Sample Of Budget Narrative For Prime Form: Fill & Download for Free

Morarji Desai:Part 1:Morarji Desai was a great man because he made it to the post of Prime Minister, and that’s what we’ve been taught in our textbooks. But whenever we churn our brain in history’s lane, he shows up as a dude who used to drink his own piss.Part 2:Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), skilfully floated by Indira Gandhi on the lines of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to keep an eye on foreign countries, organise counter security operations and secure Indian interests.Part 3:The early 1970s goes down as a race of nuclear supremacy between India and Pakistan. Sensing the technological marvel of scientists during Indira Gandhi’s regime, Pakistan kicked off its first atomic bomb project code named Project-706 in 1974 under the leadership of the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Little did they realize that their ambitious mission was already on the radar of lethal RAW agents stationed in Pakistan.Gathering substantive intelligence inputs from Kahuta, the project site in Rawalpindi, was not an easy task for the Indian spies, but with a hell of a determination and genius approach, they managed in.To confirm their details over the ongoing project, they roped in a mole near the highly-secured nuclear facility and collected hair samples of Pakistani scientists from a salon which were tested positive for uranium and high radiation.Part 4:Right after he (Morarji Desai) barged into the highest political office in March 1977, one of his priorities was to cut down the budget of RAW by 50 percent and compelling Rameshwar Nath Kao (First Cheif of RAW), the legendary spymaster, to quit his job. Whatever he did, was meant to demoralize the agency and its outstanding officers.With his narrow mindset and envious attitude towards RAW, he believed that during Emergency, RN Kao and his officers (famously known as Kaoboys) supported Indira Gandhi in bringing opposition leaders to their knees, resulted in a one-man committee to find out the involvement of RAW during Emergency era. This job was given to an IPS of Maharashtra cadre who “Coincidentally” was the son-in-law of Chaudhary Charan Singh, Home Minister in Desai’s government. RN Kao was acquitted of the charges as nothing suspicious was found against him.Part 5:Operation Kahuta is regarded by many as one of the most daring operations ever conducted by RAW.The only reason it failed was due to a “Mastery” by Morarji Desai. In a telephone conversation one day, Morarji Desai informed the then Pakistan President, Zia-ul-Haq, that India was aware of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program(Genius act, wasn't it), acting on this “tip-off”, Pakistani intelligence eliminated RAW's agents in Kahuta, leaving India in the dark about Pakistan's nuclear weapons program from then onwards.PS: So thats how one man destroyed a great chance to destroy Pak nuclear program, and yet turn up your history books the great Morarji Desai will find his place as one of the greatest Prime Ministers of INDIA.and thats a brief narration. for full details check “Operation Kahuta-Wiki”

No they did not fake it. Some of the other answer to this question are jokes. In this one I’ll do a proper debunk, go through many of the things people give as supposed reasons to think they faked it. Wikipedia has a good page on the conspiracy theories that has just about all the debunks:Moon landing conspiracy theories - WikipediaI’ll just do some of the main things people say. And if you wonder why there are so many things to debunk, it’s because many people with a lot of time on their hands but little understanding of physics and astronomy have pored over the videos and flagged almost anything they don’t understand as a reason for thinking it didn’t happen! Our intuitions based on the way things work on Earth can lead us astray when looking at videos from the Moon.I’ll start by debunking a video that got shared a lot recently. This is doing the rounds on social media again:Illuminati ExposedI’m also answering some points raised in recent “red top tabloid” stories on the topic.MY BACKGROUNDI’m a space geek who was a young teenager, 14 at the time of the Apollo 11 landing, and followed the whole thing keenly :). Not just the things that interested the general public, but also all the scientific discoveries they made on their geological expeditions on the Moon. You can watch them pick up a rock on the Moon and then read about the discoveries they made studying that very same rock back on Earth.INDEPENDENT OBSERVATIONSKeen amateur astronomers at the time not only watched the launch, return and fuel dumps, they followed the spacecraft all the way to the Moon - at its brightest they could be as bright as 10th magnitude in lunar orbit, varying to around 14th or 15th magnitude, well within the range of the larger amateur telescopes at the time. For some of the photos from a Sky and Telescope article, see: Bill Keel's Space Bits. One amateur using a small backyard radio telescope was able to record Apollo 11 conversations on the Moon:recordings here: Otter Creek - South Harrison Observatory Interview here: BaysingerRutherfordand see also Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia and C Stuart Hardwick's answer to How can I convince my dad that Apollo 11 went to the moon?ANSWERING THE POINTSHere are a few of the points answered:Claim that all the materials would melt in the thermosphere- it is a hard vacuum at that height.What temperature you can survive depends on how dense the material is you are immersed in. Sauna champions can withstand well over 100 °C for several minutes in dry air: How hot can a sauna safely get? But you wouldn’t survive in boiling water even for seconds.What is the highest temperature a human being can survive?When it comes to the thermosphere you can survive indefinitely because it is so thin, hardly any heat will be transferred to you. You’ll get far more heat from direct sunlight than from the occasional high velocity atom hitting the spaceship.And incidentally the thermosphere starts at 90 km. That is well below LEO, and the ISS orbits permanently within the thermosphere.Why is there no blast crater? You wouldn't expect a blast crater, the rockets were throttlable and weren’t used at full throttle on landing. You can get an idea what they were like from these test flights of the simulator, they only through up the lunar dust at all because it was so very fine:Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TVWhy does the flag wave? It is suspended on a horizontal pole and the astronauts knocked it as they put it up and it waved back and forth for a while. They needed the flag to hang like a normal flag in a vacuum, so designed a special pole to hold it upWhy don’t we see the stars in the photos? It is because of the contrast with the bright surface - if you look out of your door at night and dazzle yourself with a light as bright as a sunny landscape you won't see stars but if you shield your eyes from any bright lights, and wait a bit to adapt you’ll see them. The astronauts did see Venus from the surface and saw stars routinely when sighting from the surface. It’s the same with film, you use a narrow aperture and short exposure to avoid ovre exposure of the landscape which means not enough light gets to the film to record the stars.This is what it would have looked like if they had used an exposure setting sufficient to show the brighter stars:Screenshot from this video:See also:How did they get through the Van Allen belts? They spent only a short time in them and avoided the worst part.They chose a path past the densest part of the Van Allen belts and only spent 1,5 hours in them, the module also gave a fair bit of protection, and the total radiation dose from them was actually only a small fraction of the total.Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen BeltsThe lunar module had only paper thin shielding, but was only used to land on the Moon. The astronauts lived in the command module and that had much thicker shielding and they transferrred to the lunar module to land.Nothing to do with the van allen belt. But it would have given some protection from a solar storm as the ions from the sun are rather low energy compared to cosmic radiation. Lots of them but at a low energy.The main concern was for a solar storm - if one had happened during an EVA on the lunar surface they would have had a serious case of radiation sickness though they would have survived, rushed to hospital on return to Earth. The lunar module gave some protection from solar storms, though they’d have wanted to get back to the command module as soon as possible.What about the electronics?The reason we have to take such care over the van allen belts with modern electronics is because they are much more sensitive than the Apollo electronics.They used memory like this for their computer - each of those rings is a single bit - do you think ionizing radiation is going to do much to damage their onboard computer? This is the read only memory - most of the memory was like that.It was a very primitive programmable calculator, slow, with a few kilobytes of memory. Most of what they did was pre-calculated back on Earth using huge room sized computers. They also has a small amount of read/write memory like this:File:Apollo 1024 bit core memory module.jpg “A 1024-bit core memory module from the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC). There are 1024 circular ceramic magnets, each one with three wires running through it. A memory bit is set or read by passing current through the wires and changing the polarity of a magnet. This module is approximately 3 inches square.”It had 2K of RAM and 6K of ROM. More details here:After all, our modern robotic spacecraft get to Mars, Pluto, Saturn, Jupiter etc. There isn’t any doubt about SLS doing this too.We know how to do it, but you have to make sure you design your spacecraft to protect against the ionizing radiation.To explain the astronaut statements, we can’t currently send a human to the Moon because we lost that capability after Apollo.HOW WAS BUZZ ALDRIN LIT UP WHEN IN THE SHADOWS?He was lit up by the lunar surface soil, the lander itself, and, it turned out, Neil Armstrong’s white spacesuit was a strong source of light too.INCONSISTENT SHADOWSClaim: “The shadows should be absolutely black and run parallel to each other.”“Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, and the Earth, as well as the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the conspiracists. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found. And finally, the camera in use w”as fitted with a wide angle lens, which naturally resulted in subtle versions of fisheye lens distortion.”Lots of other photography debunks here: Examination of Apollo Moon photographs - WikipediaAnd good example using a moon surface crude model hereApollo Moon Photos: a Hoax? - GoddardWHY DID WE LOSE THE CAPABILITY TO GET TO THE MOON?It is a matter of budget. Also safety. Remember they did have the Apollo 13. The astronauts survived, but it was a close thing.When they got to 17, they had to decide whether to continue or not. They decided to stop at that point. They had won the race with Russia, the general public had somewhat lost interest. Scientsts very much wanted them to continue, but science wasn’t their top priority.They were always anxious about anyone on the lunar surface, the most dangerous time in any mission. The three day missions were a compromise between the scientists who wanted the astronauts on the surface as long as possible to do as much science as possible - and the mission planners who would like to minimize the surface EVA’s as much as possible to get the astronauts back safely. If they’d had their way they’d have all just spent a few minutes on the surface to say they’d been there, hop in the module and go straight back to Earth. Just falling over in the luanr gravity could kill you if some crucial part of the spacesuit was damaged and they often fell over.(Some of those falls were deliberate - as they couldn’t bend at the waste they found that the easiest way to pick something up was to fall over and then grab a hold of it and stand up again - but some were stumbles and falls, falling over forwards was okay but sideways or backwards could have damaged their backpack)Then the US made some bad decisions. They decided to go for the Space Shuttle. If they had kept the Saturn V in production they could have done far more than they did with the Shuttle which was only really capable of going to LEO. They had great hopes for the Shuttle but they expected to run it once a week or more often. Instead they only managed a few missions per year and had two major accidents that brought it to a screeching hault each time.The US presidents have many other pre-occupations, and a return to the Moon, even though Bush wanted it was not a top priority.YES THE ASTRONAUTS WERE LUCKYAnd yes they were very lucky. There was one heavy fatality, the Apollo 1. All three crew died in a ground fire. The Russians had several fatalities. Apollo 13 nearly ended in disaster. Apollo 10 nearly did too, just quick thinking as they span head over tails above the lunar surface prevented them all from dying.The astronauts were all test pilots in the early flights. Neil Armstrong had survived numerous crashes, e.g. ejecting from the lunar module test just a fraction of a second before it exploded. He had a cool head and nerves like steel. They had many incidents during the flights that would have killed everyone if they hadn’t all been experienced test pilots. As it was, they put their chance of surviving the Apollo 11 landing as 1 in 2. That also had some issuees, e.g. Buzz Aldrin snapping off a lever and fixing it with a pencil just before they took off.It was very dangerous and they were lucky. Risky - but not reckless, they did a careful step by step approach that minimized the risk, on top of that they had experienced test pilots (withotu which they would have had several more fatalities) and on top of that they had a measure of luck. But you need to prepare for luck, it won’t happen if you are reckless, careless or send the wrong people.And - Russia had excellent spying capabilities. It knew about the atom bomb project before there was a single buliding on the ground.They, like Jodrell bank, would have been able to follow the astronauts all the way to the Moon through the radio signals.BRINGING BACK THE ROCKSYes perhaps you could bring back as much rock with a rover but it would need a lot of work with the technology they had back then. The Russians brought some rocks back but not much.And the lunar meteorites were not discovered until after the Apollo