Second, the astronauts WERE WHINING about it. Or didnt the numerous comments about how much their fingers hurt using the gloves gave you a clue? Further, your whole comment on the matter has no scientific support; your tossing shots of patriotic pablum into the air.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
It is odd though..
No man before or since Apollo has left Earths orbit..

Considering how quickly they managed it you'd think they would have continued..

It's not that odd really. With NASA's shrinking budget, the Apollo program was discontinued due to its high costs.

Let me then ask this question, do you know if Apollo 18, 19 or 20 was already paid for by the tax payers?

edit on 5-9-2011 by FoosM because: edit text

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

---

How am I busted?
To be clear, what exactly are you busting me on?

You were implying that Armstrong was describing his boot prints while he was still on the ladder, weren't you? In any event, since you can't see his face, how would you know he wasn't looking down?

No.
Please keep up with the conversation before making accusations.

Originally posted by FoosM
Notice, he was still holding on to the ladder, and offering a description of the surface without skipping a beat. Did you see him bend down to check his feet?

By the way, Neil could have just given the public a clue to what was actually used for the ground in staging the landing. Powdered Charcoal. Where did Neil get this descriptor from? Was he an artist? Did he brush his teeth with it?

The video is fake. How could a metal object flutter? If that was the case, then the hammer should flutter as well. So no, the sequence does not have to take place in a vacuum. Although, there were vacuum chambers large enough to film that particular scene.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Do you get paid a bonus every time you use the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin?" Seriously, you keep bringing it up as though it were somehow relevant, even though its not.

Were you on the moon missions? What is it you are choosing to believe? It makes little sense to mock someone for believing what they have been told when your argument is only that you believe what you have been told.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Do you get paid a bonus every time you use the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin?" Seriously, you keep bringing it up as though it were somehow relevant, even though its not.

Its relevant to when the lie happened.
And who lied and the consequence of that lie.

Originally a nickname used to refer to former U.S. President Richard Nixon. It was actually coined by Democratic politician Helen Gahagan Douglas during the 1950 U.S. Senate race in California because of Nixon's usage of dirty tricks to gain an advantage.

Nixon was also a staunch anti-communist. He served on the House Committee for UnAmerican Activities. Publicity surrounding the case of Alger Hiss thrust Richard M. Nixon into the public spotlight, helping him move from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1950, and to the vice presidency of the United States in 1952.

His campaign committee in Whittier, under the direction of attorney Murray Chotiner, had sent 68,500 leaflets to registered Democrats in envelopes emblazoned with the words AS ONE DEMOCRAT TO ANOTHER! It was true that California's cross-filing laws allowed Nixon to run in the Democratic primary, but he had little hope of winning, and in any case he was not a Democrat. The campaign material failed to disclose his party affiliation, referring to him simply as Congressman Nixon, "The Man Who Broke the Hiss-Chambers Espionage Case."

Nixon: I still think we ought to take the North Vietnamese dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

He was the most dishonest individual I ever met in my life. President Nixon lied to his wife, his family, his friends, longtime colleagues in the US Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world.
Barry Goldwater in his memoirs, Goldwater (1988)

Originally posted by FoosM
Armstrong could not possibly have done this if he was in the shadow side of the LM.

Where did Neil get this descriptor from? Was he an artist? Did he brush his teeth with it?

Originally posted by FoosM
Although, there were vacuum chambers large enough to film that particular scene.

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

---

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

And Apollo is a hoax because Jarrah White said so on YouTube, right?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

---

Were you on the moon missions? What is it you are choosing to believe? It makes little sense to mock someone for believing what they have been told when your argument is only that you believe what you have been told.

But many people never believed that the government was telling the truth about the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, and the lie was completely exposed by the "Pentagon Papers" less than ten years later! Where are the "NASA Papers?"

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


William Safire isn't he a well respected writer? If Safire wrote this for Nixon and doesn't give mention to Collins then perhaps this speech wasn't a speech at all... but a threat to the life of Armstrong and Aldrin should they screw up and let the secret out. There is also the 2nd memo which leaves the astronaut names blank
Source www.thesmokinggun.com...

which makes the 2nd memo more suitable as a warning to every subsequent Apollo mission.

In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person.