Yes 218 89.71%

No 25 10.29%

I think you need to go back to school if that is the case
[Reply]

Here I will help you.

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.clavius.org/

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
[Reply]

Ok, your link didn't work for me, but let me guess...there is some video shot from the LEM and you don't see a cloud of dust obscuring the landscape below.

You are conditioned to believe that there needs to be a cloud of dust because you have lived your entire life on Earth, I think. The Earth has an atmosphere. Due to the molecular motion of the gases that make up that atmosphere dust particles stay suspended in the air for some amount of time instead of falling directly back to the ground. This dosen't happen in the "vacuum" of space. ie. On a the moom which has no atmosphere.

If you have ever seen the video where the astronaut drops the hammer and the feather from his hands, then you should know that the feather and the hammer hit the ground at the same time. This could only happen in a "vacuum".

Also notice, in the videos of the moon rover being driven by the astronauts, that the dust kicked up by the tires falls directly back to the ground as it should if you were driving the rover on the surface of the moon.

So, if you buy into the "We Never Landed on the Moon" argument, you must believe that we did have the capability to create a space large enough to hold the astronauts and all of their equipment, LEM and moon rover, in which we could create a "vacuum". Well now, that is one hell of an engineering feat!

I have also read some of the websites out there that try to debunk the moon landing using optics as their basis. Funny how usually the author presents his/her evidence with the disclaimer, "I really don't know a whole lot about optical phenomena." or some similar statement.

I have taken a bunch of chemistry and physics classes, and I have yet to hear a professor or someone with similar qualifications make claims about the moon landing being faked. I'm sure that they all were probably paid off by the CIA! :-)
[Reply]

There is a lot more to it than just moon dust...many many correlations. Look, we all want to believe that we could go to the moon, and that we WENT to the moon. The Russians who were BLOWING us away in the late 50s and 60s have YET to go to the moon, stating its impossibility of getting through the Van Allen Radiations Belt alive...

Many people believed that if the Russians made it to the moon first... then they would probably win the cold war. We HAD to get the moon first. Nixon was president... Vietnam was a quagmire... we needed NEEDED an American Hooorah.

If you cant make it... fake it. Im sure with the 40 BILLION dollar budget they could Easily create a sound studio in teh high desert of NM to get the job done. Neil Armstrong wont even answer questions about the moon landing, and going to the moon. Because he didnt go... He feels like a shitbag.

Also... *** That file is a torrent file... you need a bit torrent client to watch it... there, smarty pants.
[Reply]

Whether we have or have not will be known soon enough. Japan or China, I forget which one is sending a satelite to orbit the Moon in a couple years. The mission is to photograph the surface, and see how much change has happened since we were there. They are going to go to where we landed and see it the Flag is there. If it isn't, at least the lunar modual should be there.

I say it won't be there.
[Reply]

Sorry about the long windedness about dust and all. I just realized that you could have found all of that stuff out if you check out a previously posted website.

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Here is the example I was talking about. When I taught high school a student gave me this web address. He believed that the landings were faked and he thought that this website proved that they were. Obviously this student didn't bother to read the website's text, because this website is disproving someone else's website.
[Reply]

On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's


[Reply]

who's "we?" I've never been there with you.
[Reply]

This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon"

If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.

Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.


[Reply]

In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.


[Reply]

I saw Buzz Aldrin speak at the National Science Teacher's Convention. He wasn't shy about being pissed off at the people that say everything was fake. Hopefully you remember that he was the second man to walk on the moon, or fake sound studio, whatever.

Go the first website that was in my last post...it might help with your understanding of radiation.

BTW, thanks for posting a link to something that you need to be a member of in order to view. That helps everyone.
[Reply]

if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated.

This very well could have been a touch up job.


[Reply]

This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.

All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.

There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be.


[Reply]

This is the most laughably erroneous statement of history I've heard in quite a while.

Landing on the moon was a morale boost, but it sure didn't help win the Vietnam War, did it?

And how, exactly, would landing on the moon have helped solve the USSR's systemic problems brought on by their economic system, political unrest, etc????

Nutzoid.
[Reply]

In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?


[Reply]