Moon disaster

[thalberg]

I discovered that President Nixon back in 1969 had his speech writer prepare a speech in case the first men on the moon became stranded and failed to return from their mission.

https://www.futilitycloset.com/2007/11/10/in-event-of-moon-disaster/

I don't think this speech is that great.....what do you guys think?

[Petter]

How would you make it any better?

[pies]

a

[ryguillian]

I'm pretty sure the whole moon landing thing was faked.

Cool.

[ahinton]

I'm pretty sure the whole moon landing thing was faked.

Indeed - the truth (which has so far been well concealed) is that the first moon landing was of much more recent origin - and even this has been well and truly hushed up, because when they sent Hamelin up there, he was horrifed to discover on touching down on its surface that Powell was already there...

Oops, sorry; wrong thread...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

when they sent Hamelin up there, he was horrifed to discover on touching down on its surface that Powell was already there...

Both are capable of performing without atmosphere, so you may well be correct.

Thal

[ahinton]

Both are capable of performing without atmosphere, so you may well be correct.

As there is more than one way in which your statement here could be interpreted, please elaborate on the particular meaning that you ascribe to it.

Thanks.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

elaborate on the particular meaning that you ascribe to it.

No

[argerichfan]

No

Whew.  That was a close one.

So I take it Arrau is still on his way to the moon? 

[thalbergmad]

So I take it Arrau is still on his way to the moon? 

If the speed of the rocket taking him was equal to the speed of his Waldstein, I doubt if he has cleared Everest.

Thal

[ahinton]

No

Then we can all safely ignore your earlier statement and move on. Fine.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We agree that our earlier comment should be ignored.

We are most apologetic if any offense has been caused.

Best,

We

[goldentone]

That would have been grim.  I think the speech was very good.  I'm curious Thalberg, as to how you think it could have been better written.

[goldentone]

For a subject that broaches what disastrously could have been, I see Laurel & Hardy have managed to turn up. 

We agree that our earlier comment should be ignored.

We are most apologetic if any offense has been caused.

Best,

We

We hereby dissoffend thee.

[thalbergmad]

We are most grateful

[ahinton]

We are most grateful

"We" in the context in which I used it above was intended to denote other forum mebers besides myself; I would have thought that this was as blindingly obvious as the fact that no one appears to have been offended either by its use or by the post to which "we" were responding.

Why not just go and listen to something on your Wii - or just go and get rid of some of that beer by having a wee - or something...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We are at the moment engaged in scanning a large score, so an indepth response is not currently available.

We are certain normal service will be resumed this evening.

Regs

We

[ahinton]

We are at the moment engaged in scanning a large score, so an indepth response is not currently available.

Such a large score, presumably, that it takes more that one person to scan it; ("in depth" is two saparate words, incidentally).

We are certain normal service will be resumed this evening.

What kind of normailty is implied by that statement and whose "normal" service is intended to be denoted by your use of the term "we" here? Anyway, it's long past "evening" here in UK and I have yet to notice the resumption of any kind of service from you singular or plural.

Regs

Just make sure that you abide by them.

There are times when I might be tempted to wonder if "we" is intended to identify the Thaliban, but I do make the best effort of which I am capable to dismiss such unpalatable thoughts from what's left of what I might once have been half-pleased to call my mind...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

("in depth" is two saparate words, incidentally).

So is abit. which we have noticed you have used on several occasions.

Thal

[ahinton]

So is abit. which we have noticed you have used on several occasions.

"We" have, have "we"?! Yes, I know that it is so, of course; my use of it is stems from a convention established by Benjamin Britten who always wrote it this way (so I suppose one could say that it's an affectation, really. although I', less than certain that one could extend that description to "indepth"). Incidentally, Benjamin Britten's speling (as he would have written it) was, by his own admission, quite awful.

Best,

Alistair

[thalberg]

That would have been grim.  I think the speech was very good.  I'm curious Thalberg, as to how you think it could have been better written.

The last phrase "that is forever mankind" puzzles me.  It does not seem to make grammatical sense.  Also, the speech seems too brief to me, and it says nothing personal about the men.  You could insert any two names in there and it would still make sense.  Plus, it just seems like the writer hit all the most obvious notes -- heroes in the constellations and such.  It gives the impression he wrote it in 5 minutes.  Anyway it's a good thing the speech rested in peace and the men came home alive.

And to those of you who say the moon landing was faked, you're believing ridiculous lies of conspiracy theorists.  It was not faked.  Trust me.  Also, we can still bounce light off mirrors on the moon we left there when we visited.  https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm

[richard black]

It was not faked.

Indeed not. The fact that some of the photos of the event have obviously been touched up in considerable detail doesn't alter that fact that people got there. There are all sorts of evidence from quarters unrelated to NASA - for instance, plenty of amateur astronomers around the world were apparently able, with fairly modest telescopes, to see the dust cloud raised when the moon lander took off again.