The First Men On The Moon

[ZachWeiner]

This was the first HG Wells novel I didn't enjoy. I'm okay with slow pacing if there's a payoff in good characters or ideas, but this was just dull.

2/5 lightbulbs

[mountainmage]

I recently found out that Wells was secretly a British agent of discord or something.

[AHMETxRock]

A google search of the term "agent of discord" prominently displays obama doing his heil hitler poise.

[mountainmage]

And if you search miserable failure you get George Bush. Meaningless googlebombs.

[Edminster]

A google search of the term "agent of discord" prominently displays obama doing his heil hitler poise.

Since when is holding your arm out to the side at shoulder level a Nazi salute?

[mountainmage]

I didn't bother to search myself, but you're right Ed. That is not a Sieg Heil at all. That's called a wave.

[LordRetard]

*Sieg Heil

The proper heil is not out to your side, but rather straight forward, with a look of anti-semitic rage and aryan superiority in your eyes.

[AHMETxRock]

Excuse me for not being an expert on Nazi's. I apologize. I'll hit those books tomorrow, I swear.

Anyways, I believe at least PARTS of the lunar landing was faked. There is not enough evidence to compell me that the entire thing was faked, seeing as how you would notice if there was no real launch and landing a large spacecraft without people realizing it is difficult.

However, there is no way that you can convince me that there was nothing at all faked about it. Conspiracy theories and government corruption are two different things.

[Edminster]

What specifically do you think was faked?

[AHMETxRock]

Parts of it. The flag waving to be symbolic. Certain excusions that were recorded. I'm open to it being completely faked, but I'm also open to the fact they tricked us, but actually did get on that moon the first time. They could have found the area to be difficult to traverse, and faked traveling as much as they did. There are far too many inconsistencies, but there is not enough fact to get me to swing to one side or the other. You could call me stupid for believing it was fake or gullible for believing it real, but I personally think I'm being rational by not picking the one I prefer to be true.

[smiley_cow]

When man went to the moon they set up reflectors which are now used to bounce light off to measure distance and the such.

Check it out, I have a source and everything!

Anyways, that's my big argument for the moon landing being real, if it weren't, way too many people would have to be in on it.

[mountainmage]

I believe it's 100% real. Going against the popular opinion doesn't mean you're rational. It just means you believe differently than the majority.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

When man went to the moon they set up reflectors which are now used to bounce light off to measure distance and the such.

Check it out, I have a source and everything!

Anyways, that's my big argument for the moon landing being real, if it weren't, way too many people would have to be in on it.

Amen, Sister.

It's nice when a historic event can be confirmed by direct observation at a later date.
If only they'd set up a reflector at Auschwitz, we could have avoided a lot of unpleasantness.

[smiley_cow]

[Sahan]

It's obvious we can send spacecraft to the moon, land them on the surface and then send them back to Earth. There's no reason to suggest that's impossible. I'd like to think the moon landing happened, but what irks me is that the conspiracy theorists raise a lot of questions, such as multiple shadows in photographs and an apparent coinciding burst of radiation from the sun, that I haven't heard answered by NASA. I don't think I can personally rule out the possibility that perhaps the actual landing footage may have been faked with what I know so far, alongside an actual launch of a un-manned rocket. It would be quite an easy task to do, as no-one can see who's inside those spacesuits.

To take an extremly sceptical viewpoint about the lunar reflectors, reading into the article it seems as though they are effective as a particularly shiny rock in reflecting light at such a distance, such a small intensity of reflected light is hard to consider unusual enough to confirm they come off man-made reflectors rather than just off the moon's surface. If the moon landing was faked, it would require an incredible amount of effort to stage such such a con and hoodwink the entire world, but we're comparing it to the effort required to fix a struggling space program in a space race it was losing, and produce the first manned-trip to moon in the space after only a few years to barely keep a President's promise.

I'd just like to be given some concrete evidence so I can put this rest, but until, I think scepticism is a perfectly acceptable way to go.