? That was possible without this being faked.
The actual launch - that rocket had to splash down somewhere and if it wasn't in space where did it land ? Because the Russians were watching that launch very closely, and never detected it coming back down.
The astronauts themselves - none of the three ever said a word about this, stay silent all these years ? No chance at all, they went to the moon and you can tell when you see them talk about it.
Theres plenty more holes in this theory......
Belldandy wrote:
> Anyone ready to say Challenger was a setup?
I doubt it, but I really wouldn't put anything past the Americans!
But the Challenger disaster was in no way an unusual occurrence.
Prior to the successful launch of the first lunar mission, no Saturn V rocket had ever launched successfully - they all failed in varying degrees, either crashing or exploding on the launch pad.
Yet suddenly they decide to put men in one anyway, and by some fluke everything goes perfectly according to plan?
Prior to the moon landing, no spacecraft - manned or otherwise - had ever even been tested for lunar take-off - so they didn't even know that they would be able to return the astronauts from the surface of the moon.
Absolutely nothing about the mission was tested properly to ensure the safety of the crew, and yet everything went perfectly.
Even today, they couldn't land the Mars Rover gently on the surface, and had to encase it in a huge inflatable ball. How could they have landed the extremely fragile lunar module in the 60's?
Most importantly, why do NASA never, ever give straight answers when legitimate questions are asked about the mission?
I really cannot stress enough how much people should read the book. It's based on known and proven facts, and interviews with some of the people actually involved - many of which are extremely contradictory. I honestly doubt that even the staunchest of believers could get past Chapter 2 and still believe that the account of the moon landings presented to the public is in any way truthful.
> Anyone ready to say Challenger was a setup?
I doubt it, but I really wouldn't put anything past the Americans!
But the Challenger disaster was in no way an unusual occurrence.
Prior to the successful launch of the first lunar mission, no Saturn V rocket had ever launched successfully - they all failed in varying degrees, either crashing or exploding on the launch pad.
Yet suddenly they decide to put men in one anyway, and by some fluke everything goes perfectly according to plan?
Prior to the moon landing, no spacecraft - manned or otherwise - had ever even been tested for lunar take-off - so they didn't even know that they would be able to return the astronauts from the surface of the moon.
Absolutely nothing about the mission was tested properly to ensure the safety of the crew, and yet everything went perfectly.
Even today, they couldn't land the Mars Rover gently on the surface, and had to encase it in a huge inflatable ball. How could they have landed the extremely fragile lunar module in the 60's?
Most importantly, why do NASA never, ever give straight answers when legitimate questions are asked about the mission?
I really cannot stress enough how much people should read the book. It's based on known and proven facts, and interviews with some of the people actually involved - many of which are extremely contradictory. I honestly doubt that even the staunchest of believers could get past Chapter 2 and still believe that the account of the moon landings presented to the public is in any way truthful.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Maybe they mocked up some footage before they set of, to
> have something to show the people at home just in case
> real photographs and film didn't survive?
Why not tell the truth about it though? "We can't show you, because radiation destroyed the film." At least it would have stood up to the facts.
My opinion is: People believe it because they want to believe it. In reality, there is far more evidence (not speculation, but evidence) to say that it *didn't* happen than there is to say that it did.
> Though honestly, I don't know enough about it.
Exactly why you should read the book! :-)
> Maybe they mocked up some footage before they set of, to
> have something to show the people at home just in case
> real photographs and film didn't survive?
Why not tell the truth about it though? "We can't show you, because radiation destroyed the film." At least it would have stood up to the facts.
My opinion is: People believe it because they want to believe it. In reality, there is far more evidence (not speculation, but evidence) to say that it *didn't* happen than there is to say that it did.
> Though honestly, I don't know enough about it.
Exactly why you should read the book! :-)
I reckon people have been to the moon.
Maybe they mocked up some footage before they set of, to have something to show the people at home just in case real photographs and film didn't survive?
Though honestly, I don't know enough about it.
Maybe they mocked up some footage before they set of, to have something to show the people at home just in case real photographs and film didn't survive?
Though honestly, I don't know enough about it.
The problem is, with any book, is that any one can write it as long as the publisher thinks it will bring in the cash. No ones particularly interested in if tis true, they just want a book that gets attention and sells.
One recent example "Jihad" by Tom Carew, who quickly released a few weeks after 9/11. He detailed covert SAS/UK involvement with the Mujahedeen against the Russian in the 80's. Two months later and it turns out that he was never even in the army, the publishers admitted they never checked a word of his story, and his photo's ? Faked or bought.
