Do NASA Pics Prove Moon Landing Was Fake? [Pic+]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago Science

The proof keeps on adding up and good question: Why didn"t we do more on the moon? Where are the goddamn lunar colonies?
There are 115 comments:
Male 12,365
[quote]Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that`s the same as what we`re talking about though.[/quote]

No, it isn`t. That graph shows the different energy levels of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from the sun.

The key word to look for is "insolation", but note what units you`re looking at. Some sources quote watts per hour per square meter (either peak, i.e. midday on midsummer`s day with a clear sky, or averaged over some period of time, usually a month), some sources quote watt-hours per square meter per day.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR):[/quote]


Yes near Earth as in one that isn`t located in the asteroid belt and would take tremendous thrust to redirect towards Earth. So that`s very significant asterisk you have there.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart[/quote]

Just found the paper, it`s called "Mechanics of Moving Asteroids" one of the assumptions they made is that they would deflect a Near Earth Asteroid expected collide in 10 years.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Cajun247-"On top of which you`re suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away."

Well, seeing as we`ve already landed craft on asteroids*, getting to one has proven possible.

*Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR): launched in 1996, landed on Asteroid 433 Eros 2/12/2001. Hayabusa: launched 2003, landed on asteroid Itokawa 2005,

Moving one is just a matter of physics. There have been several theorys, including:
-using a `tug` vehicle pulling the rock via a cable connected at the rotational pole,
-de-spinning a rock, attaching a thrusting engine situated so that it thrusts through the center of mass and is gimbled to control the rock`s orientation. (both of these were researched by Proffessor D.J. Scheers & Apollo 9 Astronaut R.L Schweickart in 2004 and found viable).
0
Reply
Male 36,512
By mistake or on purpose (I think it was a mistake) THIS thread was more fun that the origional would have been!
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Ah, yes, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " scenario.[/quote]

They used a rail gun in that book. With that weapon you don`t need a months-long journey to divert an asteroid. The real question then is keeping it secret, and as I said earlier a Saturn V + bunker buster would be enough to put it out of operation.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
I`d believe that Crakr if it weren`t for the fact that truTV hasn`t even produced that episode, not yet anyways. Just did a Google search myself, two seasons already finished they`re gearing up for another one this year and nothing about a moon landing.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Cajun: I don`t believe Fancylad `rick roll`d` us, at least not on purpose.

Chances are the link got messed up with another TruTV show called `Conspiracy Theory`, the one with Jesse Ventura.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] Once you`re out of the Earth`s gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.[/quote]

Coasting which has to be initiated precisely and adjusted for variances departure velocity along the way. On top of which you`re suggesting hitting a penny (or dust spore more likely) instead of a bowling ball from miles away. Since asteroids aren`t known for their neat symmetry vectoring the initial thrust presents its own challenge.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
CrakrJak: For one thing, Fancy deliberately mislabels Asian-related material on a regular basis (my pet peeve), and now he has the brazenness to rock-roll per se with some lame ass booze-cruise video. It really is a new low for Fancy.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
5Cats-"a moon-base would be more vulnerable to Earth tossing rocks at it: no atmosphere"

I`d argue that pont. Above a certain size of the rock in question, the effects of the atmosphere is negligible. On the other hand, current rail-gun technology would allow you to shoot a sizable rock off the surface of a moon (a small gravity-well) with an escape velocity to reach the Earth. You could also just strap a slow-burn rocket to a chunk in space and stear it to the Earths` (huge) gravity-well. To get a rock off of Earth requires attaining ~6 times the escape velocity than that of the moon (11.2 km/s vs. 2.0 km/s).

The MAIN point is it`s easier to hit the Earth from the Moon. Of two men rolling bowling balls at each other, the man on top of the hill has an advantage over the one at the bottom...BUT, give the man on the bottom a rifle and you have a different story.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Cajun247-"and ultimately it would take months, plenty of rocket fuel, and luck as chances of success are half and half."

Dude, we`re talking about a colony on the moon, (and technically, a story line from a novel that`s already been written). Certain things are theory and/or parts of the novel, such as an existing trade of asteroid mining.

