Conspiracy Theories

[Rocky]

I think it's past that point now. I was going to close this but at 15+ pages it seems a shame to let some of the pettyness spoil it.

I class some of the recent post as trolling but won't issue a warning so long as it does not continue past this post. Anything after this that is not a reasoned post, or sets of my troll alarm, or contributes nothing of substance to the debate will result in an official warning for the poster.

[calius]

Well its a shame to close this thread on the basis of Trolling or anything such as that, so I hope it stays open, I feel the "noise" as I put it has put it in that area and apologies to a certain extent to continue with direct replying to certain things, ive tried to keep it on point as much as possible. Everyone is entitled to post but a hint of cynicism doesn't really help a debate or a thread of such a topic, a point ive been trying to make (all be it very long winded and a few pages of to & fro) for a while. I guess that draws a line under that side of it, so fair enough.

or sets of my troll alarm

... I picture a teddy bear troll figure next to a big red button and light at your PC desk

So, I though id post something that's very interesting as it has photos to back up the points, and no its not 9/11 related but its all about those "moon landing is fake" claims. So here's a link to some comparison photos of the LM on the appolo photos, it does seem to show the LM has been moved around to set up shots, quite comical to a point, although I will leave it to others to take a peep and see what they think about it.

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

BTW I have certain views on this but I also like to see some pictures, the comparisons here are good to illustrate a point about it (especially page 2), have a look see people and see what you think folks. Though you may like this Rocky Also this site I haven't looked at much just a sub link I found so I haven't looked much into some other things on that site, mainly for me it was the picture comparisons, maybe even the comparisons are faked? The plot thickens

[Rocky]

So, I though id post something that's very interesting as it has photos to back up the points, and no its not 9/11 related but its all about those "moon landing is fake" claims. So here's a link to some comparison photos of the LM on the appolo photos, it does seem to show the LM has been moved around to set up shots, quite comical to a point, although I will leave it to others to take a peep and see what they think about it.

http://www.aulis.com...ing_apollo1.htm

BTW I have certain views on this but I also like to see some pictures, the comparisons here are good to illustrate a point about it (especially page 2), have a look see people and see what you think folks. Though you may like this Rocky Also this site I haven't looked at much just a sub link I found so I haven't looked much into some other things on that site, mainly for me it was the picture comparisons, maybe even the comparisons are faked? The plot thickens

Yeh moon conspiracys are awesome, mostly because the conspiracy/debunk debates are totally fascinating.

I've seen some photos regarding out of place mountains before,but the gif in the linked page is just totally wacko, the flag is moving the wrong way for the camera perspective. It's difficult to read that page on my phone though so I'll take a closer look when I get home. If you find a counter claim from debunkers or NASA post it up, ta.

[Rocky]

Watching the gif sequence on a large monitor, it doesn't look wrong to me at all, the flag, stones and backdrop perspective do not strike me as being out...

[petsfed]

So, I though id post something that's very interesting as it has photos to back up the points, and no its not 9/11 related but its all about those "moon landing is fake" claims. So here's a link to some comparison photos of the LM on the appolo photos, it does seem to show the LM has been moved around to set up shots, quite comical to a point, although I will leave it to others to take a peep and see what they think about it.

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm

BTW I have certain views on this but I also like to see some pictures, the comparisons here are good to illustrate a point about it (especially page 2), have a look see people and see what you think folks. Though you may like this Rocky Also this site I haven't looked at much just a sub link I found so I haven't looked much into some other things on that site, mainly for me it was the picture comparisons, maybe even the comparisons are faked? The plot thickens

In adherence to the TOS, I cannot reply to any post about the moon landings. I cannot be polite about it, so I won't say anything.

Edited July 14, 2010 by petsfed

[CrowmanUK]

Sorry to run back to 9/11 but i've just had a read of this about the speed of the plane, its interesting reading

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html

[calius]

Watching the gif sequence on a large monitor, it doesn't look wrong to me at all, the flag, stones and backdrop perspective do not strike me as being out...

I think its the LM position/turn based on the perspective shift of everything else is what they are getting at. For me the most interesting is the last two images on page two where it "seems" as if the LM is far to the right, then a camera move later (but all the same things in the background) and the LM is bang in front near field. The crater to its left in the second pic is the crater in the first. I think the floor is confusing but the background staying the same makes it odd (all be it the camera is lower down in shot two and moved forward a touch). To me if this was anyone else making moon landing claims today (IE the pics were now of a mission from another country now) most people would look at the background and say "that's photo shopped!?".

