In article <4472e231$0$76916$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl>, b says...

And what is truth? What is true...?
Seeing "What happened on the Moon".... shows that the Apollo moon landings
were all faked - because of the many inconsistancies in the equipment,
which did not make it possible to carry out the mission, nor able to
record it, 

and apollo 13 is also a made up story?
why in the hell would nasa do such a thing,bad pr 
all over the place...

Well it would be nice to verify the Apollo landings, for sure.
That would certainly clear everything up. I'm all for that.
I don't mind being shown positively that the Apollo moon landings
definitely happened...

It would be nice if NASA did go back there...
                    that we should have a moon colony there
                    that we should have a space station that is not in a
                            low earth orbit.
                    that we should have moon rovers all over the moon,
                         whether remote controlled, or manned.
Maybe we'll have to wait to see if the Chinese will go into outer space?
                                               won't die going beyond the
                                                     safety of earth?

as in the photographic images. The photographic 
equipment

were not made space or moon-proof, therefore they were all faked.

You obviously believe in the mainstream media, and that of popular
public opinion, as being the 'truth' and anything outside that,
could not possibly be true...

But the truth, is simply that which exists, that which happened, is
happening, and is going to happen.

Harvey

but the best proof of all are the russians,dead 
silence from them and now they are admitting they 
wanted to go to the moon themselves but those 
fuckin americans were first...
the enemy is admitting it...wow..

Well, it's a bit strange that the Russians never attempted? a manned
moon mission? Why not? Maybe they couldn't invest in a proper moon landing
craft? A criticism of the Apollo Moon Lander, is that there wasn't the
money spent on it, to make it do it's job - the specified requirements for
that project fell short on technical information on what was required for it.
That in short, not enough money was spent on it's development.
Meaning it wasn't rigorously tested enough to be safe for it's proposed use.

It wouldn't be the first time that NASA held back on not telling things
truthfully to the public. See the "The Secret NASA Transmissions"...

Harvey