The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Dr Duck wrote:
> President whoever is was had already put his nuts where his mouth was,
> saying America would go by the end of the 60s. No doubt they tried,
> but if the found they couldn't, especially given the timing (cold
> war), a great deal of performance legitimacy would have hinged on
> America being seen to have either failed or succeeded at the biggie.
In the early 60's Russia was ahead of America in the space race and was until about '67. Massive amounts of cash had to be channeled into the space program to catch up. Bear in mind that whilst the space race goes on the Vietnam War is going to hell and the money was needed elsewhere. If a fake was planned why not go earlier and really scare the Russians into thinking there was a bigger gap of technology ? As anyone who knows a little history of the space program will tell, it was the money that made the difference and the American style of project management, as well as a dozen or more people spirited out of Germany 20 odd years earlier.... One counter argument could be that the money from the space program was funelled into the military but it's known that they had all the money for black ops that they wanted.
At the same time Russia pursued it's own space program, and had put the first dog, monkey and man into orbit before the USA. Russia also clearly beleived landing on the moon was possible and knew it to be possible. If it wasn't then why didn't they fake it as well, or earlier ? Deception is a major part of the Russian battlefield tactics so it's plausible they'd consider this. They didn't.
During the landings radar and radio signals came back from Apollo XI. Yes, the big bad US of A could've fooled its own people, but an enemy who had everything to gain from making the US look bad ? Nope, Russia did congratulate America on going to the moon. In fact to get the signals the Apollo team had to use a dish in Australia, as the film "The dish" made clear ! Why bother risking spreading a conspiracy abroad if it's faked ?
> 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.
> As well as 'like what?', the more they do, the more they can
> potentially screw up on.
They went, landed, gathered samples, dumped a flag down, came home. Why not bring back something more astounding that'd been faked ?
~~Belldandy~~
> President whoever is was had already put his nuts where his mouth was,
> saying America would go by the end of the 60s. No doubt they tried,
> but if the found they couldn't, especially given the timing (cold
> war), a great deal of performance legitimacy would have hinged on
> America being seen to have either failed or succeeded at the biggie.
In the early 60's Russia was ahead of America in the space race and was until about '67. Massive amounts of cash had to be channeled into the space program to catch up. Bear in mind that whilst the space race goes on the Vietnam War is going to hell and the money was needed elsewhere. If a fake was planned why not go earlier and really scare the Russians into thinking there was a bigger gap of technology ? As anyone who knows a little history of the space program will tell, it was the money that made the difference and the American style of project management, as well as a dozen or more people spirited out of Germany 20 odd years earlier.... One counter argument could be that the money from the space program was funelled into the military but it's known that they had all the money for black ops that they wanted.
At the same time Russia pursued it's own space program, and had put the first dog, monkey and man into orbit before the USA. Russia also clearly beleived landing on the moon was possible and knew it to be possible. If it wasn't then why didn't they fake it as well, or earlier ? Deception is a major part of the Russian battlefield tactics so it's plausible they'd consider this. They didn't.
During the landings radar and radio signals came back from Apollo XI. Yes, the big bad US of A could've fooled its own people, but an enemy who had everything to gain from making the US look bad ? Nope, Russia did congratulate America on going to the moon. In fact to get the signals the Apollo team had to use a dish in Australia, as the film "The dish" made clear ! Why bother risking spreading a conspiracy abroad if it's faked ?
> 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.
> As well as 'like what?', the more they do, the more they can
> potentially screw up on.
They went, landed, gathered samples, dumped a flag down, came home. Why not bring back something more astounding that'd been faked ?
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Do you actually know any science whatsoever ??
03/09/2002
EXPERIMENT 1
------------
EXPERIMENT TO DISCOVER IF MONKEYS CAN GRASP SIMPLE FACTS
--------------------------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT
---------
My PC, A Cable Modem, Several Wasted Minutes
METHOD
------
Utilise Keyboard and Mouse to create message, and hit POST THIS MESSAGE
MESSAGE
-------
It appears one has been reading a few books. My science is limited to GCSE and several stephen hawking books (irrelevant in this matter).
That one "fact" doesn't prove or disprove the theory. That 'labwork' could have been faked, when you join the military, you are asked to sign a document of NO DISCLOSURE. I have no doubt you are right about the rock dating stuff, but If we had NEVER BEEN, then how could you compare it to anything to see if it was from the moon. Unless there are materials on the moon that don't exist anywhere on the earth (doubtful). EVEN SO, if we HADN'T BEEN (emphasis) then how would we know what was on the moon anyway?
CONCLUSION
----------
Monkey Listened to facts, Comprehension is still uncertain ......
> Do you actually know any science whatsoever ??
