the moon

[furiousV]

there have been documentaries on TV about how the whole nasa going to the moon is a fake, providing evidence of photos turning out completely different from what they were meant to be (the guy who designed the camera sayin so), matches of mountains identical to other landings, and they also identical perfect match to some place near Area 51 (or Area 57, SiN got me confused)
i could ramble on and on, but i was wondering, in a period of what, 10 - 15 years, maybe more maybe less, there have been well more than ten rockets headed out to the moon, costing billions, but now, 20, 30 years later, we have not even tried again. i hear faintly something about going to mars. but when the astraunauts did go to the moon, did they even show rock samples to the press for the people to see? if i went to the moon, id at least take a souvenir for myself in my home, which armstrong doesnt.
so if america really did go to the moon, why dont they go now? with all that technological advances lately, size of the counrtry, decent tax rate they must be able to afford one more trip, or are they afraid that the technological advances allow us now to find out the whole thing will be another pull off, with our satellites and other fancy radar la di da equipment.

would love to hear your opinions.

 

[CptStern]

the US had no reason to go back to the moon ..not so recent discoveries of frozen water beneath the surface will give them a reason to return

 

[KoreBolteR]

yeah, but arent they gonna try and build a hotel complex over the next 100 hundred years. Moon city, i remember watching something about it on Discovery. :O

and SpaceShipOne is now got Richard Branson's Virgin as a sponsor, they are ready to make vacation flights to Space/Moon. in the next 20 yrs imo

 

[furiousV]

the US had no reason to go back to the moon ..not so recent discoveries of frozen water beneath the surface will give them a reason to return

then why go back those other times from the first time they landed? did they even have a reason to go to the moon in the first place, other than to compete with Russia and show themselves better than them

 

[CptStern]

because it was there, why did man go into space in the first place?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Manifest Destiny

But frozen water is not a reason. It's the next step... Alas our space program is floundering. Private enterprise may be the best hope.

 

[Raziaar]

because it was there, why did man go into space in the first place?

For thousands of years man envied the flight of the bird, sought to emulate it, to take to the skies on their own with assisted flight.

They succeeded. Finally, man could fly along with the bird.

Then they saw space, found the chance to one up the bird, and took it. That taught those damn birds.

 

[Apos]

The problem is this: aside from being weightless, simply BEING in space is not particuatly interesting. And the moon to put it bluntly, is a huge chunk of crud. That's not to say that there aren't interesting things about it we still need to study, but most of these things don't actually require sending PEOPLE to the moon. In fact, sending people into space is sort of overrated and flashy. We really DID do it mostly just to show off, and it was a great acheivement, but at this point, there's nothing particularly interesting we can learn from having humans in space other than... what it's like for humans to be in space.

I'm not aware of any significant amount of ice on the moon. There is undoubtedly some, since meteors and asteroids and indeed the stuff that made up the moon all have some, but we're not talking oceans, just scattered chunks of ice crystals here and there. Mars has signficant amounts of ice (and we now think, thanks to the landers, once had liquid water), as does Europa (and it may be liquid under the icy surface, which is why it's one of the few other possible places we could find life in the solar system other than us and plenty of other places (Pluto). But it's liquid that we're really interested in hence the focus on Mars, Europa, and Titan, the latter of which we now think has plenty liquid methane.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The moon as a fuel source is a major reason. I'm not sure on all the scientific stuff of it, but wasn't it a huge source of Helium 3? Or whatever special atomic dealy it was, it could solve all energy problems.

And whoever thinks the moon landing was fake is retarded.

 

[Apos]

I'm not sure the moon is a definate fuel source or what on it we would want. But even if it was, for any concievable near future, the amount of energy required simply to get to the moon and then get the fuel back would likely exceed the value of the fuel.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm not sure the moon is a definate fuel source or what on it we would want. But even if it was, for any concievable near future, the amount of energy required simply to get to the moon and then get the fuel back would likely exceed the value of the fuel.

