The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do you beleive man actually walked on the moon? This is a debatable question as there are many things which could make it all made up.
When you look at the pictures of the moon and the United States of America flag you will notice that the flag is waving in the wind but there is no wind on the moon!! Perhaps it was all set up at area 51 in the middle of the arizona desert? was it windy that day? and in the pictures there are no stars in the background! where did they all go!
I also think that there is a thing like the Ozone layer around the moon which is radioactive or something and it would kill humans who came in contact with it and also which I should mention why hasn't any one visited the moon since 1969? that is 33 years and man hasn't went back up to the moon.
There was also a program on before which I watched and they said a russian spy plane or something like that seen the lines where the props were to go. What do you think?
When you look at the pictures of the moon and the United States of America flag you will notice that the flag is waving in the wind but there is no wind on the moon!! Perhaps it was all set up at area 51 in the middle of the arizona desert? was it windy that day? and in the pictures there are no stars in the background! where did they all go!
I also think that there is a thing like the Ozone layer around the moon which is radioactive or something and it would kill humans who came in contact with it and also which I should mention why hasn't any one visited the moon since 1969? that is 33 years and man hasn't went back up to the moon.
There was also a program on before which I watched and they said a russian spy plane or something like that seen the lines where the props were to go. What do you think?
Page:
heh heh,
oh b'ugger, I've just tore a hole in space time .....
a l'il help.....
oh b'ugger, I've just tore a hole in space time .....
a l'il help.....
Ooh, controversial!
Belldandy wrote:
[The more people know,the harder it is to keep secret. Plus the less
viable it would appear. ]
>Assuming it was faked - you have the crew, mission control, the president, his staff, the airforce who oversaw the project, the navy who recovered the capsule, the team that dropped the capsule in the ocean, the people at the location the Apollo team were hidden at, the team that recovered and destroyed the launch rockets....and on and on...... The team would be big, and could be kept silent, for so long, if it existed. Has there been any deathbed confessions or people claiming to have organised it ? No.
Purely within the space program at the time, there was a shockingly high number of deaths, typically of those who were critical of aspects of the program (let's not get started on America and pre-emptive strikes here ;^) ).
I don't have the exact stats, but maybe someone else remembers?
Where could it have been staged? Area 51 has been mentioned. There's the space to do it, the natural terrain to stage it, and it seems likely that there is a something there the government are keeping secret, given the security there.
And how often do you hear anybody reveal government secrets, on deathbeds or otherwise. Assuming those envolved were closely vetted, it's unlikely that those that made it out the other side (see first point) would see any good in going public.
Meanwhile *some* people have suggested it was a hoax, obviously. Hence this thread exists.
And everyone, i'm sure we can discuss our different opinions without resorting to name-calling and such. Yes?
[The more people know,the harder it is to keep secret. Plus the less
viable it would appear. ]
>Assuming it was faked - you have the crew, mission control, the president, his staff, the airforce who oversaw the project, the navy who recovered the capsule, the team that dropped the capsule in the ocean, the people at the location the Apollo team were hidden at, the team that recovered and destroyed the launch rockets....and on and on...... The team would be big, and could be kept silent, for so long, if it existed. Has there been any deathbed confessions or people claiming to have organised it ? No.
Purely within the space program at the time, there was a shockingly high number of deaths, typically of those who were critical of aspects of the program (let's not get started on America and pre-emptive strikes here ;^) ).
I don't have the exact stats, but maybe someone else remembers?
Where could it have been staged? Area 51 has been mentioned. There's the space to do it, the natural terrain to stage it, and it seems likely that there is a something there the government are keeping secret, given the security there.
And how often do you hear anybody reveal government secrets, on deathbeds or otherwise. Assuming those envolved were closely vetted, it's unlikely that those that made it out the other side (see first point) would see any good in going public.
Meanwhile *some* people have suggested it was a hoax, obviously. Hence this thread exists.
And everyone, i'm sure we can discuss our different opinions without resorting to name-calling and such. Yes?
I've been involved in one of these discussions before, and I'm not getting into it all again.
Short answer: no, I don't believe man has walked on the moon. Too much evidence to refute it, most importantly that the radiation beyond the Van Allen belts would make short work of any living tissue.
Those who want to believe it can do. I have no problem with that. Those who don't believe it might read Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers, which deals with known scientific facts, and has interviews with amply qualified people.
Check the links given elsewhere, get some books, and make your own mind up. I did believe 100% that man walked on the moon, but now I'm pretty sure they they didn't. I'm sure we've been to space, I'm sure vehicles have landed on the moon - but not manned ones.
Short answer: no, I don't believe man has walked on the moon. Too much evidence to refute it, most importantly that the radiation beyond the Van Allen belts would make short work of any living tissue.
Those who want to believe it can do. I have no problem with that. Those who don't believe it might read Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers, which deals with known scientific facts, and has interviews with amply qualified people.
Check the links given elsewhere, get some books, and make your own mind up. I did believe 100% that man walked on the moon, but now I'm pretty sure they they didn't. I'm sure we've been to space, I'm sure vehicles have landed on the moon - but not manned ones.
no, that was just childish, I retract that last statement.
heh
Belldandy wrote:
> Do you actually know any science whatsoever ?? A properly equipped lab
> cna carry out tests to date a rock.
By the sounds of things he knows a great deal more on the subject than yourself.
Carbon dating does *NOTHING* in determining the origin of the sample it is used on, it merely indicates the age, and there are countless rocks specimens here on earth that are of that age, many of them mineral rich, especially in volcanic regions. Your fancy little sulk about composition means nothing, as you could take any chunk of volcanic rock, or meteorite and claim it came from the moon. The point which you so vehemently avoid addressing, is how could scientists test a sample of rock allegedly from the moon, and verify it was infact from there, when there had been NO previous landings or excursions there to take a rock sample for comparison.
