Moon landing : a giant leap or a hoax..

Did WE? This comment is not touching on the technical aspects of the moon landing but on the emotional side. Wilber Wright one of the Wright brothers, one of the first Americans to first fly said, “the only bird that could talk was the parrot but he didn’t fly very well”, is being used out of context in some of the conspiracy clips. The conspirators are saying that Neil Armstrong is using the quote to indicate that he is being told what to say. In fact, what the original quote means is that Wilber’s flight was not a perfect flight. A comparison could be made that the flights to the moon where just as risky, in fact it is amazing given the technology of the time that success was achieved at all. I think, Neil was using the quote loosely to indicate sarcastically that his speech ability might not fly that well because he thinks himself not the greatest speech maker. In another clip Neil refused to swear on the bible that he actually walked on the moon because it was an humiliation to him to be treated like a fool by an conspiracy interviewer. I think Neil is not an icon or an idol but I believe like many others of his day flew in spirit not like parrot but that of eagle however they have characters that are humble.

A few of the technical aspects do seem inconsistent. But if it is NASA, dont you think they would've perfected it in every respect? :) I for one, dont think it is a hoax, because it doesn't make any sense! Why on earth would NASA wanna spend on that kinda propaganda? Wouldn't it be asked to send more folks out there for further studies like its been sending astranauts in space? May be one up manship with Russia was on at that point of time, but it still didn't make sense. Because if it did, Russians would've been the first to point those things that you did. :) And they didn't! So no..NASA didn't waste all that taxpayer's money - as far as Vandy thinks. :)

A lot of these things are just common sense. I mean, I'm not NASA scientist or anything, but some people's idea of what space is and what the moon is really surprises me. A few that can be easily debunked with only a basic understanding of things. 1: Inertia. It's not like the flag was perfectly still when they placed it in the moon's surface, and it's not like the moon is bereft of gravity. The motion of the flag when stuck in the ground carried over, so the flag moves while standing somewhat at attention due to the difference in gravity. 2: Well, I'm not sure what type of crater people were expecting. The type that made the noticeable craters on the moon? It's a vessel performing a controlled landing, not an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. 3: I wasn't aware that it wasn't possible. Some people claimed we couldn't get a man on the moon in the first place! 4: I don't know anything about that. It sounds more akin to 9/11 theorists claiming that a building cannot collapse as it did. I guess some things really are rocket science after all. 5: That's what happens. The background isn't illuminated. 6: I'm not sure how shoddy the quality was considering that the cameras were used on the moon. And in terms of Armstrong's reclusive nature - not everyone wants to play the hero. George Strait, the number-one selling country artist of all time, with over 50 chart-topping hits, rarely gives an interview or makes a music videos or a TV appearance. He's a hero in his genre; he's literally known as the "King." But it's his prerogative not to soak up the adoration. Multiply that by a thousand to understand how people would have treated Armstrong if he were always out and about. I say we landed on the moon. I don't see anything suggesting we didn't.

Ah this is fascinating. There are a lot of arguments about this one for years. Even shortly after it has happened. I think the one that many people talk about, was how John F. Kennedy vowed to land on the moon before the end of the decade(in the 1960s) and it just happened at the end. To me, that is a pretty interesting piece of evidence for those who deny the moon landing. Coincidence or conspiracy, you be the judge? Then again, I think that there are many other events in history, that the facts might have been muddled and might have not happened, either at all or the way that they were reported. The moon landing happened in the official history, but there are going to be a lot of people who will be skeptic. Who really knows however. In the end, its not about to be something that people are going to officially say, "yeah this was a huge hoax" if it was. So the world may never know for sure, but it is a fascinating topic of discussion.

I have seen this myth got busted in an episode of Mythbusters. In any case, the arguments used by conspiracy theorists are not supported by hard evidence, but by mere speculative reasoning. They may be plausible, but not necessarily true.