DavidRB

Possibly because as a degree educated (Bachelor of Science degree in aeronautical engineering from Purdue University; Master of Science degree in aerospace engineering from University of Southern California.) ex-Navy figher pilot and test pilot who's flown hundreds of types of aircraft (planes, gliders, helicopters) not to mention more than one class of spaceship, he can't believe the sheer stupidity of the question?

I prefer to believe that Armstrong is a quiet man who found the ticker-tape adulation hard to cope with and who would rather keep out of the limelight, rather than the lynchpin in a hoax involving tens of thousands of people over a 15 year period that fooled the entire planet and which would ultimately have cost more than just going ahead and sending people to the moon in the first place!

andrew6321

David,

Quite possibly. Believe it or not I'm open minded.... I still think that there's a lot of odd stuff related to these events that we will never get to the bottom of though.

cheers
a

Maxwell Straker

I have met Jim Lovell. He spoke at a conference I went to in Chicago on disaster recovery and business continuity.

He may have some experience of these things I think.

From his accounts the film is quite accurate other than one or two 'made for TV' scenes and this is backed up by the book on which the film is based. Having listened to him I could not believe that he didn't do all the acts described or go through that situation. It would be difficult to describe emotions experienced when you are stranded 250,000 miles from Earth in a vacuum unless you had 'been there, done that'.

I do remain sceptical over the moon landings though. It strikes me that Armstrong was successful even though no unmanned expiditions had taken place beforehand. It seems foolhardy to send a man to the moon without guarantees to be able to get him back having never tried it before.

Funny as well that all the people that went ot the moon were of good military stock and able to obey orders as it were.

heckler

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the evidence bought back from the moon. The moon rocks themselves which are the most studied rocks on the planets. They have been examined by hundreds of scientists who have never raised any doubts of their authenticity.

Tell the radio dish operators from all around the globe that the signals that they received from the moon were not real.

Oh and why carry out the same hoax 7 times, seems a bit like overkill to me.

Squizz

Would I be right in saying Mr.Lovell is a firm believer in the existence of extra-terrestrial life?

I seem to remember that from an interview somewhere.

Whether he was just speculating on the statistical odds of life elsewhere though, I don't know. However odds like that are flawed.

Didn't Douglas Adams write in the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy something to the effect of "Space is infinite, and we are finite - Thereby comparing something finite to infinite effectively disproves our existence?!"

How's them apples!

Time to wind up the probability drive on the scoob, and place a (waving) Scoobynet flag in the Sea Of Tranquility.

Oh, and a keebab.

carl

Harrison 'Jack' Schmitt went to the moon (Apollo 17) and was not of 'good military stock'. He was a geologist.

Also Douglas Adams's maths was flawed -- if the number of planets is infinite (which it isn't) and half of them (say) are populated then that number isn't finite -- it's infinity. There are many infinities -- for example ln(0) is minus infinity.

[Edited by carl - 3/13/2002 3:43:18 PM]

DavidRB

andrew6321, I agree with you there. I think there are far greater cover-ups with regard to the satellites that are now in orbit.


I think you've answered your own question. Although NASA had planned for every possible eventuality, they knew that the astronauts were bound to encounter the unknown, therefore it made sense to put people onboard Apollo because they would be far more likely to cope with anythin unexpected. They lacked the computer power to achieve fully-automated landings. Harsh though it is, sending military personnel to their deaths is a much easier pill to swallow than doing the same to civilians.

The USSR would have been intercepting and watching the transmissions coming from the lunar surface. They would have also had the technology to know if they were being faked.

Sorry if this is a personal soap-box.

andrew6321

David,

There's meant to be all kinds of stuff orbiting overhead. Not all of it from planet Earth, either....

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

a

P1Fanatic

And how on earth can u tell this from a stills photo ROFLMAO. Surely u can wire a flag to make it look like its flapping or even blow a fan towards it. A flag would be pretty pointless if left doing nothing.

andrew6321

P1
The stills are taken from video footage I believe....

Are you serious about using a fan to blow it with?....on the moon?.....in zero atmosphere....?

TonyG

The Russians were very close to getting a man on the moon as well - all they really lacked was a lander. There was one in development, but the control panel looked like a plumbers nightmare - all manual valves for controlling the engines, but they still had men willing to use it.
They'd sent unmanned versions of a Soyuz capsule round the Moon and back (Zond I think they were called).

stevie c

I have read a couple of books,seen a couple of documentaries,etc.

Trying to be as unbiased as possible,I think that they didnt get to the moon,I feel the evidence for that is stronger than the evidence that they were there.

Steve

rayman

http://www.thule.org/alt3.html

came across the above link when surfing. Interesting ? what do you think?

DavidRB

Now that I am happy to believe!!

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All I can do is ask everyone to read and re-read my original link.