The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I'm sick to death of people saying that the Apollo 11 moon landings never happened. Everyone I talk to about it is convinced that it was all a hoax. So here I am to put this to rest once and for all, and stop people p*ssing over one of mankinds greatest acheivments.
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).
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).
Page:
I'm sick to death of people saying that the Apollo 11 moon landings never happened. Everyone I talk to about it is convinced that it was all a hoax. So here I am to put this to rest once and for all, and stop people p*ssing over one of mankinds greatest acheivments.
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).
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).
I'm no expert on the moon landings on either side of the argument, but here are some thoughts:
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?
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?
Notables don't actually have any special powers.
VenomByte wrote:
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 :)
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 :)
VenomByte wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 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?
zaphod beeblebrox wrote:
> 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
> 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
also between us and the moon there is a lot of radiation i dont belive that some flimsey aluminium could protect u from it.
Ugly Bob wrote:
ut, 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.
Well, there have been many pictures proving that the video is fake, such as the ones below:
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa3.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa4.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa9.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa10.gif
Here's the reasons the site (http://batesmotel.8m.com) gave:
"MONEY. NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets.
ATTENTION. If you ever saw the movie "Wag the Dog", the president has sexual relations with a 12 year old. This information goes out to the media 1 week before elections. So, to get the publics mind off of the little Girl, the president stages a war with Albania. The moon shots were the same concept. People did not like what was going on with the Vietnam war, so, to get the publics mind off of all the bad things going on in Vietnam, the US faked a moon landing. If you check your dates, we abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War Ended. (
TO WIN THE SPACE RACE -- Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up."
Interesting read. So, was the landing fake? Come on, let's get a heated debate going!
ut, 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.
Well, there have been many pictures proving that the video is fake, such as the ones below:
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa2.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa3.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa4.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa7.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa8.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa9.gif
http://batesmotel.8m.com/nasa10.gif
Here's the reasons the site (http://batesmotel.8m.com) gave:
"MONEY. NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets.
ATTENTION. If you ever saw the movie "Wag the Dog", the president has sexual relations with a 12 year old. This information goes out to the media 1 week before elections. So, to get the publics mind off of the little Girl, the president stages a war with Albania. The moon shots were the same concept. People did not like what was going on with the Vietnam war, so, to get the publics mind off of all the bad things going on in Vietnam, the US faked a moon landing. If you check your dates, we abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War Ended. (
TO WIN THE SPACE RACE -- Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up."
Interesting read. So, was the landing fake? Come on, let's get a heated debate going!
Zaphod...excellent point, who was behind the camera?? Marvin the Martian?
I have reasons to doubt and reasons to believe. One reason for me to believe is the simple fact that I want to. But, Ugly Bob, say for instance I was a stout disbeliever, you went no closer to proving the theory to be flawed .
Give us some proof !!!
I have reasons to doubt and reasons to believe. One reason for me to believe is the simple fact that I want to. But, Ugly Bob, say for instance I was a stout disbeliever, you went no closer to proving the theory to be flawed .
Give us some proof !!!
Page: