conspiracy the moon

[nara]

...apart from your fathers alleged involvement

Oh dear!

[racin-snake]

Oh dear!

oh dear indeed im glad you find it as unworthy of any type of proof or a mention too

[TheCoder]

read the full post apart from your fathers alleged involvement with jodrell bank you have only repeated nothing more than already stated in previous threads (#136 for example )

but glad you stated the unmanned part ....as its established the moon has had robotic landings which in fact throw positive and refuting proof that the reflectors folk so fervently cling to that were left there by the Apollo missions could have just as easily been put there by unmanned robotic craft ?
could it not also be the case


also if you could do it ..............without the family history it clouds the issue making it a tad too personal
your fathers alleged involvements add no credence and are not facts but conjecture no bearing on the facts whatsoever for me

just the facts please ...thanks

jodrell bank also tracked the Russian space craft too ...no big facts to glean here as its already been covered previously

so please feel free to go on ....thanks

I was actually trying to give both some background on my personal knowledge and some facts to establish a baseline starting point. My fathers involvemnet was provided merely for interest (and because i'm quite proud of the fact he was involved) and as an illustration of how unlikely it would of been for a total fake (ie no actual craft/landing). It seems you accept that a mission did actually occur so I guess we can now move forward

ok, i've now read this thread through a couple of times and I cant really see what you main points of contention are (apart from just not being convinced). It would be easier for us to start with a single point and then maybe debate that single point rather than constantly referring back through this overly long thread !

If we go through each point in turn then maybe we can thrash something out.

[racin-snake]

oh dear, are people really still debating this stuff ?

First rule of a good conspiracy theory - at least make it believable !

Rather than enthuse about piddling little inconsistancies (which can usually be explained anyway if you try) why not try looking at the whole package.

If it were a hoax, then the most important question is why NASA would attempt to perpertrate that same hoax 7 different times ?

Remember, there was more than one moon landing, there were 6 of them (plus Apollo 13, the one failure).

One hoax, maybe marginally believable, Six of them, not a chance !

but then were just back to what you say here
having a go at the piddling inconsistencies as you describe them

and i thought you were gonna give us all the irrefutable and ultimate truth ?

I was actually trying to give both some background on my personal knowledge and some facts to establish a baseline starting point. My fathers involvemnet was provided merely for interest (and because i'm quite proud of the fact he was involved) and as an illustration of how unlikely it would of been for a total fake (ie no actual craft/landing). It seems you accept that a mission did actually occur so I guess we can now move forward

ok, i've now read this thread through a couple of times and I cant really see what you main points of contention are (apart from just not being convinced). It would be easier for us to start with a single point and then maybe debate that single point rather than constantly referring back through this overly long thread !

If we go through each point in turn then maybe we can thrash something out.

what personal knowledge ?
were you there at the time of the space flights if not then "personal" is a really misguiding statement .
second hand or third hand knowledge maybe
first hand
i don't think so pall

what proof have you given so far that hasn't already been established as of yet in the other posts in the thread ?

a= an "unmanned" space flight or two were shown to have went to the moon because telemetry etc. shows this as did the Russians (which crash landed allegedly)

this has been covered no new information from you here !

b= jodrell bank among other observatories followed a craft to the moon and and your father worked in jodrell bank (moot point )

already been covered here "robotic unmanned" craft have been to the moon ...no contention here for me there

a far cry from the inconclusive proof of manned landings and moon walks i think

as its all been said here before bar your fathers involvement in jodrell bank

but this is not proof of a manned flight to anywhere outside low earth orbit !

so you haven't not even hit on one piddling inconsistency as of yet that's not already firmly established

yet still to prove that manned flight occurred to anywhere near the moon

i hope i haven't given you too much of a task ?
you can just admit defeat now if you like
it shouldn't be too embarrassing ...

if not then please go on !

you pick the subject and provide the proof .piddling inconsistencies should be quite easy to refute shouldn't it ?

..and if you don't mind no more relatives curriculum vitae's please as its not relevant (unless you know more than you are showing here)

[TheCoder]

but then were just back to what you say here having a go at the piddling inconsistencies as you describe them

and i thought you were gonna give us all the irrefutable and ultimate truth ?

Without knowing what your hangups are its not really possible to debate them is it ?

As with most of these conspiracy theories, you take some minor points and then weave a whole tangled web around them which is actually far more unbelievable than the actual event.

For people who get ensnared in these theories there really can never be any irrefutable proof because you'll always manage to find something to hang onto to justify the theory no matter how tenuous or unlikely that item is. You constantly ask for 'proof' of things which nobody could ever prove to your satisfaction whilst presenting not one iota of proof to justify your own claims

I offered to debate your individual points with you but you seem unwilling to do even this preferring instead to simply sidetrack the topic.

If you want to debate things then fine, I'll debate them with you. If you just want a forum to spout wacky theories then fine again, I'll drop out and leave you to it !

[racin-snake]

Without knowing what your hangups are its not really possible to debate them is it ?

As with most of these conspiracy theories, you take some minor points and then weave a whole tangled web around them which is actually far more unbelievable than the actual event.

For people who get ensnared in these theories there really can never be any irrefutable proof because you'll always manage to find something to hang onto to justify the theory no matter how tenuous or unlikely that item is. You constantly ask for 'proof' of things which nobody could ever prove to your satisfaction whilst presenting not one iota of proof to justify your own claims

I offered to debate your individual points with you but you seem unwilling to do even this preferring instead to simply sidetrack the topic.

If you want to debate things then fine, I'll debate them with you. If you just want a forum to spout wacky theories then fine again, I'll drop out and leave you to it !

i do not have any "hangups " i do have a legitimate and real fervour for the truth if that's what you mean ?

if you can prove the moon landings irrefutably and conclusively then i will go with that if it is in fact the truth but im afraid as long as there's evidence against this then i wont believe anything



ok then if you cant dismiss the theorists don't call them wacky ( now that's side tracking ) if these theories are just as legitimate as your theories then both must be wacky then ?

just cop out mate no crime just admit you cant provide anything more than what's already been challenged and cop out !

just goes to show when challenged you've got just as much evidence for manned moon landings than
the claims you call wacky ....then don't it ?

just admit defeat mate its "man up time"

either prove it or you just cant ..im not gonna be interested if you cant
there's a long line of cants on this particular subject in the "for" theories

the only proof you have is pictures and a couple of guys who actually lied whilst in a capsule proven by telematics you claim so fervently prove something
refuted the distance claimed at the time and date on the clapper board for the film so in fact the evidence is again against the claims of the altitude the manned craft was in at the time and the astronaut's evidence when he stated the distance
also the window shot of the earth
check the video i posted
irrefutable evidence of lies and camera trickery to do what ?
yea you guessed ...then you want me and the rest of the planet to swallow the rest

i think you need proof and solid conclusive proof
till then its as much of a bullshit story as you claim the evidence in the "against " case provides !
aint it ?

but i would say if you cant refute anything then don't post the opposite

no sidetrack on my behalf

but a huge back down on yours though
so before calling people wacky and saying "piddling inconsistencies"

when your evidence is not even as viable you go label people as conspiracy theorists whackos ect

seems to me your just name calling to cause malcontent and embellishing the bullshit with more bullshit

so as for debate .....

remember you might have to back up your claims if you cant you should not bother making a gesture of being able to do so

back to the "oh dear then " just find proof



if you just want one side of a thing why do you say debate and even then : why challenge someone's view and claim to be able to settle "piddly little inconsistencies" ?

then rock on to your back foot and run from a debate ?

because you cannot refute my claims conclusively and to any degree of real satisfaction ..thats why !


so you might as well "cop out" mate you've obviously got nowt to refute my claims at all LOL

BYE MATE .......

the only person that's "ensnared by these theories" is yourself ...if the evidence is irrefutable i will have no inconsistencies to hang on to will i ?

[TheCoder]

The problem is that, by your criteria of 'absolute' proof, there's actually nothing that can be conclusively proved one way or the other. Even the very idea we exist cant actually be proved to to any degree of absolute certainty.

Your asking for absolue proof that an event occured but I could easily turn that around and ask you to provide absolute proof it didn't. The result is an impasse because neither option could be proved conclusively.

So, as we cant prove absolutes were left with the more normal option of looking at the evidence and forming a balance of probability. I think this is where you've fallen into the classic logic trap in that instead of looking at all the evidence and forming a decision based on probability you've simply decided that as something cant be conclusively proved then the opposite must be true even though there's no real evidence to point to that 'opposite' being true.