03/09/2002
EXPERIMENT 1
------------
EXPERIMENT TO DISCOVER IF MONKEYS CAN GRASP SIMPLE FACTS
--------------------------------------------------------
EQUIPMENT
---------
My PC, A Cable Modem, Several Wasted Minutes
METHOD
------
Utilise Keyboard and Mouse to create message, and hit POST THIS MESSAGE
MESSAGE
-------
It appears one has been reading a few books. My science is limited to GCSE and several stephen hawking books (irrelevant in this matter).
That one "fact" doesn't prove or disprove the theory. That 'labwork' could have been faked, when you join the military, you are asked to sign a document of NO DISCLOSURE. I have no doubt you are right about the rock dating stuff, but If we had NEVER BEEN, then how could you compare it to anything to see if it was from the moon. Unless there are materials on the moon that don't exist anywhere on the earth (doubtful). EVEN SO, if we HADN'T BEEN (emphasis) then how would we know what was on the moon anyway?
CONCLUSION
----------
Monkey Listened to facts, Comprehension is still uncertain ......
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> How can you prove anything was from the moons surface, if you've never
> been there before? Aha, fake it.
Do you actually know any science whatsoever ?? A properly equipped lab cna carry out tests to date a rock. Yes, you could obtain rock with a similar date to the moon's form Earth. Rocks are composed of different materials that, when broken down, can be used to tell where a rock came from. Rock's, brought back from the moon, have been tested for date and composition by indpendent labs, as well as NASA.
~~Belldandy~~
> How can you prove anything was from the moons surface, if you've never
> been there before? Aha, fake it.
Do you actually know any science whatsoever ?? A properly equipped lab cna carry out tests to date a rock. Yes, you could obtain rock with a similar date to the moon's form Earth. Rocks are composed of different materials that, when broken down, can be used to tell where a rock came from. Rock's, brought back from the moon, have been tested for date and composition by indpendent labs, as well as NASA.
~~Belldandy~~
Of course, you could always have a look though a cheap telescope/binoculars and see if you can spot any of the objects left behind from the moon mission... moon buggy, etc..
Which should pretty much clear up any doubts you may have?
Which should pretty much clear up any doubts you may have?
>, why, if it was all faked, didn't America go to the moon
> earlier than planned ?
President whoever is was had already put his nuts where his mouth was, saying America would go by the end of the 60s. No doubt they tried, but if the found they couldn't, especially given the timing (cold war), a great deal of performance legitimacy would have hinged on America being seen to have either failed or succeeded at the biggie.
> Why did they only fake two guys landing and not
> more ?
The more people know,the harder it is to keep secret. Plus the less viable it would appear.
> Why do so little once you faked yourself there ?
As well as 'like what?', the more they do, the more they can potentially screw up on.
The rock samples? I confess i don't know much of the technical side, but doubt a chunk of asteriod that had come to earth would be so different as to expose anything.
You do create some convincing arguments, but nothing conclusive. So i'm still on the fence :^)
> earlier than planned ?
President whoever is was had already put his nuts where his mouth was, saying America would go by the end of the 60s. No doubt they tried, but if the found they couldn't, especially given the timing (cold war), a great deal of performance legitimacy would have hinged on America being seen to have either failed or succeeded at the biggie.
> Why did they only fake two guys landing and not
> more ?
The more people know,the harder it is to keep secret. Plus the less viable it would appear.
> Why do so little once you faked yourself there ?
As well as 'like what?', the more they do, the more they can potentially screw up on.
The rock samples? I confess i don't know much of the technical side, but doubt a chunk of asteriod that had come to earth would be so different as to expose anything.
You do create some convincing arguments, but nothing conclusive. So i'm still on the fence :^)
watch it fuzzy, some people in here don't like you to have your own opinion. :D
I've had a debate about this before, and many things would seem to prove that they didn't land. One I'll mention is the flag moving in the wind. Catch 22 is that there is no wind on the moon. That's all I remember. Except that NASA spent millions on developing a revolutinary space pen, with a lifetime guarantee. The Russians, with *intiative*, used a pencil
:D
:D
First of all, I am for the fake theory,
Secondly, seeing as you asked, monsieur know it all ....
Belldandy wrote:
> Well, America went to the moon. Leaving aside the technical parts of
> the story ....
WHAT ??????????? the technical parts are all we have to go on , unless you live in a land of make believe, things are proven using FACTS, not conjecture ...
>, why, if it was all faked, didn't America go to the moon
> earlier than planned ?
I'm not a scientist, but the logical answer would be that they only advanced their technology enough around the 1960s to make an attempt. Thats like asking the inventor of the Model T Ford why he didn't design a 2.0 litre turbo version of his car straight away, instead of mincing about with clapped out old heaps...
> Why did they only fake two guys landing and not
> more ?
