The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
VenomByte wrote:
> The US/Soviet space race was a huge financial drain on both parties.
> From that point of view it would have been benefitial to the Soviets
> to end it all, so there's a reason for them to be in on the
> conspiracy.
I'm sorry, but that only makes sense if you assume that the Soviets looked at the situation the way we do. To admit that the Soviet state could not afford the space race, and to also admit and deal with the Americans on this, totally goes against Soviet political, cultural, institutional, ideological, and military, thinking of the time. The whole centre of the Cold War was communism against capitalism. Russia believed that communism was the only valid system, so it would not co operate with the greatest threat to that system ! Plus, even if you ignore that, Russia's greatest spending was still on its military.
So anyone who suggests the USA and USSR worked together on this really should get their head out of conspiracy books and web sites, and go read some real history.....
~~Belldandy~~
> The US/Soviet space race was a huge financial drain on both parties.
> From that point of view it would have been benefitial to the Soviets
> to end it all, so there's a reason for them to be in on the
> conspiracy.
I'm sorry, but that only makes sense if you assume that the Soviets looked at the situation the way we do. To admit that the Soviet state could not afford the space race, and to also admit and deal with the Americans on this, totally goes against Soviet political, cultural, institutional, ideological, and military, thinking of the time. The whole centre of the Cold War was communism against capitalism. Russia believed that communism was the only valid system, so it would not co operate with the greatest threat to that system ! Plus, even if you ignore that, Russia's greatest spending was still on its military.
So anyone who suggests the USA and USSR worked together on this really should get their head out of conspiracy books and web sites, and go read some real history.....
~~Belldandy~~
lalakersrule wrote:
> But if it was a hoax then it
> was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled.
> But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
Something like 60% of Americans don't believe they landed on the moon, so if it is a hoax, it hasn't exactly convinced everyone.
The US/Soviet space race was a huge financial drain on both parties. From that point of view it would have been benefitial to the Soviets to end it all, so there's a reason for them to be in on the conspiracy.
> But if it was a hoax then it
> was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled.
> But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
Something like 60% of Americans don't believe they landed on the moon, so if it is a hoax, it hasn't exactly convinced everyone.
The US/Soviet space race was a huge financial drain on both parties. From that point of view it would have been benefitial to the Soviets to end it all, so there's a reason for them to be in on the conspiracy.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> We don't. We have no protection against the intense radiation that
> lies beyond the Van Allen belts today, let alone in the 60's.
Indeed we don't, but the craft only took just under na hour passing through the Van Allen belt, not enough time to be dangerously exposed....
www.badastronomy.com is a great source for all would be moon conspiracy theorists :)
~~Belldandy~~
> We don't. We have no protection against the intense radiation that
> lies beyond the Van Allen belts today, let alone in the 60's.
Indeed we don't, but the craft only took just under na hour passing through the Van Allen belt, not enough time to be dangerously exposed....
www.badastronomy.com is a great source for all would be moon conspiracy theorists :)
~~Belldandy~~
Protoss wrote:
> Because its cheaper, quicker and safer. You don't have the possibility
> of death or failure and you can be sure to beat the Soviets, or
> whatever power you hate at the time, into space and onto the moon.
> This was very important since it was the Russians who sent the first
> satalite (Sputnik) into space earlier. Plus Kennedy stated a timeframe
> when man would land on the moon which gave a public deadline which
> couldn't be broken without loosing face.
Ok, so you're saying it was vital to beat the Russians yes ? And that this drive to beat the USSR gave birth to the hoax ? One problem, in order to perpetrate the said hoax the USSR would have had to cooperated with the USA - hardly likely eh ? In addition, if the timeline started by Keendy was so vital, why risk losing massive face in the eyes of the public by doing a hoax landing that could potentially be exposed ? The risk for any administration of exposure would have been far to great.
> Come on, getting into orbit is quite differant from making a safe
> landing and takeoff from and alien world even if it is the moon.
Not really, in terms of space travel it is all the same, if your orbit is wrong then you burn up....
>
> Satellites? Nah, very unlikey
> also.
>
> Mars in 10 years? You must be having a laugh.
>
> Ok, I've lost you now.
He's trying to show how, if the moon landing was a hoax, how other space things would also have to be hoaxes, such as satellites. When he says "unlikely" it means it is impossible to have faked the satellites that were put into space.
I disagree with the idea that Mars is unachievable in 2010, it isn't. We'll land on mars in 10 years no problem.
~~Belldandy~~
> Because its cheaper, quicker and safer. You don't have the possibility
> of death or failure and you can be sure to beat the Soviets, or
> whatever power you hate at the time, into space and onto the moon.
> This was very important since it was the Russians who sent the first
> satalite (Sputnik) into space earlier. Plus Kennedy stated a timeframe
> when man would land on the moon which gave a public deadline which
> couldn't be broken without loosing face.
