🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:42:06 +1200, "Marsh Lion"
<bba...@SPAMParadise.net.nz> wrote:

>Actually - if you review some of the footage from different missions, they 
>appear to have the same backdrop. Do you think the flimsy space suits could 
>hold up against the large amount of life threatening radiation that the sun 
>puts out? Please do not counter this with the space shuttle space walks as 
>while in orbit, the space shuttle does not go outside of the electromagnetic 
>field that sheilds the earth from the suns radiation (this electromagnetic 
>sheild creates the northern and southern lights). The Russians did not go to 
>the moon for this reason.

I've heard all the moon-mission conspiracy stuff, and it's a load of
crap. If the landing was staged, the chance of the whole thing being
exposed today would be a million to one. Not to mention the fact that
we're sending people into space all the time with the technology
derived from good old stuff.

>> And by no means is this comparative to the moon landing.
> I'm not saying it is, just that our leaders want to fool us at times (other 
>examples include the CIA and different countries secret service). The 
>official record is not always the truth (e.g. Bush and the search for 
>weapons of mass destruction in Iraq).

But when it's not the truth, it's usually a lot more obvious that it
isn't...
Of course, you could question everything, but it's kind of meaningless
doing it if the only reason is that it would be kinda cool if there
was a conspiracy there, instead of the dull facts.

-- 
E. Byers

An active agent who appears unexpectedly to provide a contrived
solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty.