Thank’s Chilli and Dachs for taking the time to post those explanations.
I wasn’t trying to make anyone believe that the moon landings were fake, just that we shouldn’t be too quick to believe anything that the massive publicity machine that NASA and the establishment have at their disposal. We should challenge everything that we see or hear, it’s our job to keep them honest. However, with such massive and powerful organisations like NASA and Google etc, it’s virtually impossible for the masses to put up any kind of challenge against the propaganda. And…People actually want to believe in the moon landings, the words spoken by Neil Armstrong “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” make people proud to be part of the human race…Isn’t that what it was supposed to do?
Unfortunately nothing ever came from it…Yet!
It’s also interesting that most people would rather believe that the moon landings really happened, than the existence of God. When after all, the evidence of God’s supposed work is all around us, even us!
Whereas the moon landings are just hearsay and third party gossip…and who has actually been there? These are the only people who know the truth…
A fascinating thought Foxy but somewhat abstract?
I wouldn’t want to pass comment on other’s beliefs in the existence of God.
Drifting of topic perhaps but consider Wernher Von Braun’s involvement in developing the V2 rocket?
Something destructive and yet instrumental in landing The Apollo 11 crew on the moon.
I agree, Bob, critical thinking is of utmost importance, and I should add, to everyone and in all directions and situations.
To me it was a technological achievement that I followed with interest and which I never called into doubt for the reasons mentioned earlier in this thread. Similar to the benefits of basic research in many fields, we do not always see immediate benefits but it still needs to be done. Since then there have been a number of spin-off effects that we have got used to.
As for Armstrong’s famous words, they 'd been well-thought-out and, thus, have been having a tremendous impact because they described what was happening superbly but they could never make me “proud to be part of the human race”. The feat has nothing to do with me or other people. It’s exclusively an achievement of those involved and of no one else. Out of curiosity, where did you come across such an interpretation?
Good reply Dachs…
I think most of the spin offs came from space travel and exploration in general and not necessarily the moon landings. Dealing with the high temperatures entering the earths atmosphere and protecting astronauts during flight have probably yielded more benefits than actually setting foot on the moon. The moon is probably the most inhospitable place man has ever been (if indeed he has been there) but I can understand the reason why we haven’t been there since despite it being strategically perfectly positioned.
I admit to most of the things I post are are my own interpretations Dachs. Sometimes people need to think outside the box…or in this case…The universe…
The Whoniverse addresses a lot of these issues if you read between the lines 
I read somewhere that he actually said it wrong.
He was supposed to say “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”
but he actually said, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for a man.”
Going by memory so might be wrong
That’s interesting, Bruce. I’d never heard that before. Checking it, I learnt that the main controversy has actually been about whether he’d said “for man” or “for a man” of which the latter makes more sense.
It also turned out that, contrary to what he’d always claimed, namely that he hadn’t thought about what to say at that truly historic moment long in advance but in the landing module only, his brother revealed that the two had discussed it months before the start of the mission.
Sorry I made a typo I have corrected it
No mention of women then?
If they did it now they would have to be inclusive of gender, race and religion…
Do rainbow flags flutter on the moon Foxy?
Doesn’t “mankind” include all, no matter gender or religion?
Mankini is just for blokes, to be all inclusive, needs renaming, maybe Bi-kini
We translate “mankind” as “umanità” - humanity! Therefore our translation of the famous words :small step for a man, giant leap for humanity.
Less discrimination over here. 
‘Mankind’ = A kind of a man…
Not ‘Womankind’ 
That’s my take on it too, I’m a believer!
So Chilli, you think there was no Monkee business going on?
Only on the BBC 
That’s animal magic.
You mean they’ve landed on the moon??
