The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Did you know that after 50 years the goverment has to release all information about major events that happened 50 years ago?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
Page:
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> But launching future craft from the moon would save an absolute
> fortune.
No it wouldn't, you've got to either build the craft and ship to the moon, or build it on site on the moon, and ship the astronauts up there !
> But they were willing to waste millions just to beat the Russians to
> (allegedly) put men up there. What other purpose did that solve,
> other than beating the Russians? What did we learn from it that
> unmanned probes couldn't have told us?
It was Cold War oneupmanship. You have to bear in mind that we're viewing the moon landings from the post Cold War era when we know a hell of a lot more about that period. American propoganda after the landings hinted at some fantastic stuff that seemed believable because America had gone to the moon and back.
> If we're not willing to spend the money on at least establishing some
> kind of foothold on the moon, what is the point in talking about
> manned flights to Mars? Because we sure as hell aren't going to
> bother building anything there if we can't on the moon. We don't know
> what's on the moon, because we've never scratched more than a small
> distance beneath the surface.
Mars makes more sense for a colony as you're cutting about tow months travel time for any other missions launched from mars. The main point is that no man has walked on Mars, space travel is virtually the last great adventure we've got as a species. There may well be something of value on the moon, but landing man on mars far outweighs the value of anything that could be brought back from the moon, virtually.
> And - assuming for a moment that the moon landing wasn't a hoax -
> surely the story of Apollo 13 indicates that we should at least go
> back to the moon several more times to prove that it wasn't just a
> lucky fluke, and that we can actually do it at will. Talk of a manned
> mission to Mars is surely trying to run when we've only just learned
> to walk?
But why go back, other than to prove it can be done ? The conspiracy idiots will say it was all faked again, everyone else will say it is a waste of money - either way NASA can't win. Mars is a far greater target to aim for.
~~Belldandy~~
> But launching future craft from the moon would save an absolute
> fortune.
No it wouldn't, you've got to either build the craft and ship to the moon, or build it on site on the moon, and ship the astronauts up there !
> But they were willing to waste millions just to beat the Russians to
> (allegedly) put men up there. What other purpose did that solve,
> other than beating the Russians? What did we learn from it that
> unmanned probes couldn't have told us?
It was Cold War oneupmanship. You have to bear in mind that we're viewing the moon landings from the post Cold War era when we know a hell of a lot more about that period. American propoganda after the landings hinted at some fantastic stuff that seemed believable because America had gone to the moon and back.
> If we're not willing to spend the money on at least establishing some
> kind of foothold on the moon, what is the point in talking about
> manned flights to Mars? Because we sure as hell aren't going to
> bother building anything there if we can't on the moon. We don't know
> what's on the moon, because we've never scratched more than a small
> distance beneath the surface.
Mars makes more sense for a colony as you're cutting about tow months travel time for any other missions launched from mars. The main point is that no man has walked on Mars, space travel is virtually the last great adventure we've got as a species. There may well be something of value on the moon, but landing man on mars far outweighs the value of anything that could be brought back from the moon, virtually.
> And - assuming for a moment that the moon landing wasn't a hoax -
> surely the story of Apollo 13 indicates that we should at least go
> back to the moon several more times to prove that it wasn't just a
> lucky fluke, and that we can actually do it at will. Talk of a manned
> mission to Mars is surely trying to run when we've only just learned
> to walk?
But why go back, other than to prove it can be done ? The conspiracy idiots will say it was all faked again, everyone else will say it is a waste of money - either way NASA can't win. Mars is a far greater target to aim for.
~~Belldandy~~
I have an article in the daily mirror where Patrick Moore dismissed all these different things about why the flag is moving and all the other things you stated. If i can find it i'll post his explanation for it all. Quite strange for an article of that nature to be in the typically Anti-American Mirror though.
I refuse to believe that we have landed on the moon. It may sound strange but I have lots of reasons
The flag is moving - there is no wind on the moon
There are two pictures that are meant to be on other sides of the moon but show the same mountain in the background.
With all the high tech technology, why such a dodgy picture.
They found a place in the desert where the background in the moon photos is the same as this place.
The pictures show the astronauts shadows in different directions when there is only one light source. The sun.
Why have the Russians never landed on the moon.
The Russians believe that there is radiation and you need a craft with 5 inches of lead to get past it.
This may have been posted earlier in the forum, I did not read back.
The flag is moving - there is no wind on the moon
There are two pictures that are meant to be on other sides of the moon but show the same mountain in the background.
With all the high tech technology, why such a dodgy picture.
They found a place in the desert where the background in the moon photos is the same as this place.
The pictures show the astronauts shadows in different directions when there is only one light source. The sun.
Why have the Russians never landed on the moon.
The Russians believe that there is radiation and you need a craft with 5 inches of lead to get past it.
This may have been posted earlier in the forum, I did not read back.
A mission to mars is on the cards at the moment but its many years away and very dependant on research currently underway- biggest prob being radiation, basically space is full of ionising radiadiotn that can kill within a few days and adaquate shielding is expensive to put into orbit its also a major draw back to the moon (prolonged exposure will be very bad) thats why most of the astronauts are relatively old because they are less likely to produce cancer because of slower cell division.
Anyway back on topic
America has a freedom of information act which after 50 years documents get released but not all info contained is released, as in some of it is blanked out
Britain has its own version of this but it isnt as binding as the american FOI act and the british can do what they please about the info although in mostly 'good faith' they release stuff slowely and in bits.
