Morning!

WOW! From Nuclear Physics to Moon Landing! This is endless!

With the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, it really makes your brain came into clock thinking, eh?

What's with the commotion of the Moon Landing was a fake? Photos as evidence? Hmmm...Still skeptical? The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. But then again, with the temperatures reaching till a high magnitude, the film would melt like chocolate on the moon at 250° temperatures. So, how the ~!@#$%^&* heck did the photos came from? Aaahhhh...there's alwaiz a catch! Don't yu love it, eh? The Estar melting point is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at approximately 200° F. (As advanced technologies can be, it MUST have a point of limitation at a certain point)

Another point to ponder: If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface? Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. (They are not Dotards for Christ sake!)

Computer technology. Ring a bell, eh? Mind yu that the computer technology did not exist in the 1960's to build the Apollo guidance computer. How the frigging heck did they guide the Apollo? Skeptical, eh?

To me, for America to came with an idea of a hoax makes absolutely ~!@#$%^&* no sense! Yes...I know and it is true the Americans were at competition with the USSR, but the risk involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax would be tremendous. It takes no Einstein to figure out the devastating effect of the hoax being exposed. Hey, reputation of United States would be at stake for ~!@#$%^&* Christ! More humiliating than failing to land/reach the moon. (It's akin to a feeder in DotA if yu ask me)

Would NASA would be willing to take that risk? After Apollo 11, what's with the following landings? Come on! Okie, NASA would pawn a Dotard like me anytime but of course not the Russians, right? The USSR fully understood the difficulties of a Moon landing and they were smart and they tracked American progress closely...and hey! They acknowledged that the Apollo moon landing were as real as yu and me.

Came year 2009, to fly to the moon today would be nearly as difficult and likely more expensive than it was three decades ago (Technology is there but costing (fundings) is another issue. Psychologically speaking, where is the motivation? Ask yu? Ask me?

Anyway, NASA is one of the more open and well received of all government agencies. Questions? No problem, it will be addressed accordingly. They are a group (came in a dozen to thousands) of "smart scientists, researchers, mathematical analysts, engineers, astronauts, cosmonauts, etc...they are the brains of NASA. But would they lie? For those who believes they did lie, I'll take it as an ignorance. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't trust a sales person more than a NASA's personnel.

Regards, Joey

p.s: I have often been "misunderstood" of "providing no more proof than the plausible advocates", which in a sense I admit it is correct. I have not proven anything, nor do I assert otherwise. This goes the same to the correlation of science is art or art is science thread that I've initiated.

This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 23 2009, 10:34 AM