Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Rusty Lander
Quote:
|
I'm sure that the scientists that actually use them would disagree. It's even possible to determine the difference between the USSR planted ones and the USA's because of the amount of light return.
|
So the USSR have planted some on the moon. How? With an unmanned spacecraft? Well, then... :wink: |
This is a typical HB sidetrack without any substance, just conjecture. It aslo quckly becomes inconsistant with the rest of the Theory. This is what most HB's seem to forget. If they were right their theories should build on each other, but they don't, they detract one from the other.
Kaysing claims that the astronaunts didn't leave on the rocket because NASA was worried it would explode, however this ignores the fact that the Saturn V had been lunched successfully 9 times prior to that, 5 times un-manned and 4 times manned. Was Apollo 7 faked? If it was, why? All they did was a low Earth Orbit, the same as the 10 manned Gemini and 7 manned Mercury Missions, as well as the Russian missions. Were all these faked? If so why was there a space race at all, if not, then why would they have been scared to launch the Apollo 11 crew for fear of the Rocket exploding?
Not only this, Kaysing disgrees with Sibrel who claims that his video shows that the Apollo Mission was in low Earth Orbit, and the list goes on.
As to the Reflectors, how would they have gotten there if not place by men? The trouble with claiming they were done by an unmanned flight is that you have to produce the unmanned flight. If you were to claim the Apollo missions were really unmanned then you have to explain the Sibrel video as well as how come the reflectors are better placed, and in the end, it would have been easier to actually land a man on the moon that it was to land unmanned craft. The surveyers were much more complex that the LLM because the LLM didn't need the automatic landing systems, they had a pilot. Why not send a passanger or two along if you are sending a ship, and of course its totally against that other great argument that they didn't have the Tech to do it. If they couldn't land a manned mission with a pilot who can react instantaneously when things go wrong, how would they have stood a chance of landing an unmanned one (I'll note here that the USSR's first attempts were spectaular failures.)
In the end, it really doesn't matter how you twist it, the HB's ideas just won't stack up unless you totally ignore everything else, including all the other HB ideas.