I don't think it matters how many people are supposed to have landed, but if a squadron of idiots in space suits appear from a lunar lander, it may seem suspicious.
> How would you fake a signal that was confirmed as coming from
> the surface of the moon ?
How many people received this signal? Where are they now? What do they have to say about all this? I don't know, do you ?
> Why do so little once you faked yourself there ?
Like what, set up a small supermarket chain? A lunar base? Weekly updates on life on the moon? How would you keep that going without being discovered?
> How do you fake several labs studying material for months that
> carbon dating and other methods proved as being from the moon's
> surface ?
How can you prove anything was from the moons surface, if you've never been there before? Aha, fake it.
>
> Those kinds of questions don't make good selling books, do they ?
Well, I'm always a skeptic, I don't know if we went or not. I tend to think we didn't, but that to me is an unproven theory. Just as yours is, but you seem to have made up your mind with no conclusive evidence ......
Secondly, seeing as you asked, monsieur know it all ....
Belldandy wrote:
> Well, America went to the moon. Leaving aside the technical parts of
> the story ....
WHAT ??????????? the technical parts are all we have to go on , unless you live in a land of make believe, things are proven using FACTS, not conjecture ...
>, why, if it was all faked, didn't America go to the moon
> earlier than planned ?
I'm not a scientist, but the logical answer would be that they only advanced their technology enough around the 1960s to make an attempt. Thats like asking the inventor of the Model T Ford why he didn't design a 2.0 litre turbo version of his car straight away, instead of mincing about with clapped out old heaps...
> Why did they only fake two guys landing and not
> more ?
I don't think it matters how many people are supposed to have landed, but if a squadron of idiots in space suits appear from a lunar lander, it may seem suspicious.
> How would you fake a signal that was confirmed as coming from
> the surface of the moon ?
How many people received this signal? Where are they now? What do they have to say about all this? I don't know, do you ?
> Why do so little once you faked yourself there ?
Like what, set up a small supermarket chain? A lunar base? Weekly updates on life on the moon? How would you keep that going without being discovered?
> How do you fake several labs studying material for months that
> carbon dating and other methods proved as being from the moon's
> surface ?
How can you prove anything was from the moons surface, if you've never been there before? Aha, fake it.
>
> Those kinds of questions don't make good selling books, do they ?
Well, I'm always a skeptic, I don't know if we went or not. I tend to think we didn't, but that to me is an unproven theory. Just as yours is, but you seem to have made up your mind with no conclusive evidence ......
<- Pappa Lazarou -> wrote:
> yes you idiot, but what about the other disaster in the USA, the
> 'three mile island' disaster or whatever it was called :p
Well, "idiot", at Three Mile Island the reactor shut itself down and emergency coolant sytems activated, a combination of human errors led to this system being switched off, the core became damaged and a small amount of radioactive gas escaped which equated to only a small level above normal exposure to people. No one wore those suits as the level of radiation wasn't that high and different suits were all that was needed. There was no massive disaster like Chernobyl.
At Chernobyl, a reactor exploded completely and burned and radiation spread out that was 50 TIMES HIGHER that that found in the American incident. As it was, initial emergency teams had little idea what they were walking into, and the military had most of the protectionary gear, which in itself is now known by Western intelligence to have been really awkward and hard to use - the suits consisted basically of a rubber like material that let out no moisture or body heat......
So, check your facts next time....."idiot"
~~Belldandy~~
> yes you idiot, but what about the other disaster in the USA, the
> 'three mile island' disaster or whatever it was called :p
Well, "idiot", at Three Mile Island the reactor shut itself down and emergency coolant sytems activated, a combination of human errors led to this system being switched off, the core became damaged and a small amount of radioactive gas escaped which equated to only a small level above normal exposure to people. No one wore those suits as the level of radiation wasn't that high and different suits were all that was needed. There was no massive disaster like Chernobyl.
At Chernobyl, a reactor exploded completely and burned and radiation spread out that was 50 TIMES HIGHER that that found in the American incident. As it was, initial emergency teams had little idea what they were walking into, and the military had most of the protectionary gear, which in itself is now known by Western intelligence to have been really awkward and hard to use - the suits consisted basically of a rubber like material that let out no moisture or body heat......
So, check your facts next time....."idiot"
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> PS They didn't use the suits at Chernobyl because, for those who
> missed it, Russia wasn't great friends with the USA back then, Cold
> War anyone ? :P
yes you idiot, but what about the other disaster in the USA, the 'three mile island' disaster or whatever it was called :p
> PS They didn't use the suits at Chernobyl because, for those who
> missed it, Russia wasn't great friends with the USA back then, Cold
> War anyone ? :P
yes you idiot, but what about the other disaster in the USA, the 'three mile island' disaster or whatever it was called :p
Page: