BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?

Subject: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:51 AM

I've always thought they were fake. Nixon was prez and everyone knows how far he could be trusted. Cold War propaganda feel-good moment. And simple minded Americans believe anything and everything they see on TV. They quit filming The Beverly Hillbillies at that mansion because so many idiots(ooops! average Americans) stopped by to visit with the Clampetts. See it on a screen and you think it's real. You even thought Ronald Reagan was a gunslinging cowboy. Pshaw! Balderdash!
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:16 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Nearly half a million people were involved in the Apollo programme. Not a single one has ever claimed that the moon landings were fake. That'll do me!

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Black Belt Caterpillar Wrestler
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:27 AM

And here was I thinking that it was the Moon that was fake.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:40 AM

They put on a real good act. Even had the employees fooled.
Remember, they were playing with LSD alot back then.
(:-( 0)=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:14 AM

Outer space if fake, because everything revolves in crystalline spheres around a flat, hollow Earth which is the center of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:18 AM

The moon is genuine. The moon landings were genuine. On the other hand the Earth is fake.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 09:06 AM

We're all fake; only Henry Krinkle is real.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM

(:-( ))=
It's true.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 09:33 AM

The first and third were fakes; the other two were real. It's obvious. Also, Apollo 13, when they "almost died," was just a movie. You can rent it from Netflix.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 10:52 AM

A bloke who used to drink in my old local pub reckoned it was a fake too.

He was brilliant. Asked anyone outside who dared to laugh at him.

He offered many of us a good hiding actually. We stopped when a few agreed that mocking the afflicted wasn't a nice thing to do.

Mind you it was fun in his case.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 10:57 AM

Ah, this is an intriguing one to speculate about, Henry. My opionion? I don't know. My opinion about this doesn't matter anyway...nor does anyone else's here...but since you asked: Like I said, I don't know. And I probably never will. I do wonder why the heck we haven't gone back there with a manned vehicle since over 40 years ago! I mean, hell, people still climb Mount Everest, don't they, and some die trying, and there's nothing even to be found when they get there. So why wouldn't we go back to the Moon if we could manage it?

I've read stuff that darn near had me convinced the Moon landings were faked. They may have been. I can see reasons why they might have been at the time...for propaganda purposes. But I'll never know for sure.

And neither will the rest of you. ;-) You have no way of knowing for sure, you just have a kneejerk opinion based on common cultural assumptions of your time.

Those who respond to the question with ridicule are apparently resting upon an absolute certainty that springs from its own psychological foundation...similar to the psychological foundation of someone in the Dark Ages who pokes fun at the hilarious assertion that the Earth revolves around the Sun! (obviously an idiotic idea to anyone with a grain of sense and the ability to see the sunrise and sunset each day)

People prefer certainty. The more insecure or arrogant they are, the better they like it. It feels so much better than just admitting you don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:08 AM

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:20 AM

How did I know before I opened this thread that the author was going to be the President of the Mudcat Village Idiots Club, good old Henry Krinkle

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:47 AM

See? I threaten your reality. I scare you.
(:-( 0)=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:49 AM

Every village prizes its idiot(s), Dave. If that were not the case, how would the expression "village idiot" have come about in the first place? It serves some of the emotional needs of the rest of the village.

By the way, why are so many people here referring to Henry as "Hank"?

Henry, I've never seen the mansion from the Beverly Hillbillies show. Never even seen Beverly Hills either, actually. Gawd! I feel so deprived! ;-) And what about Gilligan's Island? Where is it located? They should do guided tours and charge big bucks to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 12:02 PM

> Nearly half a million people were involved in the Apollo programme. Not a single one has ever claimed that the moon landings were fake.

A half million? We never saw more than maybe twenty-five or fifty at a time sitting at "consoles" in those news clips - precisely the number required to fake the tapes.

And the people we saw? They probably weren't even the real fakers, whose pictures will never be released.

Because many of them were illegal aliens.

From Outer Space.

Don't worry, nobody will ever talk. Which is all the proof I need.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 12:21 PM

"...what about Gilligan's Island? Where is it located?" By far the most important question on this thread. And I can answer it. Partially. Sufficiently.

