CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Only Wiki I'm afraid, but still much better than that crap programme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Issues_with_crosshairs_in_photos

The 'crosshair' images used in this programme are poor quality copied or scanned reproductions. On the original prints the (intentionally faint) crosshairs are clearly present.

And who would take being called a liar by the likes of you?

Open mind ... 'Empty' seems a better description. Leaving the obvious weakness of your argument to one side for now, the level of hypocrisy you are spouting on here is in danger of achieving Saturn V proportions itself. To have the gall to accuse me of "smearing" you when the entire argument you are promoting is nothing but a huge smear on the character of the men who did take Humanity to the Moon and back is quite staggering. When you promote this intellectual garbage what you are in fact doing is calling better men than you liars. Now I say if you are going to call any man a liar then you better be damn sure you can prove it, or keep your mouth shut. Brave men sacrificed their lives for the Apollo programme, while countless others gave the best years of their careers to it. These people have been described justifiably as the 'best and the brightest' of their generation. To stoop so low as to insult their memories I find truly contemptible - akin to insulting the pilots of Fighter Command during 1940 almost. Re your - evidence free - notion of the Lunar reflectors being dropped into place from orbit. Which space vehicle was employed to deliver this payload? When and where was it launched from? What technique was employed to ensure the payload was adequately retarded during the descent phase? How EXACTLY did the conspirators ensure the mirror landed the right way up, on the precisely correct alignment, and on a suitably level section of the Lunar surface - all done without any Human assistance you say ..... perhaps Laika was there to help out. While we are on technical questions, the well known film that exists of the Apollo Astronauts playfully enjoying the Moons low gravity conditions. As this must have been filmed back on Earth of course (with its unavoidable 1G gravity) how was this 'special effect' achieved? No sophisticated CGI back in the 1960's of course, so presumably you think that the old 'wire' method long employed in Hollywood movies must have been used. But I've looked closely at the film (I have it on DVD) and I just can't see a shred of evidence of any wires - and you can nearly always see them if you look hard enough. For that matter a large sound stage must have been constructed to support the wires/specialist lighting and protect this remarkable 'set' from Planet Earth's all too pervasive weather - but your 'Set' appears to be a vast completely open space without any roof or side structure being present. This too needs to be explained. I await your reply with interest.

Just about as unreasonable a contribution as I ever seen on here - well done. My advice to you is that if you want to portray yourself as some kind of 'seeker after the truth' then rejecting evidence without any foundation - photo's are valuable evidence by the way - is unlikely to win you many admirers. But as you have already admitted that no possible evidence could persuade you anyway, I suppose I was being overly optimistic in hoping that you were open to reason. But never mind - this forum has your number now shipmate.

IMAGE OF APOLLO 11 LUNAR REFLECTOR. As can be clearly seen below the Reflector in question is too far distant from the Lunar Lander to have been installed via some (unidentified and non existent) remotely controlled mechanical arm. Nor is there any evidence of the track marks that any kind of Vehicle must have left behind. The suggestion that this equipment has been dropped onto the surface from some Orbital vehicle seems without foundation in fact. Footprints left behind by the Apollo Astronauts that actually did this work can however be seen. Now the Lunar conspiracy fans will no doubt claim that the imagine itself has been mocked up in some studio as they always do. That kind of claim is very difficult, or impossible, to disprove of course. But the fact that it is hard to prove a negative does not in any way amount to proof. If this case was in front of a judge it would be laughed out of court. For the love of reason this point should be easy enough to understand you would think.

I note with interest the lack of any detail as to how the Lunar reflectors were indeed assembleed and placed in to their correct position - lets keep it fuzzy eh? The reason man has not returned to the Moon post Apollo would appear to be one centered on the extreme financial cost of such a mission and the lack of political will to do so, or perhaps it's just a cynical attempt to hide the evidence of your vast conspiracy. I'll leave it to others to decide which explanation they find more convincing.