In adherence to the TOS, I cannot reply to any post about the moon landings. I cannot be polite about it, so I won't say anything.

Well, you can, you can speak about the photos, you dont have to tar the whole thing with anger about how ridiculous it might be, just about the pictures really. Like ive said before to put both scenarios on the table and look at them isn't un-healthy, even if you really do think the whole moon subject is a farce Then again, if you cant muster anything about but not be polite then probably best not too

@Crowman .. theirs a lot about the turn/angle and flight management for the pentagon plane too, IE barely well trained hijackers flying better than an ACE pilot to make the turns and to skim the lawn and hit the way it did, or turns that would damage the plane based on speed and force. Thanks for link.

[petsfed]

In adherence to the TOS, I cannot reply to any post about the moon landings. I cannot be polite about it, so I won't say anything.

Well, you can, you can speak about the photos, you dont have to tar the whole thing with anger about how ridiculous it might be, just about the pictures really. Like ive said before to put both scenarios on the table and look at them isn't un-healthy, even if you really do think the whole moon subject is a farce Then again, if you cant muster anything about but not be polite then probably best not too

No, really, I can't.

We lean on atmospheric haze to give us an idea of distance and scale. As a mountaineer, I've often been in situations where that haze disappears, and you have no idea just how far away things really are. And if you're really paying attention to those pictures, you'll see loads of things that will cast doubt on the "its a hoax!" theme.

And once more, there's the question of scale. The price of such a conspiracy would be comparable to the price of sending a series of men to the moon. So why not just do it? The money has clearly been spent. We've reaped the technological rewards of the process. The point of the Apollo program was to show the Russians that we could send an ICBM anywhere, and the very people we intended to cow all agree that it happened. The only possible reason to fake the moon landing is because the actual footage from the moon landing was unacceptable for public consumption, and NOT because we didn't go there (and I've yet to see compelling evidence that that is the case). There are too many independent confirmations of the entire set of moon landings for it to have not occurred, unless you're proposing a conspiracy of international proportions, in which case my thoughts on the matter violate the TOS.

[Parabellum]

Read what I posted ref the plane I was referring too, prove the plane hit (an actual large jet) you get a cookie. If not then its open debate and if its open debate its not a closed case, etc and so on.

I posted this in June last year, soon after it was released. Someone's recently uploaded a clearer version. Worth watching with and accepting what the military and law enforcement witnesses state they saw.

The Pentagon Attack

DS

I finally got around to watching this video. I can't honestly accept this video as proof of any U.S. government conspiracy. There are several points which I'd like to contest:

-At about 2:10, the narrator says that none of the debris found at the Pentagon has been conclusively linked to Flight 77.

Says whom? The narrator provides no proof that this statement is indeed factual.

-At about 2:25, the narrator compares the impact at the Pentagon to various plane crashes around the world.

No effort is made by the video's producers to rectify the fact that a crash on the ground is not equivalent to an impact with a building. Is there a wealth of information available concerning previous 757 crashes into the Pentagon? No, there isn't. I wonder if there were large pieces of airplane fuselage found littering the streets of New York that day. This particular comparison by the producers on is one of apples to oranges, and it doesn't hold water.

-Between 2:25 and 4:00, the narrator discusses what could be described as expected damage vs observed damage.

I would again point to the fact that there have been no known cases of a 757 striking a building in the past. There have certainly been no known cases of a 75 striking a building which, in the narrator's own admission, is 'blast-proof'. It's as if the producers expected the damage at the Pentagon, which is a hardened structure, to match the damage seen when a plane strikes an open field. Again, I think they're comparing apples to oranges.

-At 4:00 in, the narrator says that photographs taken on September 21st show that there is no damage to the foundation at all.

This is despite the fact that one can clearly see massive cracks and chunks missing from the foundation of the building. I honestly laughed out loud at this point in the video.

-Between 4:00 and 5:00, the narrator discusses how the impact angle would have been impossible.

My concern here is along the same lines of most of my other concerns: This conclusion is, again, drawn by people who are on the fringes of the area of study, and whose work is not independently verifiable. The producers also do not acknowledge that the simulations possibly leave out many factors, or that the simulations run may be biased toward a preconceived outcome. How do we even know that the people analyzing information are qualified to do so? How do we know that they're analyzing the data correctly? The answer there is that we don't. The producers do nothing to establish their credibility. Nothing.

-The discussion of interviews begins at 5:35. I have quite a few questions about this segment.

Who is Citizen Investigation Team? Are they impartial? How can we verify that the people supposedly interviewed are who they say they are, or that they're telling the truth? We're supposed to disbelieve the government, and yet we're supposed to believe this group of people. Why? These people, at least to myself, have no credibility, and I have no way to independently verify what they're saying.

-At 6:54, the narrator says, and I quote, "the true flight path as reported by eyewitnesses definitively contradicts this government-controlled and supplied evidence, proving it has been manipulated..."

It should be middle school science for anyone to realize that when you're looking at an aircraft, its actual location is not necessarily where one on the ground might observe it. Since the 'eyewitnesses' were looking at said aircraft from a harsh angle, and had no real reference for its location, its quite feasible that they are, in fact, incorrect.

Further, I didn't see a single researchable, outside source for the information provided. Where were the slew of police officers and military personnel who supposedly had testimony to offer? Who are these people who supposedly provided their eyewitness testimony? The video provides no names, no dates and times of the interviews, no actual statements. We, the viewers, have no way to verify the authenticity of the so-called eyewitness testimony. The producers of this video provided no way for the viewer to verify the so-called testimony of eyewitnesses.I saw nothing but anti-government propaganda, honestly. Is the video compelling? I suppose that it would be, for someone who wishes to believe that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Parabellum

[wombat50]

I watched the vid and absolutely agree with Parabellum.

[Dick Splash]

I finally got around to watching this video.......For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion.

Well done Para, you finally got around to watching it. Now, click on it again, and watch all of it ie. parts 2 to 9.

DS

[Parabellum]

I finally got around to watching this video.......For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion.

Well done Para, you finally got around to watching it. Now, click on it again, and watch all of it ie. parts 2 to 9.

DS

Honestly, mate, I don't think it would be worth my time. The whole ten minutes that I watched left me with the feeling that the whole thing is hokey and juvenile. The producers obviously want to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and so any information that they find is going to be skewed to fit that view.

Further, DS, I have a question for you specifically: Why should I accept what the so-called eyewitnesses have to say about what they supposedly saw? Should I accept what they say, because they're ostensibly police officers and military personnel? If the U.S. government really did perpetrate 9/11, then wouldn't that make any agent of the government a potential suspect, and therefore render their testimony moot?

How do I know if they are who they say they are?

How do I know if they saw what the videos say they saw?

How do I know that the producers of the video aren't spinning the statements to suit their own agenda?

The simple answer to all three questions is that I don't, and I can't. Nor can you. When it all comes down to it, everything presented is hearsay, or data interpreted in a way to fall in line with pre-existing expectations. In short, the producers have no credibility, because they set out to prove what they already believed, and not to gather information to truly find out what happened.

quick edit

To clarify, I've watched bits and pieces of all nine videos. I'm unconvinced, and further, I came away wondering how many of the 'eyewitnesses' were actually paid actors. The whole thing felt ... fake and contrived to me.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Parabellum

[Dick Splash]

Why should I accept what the so-called eyewitnesses have to say about what they supposedly saw?......

How do I know if they are who they say they are?

How do I know if they saw what the videos say they saw?

How do I know that the producers of the video aren't spinning the statements to suit their own agenda?

Do you think the same things, when you see a video of a so called family member of a 9/11 family victim or witness to the official story? Do you ever think the producers of non-conspiracy videos have their own agendas, especially TV and news networks? A few weeks after the 'underwear bomber' incident, the BBC aired a documentary about it. I was surprised that of all of the interviews with [so called?] witnesses, they never included the one from

and his wife. The next day, out of curiosity I phoned the production company that made the documentary for the BBC and spoke to the producer. She told me that they actually interviewed Mr and Mrs Haskell, but as their accounts differed from the official story, they didn't include them in the documentary. After watching the documentary, I was left wondering whether the documentary was made to reassure the public that the skies were safe.

To clarify, I've watched bits and pieces of all nine videos. I'm unconvinced, and further, I came away wondering how many of the 'eyewitnesses' were actually paid actors. The whole thing felt ... fake and contrived to me.

If you came away thinking that from the bits you watched, then you might want to phone the Pentagon and tell them that there are two paid actors posing as Pentagon Policemen, wearing [fake?] side arms and driving [fake?] unmarked cruisers in public, close to the Pentagon!

Para, you've had a lot to say about this video, especially your breakdown of part 1, yet you've not watched it from beginning to end, and if you were [and still are] reluctant to watch all of it, then it would have made sense to not bother posting anything, rather than a lot about it.

DS

[Parabellum]

Do you think the same things, when you see a video of a so called family member of a 9/11 family victim or witness to the official story? Do you ever think the producers of non-conspiracy videos have their own agendas, especially TV and news networks? A few weeks after the 'underwear bomber' incident, the BBC aired a documentary about it. I was surprised that of all of the interviews with [so called?] witnesses, they never included the one from

and his wife. The next day, out of curiosity I phoned the production company that made the documentary for the BBC and spoke to the producer. She told me that they actually interviewed Mr and Mrs Haskell, but as their accounts differed from the official story, they didn't include them in the documentary. After watching the documentary, I was left wondering whether the documentary was made to reassure the public that the skies were safe.

Actually, yes. I'm pretty sure that every news outlet (including the producers of this video series) have an agenda, and I'm pretty sure that facts are usually not represented without some spin.

If you came away thinking that from the bits you watched, then you might want to phone the Pentagon and tell them that there are two paid actors posing as Pentagon Policemen, wearing [fake?] side arms and driving [fake?] unmarked cruisers in public, close to the Pentagon!

.... Because no one has ever portrayed a police officer in a film before? Come on, DS. That's weak, mate.

Para, you've had a lot to say about this video, especially your breakdown of part 1, yet you've not watched it from beginning to end, and if you were [and still are] reluctant to watch all of it, then it would have made sense to not bother posting anything, rather than a lot about it.

Let me ask you something: If I sat through all 90 minutes or so of the video, and still had nothing good to say about it, how would you feel then? As I said earlier in the thread, I think that yourself and Calius don't so much want discussion or possibly contrary views posted. Rather, I think that you just want people who agree with you to post. I may be wrong, but that sure is how it seems.

[Dick Splash]

If you came away thinking that from the bits you watched, then you might want to phone the Pentagon and tell them that there are two paid actors posing as Pentagon Policemen, wearing [fake?] side arms and driving [fake?] unmarked cruisers in public, close to the Pentagon!

.... Because no one has ever portrayed a police officer in a film before? Come on, DS. That's weak, mate.

No...you've lost me there, and I was being sarcastic when I stated that, but I do sense those particular interviews are included in a part you never watched, which, let's face it, is the bulk of the video.

Let me ask you something: If I sat through all 90 minutes or so of the video, and still had nothing good to say about it, how would you feel then?

Feel about it? I posted a link to a video and mentioned early on that I don't know if there's a conspiracy there or not and asked you to counter what some interviewees had said. I wasn't going to judge you upon where you stood on things, I just wanted to hear your opinions. I am bewildered though, that you could be so vocal and sure about something when in reality, you hadn't watched it, seemed reluctant to watch it and when you did, ony watch part one of nine, and then later skipped over the rest. Now that Para...is weak!

As I said earlier in the thread, I think that yourself and Calius don't so much want discussion or possibly contrary views posted. Rather, I think that you just want people who agree with you to post. I may be wrong, but that sure is how it seems.

I can't speak for Calius, but I like to think I'm just putting stuff out there and I have mentioned a few times that I find things like this thought provoking. It is after all, a thread about conspiracies.

DS

[wombat50]

I was on the golf course yesterday and suddenly saw a pair of A-10s doing low altitude training.

I have over the years seen them do this many times.

They were both making long sweeping banks on their own. They definitely were not flying in a tight formation on a single bearing. One passed by me close enough that I could easily discern the canopy, engines and the racks under the wings. He was close but how close I thought.

1 mile or could it have been 1/8 mile? Was he at 2,500 ft or 500 ft? I couldn't answer either with any certainty. If asked to draw his flight path on a map I could not do that with any accuracy.

Of all the witnesses in the pentagon video I think to some degree they were like me. They observed a plane but how accurate was their assessment of its range, altitude and flight path? I would say from my experience, not very accurate.

[Dick Splash]

I've just come across this video, released last year. It's made entirely from mainstream news reports at the time of 9/11;

Between The Lies

DS

[Parabellum]

]No...you've lost me there, and I was being sarcastic when I stated that, but I do sense those particular interviews are included in a part you never watched, which, let's face it, is the bulk of the video.

No, I watched quite a bit of the videos, DS. I just wasn't convinced by them. I'm not convinced by things that look real, without having the proof that they actually are real. I also noticed that the interviewer led the 'eyewitnesses' quite often. "So, would you say that you saw the plane coming from the North, then?" he'd ask. And then the person would agree with him. Does that mean that that person's testimony is completely invalid? No, but it leaves me questioning the veracity of what's said, and the motives of the interviewer.

Feel about it? I posted a link to a video and mentioned early on that I don't know if there's a conspiracy there or not and asked you to counter what some interviewees had said. I wasn't going to judge you upon where you stood on things, I just wanted to hear your opinions. I am bewildered though, that you could be so vocal and sure about something when in reality, you hadn't watched it, seemed reluctant to watch it and when you did, ony watch part one of nine, and then later skipped over the rest. Now that Para...is weak!

You apparently misunderstood what I was saying, DS. If I had watched all 90 minutes, rather than skip around (I spent about an hour watching footage, total) would you then feel like I had a right to voice my opinions? You rather succinctly suggested that I shouldn't have posted anything at all.

I can't speak for Calius, but I like to think I'm just putting stuff out there and I have mentioned a few times that I find things like this thought provoking. It is after all, a thread about conspiracies.

You may find it thought-provoking, but that's not the first time that you've suggested that people not post a contrary view point. Is that not what you meant by saying that I shouldn't have posted at all? You seem to be under the impression that I didn't watch the videos. Not only did I watch a large portion of the videos (even after I said that I wouldn't) I took the time, on the first video at least, to comment on specific portions of the footage, and even provided approximate time stamps to reference my points. That should have been an indicator to you that I took careful note of what was said on the video. Would you like specific observations on other portions of the videos, or do you just want me to watch them all and agree with you? After all, you did say that we should accept what was said therein. That's not inviting discussion. That's asking for agreement.

[Dick Splash]

You apparently misunderstood what I was saying, DS. If I had watched all 90 minutes, rather than skip around (I spent about an hour watching footage, total) would you then feel like I had a right to voice my opinions? You rather succinctly suggested that I shouldn't have posted anything at all.

I didn't misunderstand Para. You said "For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion." You never mentioned anything then about skipping around the rest, so it was clear that you only watched the first part, and my not posting anything at all comment meant not to bother posting anything unless you've watched it...all of it.

...but that's not the first time that you've suggested that people not post a contrary view point. Is that not what you meant by saying that I shouldn't have posted at all?

I don't recall ever saying "don't bother commenting unless you agree with me". Once again, there's no point in commenting strongly on something that you've not seen or only seen part of.

You seem to be under the impression that I didn't watch the videos. Not only did I watch a large portion of the videos (even after I said that I wouldn't) I took the time, on the first video at least, to comment on specific portions of the footage, and even provided approximate time stamps to reference my points.

Large portion? You've still not watched it from beginning to end! Yes, you took the time to break down the first part and clearly hadn't watched the rest. You made no reference to it being 'part one', nor skipping through the other eight parts, but only wanting to comment on the first ten minutes.

Para, just drop this now. Fine, you've stated you've watched a large portion of it, you've commented in detail on the first ten minutes of it and I don't care what side of the fence you sit on with it. I asked for, and was looking forward to, your opinion. In future, especially in this thread, it would be better to only comment on a poster's link to a video or an article if you've actually watched or read all of it.

DS

[Parabellum]

And yet, ironically enough, DS, I gave my opinion, and you don't want it. Go figure.

[Dick Splash]

And yet, ironically enough, DS, I gave my opinion, and you don't want it. Go figure.

Ironic? Really? I assumed you'd watch all of it before commenting on it, but as you said, you didn't think it would be worth your time after watching "the whole ten minutes" that you did watch.

Like NQ, did you go to the same school of 'Having the last word'? Oh!...how ironic...I just did. Go figure!

DS

[Sart]

This is a funny thread.

[rahnman]

I've watched a few of the videos and read some of the comments. This is a very interesting discussion. I must say that I have seen nothing in the videos about the world trade center that made me believe that those buildings were taken down by some kind of demolitions charges. I have seen a documentary on how the towers were built and it all makes sense to me. From the videos it is pretty clear that the collapse happened at the top where the planes made contact and then each successive level collapsed into the next. Considering how the building was designed, this makes perfect sense.