Below Newport Beach in California is the stream that winds through the copse of trees where the 'Minnow' set off to sea on its fateful voyage.

Go there and head west.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 01:27 PM

But I'll never know for sure.

And neither will the rest of you. ;-) You have no way of knowing for sure, you just have a kneejerk opinion based on common cultural assumptions of your time.
well, if you insist on being serious, you are right if the question is one of absolute knowledge. I have no way of knowing whether the Olympics have just happened either, or whether it was all a CGI exercise (which would probably have been easier and cheaper). So all we can go on is rules of evidence, assumptions, and 'balance of probabilities'. And on those grounds I'd say the evidence of the moon landing is as strong as for the Olympics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 01:54 PM

Well said, Dave.

I really can't be bothered to argue against Little Hawk's idiocy.

So why wouldn't we go back to the Moon if we could manage it?

Huge expense for little gain would be the answer here. An entirely different thing from climbing up Everest.

I've read stuff that darn near had me convinced the Moon landings were faked.

What things? The oft cited 'facts' are very easily debunked. Do you have anything new to offer?

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:26 PM

The point is surely, that there is a certain perverse mindset that delights in debunking achievement, finding ingenious and unnecessary alternative explanations to what are clearly the actual facts of the matter

Yes, naughty Myra Hindley did die in prison ~ they really didn't just pretend so they could secretly let her out because they were scared of the public reaction

Yes, they did land on the Moon in 1969

Yes, they really were Palestinian terrorists who knocked the Twin Towers down 11 years ago today

Don't believe it. Well, enjoy yourselves dears, and have your little fun. Nobody marks you -- except all your fellow-fruits.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 02:39 PM

Yeah, that's right. We all go on probabilties. I can't really assess the probabilities regarding the Moon landings, so I simply say, "I don't know for sure one way or the other if it was real or faked, but I wonder why we haven't gone back in all this time that has passed since then. It seems to me that the mere desire to further explore any remote area that we can physically explore would prompt further such missions at some point."

And I'm glad you can't be bothered arguing with me about it, Ed, cos I sure don't want to spend time arguing with you about it. It would only waste our respective time and change nothing.

And I just wasted, oh, maybe 10 or 20 seconds of my life to even say that. But I can live with it. ;-) After all, one has to amuse oneself somehow on a slow day.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:04 PM

Little Hawk, ' Hank ' is that rhyming slang ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:07 PM

Shall I presume that the laser retroreflectors that people today are using to precision range to the moon were placed there by the CIA, just to support the "fake" moon landings????

If so, the landings were real ( in order to get them there).

If not, please explain how they got there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:32 PM

Dave - I think it's just a familiar form of "Henry", isn't it? Like sort of the hillbilly or "country" version?

beardedbruce - I don't know anything about those laser photoreflectors you're referring to, therefore I have no comment or opinion about them...nor do I have any definite opinion about whether or not the Moon landings were faked. I don't think the CIA has managed to put any of its agents on the Moon yet, but I might be wrong. ;-) They are pretty clever folks, after all, and they do like extending their reach as far as is humanly possible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 03:41 PM

Sept. 2:39: "I wonder why we haven't gone back in all this time that has passed since then."

It's been 43 years since Man landed on the moon. A long time, indeed. But just think of how much time had gone by before Man ever did! Forty three years is not so long after all.

When a person starts questioning the reality of anything where does one stop? Is my brother really my brother? My long-gone parents really my parents? Was the USA really colonised by the English? Was there really a war fought because the colonists wished to be free? (Let's not get into that war thing- too many people have died in them. Really?)

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Elmore
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM

I refuse to respond to any thread offered by Krinkle. This is my final refusal,since even that may encourage him.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 04:10 PM

Are there far too many rhetorical questions?

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 04:26 PM

What if the government came out and admitted it was fake. Would you apologize to me? Or say you knew it was fake all along? You're a product of government education. You believe what Big Brother tells you. He would never lie.
You're like small children that have been told Santa is fake. Incredulous disbelief.
(:-P ))=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 04:42 PM

If the government admits it was a fake, DON'T BELIEVE THEM!!!!

It's still the government, people!!!!!!!!!

