> Did We Go to the Moon or Not?
>
> By: David John Oates
> redwo...@adam.com.au
>
> It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
> topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
> fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
> Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
> did not go to the moon. Her reversals can be seen here -http://www.reversespeechinternational.com/moonlanding.php.
>
> It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
> moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
> go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
> or not a couple of years ago and our results were posted here -http://www.reversespeech.com/apollo.htm.
>
> Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...
> ...

> Did We Go to the Moon or Not?
>
> By: David John Oates
> redwo...@adam.com.au
>
> It has been a huge controversy over the past several years, even the
> topic of a TV special. Did we really go to the moon or not? Did NASA
> fake the moon landings? Now one Reverse Speech Practitioner, Karina
> Kaiser, has come out with a set of reversals that she claims proves we
> did not go to the moon. Her reversals can be seen here -http://www.reversespeechinternational.com/moonlanding.php.
>
> It has always been the opinion of this author that we did go to the
> moon, and I have not been convinced with arguments that say we did not
> go. This website examined the question of whether we went to the moon
> or not a couple of years ago and our results were posted here -http://www.reversespeech.com/apollo.htm.
>
> Probably the most significant reversal we found is this one here...
> ...

> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
> energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.
>
> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
> energy, radiation, etc. for a moom mission despite the Ranger probes
> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way, and B) The people who
> went to the moon, tracked the lunar spaceships, handled logistics,
> etc. - including trackers in the USSR who had every motive to expose
> any US deception - were all members of a grand conspiracy of which NO
> paperwork and not a single verifiable witness statement has...

> On Feb 12, 2:19 pm, Matt aol.com> wrote:
>

>> The original post here is one of the more clever versions I've seen of
>> burying a topic in gobbledygook that makes it look like the poster is
>> objective. Congratulations on your hard work.

>
> Well, I would suggest that a posting name of " Israeldid911 " rather
> takes
> away from any possible claim of " objectivity "...
>

>> There is, of course, no "controversy," only the laughable assertions
>> that A) NASA could not solve well-known problems of trajectories,
>> energy, radiation, etc. for a moon mission despite the Ranger probes
>> and Surveyor soft-landers preparing the way,

>
> Don't forget the Lunar Orbiters, too. So, both direct ascent and lunar
> orbital insertions were, by the time of Apollo, well understood and
> practiced tasks.
> ...

> But then you've got far better physics and replicated science proof
> than NASA.  Perhaps you should share and share alike.  Why is that
> such a problem?
> . - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -