🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:19:43 +1200, "Marsh Lion"
<bba...@SPAMParadise.net.nz> wrote:

>Re-read what I said about the space shuttle missions.

I'm not going to pretend I have the scientific know-how to confirm or
contradict technical questions, and I doubt you're very much
different, to be perfectly honest.

>As for it being 
>exposed, consider Roswell again. America has ways of shutting up people that 
>want to hurt national pride (not to mention, how many people would not 
>believe someone if they said they had proof that america did not land on the 
>moon?)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like more
anti-american garbage. All governments lie to the people, more or
less, be it to avoid creating unnecessary panic, avoid political
repercussions or whatever. If you think things are done so differently
on your little island over there, you're in for a surprise.

>> 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.
>>
>Like Roswell and Area 51?

I was thinking about the lunar landing...A couple of guys head up
there, lands, finds a whole lotta rocks, bounces around for a bit and
heads home.
Of course a fantastic story of cold-war conspiracies and staged
landings sounds more entertaining and imaginative than that.

-- 
E. Byers

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