As you well know no such mission will take place for years/decades to come, so its imposible then to provide evidence that with disprove the Lunitic theory to your satifaction - how very convieient. For some reason you appear firmly to believe that the laser reflectors that demonstrably exist on the Lunar surface were not placed there my Human hands. Please expand on this argument. If not put there by Astronauts how exactly were they emplaced given the limitations of 1960's era remote operation technology available? Which lander undertook this mission and how was the mirror removed from the craft and put successfully into position without any Human assistance? Those of us who have reached a certain age will remember that back in the day it was wildly assumed that permanent colony's would be established on the Moon by 1980. Had that occurred than your vast conspiracy would be in grave danger of exposure of course - with disastrous results for the many conspirators involved. What exactly is the overwhelming need behind this conspiracy that justifies running such huge risks? It seems to be that a mere propaganda victory for the NASA and USA doesn't really cut it.

My Japan anolgy is diliberetly silly of course - but there again so is this Lunatic theory. I must say it seems a more than a tad rich to criticise me for 'conjecture' when the whole theory you are expounding is nothing but a edifice of supposition and conjecture build upon foundations of sand. I would be most interested however to see what you would consider to be proof that man has visited the Moon.

I've never been to the Moon. I've never been to Japan either. But until I can go there and see for myself, I'm left with little choice but to accept that Japan does indeed exist and that actual people have walked upon its surface. Now I suppose some vast and sinister (doubtless CIA backed) conspiracy might exist with the sole purpose of fooling Humanity into believing than Japan is real, when in fact its existence is nothing more than a fiendishly complicated 'smoke and mirrors' illusion. But when a extraordinary claim is made then surely a extraordinary level of verifiable evidence must be presented to support it. In the absence of that conclusive evidence then all a reasonable person can do is to assume that those making claims quite as outlandish as this are either misguided fantasist's or they may even be suffering from some form of mental illness - we migh even call them lunatics. When we do eventually return to the Moon and examine the physical evidence of the Apollo missions in situ, I'll predict here and now even that won't satisfy the doubters. The same old claims about conspiracies and falsified evidence will reemerge and the argument will go on, and on, and on .... The truth is that Mankind has indeed visited the Lunar surface, an ample supply of hard evidence is there to prove it. Without wishing to sound overly cruel, it seems to me that only the incurably credulous could possible believe otherwise.

I quite like people who ask awkward questions - awkward questions being the only ones worth asking methinks. But like everything else in life you can take it too far. As already mentioned, scientists do routinely measure the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon by bouncing a laser beam off a reflector one of the Apollo missions left on the Lunar surface. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment The so called 'fluttering flag' was merely a inadvertent vibration imparted into the flagpole that did not dissipate naturally (as it would on Earth) due to the Moons low gravity. Apparent anomalies in light and shadow sources observed on published Apollo photography can be readily explained by those who properly understand the specialist film/camera's employed and the highly unusual lunar photographic conditions pertaining. For the record, independent observers on earth also confirmed that radio wave transmissions apparently broadcast from the moon did indeed have a true Lunar origin. Now a reasonable person might conclude that all this was pretty solid evidence (among a mountain of other solid evidence) that these silly theories are without foundation in fact and that man has indeed visited the Moon. It will make no difference however because conspiracy theorists with put forward some (apparently plausible) explanation as to why, and how, this evidence too has been falsified. It is in the nature of conspiracy theories that facts that do not fit a preconceived notion held must be dismissed, however solid the evidence actually is, because the faithful regard themselves as 'keepers of the truth' and they will tolerate no opposition. In a way beliefs of this nature closely resemble religion, in a deeply cynical age like this, they may even one day supersede traditional religion. The truth (well my truth anyway) is that the Apollo programme is perhaps the finest bloody effort Mankind has ever managed. When we stoop so low as to question the magnificent group of people who made this possible, then not only do we insult them, we also damage ourselves.

You're welcome.

For future reference, when the conjunction 'if' is employed in speech or writing this is intended to imply that a conditional clause applies. Happy to help.

I'm sure the manager knows better, but if anyone on here really was foolish enough to think we're out of trouble then I suggest they take a look at the post Xmas fixture list. Between the new year and the start of March we have just 3 PL home games - Arsenal, Everton, and Man City! In all honesty can't see us getting much change out of that lot, so the away games against Villa, Wigan, and Newcastle may well decide whether we enter the 'run in' marooned in the relegation zone, or not. The greatest test of Nigel Adkins managerial credentials lays not in the past - but ahead.

I too heard precious little (if any) audible booing of this player from Block 19. But with quite so many on here firmly astride their 'high horse' now, I think inconvenient truths such as that are unlikely to force many of the outraged to dismount ....

The above post is yet another example of how some only see what they want/expect to see during a football match, rather than what actually occurred. To boldly claim that RL "won the majority of his headers" yesterday is just plain silly, as this bares no resemblance to the truth of the matter. Now while he's been with us he certainly has bossed more than his fair share of defenders around - I'll grant you that - but during this match Reading obviously identified him as the main aerial danger (this is hardly Rocket Science) and they made damn sure they had two big defenders on him most of the time. I must add that during this match that strategy working quite successfully for them in the main. Now normally I don't mind a spot of hyperbole in debate every now and then, but it is of course grossly unfair to claim that I described RL's performance as a "shambles" nor for that matter is there any truth at all in the (evidence free) allegation that I see Guly as a lazy, or skiving, player. A honorable man would withdraw these baseless remarks.

It was a good save, but a better shot would not have been presented the GK with the chance to stop it in my view.

Oh I have gotten over it, but only because it didn't matter all that much. You on the other hand appear to be both agreeing and disagreeing with me. Go away up come up with a cogent view.

I was there and he most certainly did not win 'nearly everything'. Still one of my favorite players, but I can only call it as I see it.

If you really thought that was one of Lambert's better games then good for you. In my opinion he's played much more effectively than that on numerous occasions. JROD was still going strong when he came off I thought, and I have no idea how Guly could have possibly done "everything right" when he missed a sitter from 5 yards!

Not today shipmate.

We all love SRL, but the truth is he wasn't even jumping against their cb's by the end of todays match. I can't reconcile your view with the game I was watching.

Not at our very best today perhaps, but all-in-all the best side won I thought. Out of the relegation zone tonight, the 3 points are most welcome against the type of opposition we really needed to beat if we want to stay in this division. So onwards and ever upwards I hope! Three good: Luke Shaw A 17 year old who already performs like a (very good) player in his mid twenties. On the rare occasions he does gets beat he has the pace, skill, and determination to get back into position and recover the situation. Early days I suppose, but as long as we can keep him it may well be a decade or more before we have a vacancy at Left Back ... oh and Clyne on the right is not too shabby either! Cork & Schneiderlin Always a central midfield pairing of some potential, these two are starting to look at home now at this level. Schneiderlin is a good player in my book, but Jack Cork may perhaps be the better of them. Had Corky been fit all season I dare say we might now be comfortably midtable. JROD It's taken him a while to find his feet in the PL but today we saw a glimpse of just why we spent all that money on him. Younger, quicker, and much more energetic than Sir Ricky, as long as the goals follow it can only be a matter of time before he does supersede the great man. Three not so good: Lallana Such a important player for this team any injury to Adam must be a matter of some concern for us all. For those not there today I can only add - for what it's worth - that he did appear to walk off the pitch without too much difficulty. Fingers crossed .... Lambert Not at the races today I thought, indeed he hardly won a header all match, which is most 'unlambertlike'. Substitutions Ramirez for Lallana was utterly correct and uncontroversial, but Guly for the rather impressive Rodriguez left this fan somewhat bemused and befuddled. I need hardly say that it's so very important we get these decisions right.

JP was obviously instrumental in securing us 3 vital points today and I'm more than happy to join in with the praise this player is now receiving for his efforts this season. But I must say he still frustrates me at times because, for all his impressive approach play, his decision making and final ball can still be somewhat wayward at times. Methinks he's maybe 5% away from becoming not just a good Premier League player, but a very good one. He's probably performing at his full potential right now, but if he ever does find that missing 5% from somewhere then we'll have some player on our books.

I neither rate nor boo Guly, but for my money a poor substitution by the manager. If we really needed to change it at that stage I would had had Lambert off (having a very average game by his standards) instead of the rather impressive Rodriguez, and brought Mayuka on perhaps. Guly wasn't too terrible to be honest, and almost lobbed one in from distance, but he missed a sitter (that Lee Barnard or Billy Sharp would have gobbled up) that would have made the last ten a hell of a lot more comfortable than they were. Hey we won the game so it doesn't matter now. But on another day ........