Did Amercia ever land on the moon?

[- English -]

dunno if this has been done before but:

i was talking to my m8 today and we started having an argunment about this... whats your opinions on this case?

 

[Serbitar]

the whole flag fluttering in the moon thing?

moon doesnt ahve an atmosphere, i.e. no wind, therefore how could the flag flutter?

official reasoning draft from lander engines.

conspiracy theorists had a field day with this

 

[Archeon]

One thing that always confused me was that if Armstrong was the 1st man on the moon, then who the hell was videoing him in the first place?

 

[xane]

The flag "fluttered" because the top was supported by a horizontal bar and as he placed it in the ground the bar jiggled and "fluttered" the flag.

No-one landed on the Moon anyway, because the Moon does not exist !

 

[- English -]

also heard about the camera fault, it showed that he had been put over the background because of some camera lines... dunno what they r callled

 

[xane]

One thing that always confused me was that if Armstrong was the 1st man on the moon, then who the hell was videoing him in the first place?

A remote camera, same for when the lander took off. In fact the latter used a complex system to follow the lander upwards.

 

[xane]

dunno what they r callled

"reseau lines"

 

[- English -]

ah ok

 

[Driwen]

dunno if this has been done before but:

i was talking to my m8 today and we started having an argunment about this... whats your opinions on this case?

did some searching and found this link which is designed as a response to another site that says the moon landing is fake and this link that on nasa's website and its strongest point is about the moon rocks that was brought down. Basically there is no way that those rocks are from earth, as there is very little water in them or they would have broken down after a few million years on earth.

Also why didnt the Soviet Union did the same thing and why didnt the soviet union just refute the achievment with proof which seems to be so obvious ow and they filmed the astronauts walking in low G so they did that with wires controls somehow (and the earth being reflected in the helmets) basically i think it might actually be more of an achievement to be able to fake it than to actually have done it.

 

[Dook]

Couple of discrepencies iirc...

The soil/dust on the moons surface cannot/does not hold any moisture, so it would have been impossible to create footprints in it, which the astronauts did when they "moonwalked".

The contrast between light and dark areas was irregular. IE, there should have been complete contrast where the dark side of the moon was, yet there wasn't.

The (golden) metal foil-like covering of the landing module showed external lightsources that couldn't possible have been from the sun or any lighting they had. Many people believe it to be an external source of light, maybe studio lights?

Also, on the pictures released, they appear to be "touched up" in places. The 'crosshair' sections in some places are behind scenery, when they should ALWAYS be infront.

Some other stuffs about radiation being too much on the moon for any possible landing also, but dunno much 'bout that so I won't comment.

:>

 

[cHodAX]

I am farly certain that the whole thing was faked, it was the only way the U.S. could claim victory in the spacerace. If the USSR would have got there first it would have been a huge propoganda boost for communism. The U.S. could not let that happen so the created the hoax of the original landing, later landings were 100% legit but the landing that 'won' the race was a very clever hoax.

 

[Job]

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

FFS people, just think about it , how many people were involved. lot of mouths to keep quiet, plus the Russians would have been the first to complain.

Also all the Apollo experiments that scientists all over the world were contacting on the Moon for years..one still works to this day.

The radio transmissions came from the Moon, so you would have to send robotic transmitters to relay the voices, plus fool the entire Russian deep space tracking network (the Russians kept a VERY keen watch on the Apollo missions) with dummy spacecraft doing EXACTLY the same manouvers as the real ones would.

Plus it would be a bit emabarrasing if the Chinese go to the Moon next and say.

THERE'S FUCK ALL HERE!!!!!!!!!!!

It would cost more to fake, that to do it for real, and if it was faked don't you think such glaring 'mistakes' (which aren't mistakes just very bad science from the accusers) would have been spotted.

 

[Sigurd]

No, america did not land on the moon. It is a country and thus unable to fly into space and land on, for example, the moon.

 

[- English -]

No, america did not land on the moon. It is a country and thus unable to fly into space and land on, for example, the moon.

always 1

 

[cHodAX]

It would cost more to fake, that ...ot allow them to win under any circumstances.

 

[Job]

Ah a clever reply..
Except the landings are all at least 500 miles apart, along way to transport a whole Lunar Lander in 3 days.

Not forgetting the Russians would say
' how come this mission here is twice as big?'

Could have been robotically landed later, but again you can't launch something like that without someone saying

'WTF IS THAT!'

Every launch has to be cleared with the Russkies, if not they would assume it was a nuclear strike, the trajectory and destination has to be passed to them, so they can monitor it to accuracy of feet.

Are you suggesting the Americans slyly sent up stuff to the Moon afterwards without people finding out...impossible.

Did you know the Ruskies sent a tortoise round the Moon before the Americans did it with Men (Apollo10) .

 

[Sigurd]

always 1

Quite...

 

[Driwen]

Couple of discrepencies iirc...

The soil/dust on the moons surface cannot/does not hold any moisture, so it would have been impossible to create footprints in it, which the astronauts did when they "moonwalked".

you can create footprints in dust and also in sand in deserts, where im fairly sure there is no water.

the black/white thing is because light is reflected on parts, the sun is only light source, but the light is reflected by the lander by the people etc so that can create different amount of shadow and also shed light on stuff that are not facing the sun.

 

[Morchaoron]

ofcourse it wasnt faked but they did lie... i was the first one there not those amateurs

 

[Justicator]

ofcourse it wasnt faked but they did lie... i was the first one there not those amateurs

Rofl

 

[Iceforge]

ofcourse it wasnt faked but they did lie... i was the first one there not those amateurs

Pwnes!

 

[Dillinja]

Some crazy bastard on the moon website says:
In my opinion this is the single greatest argument in favour of the Moon being artificial. The Moon, of course, is supposedly millions of times smaller than the sun - but because of various alleged coincidences of distance, trigonometry, apparent sizes, and all that orthodox junk, we are supposed to believe that the Moon JUST HAPPENS TO LOOK THE SAME SIZE AS THE SUN FROM HERE!

He may be a complete idiot, but I've always thought that was strange too.

 

[Tom]

If you believe the moon landings were faked, you're pretty ignorant of the evidence to support them. The most obvious being that the USSR did nothing to refute their happening.

The crosshairs being 'behind' isn't true, what you're seeing is the crosshairs being bled out by the highlights they appear against. Notice how this only happens with strong whites.

Anybody pointing out that the shadows are not parallel, and that is evidence of artificial lighting is a dipshit, and needs to go outside a bit more often.

The camera filming Neil Armstrong taking his first steps on the moon was attached to the lunar lander. If you don't believe me, watch the footage and see for yourself.

There is no atmosphere on the moon, watch when the astronaughts walk, see how the dust behaves as they move their feet. They were in a total vacuum, a feat which is still impossible to achieve on the Earth.

There isn't a single claim that can't be explained with a bit of logic, and a good dose of intelligence.

 

[Garnet]

ofcourse it wasnt faked but they did lie... i was the first one there not those amateurs

rofl

 

[Krane]

Pic pwns

 

[Ivan]

Latest gossip i heard was that Russians did send men to land on the moon to repair "lunahod"s but they didnt have the means to get back off it. But otherwise the entire moon trip thing is out of the line : Russians - first sputnik, first man in space, the only space station built by the Russians [1982, but still] ..... all of sudden the US land on Moon [1972]

 

[Tharion]

Haha, I also believe they never landed on the moon

I love this conspericy theory, USA lies, kill, cheat for their own benefit.
Allways have allways will.

 

[Job]

The Russians did have a solo Moon trip all ready, but the test launcher blew up on it's first flight.
They also planned a Moon sample return robot trip, but it fooked up too, they actually managed to land hundreds of Russian flag badges on the surface the day before APOLLO 11 LANDED.

Apollo 10 was the complete dress rehearsal for the landing they even dropped down to within hundred miles off the surface, the Astronauts on the trip begged NASA to allow them to land.

The Ruskies shit..cos at that point they still had a chance.

The Russians had several robots on the Moon and they worked for years driving round doing experiments, but the whole thing went totally unoticed in the west, cos we were bored of the Moon allready..everyone went back to the important shit...soap operas and how much their house is worth.

 

[tris-]

i like the mars stuff better

http://www.marslife.com/index.html

at least most of the stuff makes sense on there, like this -

http://www.marslife.com/colors.htm

 

[Gamah]

lmao at that pic