10 Reasons Why the Moon Landing Never Happened

Please do not cite the bible as a factual reference.

Uhhhh... As a Catholic, I forgive you.

1) For being horribly misinformed and judgemental

2) For somehow tying in your twisted belief system to the moon landings.

Now, concerning the landings. How exactly was / is this all kept a secret after all these years? Wouldn't other governments (namely, Russia) blown the lid off such claims? We were in the space race with them at the time. Wouldn't of they called B.S.?

Isn't it possible that guts, determination and good ole American ingenuity were the reasons for successful landings? Oh, and by the way, that's plural. why would they risk a hoax multiple times? Wouldn't that also increase the possibility other countries would call bullsh*t on this?

I understand where the denial of the landings come from. There are some pretty good arguments. However, you would think that at least 25 of the thousands of people who worked on these mission would of blown the whistle by now.

Think, think, think! To tell you the truth, I am not exactly sold either way. I'd like to believe that it occurred. And if GOD put it there, I would also like to think that he wouldn't mind if we visited.

Russia is Athiest and conspired with Catholic JFK to undermine God's word.

Well, not really.

Around 63% of the Russia's population identify themselves with Orthodox Christianity,[58] most of whom belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, which played a vital role in the development of Russian national identity. In other countries Russian faithful usually belong to the local Orthodox congregations which either have a direct connection (like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, autonomous from the Moscow Patriarchate) or historical origin (like the Orthodox Church in America or a Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Non-religious Russians may associate themselves with the Orthodox faith for cultural reasons. Some Russian people are Old Believers: a relatively small schismatic group of the Russian Orthodoxy that rejected the liturgical reforms introduced in the 17th century. Other schisms from Orthodoxy include Doukhobors which in the 18th century rejected secular government, the Russian Orthodox priests, icons, all church ritual, the Bible as the supreme source of divine revelation and the divinity of Jesus, and later emigrated into Canada. An even earlier sect were Molokans which formed in 1550 and rejected Czar's divine right to rule, icons, the Trinity as outlined by the Nicene Creed, Orthodox fasts, military service, and practices including water baptism.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Russia never put the first man in space either. That hoax was exposed by photo experts who noticed bubbles showing the set was under water!

Soviet Space bamboozle
[link to www.the_holocaust_happened]

When NASA said it will take another twenty years to come up with a safety measure to pass Van Ellen belt, you know they said too much this time

The easiest way to tell is the missing stars, all sky in the moon photos are pitch black with no stars. ( Because that's impossible to fake back then. Today would be piece of cake thanks to CG). My dirt cheap point n shoot can do a better job, even on heavily polluted earth.

Some folks are too proud to admit it so they say some moon shots are real, some are faked, that's quite laughable to say at least.

ok explain me this

laser ranging retroreflector was positioned on the Moon in 1969 by apollo 11.

I saw a episode of The Big Bang Theory were they shoot a laser to the moon(they almost blowed up the moon) and then It came back on the computer the laser.

Explain that to me Sherlock

These are facts?



They're called the "belts" for a reason. The VARB are a concentrated region of charged particles from the Sun. In ordinary cislunar space, this concentration does not exist.



I've shot pictures of the dark side of the Moon myself. Oh...you mean the FAR side? Well, there are numerous pictures of that as well...going all the way back to Apollo 8, but including every lunar mapping mission since from Clementine to the ESA's and Japan's.



They don't have multiple shadows. As much as they might like, Hollywood is unable to violate the laws of physics.

And for that matter....you can go outside, find a patch of bare dirt and some sticks, and set up the shadow patterns in every single photograph in question.

It isn't a matter of Hollywood (who doesn't light this way anyhow); it is a matter of ignorance of basic geometry on the part of the Apollo Denier.



In a clearly labeled spoof. I suppose you think James Bond is real, too.




There were people on the Moon?

Seriously, you parrot this junk without even understanding the claims you are copying. The claim is that a woman in Australia by the name of Uma saw a coke bottle in the live broadcast. That incriminating tape was later destroyed.

It's a nice story, but one look at a CLOCK shows it is impossible. There was no live broadcast at the time she claims.



Cameras would melt? Are you a Poe? Or just incompetent? I think you will find the usual claim is that FILM would melt. Me, I'd be more frightened for the astronauts if there was that kind of failure of thermal control.

And I wish this was easy to answer, but since you've forgotten high school science there is simply too much material to cover (about the difference between conduction, radiation, and convection, for instance) within a single post.





They didn't smile...those were broad GRINS on their faces in a famous photograph taken on the recovery vessel.

Plenty of smiling going around.




There were three on the Saturn V stack alone, plus bigger ones back at Houston. The AGC (the most famous of the former), is extremely well documented. You can download a virtual AGC yourself and run the original software.





And now we get to the real point of what is either a Poe or a stick-ignorant bible-thumper.

Hey, didn't you just get kicked off the BAUT recently?


I"m gonna let my little feathered friend handle this one:

[link to www.youtube.com]

You're right.

It wasn't done for the planetary science. (That said, having actual trained geology field students -- and one professional geologist -- on the Moon in person was very, very nice).

Also worth noting that the state of the art of robotics in 1960 meant having live astronauts set up the various pieces of equipment left there meant more accurate set-up of more instruments and more complex instruments.

However.

The penultimate reason was political; to score points in world opinion. The US and the Soviet Union were each posing and primping and trying to get as many small developing nations to go to "their side" as possible. Looking like the masters of science and technology was one way to attract these nations. And the Soviets had a leg up on that with Sputnik.

The ultimate reason was to apply a kick to the pants to America, specifically science education, higher education, and the aerospace infrastructure. American kids were cutting classes and doing miserably in science compared to the rest of the world (sound familiar?) and American industry was turning out giant poorly-built automobiles and losing in electronics and miniaturization and a hundred other places to western Europe and Japan. (This should ALSO sound familiar!)

We could use another inspiring, national program now.

And our continents have grown in 34 years. ;-`)

:earths2:

You got it in one. Batteries.


Have you calculated to see if the stated range was impossible? Here's some discussion of the basic formula; [link to www.diyelectriccar.com]

Now remember you are running in 1/6 G, in a rover that barely masses 210 kg (plus two astronauts as payload), and the largest total distance driven by any rover was just shy of 36 kilometers.

The batteries were silver-zinc potassium hydroxide. The energy density of those batteries is easy enough to find on various technical forums. You should be able to approximate the calculation in a couple of minutes.

I'd show you (yes; I've done this calculation in the past), but if you do it yourself you might actually learn something.

That earth on the right is a terrible photoshop. Nothing is to scale.

They didn't, and you are wrong as well!


All of the LM had the MESA; this was an equipment pallet attached to the outside of the spacecraft. The MESA, which could be deployed from the "ledge," contained a mounting spot for the camera that picked up the "first steps."

In the later "J-Class," I think they were called, missions, another storage pallet was added in the opposite quadrant.

There was no golf club carried. Harrison Schmidt carried a head as part of his personal allowance. Other men carried photographs, a bible, etc. For the famous shot, he screwed the head on to the end of a geology tool he had been using.


Once again I am amused by how opinionated people can be about a subject they obviously have not taken the time to learn even the basics about.

You had me till that. You obviously have a lot of ideas of who you think this "god" entity is. Im pretty sure it would not give a shit if we went to the moon or not. Laughable, just a box in a cage.

The Moon is an artificial satellite.

I hate to be a broken record, but what size should it be?

Perhaps a question in return will help you think about the problem more clearly. How big should the moon be in a photograph taken from Earth?

This big?

[link to images.lightstalkers.org]

This big?

[link to farm4.static.flickr.com]


Do you perhaps grasp that focal length might have something to do with the amount of frame filled by the Moon?

Why are there stars in 2001 (1968), Star Wars (1977), Destination Moon (1950)....

Apparently Hollywood was quite able to fake them.

And why would there be stars over a rocky landscape in full sunlight? Do you think NASA had sooper-secret film with a dynamic range a million times greater than anyone else had access too?

Jeez!! What a stream of utter idiocy.

Proving once again there is no lower limit on human intelligence...

I suppose you can show the math proving this with the focal length of the camera used? No?

Thread: ***First Video of the Far Side of the Moon***

The stars are far too dim to show up on film exposed for bright sunlight conditions.

It can be with proper interpretation/translation. Think of it as "whitewashed" history. When you translate from a different language to another language and so on, the meaning of words tend to change...

This goes to show that facts mean nothing if they contradict opinions. Galileo could've told us that.

I cry because people are stupid - and that makes me sad.

11: Catholic Athiests claim that the reason we've never been "back" to the moon is because it's too expensive... WTF? Money is just paper, and NEVER. A. STRAIGHT. ANSWER. can just print MORE if they want. NASA = ECONOMIC FAIL, FACT!

my god you are stupid

11. The Americans told us so. So it is definitely another government fabricated lie.

What proof do you have that everything you're saying is 100% fact? For all we know it is just another stupid opinion.

Well, what we were shown as a "moon landing" is fake. Doesn't mean they didn't go in much more advanced technology. If anyone thinks that we made it to the moon in that tin can, they are under mind control.