I believe we did go to the moon in 1969, whatever any book says. If the British had gone to the moon first would there be so much scepticism ? Maybe not eh ?
Yes, the US government could hae covered it up, but the Russians were already ahead in the space program until the late 50's and early 60's - only a mass injection of capital prevented America being left behind. I've seen and red various media saying it was faked but its contradictory. In one book it is suggested its fake whilst another suggest they saw a UFO during the landing......
Ever since the X Files theres been an explosion of this kin of theory - nothing is allowed to be what it seems anymore, the truth is no longer the truth, everything has to be conspiracies and cover ups.
The truth is that real life isnt like that. Sure there are secrets in every nation, things happening few no about, but to suggect a nation that couldn't keep Watergate a secret for a small amount of time could keep the a conspiracy for nearly 40 years is ridiculous. Anyone ready to say Challenger was a setup ?
One recent example "Jihad" by Tom Carew, who quickly released a few weeks after 9/11. He detailed covert SAS/UK involvement with the Mujahedeen against the Russian in the 80's. Two months later and it turns out that he was never even in the army, the publishers admitted they never checked a word of his story, and his photo's ? Faked or bought.
I believe we did go to the moon in 1969, whatever any book says. If the British had gone to the moon first would there be so much scepticism ? Maybe not eh ?
Yes, the US government could hae covered it up, but the Russians were already ahead in the space program until the late 50's and early 60's - only a mass injection of capital prevented America being left behind. I've seen and red various media saying it was faked but its contradictory. In one book it is suggested its fake whilst another suggest they saw a UFO during the landing......
Ever since the X Files theres been an explosion of this kin of theory - nothing is allowed to be what it seems anymore, the truth is no longer the truth, everything has to be conspiracies and cover ups.
The truth is that real life isnt like that. Sure there are secrets in every nation, things happening few no about, but to suggect a nation that couldn't keep Watergate a secret for a small amount of time could keep the a conspiracy for nearly 40 years is ridiculous. Anyone ready to say Challenger was a setup ?
The radiation would fog film, yet all the photos are clear.
The extreme temperature differences would melt or crack the film, but didn't.
All the photos are perfectly in focus and centred, although the cameras were mounted on chest brackets on the suits, and had no viewfinder.
The viewfinder was omitted because it was dangerous to have glass in the cabin... yet the lens was glass and remained in place.
Shadows vary in length in the same photo.
Up until the "moon landing", the rockets used to propel the capsule (Saturn V) had *never* had a successful launch during teting.
The lander itself was not capable of holding enough fuel for both the decent and lunar take-off.
There is far, far more to add to this list that I (and probably even you) had never even considered, or even known about.
The extreme temperature differences would melt or crack the film, but didn't.
All the photos are perfectly in focus and centred, although the cameras were mounted on chest brackets on the suits, and had no viewfinder.
The viewfinder was omitted because it was dangerous to have glass in the cabin... yet the lens was glass and remained in place.
Shadows vary in length in the same photo.
Up until the "moon landing", the rockets used to propel the capsule (Saturn V) had *never* had a successful launch during teting.
The lander itself was not capable of holding enough fuel for both the decent and lunar take-off.
There is far, far more to add to this list that I (and probably even you) had never even considered, or even known about.
And the fact that around the earth is an area of intense radiation called (something like) Van Allens Belt. There is no way that the stuff the shuttle was made out of could withstand this radiation.
Other stuff as well, like the grid that was etched onto the lense of the camera appears under some objects in some photo's, proving the photos were tampered with.
If you speed the film of the astronauts walking up by 2 times, then it looks just like they were running on earth.
The fact that the scenery in two photos, allegedly taken on two different days at locations 3 miles different, are EXACTLY the same.
The fact that you can see someone standing in the shadow of the shuttle, despite the fact that the cameras had no flash.
Etc etc. The list really does go on.
Other stuff as well, like the grid that was etched onto the lense of the camera appears under some objects in some photo's, proving the photos were tampered with.
If you speed the film of the astronauts walking up by 2 times, then it looks just like they were running on earth.
The fact that the scenery in two photos, allegedly taken on two different days at locations 3 miles different, are EXACTLY the same.
The fact that you can see someone standing in the shadow of the shuttle, despite the fact that the cameras had no flash.
Etc etc. The list really does go on.
Some I remember are the fact that there are two different angles of shadows which would not be possible as only the sun is giving light so there must be a studio light or something.
And the fact there are no stars...
And something about scientists analysing the movement and saying it did not accurately fit with the gravity on the moon.
And the fact there are no stars...
And something about scientists analysing the movement and saying it did not accurately fit with the gravity on the moon.
Page: