RIP Neil Armstrong.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-neil-armstrong-20120826,0,1467170.story

Lance Armstrong gives up the fight to clear his name and will presumably now lose his seven Tour de France wins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/9498886/Lance-Armstrong-the-wheels-come-off-in-a-tour-de-farce.html

There is no connection between the two at all. But both are very interesting indeed, and should make for a good discussion.

Yes Luddy, I was thinking this morning that it must be open season on Armstrongs

its amasing the silence..from nasa
who amasingly has 'lost'..near all the origonal photos vidio's
of the moon 'landing'..so proving it wil be a metter of faith..lol..nasa now holds data re global warming..wil it loose that..too?

as for the druggie..well the facts are clear
not all ya mates lie..it would be best if he exposed the whole scam

and we recognised the extreems we will go to for fame
like making a faked 'moon landing'..show me the proof..

let the time for lies be ended

io heard dik cheeney himself say it was faked
you dont joke about stuff like that

truth it out boys
ditto juliar..who only gets worse

Lance and Neil, the great deceivers? Below taken from moon hoax conspiracy sights.

I am not convinced that the photos and videos are extra kosher. Some of the moon walk footage shows the astronauts moving at some weird angles, gravity or no gravity, as if being supported by a wire. I always thought the movements were stilted. When the moon footage is sped up, it does not look gravity unimpaired.

1. The photographs taken by Neil Armstrong and other astronauts on the moon show the Lunar module, rocks, mountains and pitch-black space but they there are no stars visible in the sky? Stars should be clearer from the Moon as there is no atmosphere to impede the visibility.

2. The astronauts had landed Lunar module on the Moon using the module’s rocket engine. The Lunar modules exhaust of rocket engine was directed towards the surface of the Moon. How come extremely hot and powerful blast of rocket engine failed to make the mark on the ground. The NASA photographs show the spot of Moon landing in its level and pristine undisturbed condition.

3. Why is the flag of USA erected by Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin fluttering? Since there is no air on the Moon from where did the wind blow to flutter the flag? Live telecast of the flag hoisting had clearly shown that the folds in the fabric had traveled like wave from the mast side to the opposite side, still pictures taken after the flag raising also show it fluttering, in a vacuum.

4. Two identical NASA photographs from different missions show impossible to differentiate Lunar Mountains in the background. One photo has the Lunar module in the foreground the other doesn’t. Obviously, the other photo without Lunar module could not have been taken before the landing or after the departure.

5. There is one more argument regarding the exhaust of Lunar module’s rocket. The exhaust of rocket engine should have blown away the layer of dust from the spot of landing exposing hard ground beneath it. But Neil Armstrong’s boots left deep footprints in the dust

Some of the moon walk footage shows the astronauts moving at some weird angle..
SOG,
Keep in mind that these were prototype video cameras plus they were on the Moon. I know of award winning film makers who operate cameras worth hundreds of thousands of dollars nowadays & their footage isn't much better than the moon stuff from 40 plus years ago.

SOG, you list some very interesting points, which sound pretty damning.

But it doesn’t add up. With all the technological advances since 1969 and no doubt the very keen interests in many countries around the world to disprove the moon landing and make the US look like a bunch of liars, why hasn’t it been disproven, or why hasn’t America been made to answer all these questions and to fully show that the thing was real?

Or maybe they have and these apparent discrepancies have all been dismissed.

Can you offer any further info on this story?

Don't you guys have something better to do. Go and bay at the moon.

Sheesh PEST, what on earth is your problem?!?

On another thread, we were just starting to get along very well. You’ve offered me a report and photos and you provided your email address. I responded on that thread…. and then there was silence!

And now you’re being decidedly unfriendly!!

I would have thought that a thread on Lance Armstrong would have been right up your alley.

I am very interested in his predicament and his decision not to fight the allegations. It seems that he will now be deemed to be guilty even though apparently no attempt will be made now to prove him guilty or show him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is completely absurd, especially within the very vexed field of sports doping.

One could well argue that methods of scoring an advantage that are not deemed illegal at the time of use should perfectly fair and reasonable. Or at least that they should not be punishable.

Every athlete is looking for ways to get even the slightest advantage, and there are all manner of ways of doing it, ranging from totally acceptable methods to totally unacceptable ones, with a lot in the grey middle ground.

I’d say that with Lance Armstrong, there would need to be proof or something very close to it before he gets condemned, especially given that there is a strong feeling from a lot of people that he must automatically be guilty simply because he has scored such an amazing achievement in winning the Tour de France seven times.

It does appear to me that there is a witch, [or Armstrong} hunt going on here.

It appears that the Drug testing officials believe Armstrong has been using something. As the most tested rider ever, if he was using anything, Armstrong has made the officials look like a bunch of donkeys.

In my experience most such officials have little going for them, except their ego. Being made to feel like a donkey is not good for the ego, particularly for those that have little sound justification of those egos. Have you watched any of the TV interviews of these people? Don't they love themselves!

To be prepared to take, & use the testimony of known drug cheats, in the face of no material evidence to prove their case does show a level of hate, & a vindictive character out to "get" their tormentor.

With my ability on a bike I do find it hard to believe anyone can do, what these bike racers do, with out the help of something. Obviously it is accepted it is possible, or the entire field would be excluded. My gut feeling is the former.

So whether Armstrong is the best rider of all time, or the most cunning drug cheat, I prefer him to his inquisitors.

Thanks Houellie.

All those queries are really quite easily answered. No long and detailed explanations are necssary.

So there really isn't any serious doubt about the genuineness of the moon landings.

For anyone who needs more – give the McDonald Observatory in Texas or the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico a phone call…

I believe that the measurements for the Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment are still nightly (weather permitting) and still involve all three of the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 landing sites.

One of the fun factoids is that the precision of measurement – 1.8-3.3mm at each reflector – is such that even continental drift on earth needs to be allowed for.

A trip to the moon might take longer these days as it is 1.634 metres further away.

i have no doudt that nasa went to the moon
just like it now is on mars..not people..as such as dickkcheeney said..but to trick ruskies into going broke following fantoms/russia even made their own lander..recently sold off as a space curio

at best machines were sent..some say..causwe of a layer between earth and ther moon..thast kills life some radiation belt..thus the youtube clip that reveals how they framed the earth..in part..as vieuwed in a porthole

in the dark cabin it LOOKS like they are much higher
but its a trick..now only too easy to disproove..thus lost
just like in time the climate data..will get lost..or edited..etc

nasa preceeded enron
superceeded it..but now what..it needs validate
replicate..[you allready built it once mate..and oput their top three in it..and send them off to replicate it..to prove live time..

usa mate..its great[at lies/murder covert war/cluster bombs nukes..yep usa killing us every way..get over the spin replicate it

Luddy, I believe that man has landed on the moon.
But the pictures and footage of the astronauts bounding around the moon is suspect as far as I can see. The Russians were the first into space with sputnik, then JFK announces a man on the moon before the end of the 1960’s, America made it by six months.

What if it did not happen, perhaps they had some footage shot just in case. When I look at the astronauts movements during space walks it seems to flow in the gravity free environment. When I compare the astronauts moving about the moonscape they seem to move like marionettes. I don’t know what I am expecting, but given the moon has less than 20% of the gravity we struggle with on earth I expect a fluid motion.

Further to that NASA has mistakenly taped over the magnetic video tapes that were archived from the first moon walk…..How could you tape over a historic first time event that was archived for the future generations….it’s sussy, but what can you expect from a nation that accepts that their president was assassinated by a magic bullet . An assassin (Jack Ruby) who suddenly gets all patriotic after being a career mafia associate, jailbird, and at the time an owner of a strip club who kills Lee Harvey Oswald before he gets to court. Out of all the crying patriotic yanks a low life scumbag like Ruby wanders down to the sheriff’s office and shoots Oswald because he loved his president and is pissed off...bullsheiser

I don’t believe much of what comes from the American administration, including their moon footage.

Yeah Soggy, I’ve got to admit I share your concerns, at least to some extent.

I said in my last post:

< So there really isn't any serious doubt about the genuineness of the moon landings. >

Well… pfff… who knows eh!?