Try applying the same rules to both sides of the argument !

[racin-snake]

The problem is that, by your criteria of 'absolute' proof, there's actually nothing that can be conclusively proved one way or the other. Even the very idea we exist cant actually be proved to to any degree of absolute certainty.

Your asking for absolue proof that an event occured but I could easily turn that around and ask you to provide absolute proof it didn't. The result is an impasse because neither option could be proved conclusively.

So, as we cant prove absolutes were left with the more normal option of looking at the evidence and forming a balance of probability. I think this is where you've fallen into the classic logic trap in that instead of looking at all the evidence and forming a decision based on probability you've simply decided that as something cant be conclusively proved then the opposite must be true even though there's no real evidence to point to that 'opposite' being true.

Try applying the same rules to both sides of the argument !

i see your now turning 180 degrees from your "piddling inconsistencies"
statement now

seems to me your debate has fallen flat on its face and now you now want to to backtrack

a full retreat rather than a "no i cannot prove the moon landings conclusively"
i will now go and look at both sides of the debate and maybe have a leg to stand on

there is no logic trap that's a total cop out and you know it !
the only person trapped is yourself into making claims you cannot fulfil
don't backtrack don't agree to disagree now
your claims were a sham a waste of effort on your behalf

you know it' i know it ' so man up and just look at the both sides too
seems only fair now that your options for a truce are being so considerate
due to the facts you claim being contested and asked to be shown

piddling inconsistency indeed my friend

don't blame me for you ending up attempting a face saving exercise
go seek a decent and logical answer yourself instead of following the herd in believing some of the propaganda

but above all i have as much right to my say and not to be called a cook or a nutter
as you are too if what your post implies
please go away with a different outlook as to what your names and suggestions for having an alternative view implies
yet claim the right to wield these derogatory names as and when challenged ...now that's unfair and totally wrong
a bit one sided yet you want to claim equality when your so called facts are challenged ?

maybe you will come back a tad humbler than your once too quick to judge self is now

please don't take this the wrong way
but when using words like wacko...you are in fact referring to everyone that has an alternative view

just remember
words are very easy proof is a bit harder
either way at least i have brought you to the conclusion
that both theories are viable
but only one is correct

im not a conspiracy theorist or a truther or any other words that you attempt to use as to discriminate or make me look less credible than yourself (that just wont work on me )

as you have witnessed im just as clever and literate and level thinking as you

please have a bit of respect for those who think different
as we cannot all agree yet some people get very annoyed when rudely accused and being pigeon holed into a category that is derogatory to their actual knowledge and skills at looking and researching these kinds of subjects

remember this when debating .
.especially when the irrefutable truth is not on your side !

here's one for you

when the impossible has been eliminated all that's left even if totally improbable ...................it must be the truth !
this works both ways on this debate and many others
so never state you know the facts till you know the facts irrefutably............ until then its not proven
yet others so quick to call and label others as cooks an nutters

i am in the same position when you joined this debate ...are you ?
if you are then something must be wrong

i ask you to prove something i don't believe ..you cant !

so im steadfastly in the same position
you my friend are completely lost with a belief in something that may be true ..but you will believe it anyway ?
whose right there then ?

just like everything else till you "see the fat lady sing" it aint over ............i still await proof

if it comes then il swap if it don't il stay the same looking for proof
not blind compliance and accepting evidence so shaky its not logical to believe

give me facts not conjecture ..ime not into the whole "leap of faith" thing

or believe it cos "the media told me" shit

"even the proof we actually exist is not prove conclusively"
so whose the whacko now then ?

backed yourself into a box and talk about logic ....mmmmmmm

go back and have a look at what's out there and then debate based on some sort of studied and logical train of thought mate
your obviously out of your depth as your claims are getting a bit strange for one who claims that inconsistencies are easily refuted and debunked
wrong again ...

go back a few posts to previous statements you made then

you will see your about turn in real time my friend ..no ifs or buts just a train of thought you thought would be unchallenged ...

so very far from the way you started out i hope

[TheCoder]

i see your now turning 180 degrees from your "piddling inconsistencies"
statement now

Hardly, there's nothing that cant be explained if you bother to look for the solution but, as I said, your looking for absolute proof and then discovering that this is fundamentally impossible your deciding to fully accept the alternative without any proof whatsoever. Thats hardly a very logical thing to do !