Once you`re out of the Earth`s gravity well, the fuel expendiature goes down dramatically. Intra-system movement includes a lot of coasting.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
You just noticed that @Crakr? lolz!

That`s probably it @Angilion, plus some space-panels are in the sun 24 hours a day too.

Hummm, a really quick look at Wiki suggests 1600w at the top but around 200w at sea level. Not sure if that`s the same as what we`re talking about though.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Ok, how the hell did this so off topic that now it`s about nuking a rebel moon colony ?

Boredom does weird things here at IAB.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient[/quote]

Hmm...where are those panels in space and what part of Earth are they being compared with?

The usual figure for solar irradiance at the outer edge of the Earth`s atmosphere is 1367W/m^2. You can get 1000W/m^2 on the surface.

3-4 times the average for the whole of the Earth over a whole year, maybe?
0
Reply
Male 36,512
[quote]I don`t think it`s all that much.[/quote]
@Angilion: iirc, space-based panels are 3-4 times as effecient, and not prone to dust or clouds. Anyhow, a LOT of the Sun`s energy is deflected/absorbed before it gets to the ground.

Yeah, a Lunar Rebellion would most likely be settled by the diplomats. But that`s what SciFi is for! The `what if`!

Now when the Martian Colonies try to break away... whooo doggie!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Oh come on, if there`s one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.[/quote]

And they`re not going to start a M.A.D. war over resources from a rebellious colony, or over prices from the newly independent ex-colony.

Revolutions often have extremists. Maybe extremists extreme enough to press the big red button anyway.

You`ve convinced me that it`s much less of a potential issue than I had thought, though. A threat to enable a bloodless revolt and independence, yes. An actual attack, very unlikely.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
As to the colony part there are far more practical ways of doing damage to oppressor would-be Earth than huge rocks which would require fuel.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.[/quote]

When their government treats them like a pawn, yes. In our case Britain didn`t bother to learn a lesson from Roman times.

[quote] Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you`d be standing on it.[/quote]

Forgive me but from what I remember the moon`s surface is comprised of small jagged and abrasive particulates. But if you`re referring to a small boulder that would burn up in Earth`s atmosphere.
0
Reply
Male 626
I might be wrong about this, but I`m pretty sure the moon has lots of Helium-3, and that happens to be rare on earth, but can power clean energy. So, unless I`m totally wrong, whoever can claim the moon first gets to be the richest person on Earth?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]On top of which they`d be hurting their biggest customer (whom supposedly has space elevators and He-3 fusion reactors) and supplier, thus themselves in the process.[/quote]

Colonies have been known to value independence above economics.

[quote]Secondly where do you get this rock from?[/quote]

The moon is a rocky body and there`s quite a lot of it. Finding rock on the moon is as easy as finding it on Earth - you`d be standing on it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Some people have said we would have power problems, but they forget that solar panels work better in outer space and the moon than on earth, much better in fact.[/quote]

How much better? The difference in distance would be negligable, so it`s down to how much light (you state "panels", so you must be talking about photovoltaic solar power) is blocked by the Earth`s atmosphere.

I don`t think it`s all that much.

Of course, with the moon you do have the huge advantage of a lot of bugger all. Build a solar power station covering a thousand square miles - nobody there to care, no ecosystem there for anyone to care about.

I agree that powering a lunar settlement would not be a problem if you could build solar power stations that would work on the surface of the moon (you couldn`t just use ones developed for Earth because too many conditions are too different).
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]That`s enough to ensure a full-on war would be very bad news.[/quote]

Oh come on, if there`s one important lesson from the Cold War is that no government is going to sit on their hands while they wait for their assets (the nation they govern) to be obliterated.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]I said they could destroy cities on Earth.[/quote]

I`ve just pointed out, as a rocket scientist, how such a scheme would be incredibly impractical. On top of that you`re steering an asteroid something that`s not known for its symmetry meaning rotational dynamics would be huge problem when trying to maneuver the thing.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: There is definitely evidence for rare earth elements, on the moon, that we need for future technology.[/quote]

There are some useful resources on the moon, but are you arguing that it was technologically feasible, politically advisable and economically sensible for the USA to mine them on the moon in the early 1970s? Did anyone even know the stuff was there at that time?

I didn`t say there would never be anything useful for people to do on the moon in the future. I said there was nothing useful for people to do on the moon in the early 1970s, hence the ending of the manned mission program after it achieved its purpose (showing that the USA could put people on the moon any time it wanted to).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Never would happen. The colony itself would not rebel and could not declare independence. There`s nothing on the moon to harvest that is edible for starters. For colonists to destroy earth post declaration of independence they`d be cutting off their own supply chain.[/quote]

It`s technically feasible to make a self-sufficient lunar settlement. Obviously the colony wouldn`t rebel and declare independence before that was done, not unless Earth was also dependent on them (and therefore would have to continue supplying them).

It`s technically possible, for example, to grow edible crops in large underground chambers. If you could create and maintain a permanent no-suit settlement, you could, at least on paper, extend it enough to grow enough food.

I didn`t say the rebels would destroy Earth. I said they could destroy cities on Earth. That`s enough to ensure a full-on war would be very bad news.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
My point exactly 5Cats.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
@Cajun: there`s a few, smallish rocks in Earth orbit or close by, the number changes as they come & go! But most big rocks are outside Mars` orbit. You`d need lots of fuel and a BIG rocket to push one into the Earth at a dangerous velocity.
Easier (and harder to stop) would be to use the big rocket to crash into Earth. Or put a nuke on it. Like in the PK Dick book I linked.
Just thinking it through...

Aslo: a moon-base would be more vulnerable to Earth tossing rocks at it: no atmosphere...
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]Possible, but still the same situation, doesn`t matter what side, you can hit either side, and you can throw from either side.[/quote]

By which Earth already has a more practical and devastating (absolutely and relatively) means of destruction meaning such conflict would be exponentially one-sided. Yes I realize, far side of the moon is irrelevant. The point is the high cost and huge risk of failure for such a scheme with current technology.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]But you will not be flying blindfolded. You`ll be looking for them. Just as the chances of you getting into your car blindfolded and finding a Wal-Mart 20 miles away is remote. Take off the blindfold and you`d be able to find quite a few.[/quote]

...and ultimately it would take months, plenty of rocket fuel, and luck as chances of success are half and half.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
5Cats-"I think @Cajun means we could easily nuke the moon-base"

Possible, but still the same situation, doesn`t matter what side, you can hit either side, and you can throw from either side.

Cajun247-"blindfold one would have an nigh insignificant chance of crashing into an asteroid"

But you will not be flying blindfolded. You`ll be looking for them. Just as the chances of you getting into your car blindfolded and finding a Wal-Mart 20 miles away is remote. Take off the blindfold and you`d be able to find quite a few. (note the image posted previously is an actual MAPPING of where they`re at, or WERE at the time the image was compiled, so obviously it`s not that hard to locate them).
0
Reply
Male 182
we didn`t do more on the moon because its really expensive to get there and the lunar colonies are in your head.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
@almightybob

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
0
Reply
Male 36,512
3rd time for that video link there @almightbob1, but it is funny!
One link per page is fine I guess :-)
0
Reply
Male 25,416
It happened.. thats what we were told. We trust the government right? yep!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
This just in: footage of the government meeting during which the fake moon landing was proposed!
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] we could easily nuke the moon-base, not the rocks[/quote]

Spot on 5cats
it`s M.A.D.
0
Reply
Male 464
Well, link leads to a sketchy porn site or something.

Anyway, that picture up there appears to be a gemini and previous mission spacesuit clad man being trained to maneouver his suit.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote] Where they are most available: there`s millions between the orbits of Mars & Jupiter[/quote]

Millions means nothing given the volume the entire asteroid belt takes up. So much so that flying blindfold one would have an nigh insignificant chance of crashing into an asteroid.

[quote] It would have to be able to pulverize a rock down to fine dust. Otherwise it`s just getting shot with buckshot vs slug[/quote]

It only takes one slug to catastrophically destabilize an entire canopy.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
@McGovern: Shhh! It`s a cat-secret!

@Antagonizer: Yes, that was one of my secret project I hinted at below. There were nearly 100,000 people involved at the hieght of Manhattan, and they all kept quiet about it, for years!

@MeGrendel: Love the asteroid picture! It`s just so cool! I think @Cajun means we could easily nuke the moon-base, not the rocks, I could be mistaken though.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Tha link redirects to this: bahama boat bash:shipping out and boozing up. Doesn`t look like moon landing conspiracy to me, fix the link o remove the post...
0
Reply
Male 508
I`m a believer in the moon landings period. However on researcher, some of the evidence to support it was sketchy, tho it doesn`t change that fact.

1 - reflector on the moon. Actually the WHOLE moon is reflective. They`ve been bouncing beams off the moon for years before Apollo. The trick as they say is to find the spot where they bounce back to you, the rest is academic.

2 - Keeping it a secret. Two words Manhattan Project. For years it was kept secret by thousands of scientists and support staff. It is plausible.
0
Reply
Male 14,330


IT`s ac onspiracy keyboard cats control the moon!!!
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Cajun247-"where do you get this rock from?"

Where they are most available: there`s millions between the orbits of Mars & Jupiter.
0
Reply
Male 7,353
Angilion-"All it takes are some big rocks dropped down the gravity well. Very simple."

Ah, yes, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress " scenario.

Cajun247-"Unless you have a Saturn V rocket with a bunker-busting payload."

It would have to be able to pulverize a rock down to fine dust. Otherwise it`s just getting shot with buckshot vs. a slug. (see "Lucifer`s Hammer")

Cajun247-"you just place the colony on the far side of the moon."

Which side of the moon the colony would reside one has no effect on its ability to throw rocks down a gravity well.
0
Reply
Male 32
why the drat does this link to a video of a booze cruise?!?
0
Reply
Male 675
[quote]I hear they are going to land at Tranquility Base and do a 360 pan shot that won`t show any evidence of Apollo 11.[/quote]
Yeah, its called Photoshop. The Korean`s already proved that Asians were good at it with Kim Jong Il`s funeral.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
On top of which they`d be hurting their biggest customer (whom supposedly has space elevators and He-3 fusion reactors) and supplier, thus themselves in the process. Secondly where do you get this rock from?
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]do you really want one with that kind of destructive power that you have no defence against?[/quote]

Unless you have a Saturn V rocket with a bunker-busting payload, or you just place the colony on the far side of the moon.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Is this IAB`s version of a rickroll?
0
Reply
Male 554
WTF? is this Crap? WTH is this?
0
Reply
Male 14,775
I can`t wait till the Chinese are the first to land men on the moon. I hear they are going to land at Tranquility Base and do a 360 pan shot that won`t show any evidence of Apollo 11.
0
Reply
Male 4,902
Now that I know this links to TruTV, I will gladly skip.
0
Reply
Male 14,775
And there`s no way Careli`s a woman.
0
Reply
Male 14,775
I click it and get a link to the gay love boat or something "Banana boat bash" WTF?.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: There is definitely evidence for rare earth elements, on the moon, that we need for future technology. As far as rocks go, falling from the moon, they`d have to be larger than a school bus to ever worry about.

Some people have said we would have power problems, but they forget that solar panels work better in outer space and the moon than on earth, much better in fact.
0
Reply
Male 234
Fancy put down the kool aid....
Seriously though WTF? How could you buy into the worst conspiracy theory of all time, respect level for IAB mods an all time low.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
Buzz Aldrin would punch you in the face for posting this.
0
Reply
Male 766
Shame on you for propagating this bulls#!t. The truth is it costs too much to do more than they did. And now Mars is forever out of reach because the astronauts will go blind! Better start work on that artificial gravity thing . . .
0
Reply
Male 2,424
*Saw link, was intrigued*

*clicked link, saw TruTV*

*Lifted up and threw desk like a fat guy losing a game of magic the gathering*
0
Reply
Male 712
"Given the very high likelihood of a colony rebelling and declaring independence,"

Never would happen. The colony itself would not rebel and could not declare independence. There`s nothing on the moon to harvest that is edible for starters. For colonists to destroy earth post declaration of independence they`d be cutting off their own supply chain.
0
Reply
Male 1,627
uh whats up with the link
0
Reply
Male 36,512
PK Dick wrote a tory along those lines:
Time Out Of Joint
The review doesn`t adress the topic: Luna has revolted, they`re "Lunatics" and bombard the Earth with bomb-filled ships. Earth is "One Big Happy Planet" and use mind-control to get Jones to predict Luna`s missiles. VERY good novel!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Another factor is that any lunar colony could destroy entire cities on Earth.