missions.And each rock was labelled so you can tell where it was picked up and when, and match it with the video of the astronaut retreiving it. And they lead to new and surprising discoveries about the Moon. And these rocks are used to this day, re-examined to test theories and ideas.WHAT ABOUT THE FAKE LUNAR ROCK IN THE NETHERLANDSYes that particular rock is fake. Or rather, it seems it was a misunderstanding. The person who received the rock was nearly deaf and blind at the time, and the cardboard plaque doesn’t describe it as a moon rock, and he probably got a mistaken impression. And the museum checked his story just by ringing up NASA and asking if it was a moon rock, to which they replied over the phone that it probably was (bear in mind they had been given genuine moon rocks as well at the time) and that was all the checking they did.“The Amsterdam case appears to be not fraud but the result of poor vetting by the Rijksmuseum.“Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock.“But it weighed a whopping 89 grams (3.1 ounces). In addition, its gold-colored cardboard plaque does not describe it as a moon rock.“The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.“"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."“The family never thought to question the story before donating the rock, to which it had not attached great importance or monetary value.”Apollo moon rocks lost in space? No, lost on EarthSee alsoNetherlands lunar sample displays - WikipediaWHY DON’T THEIR BOOTS MATCH THE FOOTPRINTS ON THE MOON?Simple, because they used overshoes on the lunar surface. The ones with the flat soles are the shoes they wore inside the lunar module. You can see the overshoes bottom right in this photo.Boot, Left, Lunar Overshoe, Cernan, Apollo 17, FlownSee Why doesn’t the first step on the moon match Neil Armstrong’s spacesuit boots?WHY DIDN’T NEIL ARMSTRONG SWEAR ON THE BIBLE THAT HE WENT TO THE MOON?Note that it is clut / clipped. You don’t see the build up or the rest of his reaction.But you’d be daft to do that, it would then become headlne news “Neil Armstrong swore on the Bible that he went to the Moon” - can you imagine how that would play out? He’d never hear the end of it.Basically it is a question you’d only ask of someone you disrespect, think should be in a criminal court and think is a liar. And someone who responds to it in any way except dismissively or a joke is in effect confirming that you had a legitimate right to ask that question, i.e. that they had done something wrong. It’s like the question “When did you stop beating your wife”. There is no good answer except to dismiss the quesetion.He went around pestering the astronauts. Eventually Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face.And - the bit about how they looked when they got back from the Moon in press conferences - you are used to movies in which actors act out their emotions on the big screen. But these were test pilots. They trained to be able to keep cool in emergencies that would have most of us screaming. In seconds they can make just the right decision to save their lives and the lives of the other astronauts.Here is ejecting just in timePeople who are great test pilots are not necessarily also great at public communications.Nowadays in astronaut selection, they select the astronauts for their communication skills as well as for their technical capabilities, because NASA has eome to realize how important it is to be able to present yourself well on camera in the modern world, and to respond to questions in a fun and engaging way. But back at the time of Apollo they didn’t do that.They just sent their best test pilots, the ones in best physical condition, fastest reactions and so on. Some were good at relating to the public, others not so much. Neil Armstrong was a more private person who tended to shun publicity. Buzz Aldrin by character could handle it better.He got one astronaut to swear on the Bible CernanAnd the conspiracy theorists use that video as yet more proof that humans didn’t go to the Moon saying he lied under perjury.There was no goood response there.It’s not a court of law. It is ridiculous for a private citizen to go around asking other people to swear on the Bible about anything.WITH SO MUCH APPARENT “EVIDENCE” ISN’T SOME OF IT RIGHT AT LEAST?No. All this shows is that there are some people with not much physics background, most probably failed physics at high school, and many hours of time on their hands.If you spend hours going through the footage, looking out for things that seem strange, then you may spot numerous odd things. Then they don’t check any of it with scientists, or if they do, ignore what they say, write it all up on web sites or do a TV program about it, and leave it to everyone else to debunk them.GEOLOGIST'S FIELD TRIP ON THE MOONI'm talking mainly about Apollo 17 here as the one with the most interesting rocks returned, because returned by a geologist. But if you are doubtful about Apollo 11 you will surely be even more skeptical about Apollo 17.You can watch the video of his expedition and share his excitement as a geologist as he made new discoveries on the Moon every hour.Remember - every time he picks up a rock sample there - as a researcher you can go and ask to see that very sample and analyse it and test it to check or confirm theories about the lunar surface.And that the rocks you can go and see - they look exactly as expected from the videos -same shape, same composition, if they pick up orange soil, they return orange soil, if they pick up a strangely shaped rock, they return a rock of exactly that shape...Especially when you also read about Harrison Schmidt's field trip, here A Field Trip to the Moon - and more detailed accounts elsewhere, the discoveries they made.How could they fake rocks to give the right results in experiments that would be done decades later using instruments not yet invented at the time, and to give reasonable results when used to test scientific theories about the Moon that nobody had thought of back then?And all the time also be appropriate rocks for the locations they were found in the videos taken way back then of the astronauts actually picking them up?EXAMPLE OF AN INTERESTING LUNAR ROCK STUDIED WITH TWENTY FIRST CENTURY INSTRUMENTSFor instance this oneTroctolite 76535Studied for instance in this 2009 paper examining isotope ratios and giving new results about the moon Early Lunar MagnetismDo you think they anticipated that some time in 2009 someone would examine this rock and want to find out the isotope ratios of Argon and manipulated them to make them appropriate for a hyopthesis not even thought of at the time? And designed the film to make everything fit together seamlessly to fit those ideas?MICROMETEORITE DAMAGEAnd then - to somehow simulated micro-meteorite damage and spherules in all the lunar samples so that even when looked at with electron microscopes they still look like lunar rocks?Spherule with micrometeorite damage in lunar rocks.We don't get micrometeorites on Earth, because they burn up in the atmosphere, while the lunar rocks are damaged in this way. This is an immediate give away that the rocks come from somewhere in space, where they have been exposed to micrometeorites for billions of years.Even today we wouldn't have the technology to simulate this damage on all the samples, so they would stand up to electron microscope scrutiny.The rocks are similar to Earth rocks, true - that was a surprise, how similar they are, and lead to the theory that the Moon was formed by an impact with the Earth.But not identical. One obvious difference is that they all had micro-meteorite impacts which Earth rocks don't have. At a level you can explore with the electron microscope - no way that could be simulated in 1960s. I don't think we could do it convincingly today - might spend millions of dollars trying to simulate a gram of lunar rock so that a randomly selected sample would look right in an electron microscope, and fail.COMPOSITION OF THE ROCKSAlso they were very very dry, lacking in volatiles and not hydrated like their Earth counterparts. And many are as old as 4.5 billion years old, older than any Earth rocks. See Moon rockAnd the rocks match the rocks that the astronauts can be seen picking up on the Moon in the videos, same shape, exactly the right material etc. to match the place they pick it up in the lunar surface.Or if you think unmanned rovers on the Moon brought the rocks back - how do they exactly match the rocks the astronauts pick up in the videos?Also, not just returned by US astronauts.The Russian Luna program returned a total of 0.326 kg in all their missions to the Moon, which confirms what's been found in the Apollo rocks.The rocks don't match any other rocks from Earth, or outer space.We now have Lunar meteorites which we can recognize because they match the composition of the lunar rocks.Here is a comment by an expert on lunar meteorites:"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 40+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks then it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth."See How Do We Know That It's a Rock from the Moon?TRACKING BY INDEPENDENT OBSERVERSThe Apollo 11 mission, as for the other missions, was tracked by professional astronomers and keen amateurs (reported in Sky at Night magazine) on its way to the Moon.See Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar MissionsAlso the Jodrell bank telescope tracked it along with all the other space missions on its way to the Moon, with such precision, that using doppler shift of the signal they could see in their recordings where Neil Armstrong took over with manual control during descent to the lunar surface.Referred to here: Jodrell Bank stories - I'll try to find a better link to it.They also simultaneously tracked the Luna 15 attempt