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

 

[Apos]

From your own article:

"Indeed for now, the economics of extracting and transporting helium 3 from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientists solved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible," asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies."

i.e., exactly what I said. Maybe if we actually got a fusion reactor working and producing more power than it took to start it up and run it, we'd have more interest. For now, it's just not feasible.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

From your own article:

"Indeed for now, the economics of extracting and transporting helium 3 from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientists solved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible," asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies."

i.e., exactly what I said. Maybe if we actually got a fusion reactor working and producing more power than it took to start it up and run it, we'd have more interest. For now, it's just not feasible.

Yeah, wasn't directly saying it is cost effective in reply to your post, but it was the most direct one I could quote to give some more relevant info :d.

 

[Scoobnfl]

then why go back those other times from the first time they landed? did they even have a reason to go to the moon in the first place, other than to compete with Russia and show themselves better than them

if there was a conspiracy to fake it, I believe that they would have stopped at 1 time, as continuing it successfully would have neared the absolutely impossible level immediately.

 

[Apos]

The number of people who would have to be "in" on the conspiracy would litterally be in thousands. I mean, NASA employs thousands of people just to design and build their spacecraft, much less the people that actually work the computers and so forth who would have to be in on faking everything. All these people staying silent about it for decades?

Check http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html for more, some of the best debunking around on this subject.

 

[furiousV]

what about the assasinations taking place, including JFK (maybe i should start a new thread on that one ), and the incidences when several technicians have reported their computers to be failing or not functioning properly, and them bigger guys (guys involved) just brushed them aside giving them a pathetic excuse. those that took time to investigate ended up dead.
http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars about stars (not had time to read everything yet, just hoem from school), the moon has no atmosphere, its in a vacuum. light travels much faster in a vacuum than it does here on earth. the answer to the stars can not be properly answered since there has been no mention of vacuum.

this webpage looks pretty interesting, il be back once ive read more

 

[Apos]

What? The whole point is that starlight isn't scattered BECAUSE there is a vacuum and almost no atmosphere. That means that stars appear as tiny bright points of light instead of broader, more diffuse areas. But that's not the point. The point is that when you take photographs of things on the moon, the only way you are going to capture stars is to have longer exposure times. But with the sun brightly shining and reflecting off everything, the picture would be completely blurred and washed out. So you can't have good shots both of foreground objects AND stars at the same time. As Phil notes, if you set your camera to the same exact settings as if you were taking a photo of something in broad daylight, and then tried to photograph stars at night, they wouldn't show up on film there either.

And light doesn't travel MUCH faster in a vacuum than on earth: our atmosphere isn't THAT thick. Nor does that make any difference anyway.

and the incidences when several technicians have reported their computers to be failing or not functioning properly

Oh noes: windows crashed that must mean CONSPIRACY!!!

 

[Tr0n]

I guess apos just owned everybody.

 

[Steve]

When I was little kid, I used to point at the moon and say "noooom!"

Heh heh...*sigh*

 

[GiaOmerta]

When I was little kid, I used to point at the moon and say "noooom!"

I used to say moooooooooooooonnnnnnnn.
FYI: I'm going to moon or space or something. Will cost a pretty penny... but I'm going.

 

[furiousV]

even if they did go to the moon, why should there only be the american flag planted on it? no european flag?
the russians have the technology to go to the moon, but why have they not gone yet? they sent up the first dog and man.
did the americans, in spite of all from the cold war and all, have to prove to the world that they are better than russia, desperately try to prove to the world that the russians are not more technologically advanced than them?

this is the 21st century, and no man has yet gone to the moon. how long ago since the last one?

 

[Apos]

Actually, yes, that's pretty much it: it was a grudge match. The reason we haven't gone back is as I said: because there isn't a whole lot of point. We proved it could be done, but there's not much more to be gained in going back right now.

Incidentally, the lunar lander that they left on the moon had some bacteria on it when it left from Earth. When the second mission to the moon landed, they cultured some of that bacteria, and it was still alive. Crazy stuff, no?

 

[furiousV]

well, imo, thats because it was still on earth

even the russians can set up a movie set, and prove that they have been to the moon.

with todays technology, it should be so much cheaper to go to the moon now. how often do they send the shuttle up? (the shuttle doesnt even go far from earth, only to pollute the sky with satellites)

 

[Apos]

even the russians can set up a movie set, and prove that they have been to the moon.