I offered to debate points with you but rather than debate something which you know cant actually stand up to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable.

don't blame me for you ending up attempting a face saving exercise go seek a decent and logical answer yourself instead of following the herd in believing some of the propaganda

I dont need to save face. I researched the subject many years ago when the 'conspiracy' was first aired, to the point where no logical mind could draw any conclusion other than saying manned landings on the moon did occur.

Of course, by your standards that proves nothing. If I had been on the moon personally to greet the astronauts it would still prove nothing to you. You simply cannot prove absolutely that any event did or did not occur. As i've said repeatedly, you need to form an opinion based on the evidence. In order to look at the evidence you need to examine it point by point - something which you seem unwilling to do !

im not a conspiracy theorist or a truther or any other words that you attempt to use as to discriminate or make me look less credible than yourself (that just wont work on me )

I suspect I really dont need to discredit you as you seem to of done that quite credibly all by yourself by refusing to even start a logical debate on the subject.

when the impossible has been eliminated all that's left even if totally improbable ...................it must be the truth !

An interesting argument but not really relevant except to perhaps illustrate my point that nothing is conclusively proveble and everything must work on a balance of probability.

Perhaps if you actually tried to apply this argument to this theory then your opinion would change but that would also require the removal of your insistance of absolute proof, which by definition, cannot actually exist

You also need to examine the way this theory relies on an alternive (and obviously very incorrect) principle - "If you cannot prove something conclusively then the reverse MUST be true".

i ask you to prove something i don't believe ..you cant !

Because your concept of absolute proof is flawed. Nothing can be proved conclusively under the conditions that you have imposed.

you my friend are completely lost with a belief in something that may be true ..but you will believe it anyway ?
whose right there then ?

By your definitions and conditions then ultimately you are correct. Absolutely nothing can be either proved or disproved BUT thats not the way the real world functions is it ?

We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible (back to your quote )

What you can do relatively easily in this case is take the points raised in the conspiracy and look at each one individually. Its not difficult to explain them to the point where they become insignificant in forming an overall opinion.

just like everything else till you "see the fat lady sing" it aint over ............i still await proof

It appears the only chance of this ever occuring would be for you to actually do the investigation yourself. Your obviously not going to accept the 'opinions' of others who have previously looked into the matter.

if it comes then il swap if it don't il stay the same looking for proof
not blind compliance and accepting evidence so shaky its not logical to believe

Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !

[racin-snake]

Hardly, there's nothing that cant be explained if you bother to look for the solution but, as I said, your looking for absolute proof and then discovering that this is fundamentally impossible your deciding to fully accept the alternative without any proof whatsoever. Thats hardly a very logical thing to do !

I offered to debate points with you but rather than debate something which you know cant actually stand up to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable.



I dont need to save face. I researched the subject many years ago when the 'conspiracy' was first aired, to the point where no logical mind could draw any conclusion other than saying manned landings on the moon did occur.

Of course, by your standards that proves nothing. If I had been on the moon personally to greet the astronauts it would still prove nothing to you. You simply cannot prove absolutely that any event did or did not occur. As i've said repeatedly, you need to form an opinion based on the evidence. In order to look at the evidence you need to examine it point by point - something which you seem unwilling to do !



I suspect I really dont need to discredit you as you seem to of done that quite credibly all by yourself by refusing to even start a logical debate on the subject.



An interesting argument but not really relevant except to perhaps illustrate my point that nothing is conclusively proveble and everything must work on a balance of probability.

Perhaps if you actually tried to apply this argument to this theory then your opinion would change but that would also require the removal of your insistance of absolute proof, which by definition, cannot actually exist

You also need to examine the way this theory relies on an alternive (and obviously very incorrect) principle - "If you cannot prove something conclusively then the reverse MUST be true".



Because your concept of absolute proof is flawed. Nothing can be proved conclusively under the conditions that you have imposed.



By your definitions and conditions then ultimately you are correct. Absolutely nothing can be either proved or disproved BUT thats not the way the real world functions is it ?

We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible (back to your quote )

What you can do relatively easily in this case is take the points raised in the conspiracy and look at each one individually. Its not difficult to explain them to the point where they become insignificant in forming an overall opinion.



It appears the only chance of this ever occuring would be for you to actually do the investigation yourself. Your obviously not going to accept the 'opinions' of others who have previously looked into the matter.



Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !

ime saving this post as an example of a humongous oxymoron statement mate "credibly discredit"
you are absolutely in the depth of it now

please read your post again as its really bizarre and full of nonsense
what you are in fact asking me to do is believe something without proof in reality
have you lost the plot ?

this is your best post yet ...please now take the face saving exercise out and use it
as this kind of logic is just straw clutching

"We gather evidence and we form an opinion based on that evidence and the probabilites concerned. You can never get to 100% probability because, to do that, you would have to discount every other possible explanation however implausible"

that's called evidence proof reliable repeatable and above all if it actually happened there should be substantial irrefutable proof right ?

there is no irrefutable proof of manned landings none nyada zilch
just some pictures and a few guys saying yes we did ...........not proof but conjecture nothing more


you earlier say in as quoted it cannot be proven either way correct ?

now you say ..believe the evidence you put forward as a version of truth

im afraid pall your really making a complete fool of yourself and looking at this twaddle makes me surprised
i thought you meant and condoned sensible debate and not gibberish bordering on unstable

"i researched this subject years ago"

what conclusion though believe the facts you cannot admittedly prove
then say "are they still debating this subject " in a condescending manner
another one of your piddling inaccuracies ..as you were allowed to make an ill informed conclusion
are we to accept the coders version cos he's right ?

go away mate you've said enough drivel and please don't debate on promises of facts when all your proof is allegorical and based on shaky unsubstantiated bullshit

point i make is if they had been and landed on the moon it wouldn't be this easy to make the evidence look null if this was the case ?

so nasa's refusal to oppose the author of the video i posted is that to be taken as one of your probabilities and say no comment means acceptance they didn't have evidence to refute the authors claims ?

and your argument of piddling inconsistency's is a sham a pure and utter here-say effort based on hope it wouldn't be challenged (and it has been challenged and its got you on your back foot coming out with all kinds of nonsense to confirm your shaky point)
the very good point in your post i wont bother multi quoting as its time consuming and its now here for all to see your nonsense in full

but if it cannot be proven either way
then im to accept the default OK we did that ?
your off your head mate
as for making anything look condescending my friend you are doing a fantastic job with your efforts
unfortunately at your own demise

please read your answers to the multi quotes again its funny as ~~~~ mate

your defence is futility at its finest and seems you are so far out your depth you might not be able to tread whatever your up to your neck in any longer

"Blind acceptance and compliance is when you accept something without looking at the available proof. From what I can see the only one who is accepting anything blindly is yourself. Perhaps you should really look at the theory before blindly trying to defend it !"
"to debate you just run round in circles getting nowhere very fast. That tends to be the way people play it when attemting to defend the undefendable ."

here's your nonsense right back at ya

[TheCoder]

that's called evidence proof reliable repeatable and above all if it actually happened there should be substantial irrefutable proof right ?

...and what exactly do you call irrefutable proof ?

You apparently refuse to accept anything that you haven't personally witnessed and I have doubts you would believe it even then. It doesn't really matter what I or anyone else says, you'll stick to your own theory no matter how improbable that theory actually is.

there is no irrefutable proof of manned landings none nyada zilch
just some pictures and a few guys saying yes we did ...........not proof but conjecture nothing more

The evidence certainly amounts to a lot more than that but, as you weren't actually there to personally verify it all I guess you just dismiss it as irrelevant. That kind of logic is impossible to debate with !

Which sort of brings us back to a question I previously asked you. Why, would it be faked and why repeatedly ?

You never even attempted to answer that question (in fact I dont think you've actually answered anything i've asked)

you earlier say in as quoted it cannot be proven either way correct ?

Not to your standards, no, because you wont accept a normal level of evidence

now you say ..believe the evidence you put forward as a version of truth

No, I didn't expect you to believe blindly. I expected you to debate the points coherantly rather than ranting on. I guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities !

im afraid pall your really making a complete fool of yourself and looking at this twaddle makes me surprised
i thought you meant and condoned sensible debate and not gibberish bordering on unstable

lmao, i've given you every opertunity to debate in a logical manner. At no point have you even attempted to debate anything preferring instead to move the thread to some form of personal contest

Its obviously pointless, you really dont know how to debate a topic !

[racin-snake]

...and what exactly do you call irrefutable proof ?

You apparently refuse to accept anything that you haven't personally witnessed and I have doubts you would believe it even then. It doesn't really matter what I or anyone else says, you'll stick to your own theory no matter how improbable that theory actually is.



The evidence certainly amounts to a lot more than that but, as you weren't actually there to personally verify it all I guess you just dismiss it as irrelevant. That kind of logic is impossible to debate with !

Which sort of brings us back to a question I previously asked you. Why, would it be faked and why repeatedly ?

You never even attempted to answer that question (in fact I dont think you've actually answered anything i've asked)



Not to your standards, no, because you wont accept a normal level of evidence

I

No, I didn't expect you to believe blindly. I expected you to debate the points coherantly rather than ranting on. I guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities !



lmao, i've given you every opertunity to debate in a logical manner. At no point have you even attempted to debate anything preferring instead to move the thread to some form of personal contest

Its obviously pointless, you really dont know how to debate a topic !

is that it really is that it ime to debate with someone who says that the cannot show evidence to refute implicitly any of the questions i have asked after previously saying piddling inaccuracies


yea right mate
please keep treading the stuff your in
and in the question of my capabilities
what in fact does that imply ?
is it because i ask you to keep to the fact you said you'd refute all the inaccuracies
and cannot do so ?


yea your a class act mate a real mind of knowledge

normal aspects of evidence are you for real ?
love to see that used in a court mate ..be fun
facts are facts not grey areas prove the facts irrefutably then come back
as for your "not to your standards"

proof is proof not a standard a factual bit of evidence to refute claims which in fact .........you have said you cannot after claiming to be able to do so

so why you still here ?
cos you lost face and cant claw back your credence as the clever forum guy to debunk the dreaded conspiracy theorists

please do yourself a favour and do one before what credibility you may have had goes out with the stuff you lost here

its called a tactical retreat ..or in your case a "cop out"

debate ? i think your use of the word debate is to attempt to convince me blindly of something you cannot prove ..

i can debate but when questions cannot be answered end of the debate no more to say
if the answers you give are theoretical and based on hypothesised numerology to convince me ...then its the end of the debate
i don't debate with bullshitters ..as lies hold no information in a far as facts are concerned

your logic dictates ..believe me im right (even though your not 100% you are right admittedly by yourself)

that's not a debate its a con artist trick smoke and mirrors to discredit not disprove or refute anything that's evidential with untruths and half truths or hear say etc


i think your earlier research is flawed and you should go back and have another look you obviously made some critical thinking errors
as its not logical to attempt to prove something you cannot in fact prove then state that you have the answers
something tells me that theory is not right in any way shape or form

then ask "are they really still debating this ?" as you are now ....! do you believe that ?

its actually quite unstable if you believe uncertain facts are facts
a slight corruption of reality in your case im afraid

"guess I shouldn't of had such high expectations of your abilities" !

that's a funny one coming from someone quoted as saying that "we cannot prove with any certainty we actually exist"


but any thing you want to add feel free
its becoming funny now

and i like seeing you paddle in your own shit

evidence is evidence whether yours or mine its what when dissected the evidence has in credibility and actual provable worth based solely on fact !


that's my view on what is evidence
what's yours

i think if yours is any different id be asking yourself why ?

@and i did answer your question of "why repeatedly" using a quote of Adolf Hitler,s if you look back a few posts
seems like your research is still full of holes and crumbling FAST !

are you always this thorough ? as im still waiting for the answer to the statement you made about the "piddling little inconsistencies"
for a full wide open end of debate evidential conclusion to quash the conspiracy theories once and for all

think i have a long wait on me hands ...might be when hades freezes over "eh"

[Soulfu]

i think it was real because didnt he go up and came back down
?

[Snowy79]

Even if the truth did come out there would still be valid arguments for and against it. Imagine all the crap photos and video evidence produced if NASA put there hands up and said " Sorry but we were concentrating too much on the finer details that we forgot to put the batteries in the camera etc. So to save face we knocked up the evidence." How could we prove otherwise?

[racin-snake]

"what if" ...a very large statement for such a small phrase

back to conjecture again .....