I personally am looking forward to the comely moon-maidens that 50's B-movies promised me.
The Moon may not have been as desolate as it is today – and could have supported life on its surface after its formation some four billion years ago. This revelation comes just days after the anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin setting foot on the Moon, a first for humankind, on July 20, 1969. A paper published in …
They aimed for the Moon alright. But, alas Wernher Von Braun wasn't there anymore, and ended up hitting Bruxelles instead.
And, yet there are plenty of nutterz out there saying how great it would be... (For there Wallets), to get back into bed with that lot. Me? I still wondering if anyone was awake for History 101 after getting the Memo about how jolly rotten that little man with the funny looking mustash was?
Pink Floyd played an early version of it during their 'Tour 72' (Jan - Feb 1972). I was in the audience at Brighton Dome on 20th Jan 1972 and again at The Rainbow on 18th Feb. DSOTM was called Eclipse at the time but another band brought out an Album of the same name so they changed it.
'Eclipse' seemed to be the album title of choice for a couple of years around the '71 and '72 eclipses. I would guess the 1973 Jade Warrior album was the conflicting one ... Can't believe a fundamentally experimental album is still being talked about and apparently still selling well nearly fifty years after its release. Also can't understand why there was not a single PF album in the second hand record shop I found the other day ... Genesis, Yes, ELP, Tomita but not a hint of Pinkness anywhere ...
"Can't believe a fundamentally experimental album is still being talked about and apparently still selling well nearly fifty years after its release."
Well, there were those Beatles and a certain White Album I owned. Alas, the kids managed to get it stolen while I was away at some tiff in a certain Gulf...
But, for 'Eclipse', I was 10 or 11...
Now, knees are gone, back is gone and BTW, is it the memory or something else that goes first and what's the other thing?
Mankind hasn't visited the moon yet, much less some psyop from Langley.
NASA provides zero proof of the trip, just their 'word', some bizarre photos and videos and improbable lumps of hardware.
Even the article's photo is ridiculous, look past the lander: where's the ground gone?'. In all photos there is a maximum of around 30 feet of ground past the lander. This is because they are shot in the Borehamwood 2001 and UFO lunar surface sound stages that are of limited size. This is true from all angles.
Later 'mission' photos were shot in the US desert and you can see the difference with the ground not being chopped off, but A11 photos all look silly, pool of light low surface area shots.
NASA may have struggled into LEO with gemini but all the capsules from Apollo were pushed out of the back of a transport plane (the reason they all landed about 1 mile from the press boat each time - even the 'notepad' Apollo 13 one). The chances of Apollo 13 landing even in the Atlantic? Zero. Simple maths.
"Robust surviving earthly bacteria on the feet of the lunar module would have touched the lunar surface before the Armstrong moon-boot."
Robust earthly-bacteria from a technician's sneeze are believed to have survived on the surface long enough to be _brought back_ when Pete Conrad chopped off Surveyor 3's camera in 1969. (This is controversial because it wasn't properly isolated during the return process but on the flipside only a few hundred bacteria of a single species were isolated vs the millions of various species you'd expect if it was the result of cross-contamination)
This tends to indicate they went there with the first probes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019