All it takes are some big rocks dropped down the gravity well. Very simple.

Given the very high likelihood of a colony rebelling and declaring independence, do you really want one with that kind of destructive power that you have no defence against?
0
Reply
Male 3,894
This is awful trash. STOP POSTING TRU-TV LINKS.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Just to answer the two "good" (i.e. foolish) questions fancyclad asked in the description:

The USA didn`t do more on the moon because they had already done everything that they could usefully do on the moon at the time. By far the most important reason was to demonstrate superiority over the USSR by doing it and then by doing it repeatedly. "You can put people in space. Pretty good. We can put people on the moon. Not just once. Any time we like. We beat you because our system is superior to yours and the whole world can see it."

The lunar colonies are in sci-fi societies which could build them at a low enough cost and low enough risk to be worthwhile under the circumstances of that sci-fi society. In reality, they would be a massive cost for no benefit and significant risk. So nobody has made any.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
True enough @Angilion! I recall a Space Shuttle crewman saying that there were 23 (or more) "terminal non-redundant systems" aboard. That if ONE failed, that was IT! Game over.

The "Space 1999 Eagle" had:
Back-up brakes
Back-up thrusters
Back-up nuclear reactor
Sorry I couldn`t find the clip for that, it`s hysterical!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I think the dumbest argument is the radiation exposure risk. Sure, you wouldn`t want to float about exposed in the van Allen belt for any length of time, but of course the astronauts didn`t.

There is an increased radiation exposure risk in space and on the surface of the moon. It`s not a huge risk unless something goes wrong, but it is a risk.

But we`re talking about people willing to get into a ship filled with tonnes of explosive fuel and go out into an utterly hostile environment with a very long list of ways in which things can go fatally wrong, either killing you instantly or leaving you in a position where death is inevitable in hours or days and rescue is impossible. They were very well aware that there were risks. The slightly higher radiation exposure was just one of the risks (and not a very big one unless something went wrong).
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]if we hadn`t been there, why are there reflectors on the moon[/quote]

It would be possible to put them there with a robot. It might even have been possible in 1969.

But that still leaves the question of why the USA would invent and build everything needed for a manned moon landing and then make an unmanned one and run the huge political risk of faking the manned moon landing they could have done anyway, without the additional cost of the fakery. Assuming it was even possible to fake it in 1969, which I`m far from convinced of.

The least unlikely explanation I`m aware of is that aliens contacted the USA government, told them to not send people to the moon and provided the technology needed to fake the video.

And that`s the *least* unlikely explanation.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
This is a funny look at the most obvious gaping flaw in the conspiracy "theory":

Mitchell and Webb
0
Reply
Male 17,512
We still bounce lasers off the moon from a mirror placed there and there are high definition pictures of the landing sites now because of the LRO satellite. Link
0
Reply
Male 1,625
if we hadn`t been there, why are there reflectors on the moon

and 5cats, yes, there are lots of `santa claus` sighting
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Maybe it`s a reference for the time taken for the ball to drop to the surface, although for such a short drop the effect of how he dropped it would probably be greater than the effect of the difference in gravity.