Then why didn't they, if it was so easy?

with todays technology, it should be so much cheaper to go to the moon now.

But there's also no point. And actually, not that much cheaper. The shuttles aren't designed to go to the moon: we'd have to design a completely new vehicle harkening back to the Apollo days. Considering that we aren't even going to continue to fund Hubble, I don't see that happening.

 

[Death.Trap]

From your own article:

"Indeed for now, the economics of extracting and transporting helium 3 from the moon are also problematic. Even if scientists solved the physics of helium 3 fusion, "it would be economically unfeasible," asserted Jim Benson, chairman of SpaceDev in Poway, California, which strives to be one of the first commercial space-exploration companies."

i.e., exactly what I said. Maybe if we actually got a fusion reactor working and producing more power than it took to start it up and run it, we'd have more interest. For now, it's just not feasible.

All they need to do is decide where they wanna build it.

http://www.iter.org/

 

[Steve]

I used to say moooooooooooooonnnnnnnn.

Ooooh! Look at me! I'm GiaOmerta! I like to make fun of Steve's childhood misinterpretation and subsequent mispronunciation of a word by saying that I pronounced it correctly! Ooooo!

 

[furiousV]

[QUOTE ]Then why didn't they, if it was so easy?[/QUOTE]
well, spose russia did not like the idea of lying to the entire world, now america can stop lying, since theyve apparently been a few times.

i didnt mean to imply that the shuttle goes to the moon(or should be used), i meant that each launch probably cost millions, fuel, maintennance, repairs, payin astronauts, the whole team.

how bout this, why doesnt Germany go up to the moon? France? China? the Russians? surely if going to the moon was possible, the russians will have done by now a long time ago. do they know something nasa is not telling us?
and why should NASA not send up another rocket? considering they can do so, they should make more regular visits

 

[Steve]

and why should NASA not send up another rocket? considering they can do so, they should make more regular visits

Why SHOULD they? To check out the flora and fauna? There are only so many useful experiments that you can perform on a barrent piece of rock with no atmosphere.

 

[furiousV]

Why SHOULD they? To check out the flora . . .

to check out the bacteria left behind

they cultured some of that bacteria, and it was still alive.

maybe they have mutated into fist-sized moon rock munchers that all get together to make one big rock monster and attack bypassing headcrabs as they try and turn them into zombies.
seriously, if the bacteria survived the vacuum, then i guess there is quite a bit to go back and look at, maybe the bacteria is still reproducing, living off other stuff stuck on the lander, like sweat from the workers during construction. just a thought

 

[lePobz]

Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of year

Hang on a sec .... How the hell do you weigh Helium?

I used to say moooooooooooooonnnnnnnn.

Hell dawg, your mommas so fat you used to look up at the moon and say "mommmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Steve]

Hang on a sec .... How the hell do you weigh Helium?

Easy! Helium floats, so you just turn the scale upside down! HA HA HA HA HA HA! *Sigh*...my life is a farce.

 

[KoreBolteR]

wtf, i thought helium didnt weigh a thing :S
lighter than air i thought tbh.....

 

[Steve]

wtf, i thought helium didnt weigh a thing :S
lighter than air i thought tbh.....

Right. I think they mean "mass" instead of "weight".

 

[KoreBolteR]

Right. I think they mean "mass" instead of "weight".

ah, that explains it.

you ever inhaled helium?, makes people sound like a chipmunk

 

[Steve]

ah, that explains it.

you ever inhaled helium?, makes people sound like a chipmunk

Yup, and every time I do, I start singing..."we represent the lollipop guild..."

 

[Apos]

i didnt mean to imply that the shuttle goes to the moon(or should be used), i meant that each launch probably cost millions, fuel, maintennance, repairs, payin astronauts, the whole team.

Millions? No, try billions.

how bout this, why doesnt Germany go up to the moon? France? China? the Russians? surely if going to the moon was possible, the russians will have done by now a long time ago. do they know something nasa is not telling us?

Because it's incredibly expensive. Although China is currently working on it.

and why should NASA not send up another rocket? considering they can do so, they should make more regular visits

Because it's both incredibly expensive AND pointless.

 

[furiousV]

wtf, i thought helium didnt weigh a thing :S
lighter than air i thought tbh.....

everything does have a weight,excuse me - mass, but helium is 'the' lightest of all the elements ,correct me if im wrong.
in that case, considering there is no atmosphere on the moon, very cold temperatures, the helium would be a liquid

and 'how' do they know there is 1 million tons of helium on the moon? how do they know that there even is helium on the moon?

btw whats the 3 in helium 3? i thought Helium has a valcency of 1?
i only did chemistry standard grade (GCSE), got an overall 2

 

[KagePrototype]

All major arguments for why the moon landing was a hoax, and their subsequent counter-arguments:

Okay, let's start:

The Radiation Argument

Well are you denying that anybody went into space? Because based on that, nobody could have gone because there is no protection! We just had well made protection. I've heard the argument that going through the van Allen belt would be too much radiation. But this is also just stupid. There is not enough radiation there. Also, we passed through it too quickly. We were in and out fast enough. Also the metal ship would block it's share of the radiation.

Extreme Heat

"The moon's surface reaches + 250 f. Film would melt at that temperature." Yep, I lot of things would be very damaged at that temperature, including humans. Do you think it was + 250 f inside the guys suits? Isn't it possible that they had specially protected cameras just like they had specially protected people? It's very simple to create protection for a camera like that.

No Dust Kicked Up Under The LEM

On the moon there is no air push things around. You have to directly apply force to things to get them to move, and so the only dust to move around would be the dust directly touched by the exhaust or dust hit by other dust. Also since there is no air, it's really tough to create clouds, although you can do it. The dust wouldn't be held up on the thick air. It just sorta falls back down to the ground. If you watch the rover drive around, clouds don't form around the wheels and in the rover's path. The dust just falls back down to the ground. And as for the crater, the rockets certainly have the ability to create a crater but when it's landing, it's rockets aren't on 'FULL BLAST". They have to ease into the landing just like to ease into any landing.

No Stars In Photographs

Well, just to start off, you can see stars when you are on the moon. In fact you can see them all day long because there is no air or atmosphere and so the sky is dark enough to see them all the time. Well, they didn't show up in pictures because of the cameras themselves. To take a picture of your craft, your crew, or the lunar landscape you would have to set the shutter speed very fast because of the extremely bright surrounding. (And all of these pictures were taken when the sun was shining very bright) The stars just to faint to see with such a bright sun and a fast shutter speed. The picture was taken too quickly to see them.

Shadows All Wrong

Well "with a single light source" this would be true, but there is more than one light source. There are three. First there is the sunlight as mentioned above, and then there is the Earth. Think about how much light is reflected from the moon down to Earth. Well, Earth is much larger and reflects light much better also. It is about 100 times brighter than the moon. Those two easily fill in the shadows, but there is also the moon itself. The surface of the moon is brightly lit and would reflect plenty of light into the shadows.

The flapping flag:

Those believing in a NASA conspiracy claim that the film of the Apollo astronauts planting the American flag into the Moon's surface clearly shows the flag flapping as if in the wind. There is no wind on the Moon, so this flapping must be due to the breeze in the desert, or the air conditioning in the studio, where the hoax was filmed.

Well, indeed the flag (which is supported outwards by a pole across the top, attached at right angles to the top of the vertical pole) does flap, however this is not due to any wind. As the astronauts were planting the flag in the lunar ground, they did so with a twisting motion, thus causing the "pendulum" swinging motion of the flag. On the Earth, this motion is dampened by the air in the atmosphere. However, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, and as oppose to showing the flag flapping is indicative of a hoax, it actually serves to show that the flag was in fact planted on the Moon. Since there is not air to dampen the swinging of the flag fabric, the motion continues for far longer than on the Earth, thus giving the illusion of flapping in the wind.

The use of the cameras:

Many argue that the astronauts could not have operated the cameras with their cumbersome gloved hands. Not true - the cameras were designed to be operational with the large gloves of the spacesuits used. There is also an argument that the photos are too well framed to have been taken by the astronauts' chest-mounted cameras, with which it was not possible to look through a viewfinder. Again, this is not a good argument. The astronauts received a great deal of training in the use of the chest cameras, and were even instructed to take them home and practice using them in their everyday lives. It is far from unreasonable to say that they would have learned to frame pictures correctly.

Slowed down film:

If you speed up the film of the astronauts moonwalking (in the literal sense, rather than doing their Michael Jackson impersonations!) it, apparently, looks remarkably like they are jumping around in the normal gravity of Earth. Well, it does (kind of) look like that. However, the relationship does not work both ways. If you make a film of someone leaping around at normal speed on Earth in a similar spacesuit to that used in the Apollo missions, then slow it down, the film loses that particular weightless and "floaty" quality that is seen in the Moon landing films.

Reasons why we DID land on the Moon:

* Thousands of NASA scientists, technicians, and engineers worked on the Apollo program. If it was a hoax then the NASA bigwigs would have had to fool the very people working on getting men to the Moon, or else, all the thousands of Apollo workers would have to have been very good at keeping secrets for the last forty years.

* When a meteorite collides with the Moon or the Earth, tremendous heat is produced from the high energy collision. This heat is enough to melt some of the debris that is thrown out of the crater. In such situations, "Spherules" are produced. These are tiny globules of molten rock and sand that cool as they fall back to the ground. On Earth, spherules are far from spherical due to the gravity and atmosphere. However, on the Moon, niether of these factors are as significant, so spherules are almost perfectly round. The Apollo missions brought back hundreds of these spherules. Dating tests on these have shown that many are billions of years old, and therefore cannot be manmade and must be lunar in origin.

* The most striking evidence that men landed on the Moon is still up there. I'm not talking about the flags and other paraphernalia left up there by the astronauts, although if we were to return and find it, this would be conclusive evidence. What I'm referring to in this paragraph are the laser reflectors left on the Moon, which are still used today to measure the Earth's exact position in the Solar System. Lasers are beamed up to the locations of these reflectors and the time taken for the reflected beam to return is used to calculate the Earth's position.

* The Jodrell Bank radiotelescope's scientists snooped in on the astronauts' radio transmissions and monitored the actual landing of the "Eagle" lunar landing craft for their own interest. Their records still exist.

* If NASA really wanted to fake the Moon landings, they would not have been caught out by such trivial and obvious things that are cited as evidence by the conspiracy theorists.

* Plus, with all the effort taken to construct such an elaborate hoax, wouldn't it have been easier just to do it for real?

With every great expedition, exploration, and discovery, there has been doubters and disbelievers. People refused (and still refuse! - see Flat Earth Society) to believe the Earth was round, and the Earth moved around the Sun. This is no different, except that in modern times such things are refuted on the basis of some sinister conspiracy, derived from circumstantial or ill-informed evidence.

Face it - we landed on the Moon!

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=632748&lastnode_id=124

 

[KagePrototype]

A bit more...

I am becoming increasingly furious about the Fox channels representation of science and their misrepresentation of truth. It was just stupid when they aired "Alien Autopsy" and it was only irritating when they showed "Lost Tombs". Last night they went over the edge and gave sustenance to every backwoods conspiracy theorist with a third grade education when they broadcast "CONSPIRACY THEORY: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON."

They interviewed several key "Authorities" and a few respected "Experts" to try and determine if a moon landing really occurred or whether it was some enormous cover-up by NASA. From the start the show was pure fantasy. I know that Fox airs these shows because they're entertaining, but people actually believe this, and this sort of misinformation not only makes America look ignorant among the international community but damages the potential of our children as they attempt to learn real science.

I didn't watch the whole show I only flipped to it during commercial breaks while I was watching CSI, but the few points I picked up on were ludicrous. Several of the "Experts" made assertions about why they thought the landing was staged and then a NASA spokesman was given about a quarter of the time the "Investigators" had to refute their claims and then the narrator vilified NASA for several minutes.

The following are the claims I heard:

1. The movie Capricorn One has many scenes that are nearly identical to the moon landing. That this movie could be so realistic and it's similarities to the alleged moon landing only cast doubt on the event.
2. The flag planted by Apollo astronauts appears to wave in the wind, a wind that can not exist on the moon because it has no atmosphere.
3. Many of the photographs taken by the astronauts clearly indicate multiple light sources. Since the astronauts took no flash equipment the only source of light is presumed to be the sun. The shadows cast by materials in the photos are not all parallel, additionally, several of the photographs display vivid details in shadow, which shouldn't be possible with only one light source
4. The photos taken of the LEM clearly indicate that there is no blast crater below the module where it landed. This should be impossible since it descended on active thrust.
5. When the ascension module lifted away from the remains of the LEM there is one short burst and then we see no active thrust from the main nozzle. it almost appears as if it were jerked up by a crane.
6. Several of the astronauts involved in the Apollo program died shortly after the programs end. A startling %15 of the Apollo astronauts died, surely this must be an attempt to cover up the conspiracy, after all what better way to cover up the truth, than to kill those who know it.

Unfortunately there are some major flaws in these claims:

1. Capricorn One was released in 1978, almost ten years after the first moon landing. It's a fictional film about a government conspiracy to cover up a Martian landing fiasco by staging the whole thing in the Arizona Dessert. The film tried as hard as possible to simulate the actual lunar landing, going so far as to repeat some of the same dialogue. But this is not proof of a conspiracy because the film was simulating the original. To suggest that the lunar landing was faked because Capricorn One is simulated is circular logic.
2. The flag planted on the moon does indeed wave, but only when the astronaut is planting it. Even though there is no atmosphere and no wind on the moon, the laws of physics were not suspended on the lunar surface. The Flag has mass and therefore inertia, so it waves when the astronaut twists the pole into the soil.
3. This multiple light source thing pissed me off the most. The narrator claimed that no flash equipment was taken to the moon and that the sun therefore was the only source of illumination. Apparently the narrator never stood in the light of a full moon. That's right folks, the Earth reflects light from the sun back onto the lunar surface. The only difference is that the Earth is quite a bit larger than the moon and casts more reflected light. Although the Earth does go through phases much like the moon, (depending on the Earth, moon, sun angle) the folks at NASA are pretty smart and I bet they scheduled these landing to coincide with the periods of greatest illumination.
4. There is no blast crater below the LEM, because the moon's gravitational pull is 1/6th that of the earths'. Unlike on the earth, the lander wouldn't have to descend on constant thrust, a few well placed and controlled thrusts would be all that was necessary to land softly. As an aside the thrust would also not be as incendiary as it would be in an atmosphere and would therefore not burn the surface.
5. The module didn't ascend on a constant tongue thrust flame. Like I said, 1/6th the gravity. It applies here as well. The thrust used to launch the ascension module was applied in one burst, and the rest of the fuel was reserved incase they needed to make any corrections once they got into orbit.
6. The narrator claimed that many of the astronauts expired unduly because of their knowledge of the conspiracy, he further claimed that an astonishing %15 of the Apollo astronauts died in the short years following the Apollo missions. Let me tell, %15 dead means %85 alive, that's a piss poor way to cover up a conspiracy. Furthermore, what of the thousands of support people and engineers that built maintained and designed the equipment and trained the personnel. The astronauts, for all of their training were really nothing more than very qualified pilots with a background in applied sciences. As an aside many of these astronauts were test pilots and thrill seekers. a %15 mortality rate among this type of person seems fairly reasonable.

In conclusion I'd like to say that the lunar landing was not faked and FOX caters to idiots. Thank you, and good night.

UPDATE: 11SEP02
On Monday, the 9th of September 2002, Bart Sibrel, the producer of this FOX show and the related and equally ignorant film, "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To the Moon," attempted an ambush interview of Buzz Aldrin outside of a Beverly Hills hotel. Sibrel claimed, "I approached him and asked him again to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, and told him he was a thief for taking money to give an interview for something he didn't do." Sibrel had on two previous occasions accosted Aldrin in public with similar tactics. Aldrin responded by punching Sibrel in the face. Sibrel, 37, got his ass handed to him by the 72 year old Aldrin. Sibrel, who claims that Aldrin fled after striking him, is seeking an assault charge against the former astronaut. In contradiction to Sibrel's claim, I saw news footage of the event that showed Aldrin standing calmly in front of the entrance to the hotel as people fluttered around him after the event.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=953839&lastnode_id=632748

 

[CptStern]

I wish more people would spend more time researching real life conspiracies instead of silly implausible ones