They faked it ! The Moon Landing !!

I'm doin' the moonwalk right now, brah.

OMG... FACTS! NOOOOOOOOOOO........

we need a poll...

Funny how the only people who believe vids like that are the same ones who use words like "totally" when they speak.

The NSA just towed away Bill Kaeysings trailer

The technology was tested ... sure WHERE? In Arizona desert?

Do you understand how many tests needs before sending HUMANS out there to the unknown space, and/or PLANETS?

How many monkeys or dogs payed their lifes just for NEO?

How many probes, satellites, rovers are on Mars right now, before someone even think to send HUMANS out there?!

Yes, there are (crazy) people in Dutch company who think they could send few victims to Mars, but with one-way ticket LOL

I mean, that even Cruise can't handel it anmore

The moon is really made of cheese.

I certainly feel it must be fake. When the astronauts allegedly left the surface of the moon enroute to Earth the camera panned perfectly with the return vehicle as it left its tiny pad and moved upwards from the moon's surface. I find it amazing that a firecracker spark generated escape velocity to leave a satellite with a sixth of the gravity of the Earth. You can figure the energy required for escape velocity must have been exponentially greater than a wiff of an explosion could provide. The reentry vehicle lifted away from the surface in a slow fashion. Totally fake.

A lack of atmosphere has nothing to do with the gravitational pull of the moon's mass.

I also question the slow motion falling and moving about on the moon. Does 1/6th gravity translate to 1/6th speed? Or, would an object weighing 600 pounds fall at the same speed as an object weighing 100 pounds? Those astronauts sure fell over slowly when tripping. Looks fake in today's perspective.

Why fake it? To intimidate the reds during the cold war.

We do, of course you could also claim that was faked.

BINGO , way to many coincidence and anomalies !

As another poster put it, why would Kubrick put all the "we never went to the moon" symbolism in THE SHINING ??

Please tell me you actually know the answer to this, lol.

50 years? Have I gone through another time warp?

For what it's worth:


•independent astronomers the world over tracked the command module on its way to and from the moon
•all the Apollo missions brought back much more lunar material than has ever been found on earth (382 kg, as opposed to the 50-ish kg found as meteorites)
•the moon rocks were studied by top geologists from all over the world and there are no disputes that they are of lunar origin, and that they didn't fall through the earth's atmosphere unprotected.
•The oldest moon rocks are around 4.5 billion years old, approximately the age of the earth itself. These couldn't be found on earth due to plate tectonics happening over the course of its lifetime.
•The Soviets' Luna 16, 20, and 24 probes brought back lunar material and matched the Apollo moon rocks.
•the LRO photographed the landing sites, and SELENE mapped the geography of the landing sites and found that it matched the photos taken on the moon (which they could not if the photos were faked).
•the video footage of the moon landings is consistent with a low gravity environment in a vacuum, and would have been impossible to film on earth in the 60's and 70's.
•there are mountains and mountains of evidence, and yet nobody of reputable scientific background has been able to disprove that we went to the moon. Indeed, not one shred of evidence has been disproved -- all claims that I have heard about the footage and pictures are easily explained and do not contradict the evidence.

That's right... just GUESS about all that stuff and decide that your GUESS beats actually knowing the physics which govern the situations. A "firecracker spark"?? Hilarious!

You don't actually believe that Mars bullshit do you?

but there is most definitely sound transmitted through the shell and the internal air-space of an aluminum can filled with air.

I apologize for my apparent ignorance. The "ignition" on the reentry vehicle looked extremely weak to me and I assume anyone else that watched the footage. Please enlighten us as to why I, and surely others, are missing the obvious, or alternatively keep insulting us that are inferior to yourself.

the shills would win the poll, if that is what they want.

sort this out with your own unbiased logic, not with other peoples beliefs, and not by what you have been told to believe.

That lander... is laughable.. a strong breeze could rip it apart..

The sound of WHAT?

The pumps? The DPS was pressure fed.
The combustion? How much noise does that actually make?
The roar of the turbulence when the exhaust collides with the air?

Oh, wait...


Threads like these are a real treat for any moranophile.

That's right. the perfect answer. We all must take comfort in our own objective reasoning and application of common knowledge to the alleged facts before us. Thanks brother (or sister) for your reply. Well said!

"Apparent ignorance"? The obvious, which you are missing, is that your uninformed opinion about the way you think something "looks" bears no relation to the facts about how that propulsion system actually worked. Am I going to try to talk you out of your ignorance? No. It's been done untold hundreds of times on threads like this and there is no end of ignorant, paranoid people who keep repeating the same nonsense on this subject. There is no point in trying to explain anything. All I care to do today is call you a gullible ignoramus.

Does it give you a sense of superiority to demean others that are here for various reasons, one of which is to hear meaningful explanations, replies, insight etc...? This seems to be a common sophomoric tactic for many that waste space here. Name calling - wow. How can real issues be solved, and debate be had when the end result are insults and projected hatred and contempt?

You mean 6 times a fake.

What's with the "it" was faked?

Right.... and the hundreds of engineers who designed it were just "faking" their work. Yep... YOU see through it all... right...

Hypergolic fuels don't usually produce a visible flame in vacuum.
The flash at lift-of are the explosives that separate the Ascent Stage from the Descent Stage.

It's Ascend Stage, btw.
The CM would be the re-entry vehicle.



Judging a book by its cover.

Once again demonstrating that hoaxies are the people who know the least about space travel.

Hilarious.

Meaningful explanations have fallen on deaf ears over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. He sounds superior because he *IS* superior in understanding and critical thinking and outright intelligence to the likes of you. Sorry to break it to you...

You are a real treat. You are correct that I am no rocket scientist. That is for certain. How much rocket fuel was consumed to generate enough velocity for an object weighing several tons to escape the moon? I am sincere in my query. I don't know, and yes that would make me ignorant. I didn't reply to this to "pick a fight", I just stated the facts that many believe including myself. As far as gullible, well I don't know you and you don't know me, and we'll leave it at that. I am giving you the deference of your apparent knowledge on all the issues, yet I rest in the comfort that when I awake in the morning I will still be me and you'll still be you.

"Hypergolic fuels don't usually produce a visible flame in vacuum.
The flash at lift-of are the explosives that separate the Ascent Stage from the Descent Stage."

Now... let's see if the questioner even acknowledges this meaningful explanation.