poohbcarrot wrote:When Buzz Aldrin, the second man to "walk on the moon", came back to earth he suffered depression and became an alcoholic. You'd almost think he was trying to hide something, wouldn't you?
poohbcarrot wrote:Politically the moon landing was very "convenient." (I won't mention any scientific bits like the Van Allen radiation belts,
no lights on the moon etc).
Was the president at the time trustworthy?
In 1969 there were riots against the Vietnam war in the US. Students were being killed at Kent State University for protesting. The US was on the verge of revolution. Suddenly BANG! We've walked on the moon! We're the best - protests cease.
It also fitted in with Kennedy's speech when he said by the end of the decade Americans will walk on the moon and screwed the Russians (who had always been ahead of the US in the Space Race until then)
The space shuttle never goes more than 400 miles (approx) above the earth's surface. If Apollo 13 was only that far above the Earth's surface, it could have experienced trouble and would have been believable.
Alledged "moonrock" could be from meteors that hit the earth or normal rock exposed to radiation.
But I'm talking nonsense because our leaders never lie. There were loads of WMDs in Iraq, we could all have been vapourised within 45 minutes if we hadn't invaded and The General Belgrano WAS in the Exclusion Zone when it was sunk.
I voted 80% belief in the moon landing. The 20% doubt was based on the fact that it was too "politically convenient". Feel free to debunk any of the following;
In 1962 J F Kennedy promised by the end of the decade the US would have a man on the moon. In 1969 Kennedy was (and still is) regarded as one of the greatest US Presidents. Any President in 1969 who hadn't fulfilled Kennedy's promise would have committed political suicide.
The President at the time of the moon landing was Richard Nixon, a liar and a crook.
During the 60s, Russia was always ahead in the space race until the moon landing.
In the 60s the hippy culture, born out of anti-war protest, was a direct threat to the US establishment. Coupled with the fact that the US was losing in an unpopular war in Vietnam, the US establishment needed something big to restore its popularity and boost the morale of the country.
In the 60s it took only 7 years to put a man on the moon. Bush said recently it would take 20 years to "revisit" the moon. Why the big time difference?
You voted 0% in the Neocons being responsible for 9/11. If I put up 10 points about 9/11, will you (as a scientist) debunk them and/or explain them for me?
Dotsie wrote:poohbcarrot wrote:no lights on the moon etc).
Apart from the Sun, of course.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], wicked woman and 7 guests