Anyway back on topic
America has a freedom of information act which after 50 years documents get released but not all info contained is released, as in some of it is blanked out
Britain has its own version of this but it isnt as binding as the american FOI act and the british can do what they please about the info although in mostly 'good faith' they release stuff slowely and in bits.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Are you insane? Perhaps when space flight is as regular as the london
> tube, this might be a viable option, but just to establish a permanent
> lunar base would be ludicrously expensive.
But launching future craft from the moon would save an absolute fortune.
> Just getting a craft into space costs enough
But they were willing to waste millions just to beat the Russians to (allegedly) put men up there. What other purpose did that solve, other than beating the Russians? What did we learn from it that unmanned probes couldn't have told us?
If not for future space exploration, why not build a small base there for scientific/research purposes? How many billions are being spent on the ISS?
If we're not willing to spend the money on at least establishing some kind of foothold on the moon, what is the point in talking about manned flights to Mars? Because we sure as hell aren't going to bother building anything there if we can't on the moon. We don't know what's on the moon, because we've never scratched more than a small distance beneath the surface.
And - assuming for a moment that the moon landing wasn't a hoax - surely the story of Apollo 13 indicates that we should at least go back to the moon several more times to prove that it wasn't just a lucky fluke, and that we can actually do it at will. Talk of a manned mission to Mars is surely trying to run when we've only just learned to walk?
> Are you insane? Perhaps when space flight is as regular as the london
> tube, this might be a viable option, but just to establish a permanent
> lunar base would be ludicrously expensive.
But launching future craft from the moon would save an absolute fortune.
> Just getting a craft into space costs enough
But they were willing to waste millions just to beat the Russians to (allegedly) put men up there. What other purpose did that solve, other than beating the Russians? What did we learn from it that unmanned probes couldn't have told us?
If not for future space exploration, why not build a small base there for scientific/research purposes? How many billions are being spent on the ISS?
If we're not willing to spend the money on at least establishing some kind of foothold on the moon, what is the point in talking about manned flights to Mars? Because we sure as hell aren't going to bother building anything there if we can't on the moon. We don't know what's on the moon, because we've never scratched more than a small distance beneath the surface.
And - assuming for a moment that the moon landing wasn't a hoax - surely the story of Apollo 13 indicates that we should at least go back to the moon several more times to prove that it wasn't just a lucky fluke, and that we can actually do it at will. Talk of a manned mission to Mars is surely trying to run when we've only just learned to walk?
If you don't watch TV (and I presume don't listen to radio either) and don't read newspapers, your 'informed views' aren't going to be very informed, not knowing any news and all.
I dont read newspapers and I rarely watch TV its all total BS.
I have my own personal beliefs based on things Ive read up on and formed theories of my own from the best info. I would suggest everyone stop taking 'expert opinion' as actual fact and start reading deeper you will be amazed at what you find
I have my own personal beliefs based on things Ive read up on and formed theories of my own from the best info. I would suggest everyone stop taking 'expert opinion' as actual fact and start reading deeper you will be amazed at what you find
Belldandy's been watching Taken.
Escaping away from the moon conspiracy one moment, when our education system is still churning out some people with hardly any qualifications, and many of us base our opinions (being general here, kinda aimed at Sun/Daily Mirror/Daily Mail/Daily Express readers :P ) on what an editor, sitting in London, controlled by someone who shapes news stories in some circumstances to reflect their own views, tells us to think, do we really need to know every state secret ?
Get away from the paranoid big brother, mass conspiracy, "They", theories, and actually consider that held deep within Whitehall are not the files proving alien life, clean energy, a plot to kill (Insert celebrity/royal family member/head of foreign state) e.t.c, but details of some rather tedious and unremarkable stuff.
A couple of years back there was a lot of rantings on various UFO sites about the fabled HALO project run by BAE. Now how many of the conspiracy buffs here have heard of it, because it is quite a fascinating story, and almost certainly real as well - and before anyone says it we are not talking about the Xbox game here. In fact one of the most intriguing parts of the HALO myth is a photograph published in a UFO magazine that, two months later, was claimed to be a fake created by a disturbed teenager. what did it show ? HALO, mid air refuelling, flanked by two F16s. This was a good, clear shot of the silhouettes, and to me the fake story always seemed somewhat suspicious.
Personally I think most conspiracies are created to draw attention from real things, or to hide a real intent. Say you want to fly your new super plane around ? Call it a UFO and no problemo, you cna fly however, and wherever, you wish, as fast as you want.
~~Belldandy~~
Get away from the paranoid big brother, mass conspiracy, "They", theories, and actually consider that held deep within Whitehall are not the files proving alien life, clean energy, a plot to kill (Insert celebrity/royal family member/head of foreign state) e.t.c, but details of some rather tedious and unremarkable stuff.
A couple of years back there was a lot of rantings on various UFO sites about the fabled HALO project run by BAE. Now how many of the conspiracy buffs here have heard of it, because it is quite a fascinating story, and almost certainly real as well - and before anyone says it we are not talking about the Xbox game here. In fact one of the most intriguing parts of the HALO myth is a photograph published in a UFO magazine that, two months later, was claimed to be a fake created by a disturbed teenager. what did it show ? HALO, mid air refuelling, flanked by two F16s. This was a good, clear shot of the silhouettes, and to me the fake story always seemed somewhat suspicious.
Personally I think most conspiracies are created to draw attention from real things, or to hide a real intent. Say you want to fly your new super plane around ? Call it a UFO and no problemo, you cna fly however, and wherever, you wish, as fast as you want.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: