Slashdot Mirror


Russian Official Calls For "International Investigation" of the Apollo Program

MarkWhittington writes: According to a Tuesday article in the Moscow Times, a spokesman for Russia's Investigative Committee named Vladimir Markin suggested that an international investigation be mounted into some of the "various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972." Markin would particularly like to know where some of the missing moon rocks went to and why the original footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was erased. Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio.

307 comments

  1. Of course not. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio.

    Of course he's not suggesting that. He's suggesting that Putin wants another sideshow and is desperate enough to think this'll do it....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Of course not. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Where were you Tuesday the 10th of Jan, 2009? I'm not saying you beat your wife, but if you can't prove you weren't beating your wife on that date...

    2. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The 10th of Jan, 2009 was a Saturday and I do not have a wife.

    3. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's because you beat her to death!

    4. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Objection. Leading the witness.

    5. Re:Of course not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course he's not suggesting that.

      Here's what's completely ridiculous about the whole "fake Moon landing" thing:

      In 1969, "special effects" that were convincing enough to have faked the whole thing would probably have cost more than 2 whole trips to the moon.

      Besides... the site has been photographed from orbit repeatedly since.

    6. Re:Of course not. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      In 1969, "special effects" that were convincing enough to have faked the whole thing would probably have cost more than 2 whole trips to the moon.

      I guess you haven't taken a look at those images lately, the "special effects" have not aged well. This site is truly revealing But you be the judge. ;-)

    7. Re:Of course not. by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obviously those are fakes. You can tell by the fact that they show a lander on the moon. :-D

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Of course not. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. I did an IMDB search and found a Sci Fi movie from 1969 - Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun. Take a look at some of the effects. They were probably state of the art then and must have looked amazing, but they look extremely fake nowadays. Even if NASA had gotten the best and brightest of Hollywood on the "moon landing production", I doubt that 1) they could have pulled it off with so much realism, 2) they could have all kept the secret for so long, and 3) they wouldn't have used their knowledge from faking the moon landing to make more realistic movie special effects.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Of course not. by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that, but at the time of the Moon landing, the Russians themselves were rather heavily involved in that arena. Had the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans. It's just a tad late for a Russian to start asking questions.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    10. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Overruled.

    11. Re:Of course not. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      ad the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans.

      That's a very good point. While we don't have objective evidence, I think it's more than reasonable to expect they would have done exactly that.

    12. Re: Of course not. by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      All this is proves is that the US later planted those on the moon to cover up the original fake moon landing.

      Now where's that nice vodka Mr Putin sent me.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    13. Re:Of course not. by dunkindave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously those are fakes. You can tell by the fact that they show a lander on the moon. :-D

      Sadly, that is how a conspiracy theorist actually thinks. In this case, NASA publishing photos from a probe orbiting the moon to prove NASA went to the moon 40 years ago will be labeled as the complicit organization just putting out more lies. These people will only believe something when it is put directly in front of them (sometimes not even then), and since they can't go to the moon to see these artifacts for themselves, you can't prove it to them, and any second-party proof you present will be dismissed as fake or lies. It is one of the tenets of how they make claims that within their requirements for "proof", the claim becomes non-falsifiable.

    14. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mirror placement on moons surface, which can be validated by bouncing a laser off if it, and it's signal spike, is proof enough. The equipment is in place for validation by anyone. Only complete nutjobs think we haven't set foot. Russia appears to have nutjobs on standby!

    15. Re:Of course not. by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's what's completely ridiculous about the whole "fake Moon landing" thing:

      Well, if you understand the physics of the Lunar Laser Ranging stuff, then it is pretty much irrefutable humans were on the moon.

      Because to have a calibrated retroreflector, in a known spot on the surface of the moon, and with a measurable round trip time for a laser, with which you can measure the distance to the moon (because you know the speed of light) is not something you can fake ... that is, unless you have a calibrated retroreflector in a known spot on the surface of the moon.

      To hell with special effects. Let's just go with physics. You can point a laser at a known spot on the moon and have that laser come back to you.

      There is no faking that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    16. Re: Of course not. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

              Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    17. Re:Of course not. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but at the time of the Moon landing, the Russians themselves were rather heavily involved in that arena. Had the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans. It's just a tad late for a Russian to start asking questions.

      That and Parkes (I have a relative who worked there at the time, he didn't work for NASA). And Fresnedillas.. Oh, and the Japanese.

      Why is it that the same people who claim the Moon mission was a fake, happily believe the Moon is now a secret military base, the world is ruled by shape shifting lizard aliens, all technology was reverse engineered from crashed alien space craft, and that 9/11 was an inside demolition job kept totally secret (and that no one outside the Manhattan project knew the US was working on nuclear weapons). Is it the fluoride in the water, gang-stalking mind-control rays, or just the high altitude chem sprays?

    18. Re: Of course not. by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He loves football, but has really tender feet. That's why he lives on Endor.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re: Of course not. by IMightB · · Score: 5, Funny

      I want to know why Putin fucks goats and why all evidence has been erased. So many shirtless Putin shots have been doctered!

    20. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, NASA publishing photos from a probe orbiting the moon to prove NASA went to the moon 40 years ago

      Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.

      Srsly! Do you think NASA would bother publishing these "photos" if they had gone to the moon 40 years ago. Obvious lies. This is the same NASA that is at the center of the catastrophic man made global warming (oh sorry after 15 years of continuous cooling that's "Climate Change" now) scam. Do the research buddy!

    21. Re:Of course not. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate, that retroreflector could have been placed there remotely - its existence doesn't necessarily imply that people put it there.

      I don't believe the conspiracy nonsense - as Mitchell and Webb demonstrated, the only difference in cost between faking the moon landings and actually performing them would be the catering costs for the astronauts :)

    22. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Question is are the moonlandings real or fake, meaning is the video and photo material real that is presented.

      2) You give photographs as evidence that those original photos and videos are real.

      The confirmation comes ONLY when a third party of *nauts lands on the moon and takes with them a sealed camera that can't be tampered with and brings that back to earh to be opened and developed showing the proofs in moon has been visited.

    23. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir Humphrey Appleby had a says. "Freedom of information. Always tell the public anything that they can easily find out from other sources".
      It flows from this, with an elegant inevitability, that you should never tell the public anything that can be easily disproved by another source.
      If the Russians could prove that the americans didnt go to the moon then they would release the information in a blaze of publicity. They would have done this years ago.
      It's the Russians' inability to disprove the moon landing that leads me to believe that they happened.

    24. Re:Of course not. by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      They were also trying to get a fetch-and-return lunar soil sample mission completed before Apollo 11 so that they could claim a small victory over the USA. It failed though. It was another year before they got a successful one.

      The most telling statistic with the lunar rocks though is that 3 USSR robotic fetch-and-return missions amassed a total of some 300 grammes. In comparison the 6 Apollo missions amassed some 300 kilogrammes.

    25. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its ridiculous to claim Putin has been cavorting with goats all along!

      It only happened once, her name was Jenny, and to be fair she seemed very appealing at the time, well, for a goat anyway... Putin has remained faithfully single ever since he discovered Jenny was made into a gala dinner at the Kremlin.

      And don't laugh, it's a sad story.

    26. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you don't believe the primary evidence, this is very compelling secondary evidence. The Soviets were locked in the space race with the U.S. and would have done anything to embarrass the U.S. The fact that they did not do that suggests that it actually happened.

    27. Re:Of course not. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In this case other countries with no reason to lie for the US have observed the landing sites too. Both China and Russia have photographed them from orbit.

      Even back at the time the landings were taking place other countries were able to verify them by simply listening in on radio communications from the moon. They would have realized pretty quickly if the signals were not coming from the moon, so at the very least NASA would have had to somehow get some unmanned transmitters up there.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or somehow learn to aim the transmitters here on Earth at the moon and bounce the signals off it. A feat far beyond any but those who learn at least ham radio basics.

    29. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the problem there is that any astronaut that confirms the landing will probably be a plant of a government or monied interest and unless we all get to hold the sealed camera bag there's no way to know that it was really sealed and even if it is then there's the possibility that the pictures were faked before sealing, etc., etc., etc.

      Evidence is futile. Let's not pretend otherwise.

    30. Re:Of course not. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      See, but by then the Russians were already running out of funds and knew their moonshot wasn't going to work. The "landing" on the moon gave them an easy excuse to walk away. /s

    31. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the Soviets have irrefutably put humans on the moon too!
      Or did they?

      "A long lost light reflector that was left on the surface of the moon by the former Soviet Union has been rediscovered by a team of American physicists after nearly 40 years using lasers beamed from Earth."

      Read this article (Space.com) to find out! http://www.space.com/8295-lost-soviet-reflecting-device-rediscovered-moon.html

      The planet awaits your next item of "irrefutable" proof!

    32. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're getting your conspiratards mixed up, they don't all believe the same things.

    33. Re:Of course not. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      In this case other countries with no reason to lie for the US have observed the landing sites too. Both China and Russia have photographed them from orbit.

      No, they were just trying to fake their flights around the moon. "See, we really sent a probe around the moon, here's the proof, we've photographed the Apollo landing site!". In reality they just photoshopped a lander and craters on some sandpaper.

    34. Re: Of course not. by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Nah, they just rolled out a big flat poster on the supposed lander site. Can't tell the difference from orbit.

    35. Re:Of course not. by khallow · · Score: 2

      How do you keep people from eavesdropping on your initial signal from Earth? If people keep hearing the strong signal from Earth a couple seconds before it returns from the Moon, then the gig is up.

    36. Re: Of course not. by stackOVFL · · Score: 0

      That was a secret! Now the goat's outta the bag. Nice going.

    37. Re:Of course not. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They encrypted the sent signal...duh! /sarcasm

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re:Of course not. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Of course he's not suggesting that.

      Here's what's completely ridiculous about the whole "fake Moon landing" thing: In 1969, "special effects" that were convincing enough to have faked the whole thing would probably have cost more than 2 whole trips to the moon. Besides... the site has been photographed from orbit repeatedly since.

      I thought the standard conspiracy response was that while the first landing was faked we did go to the moon in later missions and that they put the lander there then.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    39. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no goat! Those were sheep with fake horns.

    40. Re:Of course not. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course! ROT13! I should have thought of that.

    41. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a Gerry Anderson movie. Same basic SFX as Thunderbirds. Not really state-of-the-art...

      Awesome movie though. One of my favorites.

    42. Re: Of course not. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I want to know why Putin fucks goats and why all evidence has been erased

      Because they were MALE goats and we all know Putin's stance on all things gay.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    43. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! ROT13! I should have thought of that.

      Better use Double ROT13! Just to be safe.

    44. Re:Of course not. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the same people who claim the Moon mission was a fake, happily believe the Moon is now a secret military base, the world is ruled by shape shifting lizard aliens

      Have you seen a film from 1969? How on earth could NASA have faked the moon landings without SFX assistance from the much more advanced space-lizards. And besides, leaking it so that the fakery is an open secret is a great way of hiding that they actually went there to install a secret base.

      Duh.

      It's like you're not even trying.

      Is it the fluoride in the water, gang-stalking mind-control rays, or just the high altitude chem sprays?

      Well tell me then Mr Sheeple, what precisely are these chemical spraying tanks doing in a 787 then if it's not chemtrails?

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

      I personally can't think of any reason one might want to test a plane with some sort of controlable dummy ballast and it fits the chemtrails conspiracy rather well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    45. Re: Of course not. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Either that or ewoks are tasty.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    46. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because being a conspiracy theorists are unjustifiably irrational right? Just look up the two acronyms NWO and TPP and read a little into it. Heck, I'm not saying they're right about the world being dominated by reptilian aliens or bigfoot. But then again, go down the academic route and read a little bit about Edward Bernays and learn from someone who helped design modern press. Sometimes, the truth can be stranger the fiction.

      I wont say that the Ruskies are right here, if anything I haven't even looked into it or researched either side. But not willing to dismiss anything at this point. Except maybe the Flat Earth theory, I'll dismiss that if it was ever brought up by the Russians LOL.

    47. Re:Of course not. by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Not if they themselves also had something to hide. It's a murky game these countries play.

    48. Re:Of course not. by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Well, if you understand the physics of the Lunar Laser Ranging stuff, then it is pretty much irrefutable humans were on the moon.

      If you actually know how they work then it isn't. Several attempts are sometimes required to actually find the damn things in the first place and it can even be the surface of the moon reflecting the light back. Heck, there is even a massive discrepancy on the agreed coordinates of the landers and sites themselves.

      The trouble is people have got themselves into this mindset of there being 'irrefutable proof', but when you look at it and how it actually works it is anything but.

    49. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but at the time of the Moon landing, the Russians themselves were rather heavily involved in that arena. Had the landing been faked, Russia absolutely would have known; they would have distributed the proof far and wide to humiliate and one-up the Americans. It's just a tad late for a Russian to start asking questions.

      That and Parkes (I have a relative who worked there at the time, he didn't work for NASA). And Fresnedillas.. Oh, and the Japanese.

      Why is it that the same people who claim the Moon mission was a fake, happily believe the Moon is now a secret military base, the world is ruled by shape shifting lizard aliens, all technology was reverse engineered from crashed alien space craft, and that 9/11 was an inside demolition job kept totally secret (and that no one outside the Manhattan project knew the US was working on nuclear weapons). Is it the fluoride in the water, gang-stalking mind-control rays, or just the high altitude chem sprays?

      Come on now, don't be absurd. Once you realize that the earth is flat it all starts to make sense.

      The moon base is not secret, duh.
      The ruling lizards can't shift their shape.
      Only velcro was reverse engineered from crashed alien space craft.
      The Manhattan project was all about "Atomic" weapons, not nuclear.
      They actually took the naturally occurring fluoride OUT of the water.
      Aluminum easily stops the mind-control rays.

      The high altitude chem sprays are designed to weaken the aluminum we use to stop the mind-control rays that keep us from seeing the lizards land on the moon base to mine the fluoride resistant aluminum.

    50. Re:Of course not. by segedunum · · Score: 1
      I hope you have costings for that.

      Besides... the site has been photographed from orbit repeatedly since.

      Nope, they haven't been photographed at all any detail at all. You would think NASA and people would be interested in having a look at how all the equipment on the moon is faring, and even find out where the actual coordinates of the damn things are, as opposed to looking at indistinct dots. But there you go. Maybe they just aren't bothered.

    51. Re:Of course not. by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      I know it's a joke, but here's one thing it says,

      Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules.

      Is that true about shadows?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some things are stranger than fishin.

    53. Re: Of course not. by ncc74656 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want to know why Putin fucks goats and why all evidence has been erased

      Because they were MALE goats and we all know Putin's stance on all things gay.

      Wide?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    54. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just saying, Russia put an unmanned craft on the moon before we did. So, your pictures of a landing site on the moon support only the conclusion that we've put an unmanned craft there. I'm not arguing that we did or didn't put an astronaut on the moon, I'm merely suggesting that it is possible that we didn't.

    55. Re:Of course not. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      How do we know that what is retro-reflecting isn't a natural phenomenon that has been there all along? Do you have proof that there was no reflective surfaces on the moon PRIOR to the supposed lunar landings? If not, retro-reflection does not prove a Moon landing.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    56. Re:Of course not. by NapoleonTheGreat · · Score: 1

      No, the Americans asked the Israelis to dig all the crap they can find on the Soviets. They found so much that the Soviets backed down.

    57. Re:Of course not. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If there is no source of light to illuminate something, then it will be completely black. The reason why we can see objects inside a shadow on Earth is because the air in the atmosphere reflects light in every direction. You can notice that at home also. If you turn all of the lights off in your house at night then it will be black. If you turn one on then you'll notice that you are able to see places that do not have a line of sight to the light. That's because the air in the room (or other walls or surfaces) are reflecting the light. On the moon, surfaces like the ground might reflect light, but there's no air to do it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    58. Re:Of course not. by tyen · · Score: 1

      I remember as a very young kid in the 70's hearing about the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment and wondering how they managed to aim and point the laser correctly and get it to return properly and all that. It still blows my mind today when I understand much more than I did back then, when I delve into even a cursory overview of the techniques the ongoing experiment uses to aim, point, and collect the photons to generate the experimental results.

    59. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you stalk\harass apk? Your post history's evidence. No denying it. Anyone can verify it as I have. Are you so obsessed with him doing better than you have in computing that you feel compelled to stalk and harass him constantly like a psycho you're showing us you are by doing it? He's challenged you to do better. It's evident you can't. You can't even prove his lists of points favoring hosts files wrong, agreeing with him he is correct on them from recent replies of yours in exchanges with apk you've had. What's your problem? Jealousy?

    60. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians placed two retroflectors on the moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon Does this mean they sent humans there? Guess not.

    61. Re: Of course not. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think he just likes playing Godzilla. He's a Wookiee bully.

    62. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do we know that the soviets were locked into a space race with the us? maybe they werent, and the current media constructs makes us think that? how do we even know that the soviet union ever existed? or the saturn rockets? they may have been fakes filmed last year. in fact, all the footage of the moon landings would be possible to fake with current CGI, so perhaps the entire space program was created last year, INCLUDING all the conspiracy reports prior to this year. creating a bunch of wild conspiracy rants only serves to convince us sane people that the loonies must be wrong. classic false flag.

      Tsiolsky, von braun were robot puppets. neil armstrong is a lizard alien. barack obama is a Gray.
      go ahead, prove me wrong. you cant. all evidence that could prove wrong anything i type is false.

    63. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, those pictures are blurry and you could claim seeing just about anything on them i.e. i saw Waldo... prove me wrong

      Send a little lander to take HD footage of the site up close and personal and we shall never speak of it again.

    64. Re: Of course not. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Hmm, how about the fact that I and my friends personally remember many of the events happening at the time?

      Oh no!!! I just realized my own memory must be in on the conspiracy! This is so much worse than I ever imagined! Or is it? Maybe this isn't the first time I've realized this - if my memory is in on it then it could simply refuse to recall any previous realizations... Thanks a lot, I can't trust anything now!

      Wait, what was I talking about? Oh well, can't have been too important. If you'll excuse me I'm off to watch funny cat videos. Those things won't laugh at themselves after all.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    65. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for fucks sake. sure there is a *tiny* amount of light reflecting off air and it has nothing to do with anything. But most light around just reflects of the fucking ground and walls and shit you moron. You don't need fucking air for light dipshit. Otherwise how the fuck can we see with *moonlight* at night?

      And here i am correcting a dipshit on the internet.. who is the more stupid?

    66. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you just keep doing this, apk. Maybe find something worthwhile to do instead of harassing someone and then claiming to be harassed by him?

    67. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, several attempts might be necessary, but that's because they're relatively small and aiming is hard. It can't be the surface of the moon though; the moon's surface is not a retroreflector.

    68. Re: Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had...no alimony...

    69. Re:Of course not. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'd take a look at the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey released the year before. The special effects in that movie blow away Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun and hold up quite well today.

    70. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "2001 A Space Odyssey" , which arguably had the SFX chops to fake it, has a budget of 10.2 million. Of course, this low figure is only there to hide the fact that "2001: A Space Odyssey" was merely cover for the faking of the moon landings, much like Hughes 'Glomar Challenger' was "looking for magnesium nodules" on the ocean floor, not secretly trying to raise a sunken Soviet ballistic missile sub.

    71. Re:Of course not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if we STOPPED SHOOTING THE MOON WITH FRACKING LASERS, she wouldn't be headed towards a Space:1999 departure. Sure, she's only moving away at 3.8 cm/year NOW...

    72. Re: Of course not. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Sig] Recession: Your neighbor's out of a job. Depression: You're out of a job. Recovery: 0bama's out of a job.

      O saved our caboose from a Hoover-like 25% unemployment rate. The extent of the financial side of the crash was similar to 1929's. The gop's alt plan was rather Hoover-like and would probably have relived history instead of learned from it if given a chance.

    73. Re:Of course not. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      What if the reflector is just a really shiny rock!? ;)

    74. Re: Of course not. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right? Real unemployment (not the bullshit numbers flogged by the regime) is probably on the other side of 20% when you take into account everybody who's quit looking in this shitty economy.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  2. The Russians are full of surprises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next they'll be telling us that Jesus had a dinosaur ranch.

    1. Re:The Russians are full of surprises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus DID have a dinosaur ranch. That is the very definition of a carpenter!

  3. ask the cosmonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Roscosmos think it was faked or not?

  4. In other, "only in Russia" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re: In other, "only in Russia" news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Liberals suck! Good for Russia. We should be teaching kids in America too.

    2. Re: In other, "only in Russia" news... by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

      Mommy! Mommy! I wanna go on the bear ride again!

  5. The reason is the US FIFA investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There, saved you reading the article.

    1. Re:The reason is the US FIFA investigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? Insightful!

    2. Re:The reason is the US FIFA investigation by Raseri · · Score: 1

      Surely you're not suggesting anyone here was going to read the article.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
  6. Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by istartedi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will Buzz Aldrin please pick up the white courtesy phone? We have need of your your services.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      We'll have to sic Stannis Barratheon on you for the "whom" signature.

    2. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1
      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

      Indeed, it is obvious that someone does not care about language. Whom shall we say it is?

    4. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roger that. Aldrin here. What's up?

    5. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

      Indeed, it is obvious that someone does not care about language. Whom shall we say it is?

      What about non-intensive purposes?

      The correct phrase is "for all intents and purposes.."
      We're on to you, Vlad!

    6. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Buzz Aldrin... You sir are a bad ass.
      Went to the moon.
      Punched an idiot for saying that we did not go to the moon.
      Armstrong was also a class act but you got to love Buzz Aldrin.
      Next you need to punch Adam Curry over and over again for claim that Armstrong lied about the moon landing right after he passed away.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Good catch

    9. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone on knows it's "for all in tents, and porpoises"!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      And the incorrect use of "intensive" in the quote...unless I'm missing some intended humor there? If so I apologize...

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    11. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is obvious that someone does not care about language. Whom shall we say it is?

      Im of the opinion that only the grammer Nazi's care. Irregardless of that who gets "whom" right anyway?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Buzz Aldrin, paging Buzz Aldrin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, to whom do these intensive purposes belong? and what makes them intensive?

  7. It's just grumbling about US investigations by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    From T first FA:

    Venting his frustration with what he viewed as "U.S. prosecutors having declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs," Markin proposed that international investigators could likewise examine some of the murkier elements of America's past.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is sort of amazing that the US managed to get involved in FIFA. You'd think that a secretive organization based in Switzerland, of all places, could handle a little slush money without passing through US jurisdiction.

      Seems like sloppy work, to me.

    2. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like sloppy work, to me.

      Or, just a bunch of Republicans making-up shit again. That is what they do. They lie constantly. In this case, they're lying in order to destroy something they hate. That is how they do.

    3. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The US claims jurisdiction over all transactions that use US Dollars, anywhere in the world. Criminals should switch to Euros to avoid being pursued by the US outside its borders.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      " Criminals should switch to Euros to avoid being pursued by the US outside its borders."
      So besides Russia and Qatar is anyone upset with the US going after FIFA?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta guess the leaders for the next world cup are irritated that all their money has been wasted.

      Sucks to have the official you just bribed get exposed and arrested.

    6. Re:It's just grumbling about US investigations by camperdave · · Score: 1

      As the US would say: Justice has no borders - as demonstrated by the movie Smokey and The Bandit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  8. I Think Maybe Ivan Should Put Up, Or Shut Up by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    Ivan is very good at using spy satilites, why not train those cold war rusting boxes on the moon and photograph it?

    1. Re:I Think Maybe Ivan Should Put Up, Or Shut Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comrade, we have and there is nothing there. People here are saying that there are pictures of the landing site taken from orbit, but only people that seem to be taking them is U.A.S. government. Suspicious, no?

    2. Re:I Think Maybe Ivan Should Put Up, Or Shut Up by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe this would be a good time for Ivan to Put Up or Shut Up? How about all the soviet moon landing sites?

  9. Putin Vs. Donald Trump by retroworks · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a sideshow war

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Putin Vs. Donald Trump by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      The hair Putin doesn't have is better than the hair Trump does. But, overall a fair comparison - they're both overcompensating, megalomaniacal sociopaths.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:Putin Vs. Donald Trump by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      The hair Putin doesn't have is better than the hair Trump does. But, overall a fair comparison - they're both overcompensating, megalomaniacal sociopaths.

      But one of them has nukes.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Putin Vs. Donald Trump by msauve · · Score: 1

      ...and the other has blackjack and hookers.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    4. Re:Putin Vs. Donald Trump by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure Putin has nukes, blackjack, and hookers.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Putin Vs. Donald Trump by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Putin has nukes, blackjack, and hookers.

      Yes, there was an extended discussion about Jenny further up in the comments.

  10. Find JFK's brain too, since you're looking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not solve the riddle of why Cheney called off NORAD on 9/11 too?

    1. Re:Find JFK's brain too, since you're looking by KGIII · · Score: 1

      His brain was easy to find. It was all over the car, in his wife's hand, and some left in his skull. You do not think we saved it, do you?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. Don't give too much credit to what he says by ScudBee · · Score: 1

    He is just a moron. A Putin's moron to be exact.

  12. Space Race by CrystalShepard · · Score: 2

    Maybe if they believe we've never been there they'll restart the Space Race in an effort to get there first.

    1. Re:Space Race by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Mod: +1, Hopefully.

  13. Apollo 18 by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

    Here's why various moon rocks have gone missing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGhKzUUaME

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Apollo 18 by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      When I was in middle school we had a guy from NASA give a talk about the moon landings and he passed moon rocks around the classroom. This was early seventies and it kinda blew my mind that I could actually hold one of them. Made quite an impression. Anyway, I gave it back but I wouldn't put be surprised if that guy put one in his pocket as a "souvenir".

    2. Re:Apollo 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Passing around bits of pumice to gullible school kids seems like a real mean trick.

    3. Re:Apollo 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I held one in my hand in early '90s (also someone from NASA visited my school---but nobody except geeky-me showed up (it was in library after school hours), so I got to hold the ``rock on display'' in my hand for a photograph).

    4. Re:Apollo 18 by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy but I think we actually had one at my school. I seem to recall that they took the rock back and gave us a tree. I was in high school as I recall. This would have been... 1970ish to 1974ish... I had discovered the joys of marijuana and attending a school where that was not expected so not searched for or the likes. Point is, my memory is very fuzzy but I could have sworn we had one. It was in the Astronomy section. My school had (still does) an observatory.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  14. did they or didnt they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    """Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio."""
    Thats exactly what he is suggesting and he'd be right ? Or would he be wrong ?
    Watch 'A Funny thing happend on the way to the moon' and 'Astronauts gone wild' to find out me thinks.

  15. The tapes were re-used by whitelabrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A while back there was a huge hunt to find the original tapes used to record the lunar landing. It is suspected that the tape was re-used due to NASA's tight budget and they couldn't afford more tape. The tape was very expensive at the time so it was common to just re-use what they could find. The Apollo mission was done, so why would they need to keep the tape around. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

    That or it's stashed under someone's coffee table and forgotten about.

    1. Re:The tapes were re-used by Burdell · · Score: 1

      Being in somebody's attic is not impossible; they could have been mislabelled and targeted to be thrown out and somebody just kept them (possibly without knowing what they've got). I've got a Skylab Operations Handbook for the Apollo Telescope Mount sitting on my desk, and I know my father had reel-to-reel tapes of the audio from the lunar lander missions on the shelf at one point (both were being thrown away).

      Stuff also gets actually thrown out eventually. I've seen many boxes of punch cards from NASA going to recycling.

    2. Re:The tapes were re-used by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. It's the same reason why there are missing episodes of Doctor Who and other early television shows. Yes, it was the first moon landing, but tape was expensive and people didn't think about saving this stuff as much. After all, if we had gone by aspirations from the 1960's, we'd have had a moon base by now with permanent residents. Going to the moon might have been akin to going on vacation to a far off foreign country - a special trip you take once or twice if you can afford it. Not something for the masses, but not quite "rich people only" either.

      *remembers that there hasn't been a moon landing in my lifetime*

      *gets very sad*

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:The tapes were re-used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, if we had gone by aspirations from the 1960's, we'd have had a moon base by now with permanent residents.

      But now we're going to Mars!

      No, back to the moon!

      No, we're going to an asteroid!

      NO, TO MARS!

      NO, TO A MOON OF MARS!

      ARRRRRRRGH!

    4. Re:The tapes were re-used by imidan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is suspected that the tape was re-used due to NASA's tight budget and they couldn't afford more tape.

      Not just budget concerns. There was also a big problem in the 80s when commercial whaling was outlawed. The tape that NASA had used to record a lot of data involved whale oil in its production somehow. When whaling went out, whale oil went away, and companies that made data tape scrambled to replace it with something. They came up with synthetic alternatives, but because they didn't have much time to test, they discovered after it was already in use that the new stuff basically turned into glue after sitting on a shelf too long, which ruined tapes. So the old whale oil tapes became valuable for re-use, since you could depend on them not gluing together and losing all of your data. So that's another reason why NASA taped over a lot of irreplaceable data.

      At a conference last year, I spoke with a NASA guy who was working on recovering a lot of old lunar data. He told me about the whale oil angle. He also said their best find at that point had been a whole palette/palettes of the whale oil tapes that had been sent from one NASA group to another to be copied over, but had been misplaced in a warehouse during transit, and just sat there ever since.

    5. Re:The tapes were re-used by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      On top of this, these were tapes of mostly telemetry data, of which most of the interesting data had been copied for whatever it was needed for. That includes the video: it was slow-scan video which had already been converted to more useful forms for live broadcast...we could do a better conversion now if we had the data (especially for the first few minutes, where the scan converter was misconfigured), but they didn't think it was necessary, especially when we brought back reels of film from the Maurer DAC showing the astronauts working on the moon in far greater quality than any video equipment at the time could have managed, not to mention all the still photos, which were far more accessible at the time.

    6. Re:The tapes were re-used by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      A while back there was a huge hunt to find the original tapes used to record the lunar landing.

      ... and the last entry in the borrowers book was signed Alex Jones .

      The truth is "out there", if you can't find it:-

      • you're spelling it wrong (it's troof, not truth)
      • that just proves the conspiracy (which includes most dictionaries).

      I know for a fact - because Shirley McLaine told me (when she channeled Depack Chopra).

    7. Re:The tapes were re-used by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      They should have just switched back from whale oil tapes to good old-fashioned Nibblonian dark matter tapes.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    8. Re:The tapes were re-used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Apollo mission was done, so why would they need to keep the tape around. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time."

      Yes, sure, very convincing and believable...

      What a stupid hypothesis. "why would they need to keep the tape around". How expensive could the tape possibly have been? It only contained the master recording of one of white people's greatest achievements. (I won't say "mankind's greatest achievements" because clearly AFRICANS are incapable of even building a bloody car, let alone a spacecraft..)

    9. Re:The tapes were re-used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "When whaling went out, whale oil went away, and companies that made data tape scrambled to replace it width something."

      Obligatory: We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing our whaling tune.

    10. Re:The tapes were re-used by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? We're going to a moon of an asteroid now.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:The tapes were re-used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't say "mankind's greatest achievements" because clearly AFRICANS are incapable of even building a bloody car, let alone a spacecraft..)

      Most white people are also incapable of this. You either use the generalized "mankind" or get specific and say "greatest achievement of NASA engineers from a half-century ago.

  16. Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fine, go ahead Russia, spend a chunk of your GDP and put some boots on the Moon and fact check the U.S.

    Oh yeah, make sure to make some more nuclear missiles. That's not cheap either, but security!

    But wait...weren't these exact activities what caused the USSR to bankrupt themselves back in the 90's? Just checking.

    No hate Russia, but you need to rein in your rhetoric. You have been beaten by playing this hand before.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re: Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Russia is building 40 new ICBMs. http://www.cnbc.com/id/102761893

      America is funny. Let's put the people in a panic with enemies (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea). Our military has bankrupted us!

    2. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no shit! Only this time they're more players at the table; namely China and India. Careful Russia, America may not be your friend, but we're not your enemy either. But make not mistake, there are other nations that will rat-fuck you when you lease expect it.

      Then again, perhaps all this animosity towards America is to prove to China and India that they're still a superpower and to be respected; all while having about the same GDP as the state of California. Meaning, they know America wont do dick to Russia, but Russia can't exactly make veiled threats to any member of the BRICs. What a fucking motley group they are!

    3. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Livius · · Score: 1

      weren't these exact activities what caused the USSR to bankrupt themselves

      Lots of activities contributed to that.

      Including the irony of having 18 million people employed in planning the economy and being extremely bad at it.

    4. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want to know when someone is wrong about the economy? They try to predict it.

      If it were possible anyone smart that dedicated their lives to it, lets call them economists, would all easily be billionaires.

    5. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      China especially is a far closer friend than the US to Russia, history has shown the US is far more likely to be engaged in rat fucking given the past 30 years of meddling in politics in the region.

    6. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you would have personally now a 50 billion dept. Would you call yourself to be a rich man? Maybe, but everyone else would call you to be in bankrupt.
      When USA has http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 61 trillion dept (and raising), would you call USA to be in bankrupt? I would, but seems that most of the others wouldn't!
      When Russia has $ 241,565,000,000 dept, everyone calls them to be in bankrupt, but I don't because 241 billion is easy to pay off by Russia.

      But 61 trillion dollars dept (and raising dramatically), and you say something about Russia going bankrupt?

      ROFL!

    7. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Meddling in politics like invading Georgia and Ukraine?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Um, US Total debt is the debt of everyone plus the government. Are you comparing that to all Russian citizen's personal debt too? The US government is $18T in debt, not $61T.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:Let Russia Bankrupt Themselves To Check by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Rhetoric that you don't have to follow up on is very cheap.

  17. The footage is with the lost Doctor Who episodes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Find the lost Doctor Who episodes, and you will find your answer. Probably not, but I would be happy. I want to see the Marco Polo serial.

  18. What is this crap? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

    So, some guy from a Russian Investigative Committee for ... what exactly? Snide innuendo and propaganda?

    Does he have a mandate for something?

    This is some idiot trying to throw around smoke about the fact that Russia is implicated in bribery with FIFA, and then somehow pulling the bullshit nugget out of his as to fling poo at the moon landings?

    I wonder if Mr Vladimir Markin has stopped sodomizing young boys and embezzling resources from the state.

    This article is such thinly veiled rhetoric and bullshit as to be deserving of a fucking award.

    Vladimir Markin penned a column for the Izvestia newspaper arguing that U.S. authorities had crossed a line by launching a large-scale corruption probe targeting nine FIFA officials. The scandal surrounding the case prompted the June 2 resignation of longtime FIFA president Sepp Blatter, and sparked a heated debate about Russia's role as host of the 2018 World Cup.

    Venting his frustration with what he viewed as "U.S. prosecutors having declared themselves the supreme arbiters of international football affairs," Markin proposed that international investigators could likewise examine some of the murkier elements of America's past.

    An international investigation could help solve the mystery of the disappearance of film footage from the original moon landing in 1969, or explain where the nearly 400 kilograms of lunar rock reportedly obtained during several such missions between 1969 and 1972 have been spirited away to, Markin suggested.

    In three paragraphs he bitches about what we really wants to complain about, tosses in a snide reference to Americans investigating corruption, and then insinuiates that maybe there are other pieces of history for which the Americans have also acted corrupt and dishonorably. There's not even a pretense of denying Russia was corrupt.

    Then the next two paragraphs is more innuendo to throw the reader away from realizing that Russia is alleged to have benefited from corruption in FIFA

    I sincerely hope journalism classes are doing a case study in propaganda, and logic students everywhere are being shown the bald-faced, lies, innuendo, and misdirection in this utter piece of crap.

    Bra-fucking-oh, I hadn't realized the extent to which the press in Moscow was still so utterly a tool of government.

    That's some exceptionally well done lies right there. Carefully crafted to look like a reasoned argument, when in fact it's specious misdirection and innuendo.

    I certainly hope that Mr Vladimir Markin doesn't have too many children out of wedlock, that could get awfully expensive.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:What is this crap? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I hadn't realized the extent to which the press in Moscow was still so utterly a tool of government.

      Then you really haven't been paying attention.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:What is this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      out of wedlock OR
      gunsights?

    3. Re:What is this crap? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Honestly, since the weekly threats to nuke us seem to have mostly ended ... yes.

      Certainly not at the level of reading the drivel in their papers, for instance.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:What is this crap? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Oh my god, it is APK's actual Slashdot account!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:What is this crap? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      In three paragraphs he bitches about what we really wants to complain about, tosses in a snide reference to Americans investigating corruption, and then insinuiates that maybe there are other pieces of history for which the Americans have also acted corrupt and dishonorably. There's not even a pretense of denying Russia was corrupt.

      This is pretty much how Russians argue, from top officials to media pundits to paid Internet trolls. Deflect the conversation away from your own corruption, however you can.

      After all, if person X is indicted for corruption, but unrelated persons Y and Z aren't ALSO indicted for unrelated matters at the same time, well then it's just not fucking fair and the whole thing has to be dropped!

  19. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just when I thought the fake moon landing conversation had ended.

    It will not end until the truth comes out. When I was a kid, I went on the Universal Studio tour, and when I went to the toilet, the tram left without me. So I looked around, and accidentally wandered into the warehouse with the fake Tranquility Base. Everything was done in Styrofoam, painted gray to match the color of the moon. There was an exact replica of the Eagle lander. I saw it all with my own eyes. Then the security guards grabbed me, threatened me, and told me that no one would believe me if I said anything. It is ironic that after all these years, it is the Russians that have finally revealed the coverup.

  20. "Murky Details . . ." by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Well, here you go Mr. Putin; here are the tapes that you have been looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Since this contains content of a . . . well . . . "confidential" nature . . . you should view this late at night, after your wife has gone to bed.

    . . . and don't forget a box of tissues, and some hand cream.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:"Murky Details . . ." by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      What does Putin have to do with this?

      This is Markin, the well known token ultra nationalist retard who works as a spokesman rather than investigator. He's a bit like Rush Limbaugh in US, only with a whole lot less audience. Pens private op-eds every once in a while. He was mentioned a couple of times during a prime time show we had here in Finland about relations, basically dismissed by everyone as someone who likes attention and only gets it by publishing private over the top op-eds.

    2. Re:"Murky Details . . ." by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the Russian media does the same sort of thing, i.e. portrays Limbaugh as some kind of spokesman for Obama?

      About a decade ago a British newspaper called The Sun ran a story about how Japanese women were being tricked into buying sheep that had been sheared to look like poodles. There were confused as to why they didn't bark or eat dog food. Of course it was nonsense, eventually traced back to a joke someone told. Anyway, other retarded newspapers around the world picked it up, and then the Japanese media noticed. Ever since there have been monthly stories about how stupid and gullible British people are, often featuring obviously false stories published in the Sun or Daily Mail. Of course some of it is actually true, like the pictures of drunk people having sex in the street or looting in London, but still...

      So the standard angle is now that British people are kind of stupid. Similar to how there is a stereotype about Russian people, and the media likes to find idiots that exemplify it and publicise them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:"Murky Details . . ." by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the Russian media does the same sort of thing, i.e. portrays Limbaugh as some kind of spokesman for Obama?

      About a decade ago a British newspaper called The Sun ran a story about how Japanese women were being tricked into buying sheep that had been sheared to look like poodles. There were confused as to why they didn't bark or eat dog food. Of course it was nonsense, eventually traced back to a joke someone told. Anyway, other retarded newspapers around the world picked it up, and then the Japanese media noticed. Ever since there have been monthly stories about how stupid and gullible British people are, often featuring obviously false stories published in the Sun or Daily Mail. Of course some of it is actually true, like the pictures of drunk people having sex in the street or looting in London, but still...

      So the standard angle is now that British people are kind of stupid. Similar to how there is a stereotype about Russian people, and the media likes to find idiots that exemplify it and publicise them.

      But stereotypes about Russian people are all true! They are all scary and depressed psychopaths! That's why nobody is their friend!

      It certainly isn't the case that they are reclusive because they have a hard time making friends due to the stereotypes. That would be ridiculous.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  21. How about Fuck You Vlad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the rest of your delusional Russians comrades. Go march in a Stalin "victory" parade and fantasize about your fictional history as a great nation.

    You don't get to "investigate" your betters.

  22. Nothing to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously NASA has nothing to hide and would welcome such an investigation.

  23. The proof? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:The proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The proof.

      So Google Moon uses the same fake moon imagery that NASA used back in the 1960s. Fascinating.

    2. Re:The proof? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      And everybody in the whole world is part of the conspiracy. Except you.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  24. Not that he'd know anything about this... by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Funny

    He went on to say "I'm very skeptical, since the background in a lot of those moon photos looks just like the set we used to film those attacks on defenseless Russians by Ukrainian thugs...uh...um...I mean...nevermind."

  25. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly fake. I can tell from some of the pixels.

    Okay, okay, the bottom 90% of the vehicle that gets to a translunar trajectory is real because we saw it go up and disappear. But the top 10% was faked. That makes sense.

    --
    What about the Ant People? They owe us money.
  26. Missing by Livius · · Score: 1

    Missing? How could we let that happen? Those were the *last* moon rocks!

  27. We Can Use This by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    Now we can label moon landing sceptics (and with luck many other subspecies) as commie loving freedom haters.

    Wrong in so many ways, true. But I bet it'd stick.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  28. Radio Telescopes by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    Sure, because apparently the USSR didn't have radio telescopes tracking the missions. 'Cause they weren't really interested in moon shots back then, right? Free lunar telemetry for anyone pointing their dishes in the right spot? Pfft, no thank you.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  29. The real fraud is that being perpetrated by mark_reh · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    by the fast food companies. They load the food with genetically engineered microbes that kill off and replace the microbes that normally populate our guts. These microbes bear payloads of prions that can pass the blood-brain barrier and target the pleasure centers in the brain causing us to become addicted to the fast food. This causes us to gain weight. The pharmaceutical companies are in on the plot in order to sell more diabetes and other obesity-related health problem medications.

    The real shock will come when we learn that true masters of the fast food companies and pharmaceutical companies are actually aliens from another planet who are fattening us up like so many cattle, before they come en mass to slaughter us for food.

    THAT is what should be investigated!

    1. Re:The real fraud is that being perpetrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To Serve Man", it's - it's a cookbook!"

      Captcha: stuffed

    2. Re:The real fraud is that being perpetrated by dbIII · · Score: 1

      These microbes bear payloads of prions that can pass the blood-brain barrier and target the pleasure centers in the brain

      You mean sugar, fat, salt and caffeine are not enough to make us happy with junk food?
      Heresy!

  30. Dr Strangelove by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    The secret died with Stanley Kubrick.

    http://realitysandwich.com/232...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Dr Strangelove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was going to post something similar. The Kubrick documentary / commentary was very interesting with regards to the connections between the NASA moon landings and the movie 'The Shinning'.

    2. Re:Dr Strangelove by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

      I think if there was anything covered up in the moon landings it was alien related. Not that they helped us get there, just we accidentally photographed them as well, or something.

      Kennedy was assassinated because he dared to release the silver certificate back into circulation. The day after he was murdered, those BilderScum, had their living puppet pull the certificates. Kennedy isn't even in the ground yet, but oh no we must remove the silver from circulation! You might, I don't know actually control inflation for once, and threaten the very core of our petro-dollar hegemony! Perish the thought...

      I like that term BilderScum, I am going to use it from now on. BIlderburg as in 'God of the mountain' (Bil / Bel / Baal = god, der = from / of, burg = mountain). So Lord of the scum. That's all you wretched vermin get, our sewer system, Enjoy it.

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  31. Quid pro quo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll let them go to the moon themselves and investigate in exchange for the U.S. Investigating eastern Ukraine and the Russian borderlands thereabouts. Both are foreign hostile environments.

    Let them go look for themselves...

  32. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did they also spray you with rum, so no one will believe your story?

  33. USA on the moon proof... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    Scoreboard: when ALL the other teams walk away after looking at the final score. that's what happened in 1969.

  34. Maybe he watched youtube by Shempster · · Score: 1

    Maybe he watched a youtube video by Richard Hoagland and believes there's an ancient 250 million year old disintegrating (from micrometeorite impacts), domed city of mile-high skyscrapers on the dark side of the moon. Furthermore, that NASA decided to classify it all and said 'we'll deal with all that later'. Interesting delusion, and would make a decent sci-fi book if you're a creative writer type.

  35. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    No, Apollo took place before aerospace became more about money than aerospace and also took place before the 1971 bankruptcy of the US, The Apollo program did run it's course. There were a number of country's that captured and relayed the actual footage. Sad part about it is the Apollo program ending and the space shuttle program ending with the death of teachers then being put on a spy mission that failed was not the actual Kennedy space program. There were only a handful of people that knew what was going on with it, I knew two and one died in 1964, the other in 1996.

  36. Re:The footage is with the lost Doctor Who episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are people who claim that was just recorded on a set in a studio, too! Crackpots!

  37. Think he means missing specks of dust. by Llamalarity · · Score: 1

    There are few if any missing moon rocks. Other than the small ones gifted to politicians... While there may be many missing samples these are extremely tiny and often intended to be consumed by whatever test they were being subjected to. http://www.meteorite-list-archives.com/2011/dec/0222.html Nothing to be concerned about here, lots of other things do deserve our attention.

    1. Re:Think he means missing specks of dust. by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you people keep going on about these moon rocks. The documentary 'Portal 2' showed us that, if anything there is a glut of moon rocks, and that they may be bad for your health.

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  38. Bring on the investigation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it did indeed happen, this will end all the conspiracy theories regarding the subject once and for all.

    If it didn't... I can't say I'd be surprised considering how desperate Americans were to save face after a "poor" and "incompetent" communist country beat them to space.

    Anyway, the whole thing is so selfish, anyway. Americans claim they did it for humanity yet they never shared their know-how with the rest of the world so others could attempt the same feat and later build on their knowledge for the betterment of the WHOLE world.

    I went to college in US and for some reason the subject of moon landing came up. Somebody asked the professor why we're not doing it anymore and he said no one knows how anymore. Okay, so things like pen and paper didn't exist then or what? No one bothered to document the process of an important historical event?

    Bring on the investigation.

  39. Re:The footage is with the lost Doctor Who episode by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    They lost the footage because it clearly shows a TARDIS in the background. Can't have everyone knowing The Doctor is real, now can they?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  40. From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.

    * could have also been suspiciously.

    Personally, I don't go in for the whole UFO thing or conspiracy theories about the moon landings but they have both maintained this story as what they both heard. I always thought those stories were just covers for intelligence operations - which seemed more feasible. I just think the moon landings were a pretty amazing achievement.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:From people who listened to it live by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.

      * could have also been suspiciously.

      I watched it and I never heard that. Neither did anyone else I went to school with. At best someone has been yanking your chain. You say you heard that from someone who saw it - almost every Australian from a few years younger than me - to 5 years older would have watched (tv wasn't in every home, but most schools had one, even if they borrowed it) it - yet only the supposed source of you anecdote heard "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut?!

      The feed wasn't "cut" either.

    2. Re:From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      At best someone has been yanking your chain. You say you heard that from someone who saw it - almost every Australian from a few years younger than me - to 5 years older would have watched (tv wasn't in every home, but most schools had one, even if they borrowed it) it -

      Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement to make. Don't you think you are being a little bite arrogant? I said, 'Anecdotal' and 'I don't go in for the whole UFO thing or conspiracy theories about the moon landings' so apart from giving them the benefit of the doubt that was the limit of my chain being yanked.

      I was speculating on what the Russian government wanted investigated about the moon landing because it didn't say in the article. I wasn't there so I don't have the benefit of what you saw in school but I do know that it was at least 2 people who told me the same thing and they had adult mature brains with an adult capacity for memory, making them approximately 20 years older than you at the time. Still, I had some doubt.

      yet only the supposed source of you anecdote heard "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut?!

      The feed wasn't "cut" either.

      I don't claim that what I know is the truth, are you? I was curious about what other people had heard because, yes, I doubted it myself until I read about a U.S Congressman asking Congress question about exactly the same statement by Apollo 11. It wasn't what I expected to find.

      So maybe they weren't the only ones who heard those words. I didn't, either.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:From people who listened to it live by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a pretty absolute statement to make.

      It's a binary thing, and I'm not relying on anecdotes. I know what I heard, and I've heard a lot of conspiracy stories since. I've discussed it with family and friends since - who also remember the actual event - as opposed to someone who says someone told them, and they all say the same thing. Of course it's possible everyone but your sources were brainwashed (or part of the conspiracy), and the original recording were doctored to match the broadcast records (length of the broadcast). But I'll give more weight to the simplest explanation.

      Don't you think you are being a little bite arrogant?

      No. Your response is arrogant - or do you call dismissing the opinion of the majority in favor of the opinions of a few, open-minded?

      I said, 'Anecdotal'

      Noted on the first read. You're not new to /. so you know the anecdote adage.

      I was speculating on what the Russian government wanted investigated about the moon landing because it didn't say in the article.

      It didn't? Which article - the one referenced by the /. story? Or the one it sourced?:- "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote. ref1

      I suspect it's just a case of "don't criticise us about the Ukraine or our hosting the 2018 FIFA", amongst other things - hard to tell from the google-translate of the source article, unless you happen to be fluent in the language. He's a politician, and he writes a blog, or at least someone does in his name - it may have just been the first thing that popped into the writer's head when they spent two minutes trying to think of something suitably click-bait for the day's feed. What is clear is that he does not question whether the Lunar landing occurred or not.

      I do know that it was at least 2 people who told me the same thing and they had adult mature brains with an adult capacity for memory, making them approximately 20 years older than you at the time.

      What are you trying to say? That you can't do maths - or am ad-hominen attack properly? (if they're 20 years older than me they've been pensioners for some time - maybe there's an organic explanation? see that's how it's done) That my parents, uncles (including one who worked at Parkes as a non-NASA employee at the time), aunties, teachers and many thousands of other "non-school age" Australians are part of the same conspiracy? (bear in mind we didn't have fluoridated water in our youth).

      I read about a U.S Congressman asking Congress question about exactly the same statement by Apollo 11.

      I'm curious and wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened, not that it'd mean that much given that members of congress believe all sorts of wacky shit - and represent some truly weird beliefs. (as do some of our senators e.g. the shower of stupid that came down prior to the Bill of Rights referendum). Do you have a reference for that, and how much weight do you believe it adds to the conspiracy?

    4. Re:From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It's a binary thing, and I'm not relying on anecdotes. I know what I heard, and I've heard a lot of conspiracy stories since. I've discussed it with family and friends since - who also remember the actual event

      My bad, I didn't mean anecdotal (posting tired). They were family members who heard those words from the broadcast and have maintained the story with no variation.

      No. Your response is arrogant - or do you call dismissing the opinion of the majority in favor of the opinions of a few, open-minded?

      Apologies, I was tired a not doing very good job of not taking it personally because it was family and I didn't express myself properly. I had doubt myself

      It didn't? Which article - the one referenced by the /. story? Or the one it sourced?:- "We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened," Markin wrote.

      Sorry, I'd closed that down because the ads were annoying. It's a tragic loss, to see the high res film instead of a film of a monitor in B/W would be an appropriate use of the word awesome.

      It's a bothersome mindworm though.

      I suspect it's just a case of "don't criticise us about the Ukraine or our hosting the 2018 FIFA"

      Not an unreasonable premise.

      What are you trying to say? That you can't do maths - or am ad-hominen attack properly? (if they're 20 years older than me they've been pensioners for some time - maybe there's an organic explanation? see that's how it's done)

      Not at all, no attack intended, just tired. I don't know many children can maintain that attention for that many hours. I'd agree with you on the organic explanation but the story has been maintained for well over 30 years. I just don't see a punchline anytime soon.

      That my parents, uncles (including one who worked at Parkes as a non-NASA employee at the time), aunties, teachers and many thousands of other "non-school age" Australians are part of the same conspiracy? (bear in mind we didn't have fluoridated water in our youth).

      Well I don't believe they have maintained a lie either, I have no idea what it means. They don't drink, smoke or take drugs. I'm not committed to any view point on the matter and maybe I'll get to listen to the whole thing one day.

      I'm curious and wouldn't be at all surprised if that happened, not that it'd mean that much given that members of congress believe all sorts of wacky shit - and represent some truly weird beliefs.

      Who knows, there are so many lies out there and so many amazing stories sound like wacky shit. You can pursue the truth if you can evaluate it rationally.

      (as do some of our senators e.g. the shower of stupid that came down prior to the Bill of Rights referendum).

      Which Bill of Rights?

      Do you have a reference for that, and how much weight do you believe it adds to the conspiracy?

      I wish I did, but it was never important enough to my to bother with. I wanted to dismiss it. But I went from doubt to WTF!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:From people who listened to it live by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      My bad, I didn't mean anecdotal (posting tired). They were family members who heard those words from the broadcast and have maintained the story with no variation.

      When you say "I was told" "some people in my family"/"at least 2 people" it is an anecdote (to us).

      Apologies

      No skin off my back.

      It's a tragic loss

      Yes. Maybe the Russians stole it?

      I don't know many children can maintain that attention for that many hours.

      Huh?! The radio broadcast started before breakfast, but it was a normal school day until just before lunch. The television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch East Coast Time. It didn't run for "hours".
      No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.

      If you do your maths I have to be somewhere between 53 and 67 (between 5 and 18 at the time, ). Do you not have complete memories of important, much heralded events during that time? It helps that television was very new - we "watched" it then (and wearing onions on our belts was a custom at the time, back in nineteen dicketty doo).

      TThey don't drink, smoke or take drugs.

      There's the problem! [brains are probably soft as their arteries, mutter, mutter]

      You can pursue the truth if you can evaluate it rationally.

      ... and have all the facts. Otherwise you run a strong risk of finding only facts that support a preconceived rationale.

      Which Bill of Rights?

      The one we didn't vote for (1988) - thanks to Alan Jones and other conspiracy nutters. As such the only constitutional rights we have is free trade between states - which we do not have.

      If you want to pursue conspiracies try looking at what Harold Holt had for breakfast instead of hunting for Chinese submarines, read the transcripts of the Falcon and the Snowman trials, or consider whether a peppercorn of rent is a compliment. And then there's the full story of Maralinga - more than just a few hundred pallets of radioactive material dumped just outside of Sydney Heads. Or just accept that conspiracies are a fact of life - most of which come to naught.

    6. Re:From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      When you say "I was told" "some people in my family"/"at least 2 people" it is an anecdote (to us).

      Kind of like your story is to me.

      Yes. Maybe the Russians stole it?

      It was probably the aliens idea of a joke.

      Huh?! It didn't run for "hours".

      So you admit you weren't paying attention

      No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.

      If you do your maths I have to be somewhere between 53 and 67 (between 5 and 18 at the time, ).

      So, back then would they have called you "A little fucken smart arse" instead?

      Do you not have complete memories of important, much heralded events during that time?

      When I lost my virginity?

      It helps that television was very new - we "watched" it then

      YOU WERE WATCHING!!! Well, I suppose you're only human.

      (and wearing onions on our belts was a custom at the time, back in nineteen dicketty doo).

      Generation triple X, read all about the weed smoke and the kinky sex, get fucked.

      There's the problem! [brains are probably soft as their arteries, mutter, mutter]

      I think you are onto something.

      ... and have all the facts. Otherwise you run a strong risk of finding only facts that support a preconceived rationale.

      HooRay for Hollywood!!! Vested interests exist, so the truth is constantly raped. Thanks for sharing what you heard, as I said I'm not committed to a view on this, it is interesting.

      The one we didn't vote for (1988) - thanks to Alan Jones and other conspiracy nutters. As such the only constitutional rights we have is free trade between states - which we do not have.

      Indeed he is a cunt, but the apathetic morons that listen to him are worse. He sucked a lot of cock to get where he is today and is proud of it.

      If you want to pursue conspiracies

      Too busy reading legislative articles, writing letters and lobbying to preserve the minor sheds of freedom we have left to have time. Why is it that the only time the two parties agree is when it is to pass some laws to become more intrusive.

      That it is no conspiracy and I agree, Australia needs a bill of rights.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:From people who listened to it live by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Kind of like your story is to me.

      No. When you were told by someone that something happened, it wasn't an anecdote - until I read it. When I tell you I saw something it's not an anecdote. When I tell you someone told me something - it's an anecdote to you.

      So you admit you weren't paying attention

      Huh? The live television broadcast did not run for "hours". How hard is it for you to pay attention to something written on the same page you're replying to?

      So, back then would they have called you "A little fucken smart arse" instead?

      By people like you - yes. And not just then.
      Do you even think about the things you say? Them words have meanings - have you considered that and what they mean? It's a rhetorical question.
      Undoubtedly you don't like "smart arses" and prefer the company of the opposite - for obvious reasons - given that the opposite of a smart arse is a dumb prick.

      When I lost my virginity?

      That must of been a slow news day....

      Why is it that the only time the two parties agree is when it is to pass some laws to become more intrusive.

      Because they're both competing for election funding from the same business interests? According to the AEC the party who spends the most gets the most votes.
      Because if two parties compete the one that creates the biggest fear of loss gets the most votes (presuming they have the same level of electoral campaign funding). e.g. one party proposes to tax chocolate to fund public dental care and the other campaigns to cut dental care "rorting by bludgers and illegal immigrants" so that Australians can get better quality chocolate - the "you aren't getting the chocolate you deserve" party gets most of the votes.
      Losses loom larger than gains?
      The only reason you're not a millionaire is because of lesbians rorting the maternity leave benefits. Vote for the party against lesbians being entitled to paid maternity leave - or, vote for increased tax for higher income earners to fund better public education. Let the voters choose. More on this story tomorrow night. Our next guest will explain how to double your investment returns on the share market. We'll be back after the ads for expensive non-essentials you need to have. Followed by ads for Telstra (formerly the taxpayer funded entity called Telecom - before they changed the name and sold it back to taxpayers). This show is brought to you by the Commonwealth Bank (originally created with taxpayer funds so every Australian had access to a bank account - then sold back to taxpayers, who now stand in ever lengthening queues watching ads for new loan "products" while waiting to see how much their shares have increased as a result of cost saving).

      That it is no conspiracy and I agree, Australia needs a bill of rights.

      It's a conspiracy if you don't know about it(?). Alan Jones managed to convince many that the Bill of Rights was a conspiracy to rob them of their rights. Agreed we need a Bill of Rights but... look immigrants stealing our high paying jobs, um, illegal immigrants, um, on boats (not planes), um, on fishing boats (not liners). What this country really needs is less pointy-headed academics - they think they're too good to clean toilets and work in factories. The less we waste on public schools the more real workers we'll have to build a strong economy on. (sigh)

    8. Re:From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Huh? The live television broadcast did not run for "hours".

      Your statement is ambiguous. You say it started before breakfast and television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch and fail to say when you stop watching or when it ended for you.

      How hard is it for you to pay attention to something written on the same page you're replying to?

      Without any accuracy and specificity in your response my level of attention is irrelevant. "did not run for hours" implies sometime less than 1 hour and 59 minutes, before breakfast to just before lunch implies at least 3 hours, even though you didn't connect the two statements. Therefore, based on the information you supplied, I can imply that you watched it for between 1 and 119 minutes. How long you watched and listened to whatever broadcasts were made was what I was interested in.

      From the wiki:

      Apollo 11 was the spaceflight that landed the first humans on the Moon, Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface six hours later on July 21 at 02:56 UTC. Armstrong spent about two and a half hours outside the spacecraft, Aldrin slightly less

      The people I am talking about took the *entire* day off to watch and listen to *everything*. From the duration of the mission on the moon perhaps more than two hours was broadcast from the surface of the moon. Maybe they saw something you did not *see* or *listen* to or it was an earlier broadcast, considering the duration of the landing. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt with your answer. As I said, I'm not committed to any opinion on the matter, I was just wondering what other people saw and heard and you have told me that so thank you.

      Do you even think about the things you say? Them words have meanings - have you considered that and what they mean? It's a rhetorical question.

      Yes. I considered that now-a-days, instead of calling you a 'fucken little smart arse' and giving you a slap in the head, they medicate you and fuck your head instead. It wasn't about you.

      Undoubtedly you don't like "smart arses" and prefer the company of the opposite - for obvious reasons - given that the opposite of a smart arse is a dumb prick.

      Sometimes smart arses are entertaining. The opposite could also be a dumb cunt, a smart cunt or a dick head, however the obvious the reason appears to be you taking the conversation too seriously. Again, not having a go at you.

      That must of been a slow news day....

      yes, they were slow news days, I was incredibly fortunate that no-one had anything better to do, than me.

      Because they're both competing for election funding from the same business interests? According to the AEC the party who spends the most gets the most votes.

      Agree, I was speculating about the motives.

      It's a conspiracy if you don't know about it

      Indeed, so I generally focus on the the things I can do something about. Unfortunately the general public's apathy isn't a problem I can solve.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:From people who listened to it live by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Huh? The live television broadcast did not run for "hours".

      Your statement is ambiguous.

      No, it is not.

      You say it started before breakfast

      Bullshit. You lie and leave tracks. I wrote Huh?! The radio broadcast started before breakfast, but it was a normal school day until just before lunch. The television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch East Coast Time. It didn't run for "hours". No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.

    10. Re:From people who listened to it live by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Huh? The live television broadcast did not run for "hours".

      Your statement is ambiguous.

      No, it is not.

      Yes, it is. I find it ambiguous, so it is ambiguous.

      You say it started before breakfast

      Bullshit. You lie and leave tracks. I wrote Huh?! The radio broadcast started before breakfast, but it was a normal school day until just before lunch. The television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch East Coast Time. It didn't run for "hours". No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.

      It is your message. The responsibility for communicating it accurately is yours. So instead of rushing to take offence just resolve the ambiguity, it is not as if I'm trying to insult you.

      1) Did you listen to the live radio broadcast?

      2) When did it start and end?

      3) When did you start and stop listening?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  41. I watched it happen back in 1969 by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

    Markin hastened to add that he is, of course, not suggesting that NASA faked the moon landings and just filmed the events in a studio.

    I just came here to say, f*ck right the way off, waaaay over there, whoever is peddling this old crap. sheesh.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  42. Re: and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by existentialvoid1061 · · Score: 0

    You would not know what the truth was if it announced itself to you.

  43. Relevant Mitchell & Webb comedy sketch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. Russia jumps the shark... by bledri · · Score: 1

    It's all part of a plot by Russia to make US government officials appear semi-sane ensuring our continued ineffectiveness on the world stage.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  45. Coincides with Trump announcement by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Putin should merge with Trump. Very similar personalities.

  46. Re:The footage is with the lost Doctor Who episode by AJWM · · Score: 2

    Ha, I've seen the Marco Polo serial.

    Mind, I was about ten at the time; it was being broadcast on CBC I think the year after it first aired on BBC.

    About all I remember from it is a scene where they're crossing the desert, the TARDIS being carried in a wagon, and The Doctor supplies water to the party "collected from condensation on the inside walls", and the incredulity of the others who aren't aware that the TARDIS is smaller on the outside.

    Also saw the first Dalek episodes when originally aired on CBC. Probably others too, but not as well remembered.

    --
    -- Alastair
  47. 2001 Helloooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, that was better.

  48. Desperate for Distraction by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like the Russians are desperate for a distraction from their domestic problems and their international floundering.

  49. Sometimes the obvious is the correct answer? by thogard · · Score: 1

    The moon rocks go missing because they aren't well protected and are rarer than gold.

    Many of the odd statements issued by NASA were just run of the mill anti-spying stories. For example the space suits from that time are "to keep astronauts warm in the cold of space". If you in a perfect vacuum and generating 170 Watts, you don't need heating. The real story is that the US used Peltier effect cooling and the Soviets used compressor based systems. Since the people who controlled what technology could be talked about thought the Russians were behind the US, they made up a story and stuck to it. The real reason for the difference is that the Russians could build reliable compressors that worked in space and the US had a lead in the Peltier technology even as both sides experimented with the other technology.

    1. Re:Sometimes the obvious is the correct answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I have to post anonymously because I have mod points. You're wrong about the perfect vacuum being a perfect thermal insulator because of radiative transfer. 98.6 F = 310 Kelvin. So an uninsulated human body in space is radiating out at 310K, and the universe is radiating back at 2.7K. Using this calculator and representing the human body as a 60cm ball with sufficient density (.1) to weigh 90Kg or 200 lbs the ball would lose 7 degrees kelvin in the first minute via radiative cooling. Thus 200 lbs X (9/5) X 7 = 2520 BTUs lost the first minute by a spherical 90Kg black body with a surface temp of 310K in outer space. Obviously I made many simplifying assumptions; the worst one being zero temperature differential from the body to the skin, but the conclusion is inescapable: you DO need heating. Furthermore, Peltier effect cooling usually relies on convective transfer, which we both agree doesn't exist in outer space.

    2. Re:Sometimes the obvious is the correct answer? by thogard · · Score: 1

      That calculator doesn't take into account the wonderful effects of the mylar layers along with the other insulation to prevent instant cooking when exposed to the sun. Both the compressor and Peltier systems transfer heat to a place where it can be properly radiated. I figure about a 2 deg rise per hour at norrmal rest energy consumption based on specific heat and rest (k)calories burned.

  50. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will not end until the truth comes out

    The truth is once they ran the numbers for how much the program was going to cost, they decided to fake it. Then they ran the numbers on developing the technology to convincingly fake it, and that was even worse. So they sent some guys to the moon in a rocket and faked it from there.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  51. Moon rocks by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Tell them the missing rocks are right next to Kraft's Superbowl ring.

  52. No it is just grandstanding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Anyone with a bit of sense understands the difference. The reason the US can indict these FIFA officials is because they made the mistake of committing financial crimes that involved the US in some way. Either using US banks, or with US citizens/companies, or in the US. That makes it something the US can prosecute for, and obviously Interpol agrees.

    Investigating the US space program. Ummm, well I mean you can "investigate" in terms of "Collect whatever evidence you can get your hands on and release a report," but that's all. No criminal case can be brought for anything since it is all in the US. They can't declare jurisdiction, the US would never agree (nor would international law) and the US has a big enough army that they can make that decision.

    1. Re:No it is just grandstanding by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Investigating the US space program. Ummm, well I mean

      Hey! Look over there, a Yeti!

      There is nothing in this article other than some idiot saying he objects to the US appointing themselves in charge of investigating corruption, and by the way, we should look into their claims of landing on the moon.

      Not that he thinks they lied about the moon.

      This is very thinly veiled distraction and innuendo.

      Don't treat it like it's a coherent anything. It's complete gibberish.

      This is the fucking Wookie defense.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:No it is just grandstanding by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      This is the fucking Wookie defense.

      I think you mean the Chewbacca defense.

      But you're right about the innuendo, etc.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:No it is just grandstanding by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      "This is the fucking Wookie defense."

      I think you mean the Chewbacca defense.

      Chewbacca is a Wookie. If Chewbacca is a Wookie, then we must investigate the US moon landings.

      If FIFA is corrupt, then Chewbacca is a Wookie who must investigate the US moon landings.

      There is no logical conclusion or argument being made here. Just blatant "hey, look at the moon landings".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:No it is just grandstanding by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      :-DDD

      Thanks for that. You made my day!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:No it is just grandstanding by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the Russian point of view the only reason the US government investigated it and sough prosecution was because Russian is the next country to get the World Cup. The side show venting about the moon is because he didn't think about the corruption involved in the US getting the Olympics. So the Russians government does not care about the various US moon missions (at least in the past everything is changing now as the push is on to get back there, obviously this is secret that has just subconsciously leaked out), just empty bitching and a possible security blunder.

      Look at all the stupid shit American politicians say, seriously stupid shit that doesn't even hint of benign as the FIFA investigation. Every time any Russian says anything it is Putin's fault or the whole Russian governments fault. Yet the endless stream of bullshit spouting out from the whackddoodles that infest the US congress and senate is considered as not being from the US government at all this by the US government.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:No it is just grandstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Russian point of view the only reason the US government investigated it and sough prosecution was because Russian is the next country to get the World Cup.

      I thought it was because in Russia it seems there is no longer any distinction between being made between bribery, money laundering, racketeering, abuse of office, fraud and political assassinations within sight of the Kremlin and what the rest of us call normal business practices. There is a reason Russia is widely referred to as a Kleptocracy or a Mafia state. The same pretty much goes for China.

    7. Re:No it is just grandstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the Russian point of view the only reason the US government investigated it and sough prosecution was because Russian is the next country to get the World Cup.

      LOL if you don't think this is at least partly true. It's widely known the US only started investigating FIFA after losing its World Cup bid. Granted it might not care who got it, but it's widely known that the investigation is payback for not accepting US bribes to host the World Cup.

    8. Re:No it is just grandstanding by lgw · · Score: 1

      Every time any Russian says anything it is Putin's fault or the whole Russian governments fault. Yet the endless stream of bullshit spouting out from the whackddoodles that infest the US congress and senate is considered as not being from the US government at all this by the US government.

      Well, democracy is just a collection of clowns who can't even agree on which clown car to use, but in a dictatorship it is all the fault of the dictator.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:No it is just grandstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me explain things sonny boy, most of those russkies don't shit w/o general secretary putin's permission.

    10. Re:No it is just grandstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the downsides of being at the top of an authoritarian government. People know that you have the power to shut people up so anything that gets said is at least partly attributable to you.

    11. Re:No it is just grandstanding by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat posts go to the top of the page. Moderate tech goes in the middle. Serious discussion goes at the bottom.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:No it is just grandstanding by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I guess you mean the corporate dictatorship of a derailed democracy in the US but then those leaders try to keep well hidden but in the era of the internet that attempt to hide is failing. Which is exactly why the US choose most foolishly to align with the KhoKhols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in what is basically redneckistan because it achieved the perceived objective of gaining control of Ukraine to discomfort Russia only to lose control to the KhoKhols, resulting in chaos and dead Australians and Europeans and the chaos has just started.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:No it is just grandstanding by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Look at all the stupid shit American politicians say, seriously stupid shit that doesn't even hint of benign as the FIFA investigation. Every time any Russian says anything it is Putin's fault or the whole Russian governments fault. Yet the endless stream of bullshit spouting out from the whackddoodles that infest the US congress and senate is considered as not being from the US government at all this by the US government.

      Well that's what happens when you crack down on the media that doesn't toe your particular brand of bullshit. People tend to assume that the stuff you let through has your seal of approval. It's hardly a "Russian" problem either, it's fairly common in any country where the media is strictly controlled by the state. Plenty of people elsewhere think Fox News does Obama's bidding just because their news outlets are controlled by their government.

    14. Re:No it is just grandstanding by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the US government press officers at press conferences acting in complete denial of what 'their' elected government representatives are saying in public. They all count, they are the government, when they pump war they are inciting mass murder, when the speak corruptly in favour of corporations that is the US government doing that. Yet the press officers at government organised press conferences routinely act in denial of that actual representative influence on government policy, they in effect deny the democratic functioning of government. Elected representatives of the US government are going to have to start taking global responsibility and that is in a bad way to be clear, for the public announcements that they make, every time they speak in public.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  53. You saw that a lot in studios too by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Master reel-to-reel tape was fucking expensive. So small time bands didn't keep the masters, or intermediate multi-track recordings. They instead reused tape that had already been used, and was then used again.

    Even these days, plenty of time master recordings aren't kept. For professional productions they usually are but for others stuff often not. At work I do recordings some times and they are AVCHD recorded to internal flash in the camera. That gets erased and reused of course. When I dump the data, I keep it long enough to edit down the video and make sure the result is good, then purge it. It is too large to be worth keeping around. We could buy storage for it, but we don't.

  54. Re:Mod this one up by si3n4 · · Score: 0

    the best comment on this ridiculous story - thanks to Mr Markin for making the Russian state look really stupid - it's nice to have some help from the other side with the public relations wars

  55. Or you could, I don't know, look for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joseph H Stalin on Stick, you guys have a freaking space program. Get off your lazy arses and go take a look for yourself.

    1. Re:Or you could, I don't know, look for yourself by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

      I lol'ed, thanks for that.

      --
      I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  56. Both be true by BeemanIT · · Score: 1

    Why can't both the real moon landing and the fake both be true? The US would be able to save face if the real moon landing had issues. Propaganda.

  57. Re: It was hoax! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But just remember that the CIA is capable of anything, eg stuffing a plane full of dead bodies (they have vast freezers of "victims" ready to go! Such fiendishness!) and having it shot down over eastern Ukraine to make us Russians look bad; but not NASA, that space stuff is all make believe-ski.

  58. Naaarp by redwraith94 · · Score: 2

    My favorite thing in this discussion would be Nvidia's rendering of a moon landing, and their diatribe:

    http://www.nvidia.com/coolstuf...

    --
    I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  59. At least that film still exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, it would be nice to go back and look at the special effects in the Apollo landing and see how well they hold up, right? Oh wait, N.A.S,A. reused or just plain lost the original video of the most fantastic technical accomplishment of the twentieth century and so now we can't. Is that what we are to believe? The special effects hold up pretty darn well as long as no one is able to actually look at them again.

  60. Sad state of affairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a shame to see what has become of the Soviet Buran program. And this guy wants to investigate that country whose retired shuttle program assets have become prized museum attractions? Sure thing, pal.

  61. Did you RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Examiner article is not even readable. How can they pass this shite off as news?

  62. North american stupid assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to investigate

  63. Well okay, it's both by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Anyone with a bit of sense understands the difference.

    I hope I have a bit of sense. ;-)

    It's grumbling because he's "venting his frustration" per the article.

    It's grandstanding because he calls the supposed mystery behind missing videos and moon rocks is a "common loss" to the "legacy of humanity."

    I agree with everything else in your post.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  64. Conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly this is a conspiracy leaked to the Russians by Snowden. Detailing the true nature of project Apollo to make first contact with the Mooninites.

  65. lost in space anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only you thought moon landing! hah!

  66. Buzz Aldrin by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Better not let them get anywhere near Buzz....He decked a guy some years ago that had hounded him trying to get him to say that it was all a fake. They are just pissed that 40+ years have gone by and they were still THE LOSERS!

  67. The little land that time forgot... by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    Next thing you're going to tell me is that Lake Wobegone was faked. Every week for FORTY YEARS!

    Don't even get me started about Paul Bunyan.

  68. russia is a fucking joke of a country by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    it will continue to decay

    for those of you thinking its displays in ukraine, and georgia in 2008, make it muscular, remember that it wasn't too long ago those countries were part of the same geopolitical entity. the longer term arc is clear decay

    also, i look forward to china, with boundary disputes with pretty much all of its neighbors, and flexing increasingly impressive economic and military muscles, figuring out that sand bars in the south china sea stolen form vietnam and the philippines are not as interesting as winning back expansive and resource rich outer manchuria, actual genuine ancient chinese territory (unlike the sandbars), stolen from china by russia in the 1850s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    russia's economy is a fucking joke. it could have diversified but decided becoming an oligarch petrostate was the way to go. which actually was great until the price of oil collapsed. brittle fragile and shortsighted

    russia is run by a mafia thug, and it regularly douses its people with ultranationalist lies and propaganda. making your people stupid and lying to them isn't strength, it makes your society weak

    the next maidan square will be in moscow. people can't be lied to constantly with paranoid ignorant crap and not eventually wake up

    politically weak, economically weak, socially weak. and soon, 10-20 years, militarily weak. because that's what happens when your economy sucks and your people don't believe you anymore

    the next russian implosion will make the russia civil war of a hundred years ago look tame

    and it is definitely coming. not in the next 5 years. but in the next 10-20 absolutely. russia is an isolated neoimperial pariah with a weakening economy and one thug with an ego and a chip on his shoulder calling all the shots

    a shame

    russia could have become a modern democracy

    but russian morons would apparently like to worship the cult of personality bullshit of one ex-kgb thug. because that is "strength"

    sorry russia. there will be a lot more pain for you like your grandparents and great grandparents. you and your children apparently must suffer again. and you only have yourself to blame for it, for putting all your eggs in one basket: putin the preening goon

    germany/ poland: you're getting konigsberg back

    finland: get ready to reintegrate karelia

    romania you're getting moldova

    chechnya you're getting your independence, dagestan too

    georgia you're getting abkhasia back, ukraine of course crimea

    turkey you should get circassian lands

    japan you're finally getting the kuril's back and why not sakhalin

    i look forward to the new nation of the novosibirsk republic. tuva, welcome also to the parade of nations

    japan/ usa/ canada: you may need to at least occupy kamchatka to keep it from china, on the pretense of civil safety and guarding rogue nukes

    10-20 years, russia implodes

    mark this post

    get ready to carve it up boys, russia is a dead man walking

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  69. What really gets me by barakn · · Score: 1

    ... is how the lunar hoax conspiracy theorists don't seem to spend much time pondering the launches of the Saturn Vs. These were very public events witnessed by thousands of people. Was each and every one of this people brainwashed into thinking they say a launch? If that seems unlikely, what exactly was going on with the 363 foot tall rockets blasting off into space if they weren't going to the moon? Why bother to build something that had the capability, and then launch it for real, but then let it hang in orbit instead of going all the way. Oh, well, the lunar hoax theorists I've run across were always idiots, I guess I shouldn't care what they think.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    1. Re:What really gets me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sekrit military satellite launches?

  70. Inflammatory headline? by Sibko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, so I decided to do a little digging on the actual op-ed piece. It's available here: http://izvestia.ru/news/587742

    Here is a translation of what he said regarding the moon landings, courtesy of washington post:

    “No, we are not saying they never flew up there and just filmed a movie instead. But all these scientific, or perhaps even cultural artifacts are part of an international human heritage, and their disappearance is a great loss for all of us. An investigation would reveal [what happened and where they are].”

    This is ALL he says about the moon landings. The slashdot post insinuates, "various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972." but the actual piece after translation and in context with the corruption tone of the article looks like an accusation of US officials selling off or stealing material recovered from the moon. Not an accusation that the US never went to the moon. He even explicitly says that's not what he's questioning.

    But I guess we gotta get our pitchforks and torches out because it's the evil bad Russia.

    1. Re: Inflammatory headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you for one don't understand how Russia works. They ALWAYS claim that they don't want this or that when they actually do. West is stupid for not understanding this. That is how they got Crimea. Russia is clearly trying to ramp up the PR campaign against the US and the fake landings fit that profile perfectly. If you read Russian media you would understand this.

    2. Re:Inflammatory headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But I guess we gotta get our pitchforks and torches out because it's the evil bad Russia.

      But the Putin.... and the Ukraine.... !

    3. Re:Inflammatory headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so I decided to do a little digging on the actual op-ed piece. It's available here: http://izvestia.ru/news/587742

      Here is a translation of what he said regarding the moon landings, courtesy of washington post:

      “No, we are not saying they never flew up there and just filmed a movie instead. But all these scientific, or perhaps even cultural artifacts are part of an international human heritage, and their disappearance is a great loss for all of us. An investigation would reveal [what happened and where they are].”

      This is ALL he says about the moon landings. The slashdot post insinuates, "various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972." but the actual piece after translation and in context with the corruption tone of the article looks like an accusation of US officials selling off or stealing material recovered from the moon. Not an accusation that the US never went to the moon. He even explicitly says that's not what he's questioning.

      But I guess we gotta get our pitchforks and torches out because it's the evil bad Russia.

      +1 for actually researching this. Kinda changes the tone of the story, doesn't it?

      Remember how there was that article recently about the Russian troll farm? This is a good example of how the same thing happens on our side... Why would any normal person seek out some random article about Russia and intentionally misrepresent it to make them look bad? Possible, although unlikely.

      It's kind of frightening to see our own government manipulating media/news sites so obviously. I always knew they did it, but to see something so obviously contrived in order to sway readers beliefs puts a little chill up my spine.

    4. Re:Inflammatory headline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took the summary to mean he was suggesting that we did go to the moon but we're hiding those rocks and footage because we found something.....alien?.....secret weapon???.....where JFK buried all the dead hookers he killed?

      I don't know what for sure but at this point believing the moon landing was faked is almost like believing the earth is flat.

      No need for picthforks and torches over this. There's plenty of other things about Russia to get them out for.

      It may be worth asking though - why get involved with FIFA now? It's not like everyone didn't already know it was a cesspool of corruption. It's almost as if the government wants to sit on some things so they can spring them at just the right time.

  71. PutinBot by Mats+Svensson · · Score: 1

    What about the rumors that Putin is a animatronic doll controlled by the Soviet underground Nazi-party? Where is the international investigation for that? I'm not saying that the lack of an investigation, points to a greater conspiracy. But it couldn't hurt to finally get an end to this controversy, right?

  72. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone knows the moon landings were filmed on a soundstage on Mars!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  73. Re: and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by puterg33k · · Score: 0

    Ain't you never heard the saying fake it till you make it? Yah dang gone turn coat!

  74. While we're at it, let's investigate Sputnik! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    And let's be tooooootally impartial. What could go wrong?

  75. USSR tracked the rocket by Kartu · · Score: 2

    Trajectory of the rocket was not hard to calculate.
    Soviet Radars closely watched the rocket.
    Here is what Alexey Leonov (soviet cosmonaut) said about the hoax theory (I've translated only important part):

    "... we had military unit 32103, which supported space transmission... Unlike the rest of Soviet Union, we watched Armstrong and Aldring landing on the moon... "

    Grechko, another famous soviet cosmonaut adds to it:

    "We know for sure that Americans landed on the moon. When we were receiving the transmission, it was from the moon, not from Hollywood"...

    Add to it: hundreds of kilograms of moon soil, which are identical to several hundred grams brought to Earth by soviet robots..

  76. First find out who shot down 300 of our citizens by hooiberg · · Score: 1

    before you start useless investigations like this...

  77. Tired meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Go home Russia, you're drunk"

  78. Easier to land than fake it? by portwojc · · Score: 1

    How does this hold up if the landing was faked or not?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

  79. Beware of Crapping, Screeching Low Flying Monkeys by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    This issue exists and persists only to illustrate how many people will seize upon some dark conspiracy that not only 'means' nothing on its face... but if it were true and unraveled completely, would still mean nothing. I mean, think about it: there's absolutely nothing actionable in there.

    People whose hobby is to fuck with people fuck with people with this fuck, as a hobby. Fuck those people.

    If Moon Hoax stuff is coming from someone you love and respect... heed comments on the subject but adopt the same proud and polite tone as a potty training parent who finds a surprise package on the carpet. You cannot express dismay or anger at their poops because a life long poop anxiety is one of the worst things that can happen to a child. You need to scoop it up with their 'help', making friendly conversation about its texture and color, all the while heading to the toilet. Then it goes in and you say, "THAT's where it goes!" and they get to push the handle.

    On Internet forums with strangers you don't need to actually scoop it up and take it to the potty (it is after all, someone else's web site). Just a dismissive but polite remark at the beginning that is encouraging like "That's a nice little poop you made, but let's try to get it into the potty next time."

    Then find something else to discuss related to space, and discuss that.

    Heed not anonymous comments on the subject, treat it as if it was Nature's Own Crap falling from the sky. You can infuriate the cowardly attention-seekers by making direct unseeing eye contact with them and their crap only to say, "How delicate is the process of crap-nucleation and how weighty is crap, that it can fall from a clear sky with no crap-clouds even visible! What a blessing!"

    Shit can get personal too. The Bart Sibrel response is the only appropriate direct personal response, and of all the explorers Buzz Aldrin the only one 'man enough' to use it. The Right Stuff indeed.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  80. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw

  81. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's means it is. country's means something belongs to the country. And the rest of your screed reads like the word salad of a brain injury patient.

  82. Apollo 13? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Yes of course they faked fucking it up

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  83. Thank you Mr. Markin for the good laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FIFI is an international body has some, shall we say, opportunities for improvement.
    It may be true that some body with more international credentials should fix it,
    but lackling that it seems reasonable for a member of the international community to raise the first efforts.

    Although the moon landings did advance all of humanity, they were not done by an international body.
    As you well know, they were done by the USA. As for an international investigation, that is not necessary. We have plenty of somewhat nutty folks here who have been on top of that for decades. So far, our best tin foil hat folks have not found anything plausible to suggest the landings did not happen as published and that the recycled tapes and unaccounted for rocks are anything but the NASA beaucrats sadly doing what beaucrats do.

    Again, I must thank you for the hardy laugh you provided. You have made this sad FIFI thing more bearable.

    Perhaps you could provide some further humor concerning the sad, but at the same time remarkable, state of human endeavors. Politics seems to provide our comedians with endless material there.

  84. First Trump, Now The Russians go Tinfoil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. Now I believe the Moon landings were real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to question the official story. However since Putin, that homosexual Nazi faggot who rapes children also questions the official story, I am on board full tilt. The USA went to the moon. End of story. I also used to be mildly disgusted by the homosexual practice of anal but sex. However since Putin has started his pogrom against faggots and Jews, I am not on board full speed with anal but sex. I am proud to say that my ass eats about three dicks a day. Fuck Putin. Fuck Russia. Nationalism above all else. Better to be a faggot than a Commie. Sure the USAian government is a body that preys on it's own citizens (e.g. lottery), however, the Chinese, Mexican and Russian government care even less about the USAian citizens than the USAian government. Funny how the Media has the USA in a war against religious conservatives who believe in family values and gun rights, while ignoring the atrocities of Russia, Mexico, and China. I guess the Media has been bought out. News Flash. China will do more to destroy the USAian way of life than ISIS could ever hope to do. What has my country come to when It buys rockets (for space) from Putin, who hates the USA, while waging a war against peoples who believe in putting God on a pedestal. It is strange times we live in. My beliefs mark me as a nut in today's world. However 20 years ago they would have been the norm. I haven't changed. The USA has.

  86. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everyone knows the moon landings were filmed on a soundstage on Mars!

    Yes, they first tried to do it in the Nevada desert, but they couldn't get the sound right.

  87. Of course the moon landing was faked by pauljuno · · Score: 1

    If you really want the details, watch the documentary Capricorn One. You can find details on imdb.com.

  88. Re:The footage is with the lost Doctor Who episode by bvimo · · Score: 1

    If only there was a way to somehow record your memories!

    --
    In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
  89. breathtaking inanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stolen from Judge Jones' decision Kitzmiller v. Dover Board knocking them back a few paces and denying the tyranny of the board, the minority, over the majority of their constituents. some other great quotes there.

  90. The bigger problems for the foil hat crowd are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Over 300,000 Americans were involved in the program. These people all had friends, families, and co-workers (employees at the same vendor companies that were involved other projects but saw the Apollo program work being done). In all, that's certainly over a million 1st and 2nd-hand observers to the work.

    2. Millions of people saw the start and end of each mission with their own eyes. In the time leading up to each flight there were crowds of tourists flowing through KSC seeing the rockets get stacked and rolled-out and sitting on the pad being tested. There were huge crowds all along that area of the coast watching each launch and many Foridians could even see the Apollo moon rocket flights from their homes. There were also large numbers of Navy men aboard the recovery ships who either personally were involved in the recovery and interacted with the hardware and astronauts or who were nearby and saw it. No Navy aircraft carrier operates alone - there are always escort ships nearby.

    3. The astronauts performed science and obtained samples and data that could not at the time be obtained by other means and which has been verified all these years later by modern probes.

    4. The leaders of the Soviet Union at that time who had spies all over and their own ability to sniff-out electronic signals from spacecraft, made no assertion of fakery and indeed congratulated their then-enemy the Americans.

    Any conspiratorial fakery and the efforts to cover up that fakery would have been far more costly and more prone to failure than the actual effort, which at its core was essentially a very big and expensive demonstration of physics (i.e. difficult but provably possible)

    I personally knew some of the Apollo astronauts, was in the VAB when Apollo was stacked, etc and no delusional moron with aluminum foil wrapped around his cranium will convince me of anything other than either [a] he belongs in an asylum, or [b] he is evil to the core and trying to mislead others for some sick personal reasons. I never argue with these people because they are not honestly seeking truth, they are frequently just getting some weird personal 'kick' out of tweeking other people.

  91. Russian Space Agency Hand Waving by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    I'll start this comment by stating up front that a SpaceX fan.

    Now with that said, imagine you're in the Russian space industry... Falcon9 / Dragon / DragonRider/ CST100 represent serious competition. At a time when the Russian economy could best be described as struggling, the last thing it needs is for SpaceX to start gobbling up the lucrative ISS lift slots. Yes, I know congress just recently decided to keep funding sending astronauts via Soyuz. However, in the longrun, once Dragon{9,Rider} prove themselves, that source of funding dries up...

    Ask this question... Once SpaceX has a fully operational DragonRider... how much does that cost per seat? Would the Russian government in the face of financial short comings come to the conclusion it's cheaper to spend US $20M to send a Cosmonaut to the ISS on a SpaceX rocket instead of the cost for a whole Soyuz?

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  92. I'm all for it by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > the "various murky details surrounding the U.S. moon landings between 1969 and 1972

    Yes, let's relive that time in history where the US absolutely crushed your country in a come-from-behind victory.

    > Falcon9 / Dragon / DragonRider/ CST100 represent serious competition

    They represent the death of the Soviet launch industry. And the Chinese, Japanese, Indians and pretty much everything in the US as well. The only niches still open are heavy lift like Ariane 5, and how long will that last? Couple of years, tops.

    Surprised the hell out of me, but BDB turns out to be the correct solution.

  93. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by MobSwatter · · Score: 0

    it's means it is. country's means something belongs to the country. And the rest of your screed reads like the word salad of a brain injury patient.

    Actually, I am researching a brain injury that my father ended up with while in a hospital that was not the product of a stroke victim on anti-inflammatory meds. I know full well what happened and investing in moving companies could very well prove to be profitable.

    "It's", the application of an apostrophe also signifies ownership of which 'course' belongs to 'program' if one were to get anal about it under the guise of harassment, "countries" also auto spell checks to "country's" with a simple fat finger of the keyboard, the object of the post was focused upon conveyance of truth rather than being tested for spelling and grammar. Now I'd expect this type of reaction of I were to author a front page article but not for a comment on one. Perhaps you have a problem not related to my use of spelling and grammar? There's a page for that; http://www.amishrakefight.org/...

  94. Other stories on examiner.com by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Connecticut woman arrested after sexual attack on dog results in death

    Colorado police issue warrant on Beth Chapman, wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter

    Pennsylvania couple accused of having sex with their dog

    'Dog the Bounty Hunter's' Lyssa Chapman's book reveals horrific childhood

    Great site. News for Nerds indeed.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  95. Re:The bigger problems for the foil hat crowd are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this echoes what I've always thought. There were too many people involved too keep it a secret

  96. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I see your triangle and I'll raise you one Timecube.

  97. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    I see your triangle and I'll raise you one Timecube.

    The trouble with the mob is only individuals go down when they get caught, thus is where the law falls short aside from those behind the shield that hold a membership card to it and act as a black hand. Incomprehensible hypothesis is merely a way of eloquently explaining denial to a people kept in the dark and generationally made stupid. Is it really possible that thieves and killers could not be liars? Thus is where 'Timecube' actually does apply, and where a destructive form of profit picks up to provide settlement where the law falls short.

  98. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The popular story is that no matter what fancy big launch vehicle you have, it is not possible for humans to ride across the Van Allen belt, cause their brains would short out from the massive dosage of ionising cosmic radiation. Thus, low Earth orbit space stations are fine, but going over 1000km high would require rad-hardened robotic space probes or a "Space Battleship Yamato" which protects its puny human inhabitants with a few feet of solid armour against the Van Allen radiation.

    The Apollo cabin, however was made of aluminium and they even lowered the inside air pressure to that of 1/3rd earthly normal, to be able to make the walls even thinner and light-weight. Paper thin Apollo cabin pressure walls could have been holed by bare hands with a few years of martial arts training or by anybody with an icepick. NASA considered the risk of micro-meteorite impacts inflight was worth it to beat those moste evile ruffians in space race. Others claim NASA was never worried, as they foreknew Apollo flight parts over 250km high are going to be faux...

  99. Re:Women & colored why believe WASP Moon landi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This! It is very important. During the space race haydays, coloreds weren't even allowed to mop floors in NASA offices. America never went to space and then to on the Moon, only the white saxon protestans and the jewish-americans did (if they did) while theamerican negro were being beaten and shot by riot police, almost exactly 100 years after President Lincoln defeated slave-holders. Shameful!

    I agree nobody can demand that coloreds (and women) recognize Moon landings as an objective reality, because history suggests the white and jewish males, with their militant and arrogant attitude cannot be trusted as progressors of a positive burden. They are seeking benefit at the detriment or even peril of coloreds and women of all shade. Thus, why would Armstrong or Aldrin tell the truth to a black, brown or yellow person or a lady? Whites are proven not altruists and there isn't a single colored person of any shade, who could first hand attest the reality of Moon landings, because whites and jews excluded them.

    Thus it's real if you are a white male, but you are free to opionate if you are colored and/or a girl.

  100. Bits and pieces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well today is the 28th anniversary (19 June 1977) of our group sighting of 3 UFOs. Daylight and the closest one came within 12 meters of us. About 14 of us in the group. Impressive! No similarity to what appears to be Government contrived rubbish that appears in the media. Regarding the moon landing. There is evidence to support both the faked and real landing. The most likely scenario therefore is they are both correct. All that is required to tie them together is a switch to select between the video feed from the moon or the mockup hangar in Houston. If an unexpected scenario arises in the moon feed it can be switched to the duplicate enactment in the hangar. This would account for mostly all anomalies. The interesting question is why is the government covering this up. Answer appears to involve a lot of money, the Jewish population, it's leaders and the purchase / seizure of Palestine. Cue government trolls in 3, 2, 1..

  101. lets investigate Russia's missing cosmonauts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we investigate the Russia space program during the great Space Race. It has been reported that mysterious Russian voices picked up in space by radio astronomers supposedly commented about "burning up" and suddenly silence... Other reports of slow heavy breathing.. And a rumor of a mission to the moon completely lost.

    Maybe it's just the whole "we lost but let's brush the dirt under the rug so it doesn't hurt as bad"

  102. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OY9lni0F_s

  103. Watch what you watch! by EricTheO · · Score: 0

    See what happens when weak minded people watch Capricorn One.

    --
    -Eric
  104. Laughing at your dumb ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try knowing something about anything before posting your next comment.

    Moron.

    I can't wait til the day Russia nukes whatever shithole you reside in.

    1. Re:Laughing at your dumb ass. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you think russia nuking anything is going to work out for russia?

      i hope they do too

      it will accelerate its demise

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  105. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I am researching a brain injury that my father ended up with while in a hospital that was not the product of a stroke victim on anti-inflammatory meds. I know full well what happened and investing in moving companies could very well prove to be profitable.

    What?

    "It's", the application of an apostrophe also signifies ownership of which 'course' belongs to 'program'

    No. Never. "Its", sans apostrophe, is the gender neutral possessive. "It's" is only a contraction (usually of "it is", but sometimes "it has").

  106. Re:and 1 ....2......3.... Begin by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    What?,
    You'll see.

    No. Never. "Its", sans apostrophe, is the gender neutral possessive. "It's" is only a contraction (usually of "it is", but sometimes "it has").

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    The apostrophe ( â(TM) or ' ) is a punctuation mark, and sometimes a diacritical mark, in languages that use the Latin alphabet or certain other alphabets. In English, it serves three purposes:[1]

    The marking of possessive case (as in the eagle's feathers, or in one month's time).

    Possessive implies ownership. Perhaps you should tear up your HS diploma, in todays day and age you just might qualify as an English major.

  107. Re:The bigger problems for the foil hat crowd are. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    this echoes what I've always thought. There were too many people involved too keep it a secret

    That never, ever stops a conspiracy theorist.

  108. Re:The tapes were re-used [not intentional] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I've seen no evidence that anybody intentionally reused and erased the space footage. More likely somebody saw them laying around and just grabbed and reused without asking or checking -- a lazy shortcut to getting their job done.