HEHE...then everyones questions could be answered by looking up to the sky at the moon!Quote:
"Use google.com u idiot"
Greg
Printable View
HEHE...then everyones questions could be answered by looking up to the sky at the moon!Quote:
"Use google.com u idiot"
Greg
until an independent first hand study is done about the moon landing then we won't know.
something else to look at is the video footage and pics
notice there were not and depressions on the moons surface
now u would think that the propellent would at least throw up some dust or something
You might think that if you were operating in an atmosphere, but the moon has no atmosphere. It's all explained at the links I posted above, so try reading up on it. It's rather interesting.Quote:
Originally posted here by BERBURT
something else to look at is the video footage and pics
notice there were not and depressions on the moons surface
now u would think that the propellent would at least throw up some dust or something
i dunno... i think it *could have* been faked. there is no conclusive evidence either way, but it could have easily been shot in a hollywood basement at that time...
If it was a fake, then wouldn't the Soviets have bitched about that? Considering it was the middle of the Cold War...
some good explinations to some of the points most frequently queried about the moon landing
moon hoax index
and i used to think it was a def fake - hmmmmm now i wonder :confused:
v_Ln
given the political tension of the time, i think that it is impossible for the us to have succeded in pulling off such a hoax and getting away with it...
the soviets where a lot more advance in space tech at that time and they confirmed it .... while i'm sure that they would have loved to reveal the truth ...
by the way they lost the moon race ( they also had a rocket but because of inner political fighting never agreed on the design....)
once again praise google.com
Okay, when I saw the subject line, I almost went into full rant mode, but I'll try and control myself. The first time I saw this on TV, I made notes and went on to counteract every single point made by the program, with the help of a photography buff on a forum. I don't remember all the points, but I'll try and post those I remember
1."There are no stars in the background"
I shouldn't even dignify this with an answer...obviously, you have major glare from the earth and sun
2."American flag waves"
The NASA geeks put springs in it just so that it WOULD wave.
3.Photographic Evidence
I don't remember all of it, but someone online who knew about photography told me that different shadows will be caused by camera positions and elevations of the objects.
4."No rocket exhaust visisble in some shots"
There are plenty of fuels used which aren't very visible, especially in a no air environment
Something else I should mention is Neil's famous line. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" It doesn't quite make sense, since man and mankind are synonyms. What he meant to say was "One small step for A man, one giant leap for makind" If you were on an expensive sound stage, wouldn't you fix a blooper like this. (Although some might argue that it was put in on purpose)
Hmm, looks like I don't remember very many of the points mentioned, but if anyone wants to post others, I'll gladly point out the many ways in which they are total BS.
My astronomy teacher said that scientists have looked at the rocks and you can't tell the difference. Area 51. Everything is housed there.
The Japanese are going to photograph the surface of the moon within the next couple of years. If they see a lander, I will believe the landing.
I saw an article that said that Utah has a look like Mars. Gee...