However, the collapse of the third building (was it building 7?, or something like that?) was very interesting. It's collapse looked just like a professional demolition, with the center giving way first and then the rest of the building falling into itself. I found this to be very suspicious and unlikely, considering the damage would have occurred to one side of the building (not that I have any experience in the matter, lol).

I also found the debris site from the crashed plane in PA to be very strange. How is it that you see a crater where the plane crashed, but absolutely no trace of the plane itself? Phone book sized pieces? I have seen many crash sites on the news before, and there is always a PLANE in the crater. Here there was nothing. Did the plane crash and then blow up? Was there a bomb on board? What happened to the engines? Did they disintegrate too?

As far as the moon is concerned, I think it likely that NASA needed some good pictures to send to the "world" and had these produced. It is pretty obvious to me that the lem is in different locations w/in the same landscape. That doesn't necessarily mean that we didn't go to the moon, it just means that we didn't get any really good pictures.

[Parabellum]

And yet, ironically enough, DS, I gave my opinion, and you don't want it. Go figure.

Ironic? Really? I assumed you'd watch all of it before commenting on it, but as you said, you didn't think it would be worth your time after watching "the whole ten minutes" that you did watch.

Like NQ, did you go to the same school of 'Having the last word'? Oh!...how ironic...I just did. Go figure!

DS

*laughs* The last word thing was good, DS. I actually thought about that shortly after I posted. Cheers, mate.

[calius]

I'm not convinced by things that look real, without having the proof that they actually are real.

So did a "passenger jet" smash into the pentagon (it must have to fit the official lines)? And if so show where has it been certified as real, has anything of the evidence looked real as regards a "passenger jet" smashing into it? If they suddenly after all these years miraculously release clear pentagon footage from different cameras, will you then say "here guys look, proves its real" ... becuase that would be a sticky one going by your logic. Or is it that anything that sits perfectly to official sources is selectively the best proof and anything else is filed under must be proven? When in actual fact they have not proven their story either.

I dont want to think anything other than that day just happened exactly that way, but im afraid if you really look at it completely there are how you say "red flags" all over it and I for one cant simply stand behind and defend this official angle with so many mismatches, that do speak for themselves theorist or not.

Of all the witnesses in the pentagon video I think to some degree they were like me. They observed a plane but how accurate was their assessment of its range, altitude and flight path? I would say from my experience, not very accurate.

Say there were no eye witnesses, and we have the aftermath pics & footage and the security gate (you know the proof that has to fit the official lines) video, as a witness to this evidence can you or anyone certify without doubt/without question 100 percent reliable fact in a court of law that a "jet liner" smashed into that building?

I also found the debris site from the crashed plane in PA to be very strange. How is it that you see a crater where the plane crashed, but absolutely no trace of the plane itself? Phone book sized pieces? I have seen many crash sites on the news before, and there is always a PLANE in the crater. Here there was nothing. Did the plane crash and then blow up? Was there a bomb on board? What happened to the engines? Did they disintegrate too?

This is yet another surrounding one that still makes no real sense, just explained "away". But fret not, simply hire out "Flight 93" and all your of your questions are answered! God bless Hollywood.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we didn't go to the moon, it just means that we didn't get any really good pictures.

Hehe I laughed at this (not is a nasty way) I just thought that if nothing else NASA could have made some better holiday snaps the cheapskates!

One thing about the moon landing is the tech of that era, I mean its the 60's tech is pretty shoddy and yet we were on the moon driving around on buggy's ... it just seems so odd to me. Personally Im not going to say "we did not go to the moon" I will say ... I was told we did and I reserve the right to not take that as gospel given the era/tech what we were able to do up their and also the whole area about space radiation/sun and the type of suits we had at the time, could we actually make it? REALY?

The best we can do now is send satellites and rover buggies, most is the space station, yet the budgets we have had since the 60's and no one has ever returned, no probes or buggies on the moon since (yet we catapult out to the furthest planets) .. yet with some tin foil and flimsy suits a LM macarno set we managed to land run around, take piccies, drive buggy's, go back numerous times and defy the suns radiation with 40 year old tech . As regards the cost, when it comes down to it theirs always enough money to be used when it serves a historic purpose. Pentagon lost track of trillions a few years back, oops.

I cant point for point sit and prove every aspect, but I cant quite sit with it and say it was as it was, without scratching my head.

BTW I can take a joke and last night oddly enough Mitchell and Webb did a sketch about the moon landings, it was funny: