Eight Days to the Moon and Back, starts soon on BBC2. Maybe we should all watch and make up our own minds.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Did American Astronauts land on the moon 1969?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by APerno View Post
Here to me lies the rub. The Warren Commission Report offers (as one of Oswald's possible motives) "(c) His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;".......
Regards, Jon S.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
A very well thought out post, one of the best on this subject I've read in a long, long time. Makes me almost want to go back over all those JFK books again.... what have we missed?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Well, it was a good post, but hardly persuasive. Whatever his motivation, I'd say that Oswald certainly found his own place in history.
What I found significant was the extent of cooperation between certain members of the CIA, organized crime, Castro's lot and anti-Castro rebels. It became a spiders web of intrigue. Oswald's complicated movements leading up to Nov. 1963 are consistent with him working in coordination with someone, somewhere.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View PostEight Days to the Moon and Back, starts soon on BBC2. Maybe we should all watch and make up our own minds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p5fRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
-
What always bothered me about the moon conspiracy theory was the booster rockets.
No one actually believes we fake our rocket launches (our phones work), only that we faked the moon landing.
This doesn't ring logically for me.
When you look at the short history involved you find (other than the three who died on the ground in Apollo 1) all the astronauts and cosmonauts who died, either died on take-off or re-entry; getting in and out Earth's gravitational pull and atmosphere is a bitch, and dangerous.
The actual transit to the moon from near space has proven much less precarious (save for Apollo 13); and while the actual touch down on the moon was unique, it was still easier to achieve than escaping Earth's gravity.
My point being, if they were going to fail in their effort to gain the moon, (and would then be Cold War motivated to fake it with the public,) that failure would have come with the booster rockets.
Once in near space all the remaining challenges to the moon became predominately navigational, and the guys who put that Saturn V in orbit, they could do all those other lesser things well; IMHO they didn't need to fake the second half of the project.
Space is pretty easy to move in . . . the Saturn V was the accomplishment.
Comment
-
-
I've often seen the counter-argument that if the landings were faked the Russians would've called foul:
1. No one would take them seriously without proof and would just call sour grapes.
2. How do we know the Russians weren't in on a conspiracy or at least bought off?
Comment
-
Originally posted by APerno View Post
They were doing more than monitoring events, they were already hacking. Are you familiar with the spook they played on the Italian brothers and the supposed lost cosmonauts?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Comment
Comment