Or maybe it`s just made up, like the rest of it.
0
Reply
Male 151
whuuut? annoying bitches and guido dicks???
im not ok with this.
0
Reply
Male 1,440
Everybody put your tin foil hats on.
0
Reply
Male 514
Another case of "Someone drunk behind the wheel." Major linkage fail.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
[quote]A couple of astronauts HAVE talked[/quote]
I should be clear: they didn`t talk about `fake` moon landings at all. They talked about secret missions, UFOs, alien moon bases and stuff.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
@Angilion this video? Is the one you watched? The "slice" reference was clearly a joke since he just moved the ball a couple of feet. No atmosphere required. It`s about 53 seconds in.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I have to admit that I hadn`t heard that particular claim before. The only golf-related "evidence" I`ve seen before is the comment from mission control saying "that looked like a slice to me". Apparently (I don`t know about golf) a slice requires an atmosphere. Of course, a joke about a bad golf shot dooesn`t require an atmosphere.

I`ve watched the video of the astronaut playing golf. He misses completely. He clips the top of the ball and moves it a couple of feet along the ground. He hits it and it whizzes off out of view in a fraction of a second. I don`t see the ball falling (which even in Earth`s gravity would occur well out of shot).
0
Reply
Male 36,512
So all the "fake landing" proof is just the gov`t smokescreen for hiding the real questions.

Like dozens of events before and after, it`s clearly a conspiracy, just not the one it claims to be.

The claim that "someone would talk" is bogus. Even if they DID talk, who would hear them if the MSM didn`t cover it?
A couple of astronauts HAVE talked, what about that?

As for my 3 projects, 1 is VERY well known, the other two rather obscure. People indoctonated into the Armed Forces can be very good at keeping secrets. A lack of story-tellers (even though there ARE storytellers) isn`t `counter-proof` of anything.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
@Angilion: I can name 3 "secret projects" where hundreds, thousands and TENS of thousands worked and kept their mouths shut afterwards. Anyone who did talk was quickly silenced (usually by reminding them to NOT talk about it, nothing sinister eh?)

However you are correct: Americans went to the moon, it`s a fact.

There are also American agencies who actively fund and promote "false flags" to distract people from the unsettling truth. In the moon landings case it`s ALL those UFOs the astronauts saw (not claiming they were ALL space aliens, fyi) and the other `secret missions` the astronauts carried out or attempted to carry out while on the moon.

To cover up the truth? Flaunt the false! Simple really.
0
Reply
Male 719
"when the astronaut hits a golf ball, the ball falls at a rate greater than the moon`s gravitational pull would allow."

I would suggest you take high school physics.

On ANY planet, the vertical velocity of the ball when it`s hit will be the same as its vertical velocity when it hits the ground.

The ball will stay in the air longer, travel higher, and travel farther than a comparable shot on Earth.

(Of course, that`s all ignoring the lack of air resistance)
0
Reply
Male 599
This is stupid. We landed on the moon. Get the drat over it.
0
Reply
Male 5,314
lost all interest when i saw it was TRU-F*CKING-TV!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]on second thought, don`t explain it. i`ve never found your arguments very cogent.[/quote]

Haha, you`re a believer? Really? Now I have reason to mock you.

It`s not surprising that you don`t want to hear any argument against whatever tiny bit of your ridiculous faith you`ve managed to avoid seeing exposed as drivel.

Since I`m still laughing at you, I`ll be nice and let you keep your beloved ignorance.

Hahaha, a believer. Good grief. A live one, woo!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
That`s without even considering the question of whether it would even have been possible to fake all the photos and video in 1969. We`re used to top quality fakery today and it`s easy to just unthinkingly assume they has the same in 1969. They didn`t. Not even close. Look at the special effects in films from that time. They are not something you could mistake for reality.

Then there`s the fact that thousands of people were involved...they all kept silent for all of their lives? Seriously? Conspiracies with that many people don`t hold up.

Then there`s the fact that there is no evidence at all that the landings were faked. None. Just some people who are very ignorant of photography and the conditions on the lunar surface and assume stuff is faked because it doesn`t look like what they think it would look like on Earth.

Really, it`s worse than thinking that the USA is secretly ruled by aliens in disguise. At least that makes some sense and might be pos
0
Reply
Female 4,086
@angilion. perhaps you would like to explain the gravity puzzle, to wit, when the astronaut (can`t remember which one) hits a golf ball, the ball falls at a rate greater than the moon`s gravitational pull would allow. everything else moves in slower motion, allowing for the diminished gravity, however this golf ball falls as if dropped on a city sidewalk.

on second thought, don`t explain it. i`ve never found your arguments very cogent.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Although you don`t even need to know anything to understand why the hoax idea makes no sense. You just need to think:

We know that the USA spent a boatload of time and money inventing and building the equipment and support needed to get people in a ship to the moon and back and we know that they succeeded in doing so. We know this because *they showed the stuff off*. It wasn`t a secret - the whole point was to be as public as possible to one-up the USSR.

We know that the USA sent ships to the moon and back again at the time of the manned missions. We know this because people all over the world, including official sources in the USSR, tracked them. They also tracked the source of the video signals of the first landing - they came from the moon.

So...after spending all the resources inventing the stuff and making a moon mission...what? The astronauts turned up late and the ship left without them by mistake? Madness.
0
Reply
Male 11,740
This video isn`t surprising. Half of the posts here now are from TruTV or Cherry Plucker.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Anyone who thinks "the moon landing" was fake falls into one of two groups:

i) Gullible person who has not looked at any evidence or put any thought into the matter and has simply mindlessly believed what they`ve been told. They are running on faith even more than the most devout theist - theism can`t be proven completely wrong (any specific details can be, but not the whole idea) but the moon landing hoax drivel can be and has been.

ii) Liar trying to snare (i) for power, publicity and/or profit.

Anyone who thinks I am being unjust with the above is free to argue with me.

Just for starters, the great majority of hoax believers are so utterly ignorant of the subject that they don`t even know that there was more than one moon landing! They know nothing and they talk silly drivel because of it.
0
Reply
Male 36,512
It`s a CONSPIRACY!
The gov`t HACKED @IAB to re-direct the true video about the moon-hoax to a video with titties & beer, which would distract the weak-minded IABer who, um, who...
dhur! Titties!@
0
Reply
Male 1,686
BOOOOZE CROOOOZE!
0
Reply
Male 698
FAIL
0
Reply
Male 612
how much does trutv pay this site to get their garbage posted?
0
Reply
Male 1,311
I think that actually answered questions about Fancy`s sexuality more than anything =oP
0
Reply
Male 120
Did we all get trolled by fancy?
0
Reply
Male 506
Raise your hand if you think the moon landing was faked so we can all just save a bunch of time and start mocking you directly.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
bahama boat bash? wtf?

Faking landing on the moon might seem very easy with current technology, but think about how pooty what they had was.
0
Reply
Male 37,890

Moon landings?
I got a video about a booze cruise.
First time linking FancyLad?
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Failed link for the win... well that is a random link
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Failink.
0
Reply
Male 519
Wrong link, but contains just as much truth about the moon landings as any conspiracy link.
0
Reply
Female 89
Wrong link
0
Reply
Male 1,678
I`m guessing the actual content has just as much proof that the landings were faked as the content i was redirected to bly clicking that link.
0
Reply
Male 48
Conspiracy theories about the moon landing are just dumb. See any of the recent LRO pics and the LEM`s are still present. Link

See Degrasse Tyson`s recent congressional testimony about how the race to the moon was fueled by the cold war and once they realized that the Soviet`s didn`t have the capabilities, we stopped going.
0
Reply
Male 104
Errr...fancy, the link is to a booze cruise documentary. Clearly NASA is trying to fool us with alcohol soaked hotties in bikinis.
0
Reply
Male 228
I think the link is wrong. The current clicky takes me to a boat full of drunken losers.
0
Reply
Male 74
Yes, the evidence is adding up. 40 years of morons chasing nothing and coming up with nothing certainly means the evidence is adding up.
0
Reply
Male 510
um... incorrect link?
0
Reply
Female 130
The link is to a video about a booze cruise or something. I don`t think that was planned. Or maybe it was...
0
Reply
Male 1,008
clicky clicky to a booze cruise video
0
Reply
Male 677
The link goes to some shi t about a cruise ship?
0
Reply
Male 19,873
Link: Do NASA Pics Prove Moon Landing Was Fake? [Pic+] [Rate Link] - The proof keeps on adding up and good question: Why didn`t we do more on the moon? Where are the goddamn lunar colonies?
0
Reply