Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/17/apollo-landing-sites-imaged-by-lro/
> 
>> Gee, looks like there's footprints on the moon after all.
> 
>   Sadly, I have hard time believing even such tangible evidence is going to
> convince the conspiracy theorists.

Sorry I left off the <sarcasm> tags. Of course it won't, any more than 
fossils convince creationists.

>   I find it really sad that I have friends who are educated (one of them has
> even a university degree), intelligent and rational, and still they believe
> in the conspiracy theory (or at the very least consider it plausible).

I want to know what he thought the first ten Apollo flights were all about. 
It might even make sense if it was a one-time flight that went to the moon 
on the first try, but why all the *other* launches, including a faked Apollo 
13 screw-up?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message