Ok, so you're saying it was vital to beat the Russians yes ? And that this drive to beat the USSR gave birth to the hoax ? One problem, in order to perpetrate the said hoax the USSR would have had to cooperated with the USA - hardly likely eh ? In addition, if the timeline started by Keendy was so vital, why risk losing massive face in the eyes of the public by doing a hoax landing that could potentially be exposed ? The risk for any administration of exposure would have been far to great.
> Come on, getting into orbit is quite differant from making a safe
> landing and takeoff from and alien world even if it is the moon.
Not really, in terms of space travel it is all the same, if your orbit is wrong then you burn up....
>
> Satellites? Nah, very unlikey
> also.
>
> Mars in 10 years? You must be having a laugh.
>
> Ok, I've lost you now.
He's trying to show how, if the moon landing was a hoax, how other space things would also have to be hoaxes, such as satellites. When he says "unlikely" it means it is impossible to have faked the satellites that were put into space.
I disagree with the idea that Mars is unachievable in 2010, it isn't. We'll land on mars in 10 years no problem.
~~Belldandy~~
Insane Bartender wrote:
> why would anyone want to fake a moon landing when we have the
> technology to do a real one?
We don't. We have no protection against the intense radiation that lies beyond the Van Allen belts today, let alone in the 60's.
> you can only really assume then that, if we can't get to the moon, we
> can't really get into space either, so all of the "space
> flights" are hoaxes as well.
No, we have been into space. The shuttle, orbiters, the space stations, the Hubble telescope etc. - and all manned space flight before and after the "moon landing" - have all taken place within the protection of the Van Allen belt. Even so, the Hubble telescope is sometimes unusable during intense solar flares because of the radiation levels produced.
> why would anyone want to fake a moon landing when we have the
> technology to do a real one?
We don't. We have no protection against the intense radiation that lies beyond the Van Allen belts today, let alone in the 60's.
> you can only really assume then that, if we can't get to the moon, we
> can't really get into space either, so all of the "space
> flights" are hoaxes as well.
No, we have been into space. The shuttle, orbiters, the space stations, the Hubble telescope etc. - and all manned space flight before and after the "moon landing" - have all taken place within the protection of the Van Allen belt. Even so, the Hubble telescope is sometimes unusable during intense solar flares because of the radiation levels produced.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> why would anyone want to fake a moon landing when we have the
> technology to do a real one?
Because its cheaper, quicker and safer. You don't have the possibility of death or failure and you can be sure to beat the Soviets, or whatever power you hate at the time, into space and onto the moon. This was very important since it was the Russians who sent the first satalite (Sputnik) into space earlier. Plus Kennedy stated a timeframe when man would land on the moon which gave a public deadline which couldn't be broken without loosing face.
>
> you can only really assume then that, if we can't get to the moon, we
> can't really get into space either, so all of the "space
> flights" are hoaxes as well.
Come on, getting into orbit is quite differant from making a safe landing and takeoff from and alien world even if it is the moon.
Satellites? Nah, very unlikey
> also.
>
> Mars in 10 years? You must be having a laugh.
Ok, I've lost you now.
> why would anyone want to fake a moon landing when we have the
> technology to do a real one?
Because its cheaper, quicker and safer. You don't have the possibility of death or failure and you can be sure to beat the Soviets, or whatever power you hate at the time, into space and onto the moon. This was very important since it was the Russians who sent the first satalite (Sputnik) into space earlier. Plus Kennedy stated a timeframe when man would land on the moon which gave a public deadline which couldn't be broken without loosing face.
>
> you can only really assume then that, if we can't get to the moon, we
> can't really get into space either, so all of the "space
> flights" are hoaxes as well.
Come on, getting into orbit is quite differant from making a safe landing and takeoff from and alien world even if it is the moon.
Satellites? Nah, very unlikey
> also.
>
> Mars in 10 years? You must be having a laugh.
Ok, I've lost you now.
Arsenal_mania wrote:
> Hey wokkiemon or whatever ure name is i completley agree with what u
> said about area 51. i wos watching this programme and apparently
> before the stealth fighter was built people had seen something in the
> air and it looked like the stealth of today and they said it was
> travelling really fast and it wasn't a plane. 1 year later area 51
> bring out a new plane the stealth fighter looking pretty much the same
> as the thing the people saw, only it didn't go quite as fast.
>
> Did it crash and did area 51 model the stealth around that?
The stealth program took the Lockheed Skunkworks team around 20 years to perfect, so I'd qusetion the authenticity of that program, especially as FOIA documents can trace 20 years or so of funds and work on the aircraft. In addition, during the Balkans conflict in 1999 it became clear that the Stealth could be detected under radar in certain conditions, now if it really was derived from alien tech I doubt this would be possible.
Oh, and Area 51 cannot "bring out a new plane" as it is simply a testing ground for the USAF and NASA, Groom Lake Testbed. The book "The Dreamland Chronicles" by David Darlington goes a long way to documenting the more down to earth happenings of the base. You could discount the whole thing as disinformation, but his career would say otherwise. The most famous supposed Area 51 employee, a Professor David Lazar, tolda colourful tale of the base and it's extraterrestrial inhabitants, but his reports were later discounted by many due to a total lack of evidence - and the fact he sold the supposed UFO design plans to model company Testors, who manufactured a supposed "Area 51 UFO" kit, and made a small ton, along wiht Lazar......
~~Belldandy~~
> Hey wokkiemon or whatever ure name is i completley agree with what u
> said about area 51. i wos watching this programme and apparently
> before the stealth fighter was built people had seen something in the
> air and it looked like the stealth of today and they said it was
> travelling really fast and it wasn't a plane. 1 year later area 51
> bring out a new plane the stealth fighter looking pretty much the same
> as the thing the people saw, only it didn't go quite as fast.
>
> Did it crash and did area 51 model the stealth around that?
The stealth program took the Lockheed Skunkworks team around 20 years to perfect, so I'd qusetion the authenticity of that program, especially as FOIA documents can trace 20 years or so of funds and work on the aircraft. In addition, during the Balkans conflict in 1999 it became clear that the Stealth could be detected under radar in certain conditions, now if it really was derived from alien tech I doubt this would be possible.
Oh, and Area 51 cannot "bring out a new plane" as it is simply a testing ground for the USAF and NASA, Groom Lake Testbed. The book "The Dreamland Chronicles" by David Darlington goes a long way to documenting the more down to earth happenings of the base. You could discount the whole thing as disinformation, but his career would say otherwise. The most famous supposed Area 51 employee, a Professor David Lazar, tolda colourful tale of the base and it's extraterrestrial inhabitants, but his reports were later discounted by many due to a total lack of evidence - and the fact he sold the supposed UFO design plans to model company Testors, who manufactured a supposed "Area 51 UFO" kit, and made a small ton, along wiht Lazar......
~~Belldandy~~
lalakersrule wrote:
> Arsenal_mania wrote:
>
> Was the moon landing a hoax?
>
>
> If it was a hoax can someone explain to me why the Russians would be
> in on it as well? They were monitoring everything the USA did on that
> launch and were following the spacecraft all the time so exactly why
> would they, a country also racing for the honour to put a man on the
> moon go along with it and say *oh of course it was real. Ah well guess
> we didn't manage it good job you Americans* Of course they wouldn't,
> they'd be the first country to the papers and media saying it was all
> a hoax they never even blasted off.
> That is all the reason I need myself to believe the moon landing in
> 1969 actually did happen and wasn't a hoax. Of course this happened 30
> odd years ago and with some many people involved if it wasn't real
> something would have slipped out by now. But if it was a hoax then it
> was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled.
> But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
Good point i never thought of that one
> Arsenal_mania wrote:
>
> Was the moon landing a hoax?
>
>
> If it was a hoax can someone explain to me why the Russians would be
> in on it as well? They were monitoring everything the USA did on that
> launch and were following the spacecraft all the time so exactly why
> would they, a country also racing for the honour to put a man on the
> moon go along with it and say *oh of course it was real. Ah well guess
> we didn't manage it good job you Americans* Of course they wouldn't,
> they'd be the first country to the papers and media saying it was all
> a hoax they never even blasted off.
> That is all the reason I need myself to believe the moon landing in
> 1969 actually did happen and wasn't a hoax. Of course this happened 30
> odd years ago and with some many people involved if it wasn't real
> something would have slipped out by now. But if it was a hoax then it
> was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled.
> But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
Good point i never thought of that one
Arsenal_mania wrote:
> Was the moon landing a hoax?
If it was a hoax can someone explain to me why the Russians would be in on it as well? They were monitoring everything the USA did on that launch and were following the spacecraft all the time so exactly why would they, a country also racing for the honour to put a man on the moon go along with it and say *oh of course it was real. Ah well guess we didn't manage it good job you Americans* Of course they wouldn't, they'd be the first country to the papers and media saying it was all a hoax they never even blasted off.
That is all the reason I need myself to believe the moon landing in 1969 actually did happen and wasn't a hoax. Of course this happened 30 odd years ago and with some many people involved if it wasn't real something would have slipped out by now. But if it was a hoax then it was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled. But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
> Was the moon landing a hoax?
If it was a hoax can someone explain to me why the Russians would be in on it as well? They were monitoring everything the USA did on that launch and were following the spacecraft all the time so exactly why would they, a country also racing for the honour to put a man on the moon go along with it and say *oh of course it was real. Ah well guess we didn't manage it good job you Americans* Of course they wouldn't, they'd be the first country to the papers and media saying it was all a hoax they never even blasted off.
That is all the reason I need myself to believe the moon landing in 1969 actually did happen and wasn't a hoax. Of course this happened 30 odd years ago and with some many people involved if it wasn't real something would have slipped out by now. But if it was a hoax then it was the best damn trick in the world that had the whole world fooled. But as i said, in my opinion it did happen.
no definetly jf kennedy, only a suspicion though
Page: