Did man land on the moon?

[PaulB]

Let's end all this pointless speculation here and now.

Has man been to the moon?

Yes.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

 

[Mr Phoebus]

I've never had any reason to doubt Mr. Spoon.

 

[domtyler]

I've never had any reason to doubt Mr. Spoon.

Wasn't he charged with kiddy fiddling back in the eighties?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

...and of course, it is that kind of belief faith that makes it possible.

And how exactly does this apply to the Apollo landings? There are things that are secrets, plots or indeed conspiracies that are worth discussing (that's how lots of politics works after all), and then there are really silly things thought up by people with too much time on their hands.

The Moon landings conspiracies are in the latter category and the 'inconsistencies' are generally just reflections of people's lack of knowledge of subjects like photography, vacuum and conditions on the moon's surface.

 

[Maz]

Why does anyone who does not tow the populist line get labelled a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Kovu]

You know, I don't think I care either way!

Same Yello!
Though I do think man did land on the moon.

 

[Maz]

Here's the footage of Buzz Aldrin (2nd man on the moon) punching a conspiracy idiot. I'm a non-violent kinda guy, but this seemed entirely justified...

Ouch! I think that fella saw more stars than Aldrin ever did.

 

[jonesy]

...and of course, it is that kind of belief faith that makes it possible.

Just think, just for a few seconds, how many people in how many different countries have to be involved in a conspiracy of that scale. All the published science has to be convincing. All the observations, visual and by radar, have to be convincing. All the samples have to be convincing. It is our friend Occama and his trusty razor: in the end the easiest way to produce convincing evidence of a rocket going to the moon and bringing back samples is, er, to send a rocket to the moon with a crew to get the samples...

 

[Mr Phoebus]

The Tracey brothers on Thunderbirds were all named after NASA astronauts.

Scott, Virgil, Alan, Gordon, John.

Brains was named after a faggot.

Erm, shuffles off...

 

[ComedyPilot]

I am not really sure that Lance actually achieved all those TdF wins either. I think we were all duped, the press and the TV were fed US generated film footage.

Lets look at the figures:

Armstrong 20 stage wins - 7 tours

Mercxxxkkkkssssssssssssssssss 34 stage wins - 5 tours

Armstong less than 3 stage wins per tour.
Merkkkxxxxxxxsssssssssssssss almost 7 stage wins per tour.

The figures don't stack up - a bit like dwarf human pyramids.

Merckxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxss also won the TDF on his debut!!!

Lance? no.

Merx also won the Green and KOM jersy on his debut.

Lance, starting to look sheepish yet?

Merksssccchhhggdffdonvenvqanv would have won the White young rider jersey that year too if it had been invented back then.

Lance, .......errr Lance, where's all this Texan bravado now?

Armstrong is not fit to lick the lube of Merckx's chain IMHO

Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson September 18, 1971) might have some skeleton in his closet he doesn't want to brag about??

I bet he had a day job delivering sandwiches (on a bike) to film crews in the desert who were faking the moon landings.


(oh dear, CP has been at the red wine again!!)

 

[Maz]

Armstrong (born Lance Edward Gunderson September 18, 1971) might have some skeleton in his closet he doesn't want to brag about??

Yep. His dad, Neil, never went to the moon.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Yep. His dad, Neil, never went to the moon.

Neil Gunderson?

Nope, never heard of him on any of the 'moon landings'

We've got something going here....what next?

JFK was not shot by Lee Harvey Oswald?

Hang on, JFK said America was going to put a man on the moon, and he was shot by NASA 'cos they knew it couldn't be done!!!

I'm ringing the police.....hic

 

[Maz]

Neil Gunderson?

Nope, never heard of him on any of the 'moon landings'

Exactly! Spooky, eh?

 

[Mr Phoebus]

I reckon they've dropped a right Clanger.

 

[buggi]

Just think, just for a few seconds, how many people in how many different countries have to be involved in a conspiracy of that scale. All the published science has to be convincing. All the observations, visual and by radar, have to be convincing. All the samples have to be convincing. It is our friend Occama and his trusty razor: in the end the easiest way to produce convincing evidence of a rocket going to the moon and bringing back samples is, er, to send a rocket to the moon with a crew to get the samples...

but if no one has ever been to the moon then you can't disprove it either.

it's like God. no one has ever seen him, yet you can't prove he exists... or disprove it.

science is a fluid concept. or something like that.