I don't know about your little fluffy, make-believe world, but down here you cannot verify something is genuine without another specimen to compare it against. Or are you suggesting that their guesswork was 100% accurate? Just like it was when they guessed the world was flat.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but for your information, shadows do not run perpendicular to each other when there is only one lightsource available. They all run parallel, yet in all the landing photographs, they defy this simple law of physics. Nor does steadying a flag pole produce enough motion to violently flap a thick, cloth flag around as if it were blowing in a gust of wind, nor would it create the rippling effect produced by air blowing along it's surface. Plus, a rocket engine of ANY description, would not be silenced completely by 1 inch of tinfoil and plastic - they produce highly audible noises, many decibels in strength, even in their smallest form. No radio transmission from within 3ft of such an engine would be silent with the exception of a speaker, they would be drowned out by the background noise.
Also, the moon is of sufficient distance from the sun for stars to be *ENTIRELY* visible from the surface, and moreso being photographed by a camera. You can do that here, and we have streetlights producing a brighter ambiance than that of the moon photos, so another flawed argument of yours there. There were no flashes on the cameras and the group carried no spotlighting, so why are photographs taken with the astronaut's backs to the sun, fully lit on their front? Why are the shots of the moon lander spotless, then even the slightest jet of air would disturb enough dust to coat the entire lower half? Why do the etched crosshairs on the camera lenses appear behind objects in the photograph? I'm sorry, but you can't argue overexposure or colour bleed in that case, when the photo quality is so unbelievably high and the lightsource is not facing the same direction as the camera.
Do yourself a favour kid, before you start spouting off about others not having sufficient grasp of scientific fact, finish your GCSEs and pull your finger out of your nose. Maybe then you won't look such a pleb.
> Do you actually know any science whatsoever ?? A properly equipped lab
> cna carry out tests to date a rock.
By the sounds of things he knows a great deal more on the subject than yourself.
Carbon dating does *NOTHING* in determining the origin of the sample it is used on, it merely indicates the age, and there are countless rocks specimens here on earth that are of that age, many of them mineral rich, especially in volcanic regions. Your fancy little sulk about composition means nothing, as you could take any chunk of volcanic rock, or meteorite and claim it came from the moon. The point which you so vehemently avoid addressing, is how could scientists test a sample of rock allegedly from the moon, and verify it was infact from there, when there had been NO previous landings or excursions there to take a rock sample for comparison.
I don't know about your little fluffy, make-believe world, but down here you cannot verify something is genuine without another specimen to compare it against. Or are you suggesting that their guesswork was 100% accurate? Just like it was when they guessed the world was flat.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but for your information, shadows do not run perpendicular to each other when there is only one lightsource available. They all run parallel, yet in all the landing photographs, they defy this simple law of physics. Nor does steadying a flag pole produce enough motion to violently flap a thick, cloth flag around as if it were blowing in a gust of wind, nor would it create the rippling effect produced by air blowing along it's surface. Plus, a rocket engine of ANY description, would not be silenced completely by 1 inch of tinfoil and plastic - they produce highly audible noises, many decibels in strength, even in their smallest form. No radio transmission from within 3ft of such an engine would be silent with the exception of a speaker, they would be drowned out by the background noise.
Also, the moon is of sufficient distance from the sun for stars to be *ENTIRELY* visible from the surface, and moreso being photographed by a camera. You can do that here, and we have streetlights producing a brighter ambiance than that of the moon photos, so another flawed argument of yours there. There were no flashes on the cameras and the group carried no spotlighting, so why are photographs taken with the astronaut's backs to the sun, fully lit on their front? Why are the shots of the moon lander spotless, then even the slightest jet of air would disturb enough dust to coat the entire lower half? Why do the etched crosshairs on the camera lenses appear behind objects in the photograph? I'm sorry, but you can't argue overexposure or colour bleed in that case, when the photo quality is so unbelievably high and the lightsource is not facing the same direction as the camera.
Do yourself a favour kid, before you start spouting off about others not having sufficient grasp of scientific fact, finish your GCSEs and pull your finger out of your nose. Maybe then you won't look such a pleb.
woddevva mate, the sarcasm started in your corner ........ :D
Don't start unsolvable arguements you can't finish .......
BTW this was fun, lets do it again sometime ......
Don't start unsolvable arguements you can't finish .......
BTW this was fun, lets do it again sometime ......
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> CONCLUSION
> ----------
>
> Monkey Listened to facts, Comprehension is still uncertain ......
I suspect this monkey is you.
I said independent labs, not military ones, who had no need to be, nor were they, involved in testing moon rock samples as NASA falls under civilian administration and not military jurisdiction.
I fear you also place too much faith in non-disclosure forms. They're paper, and when someone's lying on their deathbed or dying from a disease the form looses relevance. has any conspirator owned up ? No.
I also fear, that the only facts you listen to are those you make up yourself, which is great but keep them to yourself eh ?
Oh, and the more attempts you make at insulting people, the stupider ytour argument sounds.....
~~Belldandy~~
> CONCLUSION
> ----------
>
> Monkey Listened to facts, Comprehension is still uncertain ......
I suspect this monkey is you.
I said independent labs, not military ones, who had no need to be, nor were they, involved in testing moon rock samples as NASA falls under civilian administration and not military jurisdiction.
I fear you also place too much faith in non-disclosure forms. They're paper, and when someone's lying on their deathbed or dying from a disease the form looses relevance. has any conspirator owned up ? No.
I also fear, that the only facts you listen to are those you make up yourself, which is great but keep them to yourself eh ?
Oh, and the more attempts you make at insulting people, the stupider ytour argument sounds.....
~~Belldandy~~
Page: