pap

Blimey. Where do I start? Liberal? Free? You're going to have to qualify what you mean by these, old chap. As concepts, they're massively open to interpretation. If the Old Bill are demonstrably proven to have concocted the entire account, then yeah, of course they should be punished. Don't know if that'll be proven. I'd expect them to point to specific inconsistencies in the OB account ( e.g. crowd size on Whitehall ) and use those to diminish its overall credibility.

I actually think it'll fizzle out. That video casts enough doubt over the specifics of the police report to get him off the hook.

They want to keep him in the government, the coppers have sexed up the witness numbers. The government aim to muddy the waters enough to make his position tenable. The "doesn't look like an angry confrontation" thing is a load of crap, unless you think that all angry confrontations should look like a couple of gesticulating Frenchmen arguing over a garlic eclair.

I dunno if The Kraken is still following this nonsense, don't wanna bung words down people's cakeholes, and invite him to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that this might be one of those "badly argued" things he refers to. For the record, this is why I believe that Japan exists. 1) The islands of Japan are visible on global maps, satellite imagery. 2) The existence of the Japanese people has been recorded by multiple nations. Millions of international eyewitnesses have verified its existence through personal accounts or collected evidence. 3) Japan's history is recorded in some detail, verified by physical evidence, millions of eyewitness accounts, archive footage. (Of course, the CEC response to your own suggestion that Japan might not exist would be an aghast cry, idly wondering how anyone could stoop so low as to deny the rape of Nanking) 4) I know people that have been to Japan or have lived in Japan. 5) Thousands of movies have been filmed on location in Japan. 6) Millions of people claiming to be from a place called Japan arrive as tourists in other countries 7) I can go to Japan and see it for myself.

So you misrepresent a fact, point out that we didn't point out your misrepresentation of facts, then use a combination of the two to prove that's how conspiracy theorists work? That's some interesting logic there; but you may have excluded one possibility. People may not be reading your posts, or at least, not giving them their full attention. I switched off a bit when you moved off the facts and onto the character assassinations. Bit of a common trait in the valiant defender of the record, isn't it?

Just looked through my contacts list and nothing there I'm not trying to beat you CB Fry - just ramming home the difference between primary evidence and secondary evidence for the umpteenth time. Repeating another meme, we haven't been sent anyone back in 40 years. According to some, that doesn't matter - it's not important. But according to the same people, this is mankind's greatest achievement, and shouldn't be rubbished in any way. People say that the moon is virtually worthless, and there's no point going back. Yet those same people rightly point out all the technological advances that fell out of previous space programs. I hold the view that a permanent moonbase would be a source of enduring inspiration to the entire planet. It's not just the symbolism. There are practical reasons; jump-point for deeper space exploration, new scientific advances, mineral exploration and excavation. Not only that, but if your long-term intention is to get further out into the galaxy, absent any extremely handy anti-gravity technology, the moon is a no-brainer for large scale construction, especially if you can procure and process a lot of the raw materials in situ. So I have to wonder, why haven't we been back? Why, when we've seen every other field of technology improve, miniaturise, refine, get better and more accessible, has nothing happened on long distance manned space travel since the early 1970s? The moon must be unique in the sense that it is the one thing that the Americans have touched that hasn't ended up with advertising hoardings all over it. Let's brush aside any notions of Moon-sized Coke ads for the moment. Where's the commercial exploitation, or the groundwork to get commercial exploitation underway? The Wright brothers got their Flyer off the deck in 1903. Forty years afterward the skies were filled with Spitfires, Zeros, Corsairs. Not only that, but entire industries had sprung up to support this new innovation, everything from mechanical supply chain to these new-fangled "runway airports" ( Chapel End Charlie picketed these in protest at the withdrawal of the zeppelin ). The world changed. Forty years after Apollo, how much have we refined on this interplanetary space travel lark?

So who are these other eyewitnesses that have been to the moon? I dunno if you've read further up the thread. Chapel End Charlie likes to make a thing about Japan, completely missing the point that Japan, like the ISS, is verifiable in all sorts of ways the lunar missions are not. I've expanded on that enough, but suffice to say, the evidence is weak compared to the standards we'd want in other historical events. All the primary evidence has been supplied by one source, endlessly regurgitated and used as proof of itself.

When you say vast pool you're talking about 12 astronauts.

Work away, my good man.

You should have just gone with "pap", which means:- 1) Midland U.S. A teat or nipple. 2) Something resembling a nipple. 3) Soft or semiliquid food, as for infants. 4) Material lacking real value or substance 5) Slang Money and favors obtained as political patronage 6) worthless or oversimplified ideas; drivel I think you'll have particularly good fun applying #4 to this superb composite depiction you're building of me. Then you should perhaps wonder if a man who self-applies the name "pap" is going to be particularly bothered by "pulp". First one's free, Charlie - but if you need any more help insulting me, the service is available at a reasonable cost and I know the b@stard well.

JFK was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This was the ruling of the last US committee to investigate the issue. We do not know who orchestrated the conspiracy, and we probably never will. That's an example of a 50 year conspiracy that the American people wanted to investigate, and there's still no official outcome, save the fact that a conspiracy was involved. The best time to prove anything is around the time it happens. The pool of eyewitnesses for any event diminishes to zero over time, happening very quickly in the case of JFK. We can't prove who killed him because contrary to your statement, JFK proves that conspiracies are easier to maintain over time, not harder.

Bless ya, Charlie - you've unwittingly wandered into another modern trap! Pulp are a band that released most of their discography in the 1990s. Their lead singer famously pulled a mooner at the King of Pop while Jacko was pretending to be Jesus at the Brits, earning him the respect of millions. I'm sure you had the worst of intentions when crafting that moniker for me, but you've mistakenly given me cred through association with a much loved band!

What's harder? 1) Making a movie about going to the moon? 2) Going to the moon?

The standard of acceptable visual proof has been established, along with the means to do it. Get the ESO Very Large Telescope in Chile to get an image. trousers has mentioned this before, they said they were going to do it yonks ago, yet they haven't.

It's more fun to watch you implode. To what end? Jarrah covers this. ( http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html ) Again, to what end? Operation Paperclip ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip ) - the operation in which the US spirited top Nazi scientists back to the US. Attacking the man, not the argument. I suppose "they didn't take one to the moon" might be a start. When I said they could have used dry beach sand earlier, were you under the impression that I thought they'd carried some to the moon? See, you can just say you are taking a buggy, show pictures of a buggy on something that looks like the moon, get a handful of people to say they drove a buggy and guess what? Buggy on the moon. It's not hard, and this may be distressing for you to hear, but that awesome tank on LV-426 in Aliens is not real either, despite them saying that they were taking it, and despite the fact we got some excellent video (much better than this Apollo stuff). But wait a moment. I'm wasting my time. Aliens was made in 1986. That's far too recent for your tastes. So, my mission here is to find the company that supplied the wires to NASA so they could fake the moon hoax, get them to admit it, preferably in writing, and post the results on here? I'll er, get right back to you. Wouldn't that be great? The kid in the Shining has an Apollo jumper. Ooooooh! Funny thread on that here:- http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=29163.0

With respect, the other side of this debate hasn't even conceded that such a feat was feasible, so if we want to talk awkward questions, start there. Was a hoax technically feasible?

No mate. I think you'll find that because you haven't explicitly come on here and said I'm not a horse's ass, I am one.

Ah, we're here, are we? Superb stuff. First, this entire thread is about the discussion of a conspiracy theory. Either bravely, or stupidly, I'm batting for the pro-hoax side of the pitch. This is not the first time I've argued for a conspiracy theory on SaintsWeb, or in a contemporary (i.e. not conspiracy-related ) forum. I knew I wasn't going to get a great deal of support; nor do I want it. You argue as if popular mandate, or lack thereof in this case, is some kind of validation for your point. In reality, it is a deeply provocative subject, which is exactly why I picked it. Then, look at the abuse some bunged my way. Don't get me wrong; I'm not having a blub, but some may not be as indifferent to that kind of response. They may look at the repeated insults and think "why bother"? You've created a toxic environment for debate.

Don't book a space for Charlie. He'll moan about the spacecraft not being as good as the ones in the old days, and besides, he's happy enough with a couple of snaps, a bit of video and the testimony of 12 men, who either kick off or clam up when asked difficult questions.

More level than your what? You're not even trying anymore. First casualty is the edit, I suppose.

Or alternatively, a mirror.

The sad thing is you had this virtually won on Sunday. I was ready to bow out. But nah, you had blood in your nostrils, couldn't resist further mockery and this is the result. I'm still giggling over your reverse invite, where people were invited NOT to call me a horse's ass. It's brilliant, although if you plan to rock that particular playground practice in future, can I suggest a slight username change to Chapel End Childie?

Ha! Nice summary of the thread! The Russians and Chinese are superficially good shouts. However, the Russians weren't able to track Apollo there and back. Additionally, NASA and the Russians were working together by the mid-1970s. Then think on the composition of both space agencies. Both the US and Russia nicked their rocket expertise from Nazi Germany. These boys on competing sides of the Iron Curtain were old colleagues back in the Fatherland. They had every reason to validate the result and not enough information to prove it. Jarrah White's site lists other reasons. China is an interesting case. Their space program is still in the early stages, but they're developing independent capability and know-how. Say they do get conclusive proof when they resolve the lunar surface to sufficient detail. What do they do? Broadly, they can either disclose or use it as leverage. The latter is a possibility that no-one seems to consider, yet happens more often than you'd think.

I suspect your definition of consistent is one or more of the following:- 1) NASA data agreeing with itself. 2) It's grey 3) It's granular That about cover it?

Qualify "consistent". How are you measuring that?