It was Impossible to Fake the Moon Landing on video in 1969

they were different times back then, for sure....the 60s were revolutionary, but the difference between then and now pales by comparison...the entire US has completely changed in the last fifty years, not for the better...

Maybe you should start at the bottom.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]


Since your opinion is based on ignorance such a lack of believe is not relevant.


The lunar surface is also billions of years old.
The odds of getting hit by something so large that the suit can't handle it is extremely small.


I'm not trying to convince you that the Moon Landings happened.
I'm trying to convince you that ignorance is no basis for any opinion and that therefor you need to study the subject in considerable more depth.


With friends like these...


[citation needed]


Wouldn't you rather know the truth?
That is, rationally examine the actual facts and come to the appropriate conclusion?


You only say that because you don't know what the evidence is.
There is a mountain range of evidence for the historicy of Apollo.
There is no evidence what so ever that any of that was falsified.


People have been making the same ridiculous claims and have been asking the same stupid questions for 45 years.

Maybe I shouldn't make fun off people with a learning disability but it does get fucking annoying.


I don't see how that is remotely comparable to wearing a pressure suit in a vacuum.


Vacuum does not have a pressure!
That's pretty much the definition of vacuum.

It's abundantly clear that you don't know enough to even know what questions to ask.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 04/17/2019 02:53 AM

Mr Halcyon Dayz

You are too funny. You refuse to answer any questions that you consider irrelevant, ie anything to do with suits and fabrics. You assume that everyone should have a complete knowledge of space travel when most of us have other interests and or careers and you dismiss anything that does not fit into the official narrative.

If you are completely tired of answering questions, maybe you should stop and leave it to someone who has some knowledge worth sharing.

Your constant sighing and complaining does not help anyone. However, you are very funny, so I should not complain, it's a good a doom break as any other.

You also should know that your lack of information only raises more questions.

It's clear from looking at images of the lunar lander that something is not right. It is clear from looking at what little details are available of the suits that they could not possibly have performed all the tasks they are deemed to have been capable of. You have not provided even the most basic informatoin about the special fabrics used in the construction of the space suits. I would love to know what fabrics were used throughout each layer.

Why can't you look it up?


Nobody cares why you are ignorant.
But if you want to be taken serious you will have to cure that ignorance.
Opinions based on ignorance are useless.
Accusations based on ignorance are idiotic and vile.


You mean the lies, confabulations, and brainfarts peddled by the hoaxmongers and credulously believed by the conspirasheeple?
I certainly do.


Maybe you should learn enough to ask the right questions.


My lack of information?
Your ignorance is suddenly my fault, and not the fault of your laziness and lack of grounding?


Meanwhile, in sane country, it is clear that only an idiot would think they can determine the capabilities of a machine by looking at a picture of it.

"Something is not right"?
Could you be anymore vague?
WHAT is wrong?
WHY is it wrong?
And HOW do you know?

These are questions YOU need to answer.


It is clear that you don't know HOW spacesuits work.
Or what they are actually supposed to do.
Opinions based on ignorance are useless.


You've got the world's largest library in history at your fingertips.
Maybe you should learn how to use it.
Getting information from the horse's mouth, in context, is always more useful than someone paraphrasing.


Clearly not enough to put any work in at acquiring this knowledge.
You haven't even read the link I provided.
Lazy bastard.

Maybe you should start with a basic How To Use A Search Engine course.
[link to www.google.com (secure)]


Its not spelt informatoin, BTW.

How come there are no stars? Too hard to fake. Just leave them out.

You all need to watch Toy Story again with new eyes. It delivered a few truth bombs, and one of them is, there are no space rangers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have discovered a never before seen photo that shows a behind the scenes filming of the moon landing hoax, filmed in the Nevada desert.

[link to i.imgur.com (secure)]

Okay, Halcyon Dayz, at your advice, I'm doing some research. So, when you place a tin can in a vacuum environment, once the air is removed from around the can, it seals the opening tightly shut. The opening cannot be released without great force once it's back in an aired environment.

If that is the case, how did the astronauts manage to open the door of their rocket once it was surrounded by a vacuum? The vacuum would have tightly sealed the door shut, assuming it didnt totally squash the tin can, sorry rocket into a tiny piece of metal.