(And now for a serious note. I once heard a celebrated expert on UFO abductions tell a doubting scientist, "I rule out nothing. That makes me even more skeptical than you are, because I don't necessarily accept your explanations.")

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:44 PM

Ebbie, your list of alternative suggestions of things to be skeptical about is venturing into extreme hyperbole. ;-)

The thing that's different about the Moon landings is that, like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, it is a body of information emanating from and through a single centralized government-controlled official source...and only they are in a position to either fake it (if they wanted to)...or not fake it. They had the power to create a false story if they wanted to, since they controlled both its origins and the personnel directly involved. This has long been the case with secret or high-tech operations or political decisions directly controlled by governments.

It is not the case with your brother, your parents, the history of the USA, the history of various past wars, etc., all things which occurred quite regardless of the wishes or control of a single, centralized governmental authority somewhere...and which were directly known about by many independent sources.

Remember, I didn't say the Moon landing was faked. I didn't say it wasn't. Because I don't know! I just wonder about it sometimes. I wonder why they don't go back. The huge period of historical time prior to when they went there is totally irrelevant.

For example: 5 million years with no automobiles on this planet is irrelevant to the subject of automobiles. If, however, we had seen no new automobiles made in the last 43 years, I think we'd find that quite extraordinary. Ditto for manned space missions to the Moon...or other distant bodies in our Solar System.

I had always hoped there'd be a manned mission sent to Mars, for example, and living in the late 1960s, you'd have thought it wasn't too far off.

Now some wag here will say: "Oh, well, they'll just fake one, and then you'll be happy!" ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 06:49 PM

I thought Bush had big plans for Mars.
(:-( o)=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:03 PM

I think Bush was a puppet, so I'm not sure he had big plans for much of anything. He may have said he did, though. I always figured Cheney was the real boss in that White House.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:13 PM

Yea. Dick wore the pants.
(:-( D)=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:29 PM

Just like Hillary is wearing the pants again this time around. She did it for two terms with Slick Willie. Three times a charm.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:37 PM

Hillary is one tough customer. You have to be to break through the "glass ceiling" in that field of endeavour.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:40 PM

Little Hawk: I've read stuff that darn near had me convinced the Moon landings were faked. They may have been. I can see reasons why they might have been at the time...for propaganda purposes. But I'll never know for sure.

And neither will the rest of you. ;-) You have no way of knowing for sure, you just have a kneejerk opinion based on common cultural assumptions of your time.

The thing is, all the "evidence" for fakery that various people have put forward (several of whom have made a good living from writing books and making programmes about it) has been convincingly debunked...all the stuff about shadows the wrong length, no stars in photos, the way the flag "flew" etc.

And no, we don't have a kneejerk reaction....we look at the evidence for and against, balance arguments and counter-arguments and come to a conclusion based on reasonable doubt or balance of probability.

In this case every bit of evidence I've seen "for" fakery has been convincingly shown to be erroneous in its assumptions or conclusions.

Little Hawk: it is a body of information emanating from and through a single centralized government-controlled official source...and only they are in a position to either fake it (if they wanted to)...or not fake it. They had the power to create a false story if they wanted to, since they controlled both its origins and the personnel directly involved.

Again, they don't have as much control as you'd like to think. I remember at the time, a number of secondary school students in UK and other places built directional receivers to track the spacecraft and to listen to signals once the landings had occurred. Now if directional tracking from sites in, say England and Italy were not to show some fairly strange parallax and signal timing errors when simultaneously tracking, then there must have been *something* broadcasting in space from the actual path to the moon taken by the capsule and again from the moon itself. Anything simulating broadcasts from low earth orbit would have been sussed PDQ. And the laser ranging targets left there that I used for years both while doing my Geodesy post-grad qualification and afterwards got there somehow....and landing and properly deploying those suckers without human intervention would have probably been harder with the technology available then than deploying them by human hand!

As for the fact that we haven't been back? Well, the Mariana Trench was first descended by a manned vehicle in 1960 and no further manned descents were made until this year when James Cameron went down. So I suppose that makes the first descent a prime candidate for fakery, too?

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: michaelr
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:42 PM

Palestinian terrorists knocked the Twin Towers down 11 years ago?? Of all the revisionist shit I've read, this takes the cake. MtheGM, I am disappointed in you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:44 PM

Starting a couple of threads in the music section may be your attempt to meet the letter of the law as it was laid down, but your transparent methods aren't fooling anyone. There is little of substance in any of your posts and the prolific nature of your verbal diarrhea leads me to predict that you'll burn out fast or be stood in the corner with limited privileges. Keep chumming the BS waters and you'll find yourself in the same boat as The Shambles.

Trolling is so unattractive.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:46 PM

But I'll never know for sure.

And neither will the rest of you. ;-) You have no way of knowing for sure, you just have a kneejerk opinion based on common cultural assumptions of your time.

Those who respond to the question with ridicule are apparently resting upon an absolute certainty that springs from its own psychological foundation...similar to the psychological foundation of someone in the Dark Ages who pokes fun at the hilarious assertion that the Earth revolves around the Sun! (obviously an idiotic idea to anyone with a grain of sense and the ability to see the sunrise and sunset each day)

People prefer certainty. The more insecure or arrogant they are, the better they like it. It feels so much better than just admitting you don't know.

The only sensible thing here to dwell on is that "we don't know." I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Dawkinsite atheist, but I don't know that God doesn't exist. Neither does Dawkins, as he freely admits. It is perfectly possible to respond to the fake moon landings claim with the ridicule it deserves without being certain that the claim is wrong. The ridicule arises not from any sense of certainty but from the fact that the claimant is capriciously and unjustifiably ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that points to the genuine nature of the moon landings. And, even worse in a way, they present no plausible evidence to the contrary whatsoever in support of their claim. In the same way, I can feel that I can fairly ridicule a certain variety of believer (let's call 'em "creationists") who studiously ignore or contest a massive body of evidence for evolution, substituting a load of half-baked conjecture for it. Just like the Krinkle brigade, they deserve no protection from derision. It's their gobsmackingly-flawed thinking that gets 'em that, not my absolute certainty, of which I have none.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:48 PM

Ach, that first sentence was part of the quote and should have been in italics.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 07:50 PM

Cheers for that, michaelr. I was just coming to it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:16 PM

The major disconnect with reality that I'm observing here is the apparent inability of some folks to realize that Henry Snap-Krinkle-and-Pop doesn't believe the least bit of the stuff he is tossing out here as bait.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:20 PM

Shambles was trolling, Stilly? I thought he was upset about the general lack of civility here, and just wouldn't quit talking about it even when everyone got sick of hearing him talk about it, even when people gathered in little jeering crowds to mock and make fun of him, and that he finally left of his own accord, having become deeply offended at being mocked in that fashion. How does that equate to someone like Henry Krinkle starting all kinds of oddball threads about a variety of offbeat and controversial subjects?

****

You put up a good defence there for the legitimacy of the Moon landing, Steve, rather than engaging in puerile insults and mocking as some here do. Good for you. For all I know, you may be right.

Don't assume that being religious precludes a belief in evolution, however. There is no particular reason why a belief in evolution and a belief in God (whatever you take that word to mean...) should be mutually exclusive. It's a particular brand of religious fundamentalist that objects to the theory of evolution...and they're a brand that gets a lot of press in the USA, but they would be much rarer around where I live. I've met very few Canadians who object to the theory of evolution, and the majority of them do believe in God. Their beliefs about God, of course, are an individual matter, and probably are as unique to the individual as everything else about them.

I've read Dawkins. I think he has an anger problem when it comes to religion. I don't, cos I grew up in an atheistic family, unpressured by any form of organized religion, and I took atheism totally for granted in my younger years...and I've always believed in evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:50 PM

The major disconnect with reality that I'm observing here is the apparent inability of some folks to realize that Henry Snap-Krinkle-and-Pop doesn't believe the least bit of the stuff he is tossing out here as bait.

Are you implying that we should want Krinkle cut?

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 08:54 PM

I've read Dawkins's anti-religion polemic and I've watched a few TV programmes about him and seen a ton of YouTubes with him on. To me, he comes across as measured, civil, erudite and articulate. I would welcome any examples you might have of his "anger problem." Never seen the slightest sign of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 09:49 PM

LH, the volume and frequent new threads is what is in question, as I imagine you knew.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Skivee
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 10:10 PM

Unlike most of the jaw flappers here, I've actually seen Saturn V launches (Apollo 17 and Skylab) in person from 3 1/2 miles away at the Kennedy Spaceflight Center. It's kinda tough to fake a 5 million pound 370-ish foot tall rocket being pushed into space by a 7.5 million pound column of fire. The sound was the loudest thing I've ever heard.
What I saw and heard and felt to my bones was entirely consistant with images of earlier launches of Apollo/Saturn Vs.
I've seen the debris of those launches (panels and stage elements) in orbit before it fell back to earth before it fell. I've seen the programmed fuel dump pluming from the S-IVb stages on the way to the moon, well above Earth orbit.
As an experienced photographer and amatuer astronomer, I can state that the "if it's real, why aren't there stars in the space images" question is bogus. The epsosure for the LM activities with the film and cameras they had would have been averaged between 1/125th of a second at 1/16 and 1/250th at f/16>
Exposing for stars at the same location and time would have needed about 30 seconds at f/2.8>
The stars were there. They are just underexposed by about 21 stops because the subject wasn't stars, but the bright foreground objects.
Here's a little tidbit factoid for you. That brilliant white full moon you see in the night sky is actually as dark as a charcoal briquette>
All other objections similarly fall away when examined with knowledge and no paranoid axe to grind.
High def images from lunar orbit...BY OTHER COUNTRIES shown LM lower stagesfoot tracks, rover tracks, equipment stations and other large gear precisely where and how they were left according to extensive mission logs.
If the tiny bits of info I've said are just so much techno-babble to you, then you are not qualified to knowledgably proclaim that the the moon landings were faked. If you make sure to retain your ignorance while broadly proclaiming that the landings were faked, then you have made a choice to choose fantasy over a heroic reality.
Of course, some folks think it's fun to celebrate ignorance and willful stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 12 - 11:51 PM

The signs I saw of Dawkins' anger was in the context of some of his writings, Steve, simply on the basis of some of the things he said...not in the way he conducts himself when talking to people on videos. Yes, I've seen some of the videos, and he acts as you say.

He's made statements in his book "The God Delusion", however, which I think carry a pretty negative emotional charge. Perhaps he governs himself a little more carefully when talking to others live than he does when writing...just like most of us are a little (or a lot) more diplomatic face-to-face with people than we sometimes are online.

Anyway, he comes across to me as a pretty rabid evangelist would...only his dogma of choice is atheism...and he seems set on converting everyone to it, "rescuing" future generations of children by "saving them" from religion, etc. He seems intent on wiping out religion if he possibly can. I don't care much for people who aggressively evangelize and attempt to convert everyone, whether they do it either for or against religion.

***

Stilly - Righto. I see what you mean.

***

Skivee - I did not say that I believe the Moon landings were faked. I've heard all kinds of stuff about it from many different points of view, and I'm curious about it, and I would like to know more. What is your theory as to why there have been no further manned missions (since Apollo) that went beyond merely orbiting our planet? It would seem to me like a far better and more constructive way to spend hundreds of billions of dollars than fighting oil wars in the Middle East. Of course, I'm not an oil executive or an arms manufacturer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 01:25 AM

Sorry about mis-identifying origins of AlQaeda members concerned in 9·11, michaelr & Steve; but can't see it as a major error contextually such as to invalidate my point about the motivations of the compulsive deniers.

Never thought should find myself in wholehearted agreement with Steve, but think he has it absolutely right about the personality and attitudes of R Dawkins.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: The Moon Landings: Real or Fake?
From: Skivee
Date: 12 Sep 12 - 02:35 AM

LH-two reasons. 1 The public and politicians lost interest because they saw the launches as already having beaten the Ruskies and stuff.
2 There was reasonable concern over how the fine safety margins in the mission might end up with a loss of crews.
IOn any case it was Congress that pulled the plug on the final three missions that all equipment had been built for.
It's a shame that the chance for more real science was dumped for political reasons.