Finally after many years I now believe the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax.

I've seen the interview of them all after they came back. Neil Armstrong was most definitely troubled by something. It looked more fear and worry than elation at their achievement.

I'm the other way around to you. I thought it was a hoax but now I'm not so sure. I think we were told the moon is off limits.

Best argument for:

If it was a hoax Russia wold have shown u.s up due to Cold War/space race indications

Oh, for fucks sake..

The same pricks controlled/control the USSR as have controlled the USA.

Wake up already.

We went to the moon. Experiments were left there that are still being interfaced with today.

no man has eve set foot on the moon.

We would have been called out by the Soviets, Chinese, N. Vietnamese, N. Koreans, Cubans, Hussein Iragis, Iranians, and other not so friendly govs. They all have astronomers and physicist.
It started in the 80s by some crack pot in a trailer in the mid-west.

Neil Armstrong was the very worst person to pick to be the first to do anything. He was shy to the point of nearly being a full time recluse.

The poor guy hated all the attention he got, hated to be interviewed he only wanted to be left alone.

So yes, anything he said, any interviews he took would be 'painful' at best.

Lost of sites are out there about his 'shyness': [link to www.google.com]

BUZZZ - wrong answer.

There is a NWO. They founded Russia since 1917 at least, then went into China.

The reason for the HOAX was not to beat the Russians or any space race. the REAL reason was big bangism theories that say life is possible in space. It is not. There is no life in space. It is too harsh. Before the 1960s most believed life in space was impossible. NASA claims they can easily go to the moon next mars and life on other planets and UFO ET psyop HOAX.

It is all mind control.

Armstrong was more easily controllable than the astronaut who was originally slated to command the first manned mission to the moon -- Virgil "Gus" Grissom, a highly charismatic, exuberant, extrovert who said what was on his mind. Grissom died in 1967 in the Apollo 1 command module when it burned up on the tarmac in a launch pad test at Cape Canaveral. Some members of his family still harbor suspicions about the cause of his death.

If we didn't go to the moon, then explain this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5MVVtFYTSo

Was Gus Grissom "Adjustment Bureau'd"?

+1

Proof? If the experiments are all controlled by NASA, then why are we to believe they are telling the truth?

No, we went to the moon. Very little was gained, besides bragging rights over the Russians*. A lot of military R&D money was hidden in PR-savvy NASA projects.

See, there's not one thing in space humans can do better than unmanned probes, besides give interviews to the gullible public who watched too much Buck Rogers. The most important thing we gained from manned space flight is the knowledge of just hoe inhospitable and vast space is, and how precious the Earth looks in comparison.

The public was told things like the Russians were going to put a missile base on the moon if they got there first. Crude "high ground" metaphors were used effectively against a gullible public who never asked whether or not it would be smart or possible to put missiles on the moon when you could just put them a few thousand miles away on Earth, and shoot them on a ballistic trajectory into New York.

But the ruse took, and the whole charade, albeit based on brilliant engineering and science, is still drilled into the heads of dumb consumers everywhere, saying, "we're America, we can do anything because we Went To The Moon."

*The whole space race was bullshit. We always held (because of the brilliance of Nazi German engineers we retained after WW2) the lead in the race in all meaningful catagories. We knew the Russians were only capable of firing beeping spheres into unstable orbit, or performing dumb stunts that were successful only in making headlines they used to scare the American people into forking over billions to hit golf balls in 1/6 G.

That's great.

1.There is less gravity on the moon so a probe (satellite) would actually have to orbit slower and closer to the moon than a comparable one orbiting earth to maintain moon orbit.

2. There is virtually no atmosphere on the moon in comparison to earth which would give less distortion having to look through atmosphere here at home and would be much clearer pic than our earth orbiting ones.

3. They have had satellites that could read the large print on newspapers since the 80's. I can make out what kind of fucking car I have on the damn google earth so I should be able to see the GOODYEAR letters on the moon buggies tires by now (I know they were some mesh type shit, it's for dramatic effect) with our current technology.

4. We have like 455 satellites orbiting earth and all it takes is a bit more speed and a couple mathematical equations and we could have an HD satellite going around the moon in days people.

The older I grow, the more obvious it is by the lack of data we are given exposes NASA and frankly the rest of our governments lies. Technology nearly double every 18 months and if anyone expects me to believe NASA's telling us the truth must be retarded.

Don't link me those crude unrecognizable photos they put out a while ago either cuz they're bullshit too!!

The ignorance in your post is astounding.

It took you that long to figure it out? WTF are you stupid? bwahahahahahaha!!

I think you are a idiot Stanley Kubrick filmed that shit. Check yourself before you wreck yourself OK?

Elaborate please?

And before you reply Australia, remember my government supposedly sent men to the moon with near perfect success several times with a computer no more powerful than scientific calculator. I hope your explanation is not going to tell me how much fucking harder it is today to put a satellite around the moon to take high res. pics, is it?

Please, don't stop - this is making my night. You are hilarious!

I did.

Now that everyone can see your attempt at distraction, answer me this?


Why do we not have any high resolution photos of the stuff we left up there?

I have asked that question and have gotten a myriad of ridiculous answers and I am really looking forward to yours

Anyone who says we can't orbit close enough to get high definition images of the moon's surface is an idiot. Putting expensive satellites in orbit of the moon is only going to give us higher resolution images of craters and rocks...and yes, the rovers and landing modules. This get's back to my original point - these images exist. But guess what? These images already exist. And guess what? The conspiratards complain that they are low resolution and likely photoshopped. And guess what? If NASA supplied higher resolution images, they would still say the same thing. "Photoshopped!". "Well yeah, the images came from NASA - of course we can't trust them!". Bottom line - it's just not worth the money to put an expensive satellite in orbit of the moon to take pictures of the rovers and landing modules, when these same idiots are going to say they are fake and doctored. Please, tell me exactly what it would take to convince you that the USA put men on the moon? What incontrovertible evidence would you need to change your mind.

To re-iterate my last point - what would high-resolution pictures accomplish, when the same people would just complain that since they are provided by NASA they must be photoshopped? Why drop hundreds of millions of dollars on a satellite that will provide high-resolution images of craters, rocks, and a couple landing modules when the images won't change the minds of people who are already set in their beliefs?