by Russia to return a sample from the Moon which crashed somewhere in the sea of tranquility.You can listen to the recording of them as they tracked Lunar 15, with the sound of the Apollo astronauts in the background in the broadcasts they picked up from the Moon here: Jodrell Bank Centre for AstrophysicsFor more about this, see Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings (Wikipedia)SIMULATING WALKING ON THE MOONAnd do you think they really managed to simulate Apollo astronauts walking on the Moon to look real, to this day?When the most sophisticated movie about the Moon done before the landing was 2001, the year before - where this is their best footage they managed, after five years of work on the film, for the lunar sequence:I can tell you the film was pretty amazing to watch at the time. We didn't know any better. It came out in 1968, the year before Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.But look at it today - and is obvious those astronauts are just walking slowly, doesn't even resemble the lunar walking on the Moon.Even today, our movies of astronauts on the Moon surface are not convincing for those who watched the Apollo landings. For instance on the "Apollo 18" movie - looks nothing like the real thing, just walking slowly basically.I think myself, the only way to do it reasonably convincingly, even today - apart from microgravity flights and film everything in planes 20 seconds at a time - is something like thisFrom the NASA Archive: The Lunar Walking Problem | Science | WIREDWhich NASA did have in the 1960s - but - I've never seen anyone suggest they used this - and - how could you anyway - attach wires to absolutely everything that moves (including flag etc).In a Mythbusters episode they looked at the idea that the moon walking could be done by slow motion video, and showed that it didn't look exactly like the lunar footage + other tests of moon conspiracy ideas. Episode 104: NASA Moon LandingHere is another take on the whole thing by a movie director:Writer/director S G Collins of Postwar Media debunks every theory that the Apollo Moon landings could have been faked in a studio. The filmmaker takes a look at the video technology of the late 1960's, showing alleged fraud was simply not possible.And you can now see photographs of the tracks they made on the Moon, taken from orbit.It's not only harder to fake than to do it. It's literally impossible to fake, not without ability to look into the future and have technology not yet invented and know about future scientific theories and instruments not yet invented.ANOTHER POINT AGAINST FAKING IT - THE APOLLO 1 TRAGEDYIf you believe the whole thing is faked, what about the massive rockets that crowds turned out to watch launch from Florida? And what about the Apollo 1 fire. Three astronauts died in that, unable to get out as fire filled the cabin in the pure oxygen atmosphere.MITCHELL AND WEBB SKETCHSee also The Great Moon Hoax - and the other answers on this page are great :).PROFESSIONAL CALM OF THE ASTRONAUTSActually I wonder if part of it was because most of the astronauts were so professional about it and calm. They don't really seem like people doing things for the first time ever perhaps. Maybe it looks as if they can't be in any danger because they are so very calm?But remember these are people who are professionally trained to be calm in the middle of a crisis in a jet fighter which is about to crash. It takes years of training to be as steady and calm as that - you and I could never do it without that training (unless you are in a similar profession).We've seen so many movies of things like this and the actors in the movies are so much more excited by things and scared by them (even though it is acted) than the lunar astronauts seemed to be, and convey that excitement and fear to the audience well. Perhaps, paradoxically, if we'd sent actors to the Moon they would have been more convincing to the skeptics :).On that first landing on the Moon especially - though they had done everything they could to make it safe - there was certainly a real risk that they would crash (even through momentary pilot error) and a significant risk that once landed, they would not be able to leave the Moon again but would die there or crash on take off. And they all knew that. The US had even prepared a speech for the president to say in the event that the Apollo 11 astronauts landed, and could not take off from the Moon again.Here it isWhat if the moon landings had failed? The poignant and moving speech that President Nixon would have delivered if Apollo 11 astronauts had not come homeBut you'd never guess that they knew that from the way they talked.Here is Neil Armstrong narrating the video of their landing, done in parallel with Google MoonFor more debunks: debunking the moon hoax

Hmmm….Of ones I’ve seen:DAVID CRONENBERG:Shivers - not a fanRabid - liked it more than Shivers. Didn’t think it great.The Brood - now we’re talking. That’s more like the Cronenberg I grew up with.Scanners - cool, although the pacing’s off a bit. The director himself wasn’t happy with the middle third of the film, it was meant to have more of an action feel.Videodrome - mind-bending awesomeness.The Dead Zone - both directors interestingly made a Stephen King adaptation. This one’s the better one, and one of the best adaptations of King.The Fly - body horror classicDead Ringers - more like a drama with horrific elements rather than all-out horror, but it’s a solid movieCrash - remember all the whining and calls for it to be banned, but when I looked at who the director was, I’m like - did you really effing expect any different? A twisted movie worth a look.eXistenZ - it’s not one of his best, but it IS a very under-rated one. It’s like a more audience-friendly VR variation on Videodrome (and I’m guessing Naked Lunch).A History of Violence - bit slow, but surprisingly good.Eastern Promises - pretty solid crime drama.JOHN CARPENTER:Dark Star - I don’t think it’s all that great, but it does have some amusing moments.Assault on Precinct 13 - a solid low-budget thriller, it’s one that was largely overshadowed by his more popular films but it proved what he could do with a cheap budget at his prime.Halloween - if you had to watch just one slasher, make it this oneSomeone’s Watching Me - a surprisingly decent made-for-TV thriller.The Fog - probably the director’s most under-rated one. It isn’t perfect, he himself wasn’t happy with it, but it’s a creepy, atmospheric film that’s probably more fitting for a Halloween night viewing, than Halloween.Escape From New York - ok, it hasn’t dated quite aswell as say, Mad Max 2, but it’s a memorable, and then-unusual take on a dystopian future, and we have one of the most memorable 80s protagonists.The Thing - well, competition over. John Carpenter wins just on this film alon…ah just kidding. Out of both filmographies, this and Halloween tower over the other titles.Christine - John Carpenter’s stab at King isn’t as good as Dead Zone, but it’s a decent movie. It’s no horror masterpiece, but it’s polished, has some tense moments, the car is cool.Starman - this one feels like the director working for hire. It’s a good movie, but it’s basically just a more grown-up romantic version of E.T.Big Trouble in Little China - daft fun. A must-see for 80s fans.Prince of Darkness - it has it’s faults, but it’s better than initial reactions made out. There’s some damn creepy scenes in this.They Live - nice to see this one’s reputation go through the roof over the years. At the time, reviews were mixed, but while it has some glaring flaws, the premise, themes, visuals, have managed to resonate with subsequent generations and critics, and it remains a very relevant movie.Memoirs of an Invisible Man - this one’s a work-for-hire. Noticeably, it does not bear his usual opening style “John Carpenter’s” prefacing the title. It’s OK, it’s quite funny, has some good FX, but it feels like it could have been better played as either serious or funny. As both, the shifts in tone don’t quite gel.In the Mouth of Madness - a bit of a mixed bag. It’s worth a look, has some great scenes, but it goes off the deep end at the climax, and it’s a pity because this one really could have been so much better.Village of the Damned - it’s watchable, but this sees the director at his absolute least imaginative. It feels too much like it could have been a TV movie on the SyFy Channel, and not seem any different.Escape From L.A. - sequel to Escape From New York plays far too much like a rehash, it often looks shoddy and unfinished, leans towards camp. It’s not unwatchable, but again, the director isn’t showing much imagination here.Vampires - of his 90s work, this is probably the only one that saw any kind of success at the box office. It’s enjoyable to a degree, but it’s very uneven, there are long boring stretches, and the heroes aren’t all that likable, although James Woods is cool as a badass.Ghosts of Mars - once again showing the director seemingly on autopilot during his later years. It has it’s moments, but it often feels like a straight-to-DVD production, the narrative is needlessly overcomplicated by showing it to us in flashback, and flashbacks within the flashback, and if one is feeling a strong sense of deja vu at times, it’s because the director is largely ripping off his own Assault on Precinct 13 (itself inspired by Rio Bravo and Night of the Living Dead).The Ward - it’s better than some of his immediate prior ones, it’s a bit more polished looking. It has some good moments, but when we start getting into the twists. By this point, we were expecting twists in every damn thing, and it’s not like these ones haven’t been done before.Of both filmographies, John Carpenter’s Halloween and The Thing stand out from the rest.In terms of consistent quality, I think David Cronenberg has the edge there.