useful argument for:
If we haven't landed on the moon how did we place perfectly alligned mirros on teh surfcace for better measuring the distance changes between the earth and the moon?
( Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 10:39, 1 reply)

the only guy that I know of who doesn't believe in it....
he reckons that they have gone, it was just the Apollo 11 landing that was faked, so that the sepos could beat the ruskies. One of his main arguments is that there is more technology in modern cars than cars from the sixties, so it would be much easier to go back now, so why don't we?

It makes my blood boil. The fact that the tech was so (relatively) primative just makes the achievement that much more impressive. He also doesn't seem to get that in the same breath, he is giving the exact reason why they went (to beat the Russians) as the reason that they faked it. They've not been back recently because the Russians have been beaten to it, so there is not the politcal will to fund subsequent missions on scientific merit alone (not sure what merits there are, actually. Most stuff can be done in orbit, what can be gained with the added expense and risk of an extra landing and take off?). The prestige factor is gone, and there are other things to look at.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Fri 8 Apr 2011, 11:23, closed)