As demonstrated here from the 2:30 mark.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

read up on rapid decompression...like if an airliner hatch/door blows out...the higher atmospheric pressure inside the pressurized cabin rushes out of the cabin quickly. Airliners tend to operate around 7 psi over the outside pressure. The Apollo atmosphere, being 100% O2 meant the same amount/concentration of O2 at a much lower pressure, around 3.5 psi. Normal sea level atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi.

and the cabin was depressurized before opening the hatch, which created a zero pressure differential.

nasa fan boys, globers on a mission (pun)

moon trips never happened, period

…whatever, world will always need career janitors and sanitation workers...

Airplanes are not flying in a vacuum. There is air both inside and outside of the plane.

Read what he said again. they had less of a difference in pressure.

How do you propose that a vacuum, which is nothing by definition and thus can't create a force, is going to crush the spacecraft when the force is coming from the air inside pushing outward?

As for the video, the vacuum sealer is removing air from inside the can and it is the air pressure outside holding it shut. It is an opposite situation from a spacecraft which has the air inside. Plus, another poster already said the spacecraft was depressurized before they opened the door so there was zero pressure differential.

Last Edited by LHP598 on 04/17/2019 03:19 PM

Ooh boy! A time traveller from 1974.

Everybody who has ever tried to photograph stars understands why stars don't show up in the regular lunar surface pictures.
Hoaxies on the other hand understand nothing.

You should be embarrassed.




By letting the air out first.


You still seem to think that vacuum can exert a force.

It is the air inside (at about 1/3 atm) that pushes against the door and the walls.

If the air pressure inside an airtight container exceeds the structural strength of the container the container would rupture, NOT crumble.

(Spaceships have pressure valves to avoid this.)


You clearly need to do a lot more.
Like, pick up a secondary education physics text book.

Well, I'm glad to see the experts are now providing details. So, how about explaining how many suits and helmets were on board, and the composition of the fabrics used in the space suit.

This is an area I do have some knowledge on and interest in.

Looking forward to the responses. Please do not go back to the deep sighing and complaining about how it's not important. I want facts, not assumptions or estimates.

Why didn't you read the wikipedia article on the subject?


Apparently your interest doesn't extent to doing actual research.


This is starting to look like a blatant lie.

Perhaps you are a troll?

They couldn't do Phantasia, either

I already mentioned how many suits there should be using logic. YOU have shown nothing to the contrary.

As for how they are made, why are you unable to do any research for yourself?

Much easier to just go there? lol Watch Capricorn one. Looks pretty simple to me.

You mean the movie about a conspiracy that was an absolute failure?
A conspiracy that even the writers will tell you makes no sense?

Hate to break it to you but Hollywood movies aren't documentaries.
So far nobody has been able to come up with a consistent conspiracy narrative that explains all the facts.
Or even a few...

Everyone who uses logic comes up with a different answer. The logic of looking at the lunar lander is that it is made of tin foil, so using logic is not a good method in regards to the moon landings. I think it would be better to use actual facts.

One of course also need to use correct premises.
(And use logic correctly.)

But I doubt you actually know what logic is.


See?
You don't know what logic is.

Fact of life is that merely looking at something is usually not sufficient to determine what it is made off.
(Particularly if it is a material that you've never encountered before.)
So, something looking like something else you already know does NOT establish that it is that something else.

It's a wild guess, not a logical conclusion.


Does not follow.


Yet you are extremely resistent to actually acquiring facts.
Nor have you given any indication that you know which facts would be useful.

You claiming there should be 9 used no logic.



That also uses no logic when pics are available showing the structure and knowing that the mylar was part of the loose insulative covering that is similar to many satellites that also spend their entire working lives in the vacuum of space.

what about the monkeys? they sent a dog and monkey first into low earth orbit. Why they didn't land a dog or monkey on the moon first?

straight away, boom, the right stuff ninja astronots played golf on the moon, makes no sense!.....

because they know no living thing can go out of low earth orbit... no animals sent out of low earth orbit, but probes etc... yes...

After the Surveyor missions the environment on the lunar surface was well enough known that there was no doubt that properly protected humans could survive there.
One needs human test pilots to test spacecraft designed to be flown by human pilots.


That was Apollo 14.
The astronauts used the last few minutes of the second and last EVA to fool around a bit.
IOW after having spend more than 9 hours outside, on the third landing.
Hardly right away.

You are aware that there was more than one manned lunar landing?


This is untrue.


And this is a lie.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Not that you need to use biological entities to test the environment once you know what factors biological entities are vulnerable to.
You just test for the factors directly.
IOW coal miners don't need canaries if they have gas detectors.