Moon Landing Theory

The moon landings we very real. The “theories” about the landings being faked are silly and sad, and they diminish the achievements of great people who accomplished great things.

It would be very dangerous to use the earths gravity to sling shot a machine across a vast space and hit a moving object.

If you miss the object you will fly forever across space and never return because you have no thrust in space.

Totally faked Anyone who has even spent ten minutes truly researching it knows the moon landing was fake.

I was hoping something with a link and a nice comment giving your take.

Do many people still care about the moon aside from it falling is about fertility?

You need to add the caveat that You must have a really low IQ to believe the hoax crap.
We have satellites that orbit the moon that show the landing sites, tracks and equipment left there.
Not only do we have satellites, but Russia and China do too. I’m sure if it were fake, the commies would have more than stupid lackies promoting Hoax BS.

They really went, but in reverse engineered alien/Roswell crafts, not in 6th grade science fair tin cans they show us.

[link to www.nasa.gov (secure)]

Thank you for reaffirming your faith and love to the Moon Landings. I am sure there are other humans like me who appreciate your faith and love in the Moon Landings.

May the Force be with you.

Anyone who only spent ten minutes researching it would think it could be faked...

Here's your issue, JFK launched the Apollo program to put a man on the moon in less than ten years. Nasa look at all the potential problems and with a team of the greatest scientists of the day, solved all the problems of landing on the moon within the budget Nasa was given.

Every moon hoaxer out there points to the movie 2001 and Stanley Kubrick and says Kubrick faked everything.




Kubrick's version of the moon is all wrong!

1) The matte paintings used for the backgrounds are more earth like with jagged rock faces caused by centuries of wind and rain erosion.

2) The astronauts walk at a standard pace as you would on earth.

3) their space suits were ridiculously lightweight as if they were made of painted nylon filled with foam.

4) the oxygen systems are too small to contain enough air for ten minutes on the moon.

5) everything about the 2001 set is no only over engineered but weighs more than you would want to ship to the moon.



The Tycho moon base scene in particular while visually stunting shows a massive structure made from concrete and steel on the lunar surface that is completely unbuildable and would require something other that rockets to land just the materials on the moon.

That is Kubrick's version of the moon, and it is nothing like NASA.

Did I mention that Kubrick was busy with other Movies at the time of the Apollo landings?

He was working on A Clockwork Orange his next project.

Sure, that's real.

They also continue to sow the seeds of doubt about Santa Claus flying around the world in his magic sleigh, these maniacs need to be stopped!

Where is the “truth” lady with the crazy eyes and big rack?

Prove they didn't.

I can show literally thousands of pages of official documents showing you how they did it, you can barely document where Stanley Kubrick was and what he was doing when Americans went to the moon.

2001 used paintings, nylon suits, and green screens to Fake the moon and Kubrick got it all wrong.

Even the picture of the earth from the moon is wrong in 2001, there are no clouds on the earth and it doesn't show the phases of the earth as seen from the moon.

You can believe whatever you want, it's irrelevant. It's all quite fake.

From 1968 to 1970 When he actually started filming a ClockWork Orange, Stanley Kubrick was on a world wide tour promoting 2001.

He did not have the time to fake anything NASA actually did.



how do you wrap your head around the fact that millions watch this event live on TV and thousands saw the rocket lift off from Cape Kennedy in person.

Those on site felt in their bones the power of this rocket, the biggest ever made at the time.

That sort of power cannot be faked or green screened.

It was on TV so it’s real!
That’s your argument? In 2020, you still go with that?
Are you 95 years old?

Euh... Oh yeah kitty wants food

we are going back 2024 I believe.

Well. You win. You proved that men walked on the Moon. Well done!
Funny how easy it was. Just pointing out the obvious. Your so dam smart.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahhahaahahbashahhahahahsbsbshshs​bsh

Ha!

Yah. You can’t fake ....... a big rocket. So obviously MEN WALKED ON THE MOON!

And Stanley was so busy ...... therefore......men walked on the moon.

Nailed it!

a
u
l
I
s
.
Com

People watched it take off at the Cape not just on TV

People worked for years to create the means and the methods to land on the moon and come back to earth.

The moon was only 239,000 miles away, in astronautical distances that is our own backyard

:landing2.0:

Camera tricks and forced focus.

Matte paintings and models.

Isn't odd that NONE of the Nasa movies or photographs have anything like the techniques that Stanley Kubrick successfully used to create 2001.

I mean if NASA was going to hoax this, why wouldn't they have gone whole hog and built this gigantic lunar lander to put dozens of men on the moon and then "discover" ancient aliens technology there only to have everything go horribly wrong and prove that we should never go back to the moon?

You know like in 2001 a Space Oddity...

I would never have tought that church goers would ignore the lock down rules of no more then 30 at a time...

See nothing but farming but

So, that's proof men walked on the moon? Sure.

They saw a felt a rocket a launched. On earth.

It's very simple.

Just look up the lander's door dimensions.

Then calculate the space inside the lander for two fully

geared up astronauts.

Find out which way the door opens.

Then you know......