So the moon landing was faked!

I stopped listening after a few mins, he really hasn't got the voice for presentation. + I couldnt stand to listen to him say "no it wasn't".
 
I've just read this whole thread from the start and a pattern has appeared.

Conspiracy theorists ask a question or present evidence for their view...

...Believers answer question or dispel the evidence with accurate counter-evidence.

Believers ask a question or present evidence for their view...

...Conspiracy theorists ignore question/evidence.
 
gillywibble said:
This is why Freefaller is so admired and respected on this forum and dare I say it, a real man of honour.
Click to expand...

Yep, the man's a prince. He's got far more patience for rampant lunacy on here than I'll ever have!

Just going to leave this here:


;)
 
Whats the point ?

Its a pointless argument because moon-hoax conspiracy theorists refuse to listen to reason. They don't care about the technological challenges and goals that needed to be acheived at the time, they don't care about the Mercury and Gemini programs that did all of the ground work in preparation for the Apollo program - manned spaceflight, orbits, orbital rendevous, spacewalks, etc, - they don't care about rocket science and how an orbiting spacecraft can change orbits to get to the moon, christ most of them can't even understand how mavity works.

The only thing that moon hoax theorists care about is big bad governments and large scale conspiracies, science doensn't come into it.

Again - what's the point in arguing it?
 
SlyReaper said:
The soil underneath wasn't visibly disturbed because the engine to lift off and land was weak. 1/6th mavity and the fact that the LEM was very light meant it didn't need a lot of thrust to get off the ground. If you were expecting clouds of dust to billow up, you wouldn't see that because there's no atmosphere. Any dust kicked upwards would follow a perfectly parabolic arc back to the ground.

No soil on the landing feet? That's a new one on me, but why would you expect dust on the landing feet?

No stars: the photos had their exposure set for broad daylight because they were on the daylight side of the moon. The glare from the moon's high-albedo surface would have washed out the comparatively dim stars.

Multiple light sources: no. Just no. This one has been covered so many times (basically the lunar surface is uneven), but there was only one light source.

Flag: it was not "flying", it was unfurling after being contained in a cannister. The movement is precisely what you would expect to see.
Click to expand...

The LM didnt use thrust to leave the moon, it used explosives which forced it up, obviously it couldnt really use the main thruster underneath the LM as the descent stage was left behind.
 
Metalface Mark said:
The LM didnt use thrust to leave the moon, it used explosives which forced it up, obviously it couldnt really use the main thruster underneath the LM as the descent stage was left behind.
Click to expand...

The LM does have an ascent thrusters, using Aerozine 50 propellant, and N2O4 oxidizer, which burn with an almost invisible flame.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Most conspiracy theorists are similar to theists in that they simply won't listen to reason. Its not worth trying because they will ignore rational arguments even when presented in the most compelling ways possible. Their mind set is simply that they know something that you do not and if you argue, you're a 'sheep'.
Click to expand...

Can Godwin's Law be modified for religion instead of Hitler/Nazis?

mrk said:
Has it really come to this :/
Click to expand...

You've been here long enough to not have to ask that question of GD :p
 
Glaucus said:
Yeah because you can throw hammers, film hours of moon wals and such like can't you? Oh wait no you can't. And the vomit commet is a better example.
Click to expand...


You asked "How? How do you fake low mavity. These can't be faked"

I told you what nasa use..drop towers then you went all mentel! I think you may have a inferiority complex?
Mind you ..you are always the same in threads...
 
Mental? You have a strange idea of mental.

Reduced mavity on earth via these system is an approximation, it is not exact. Neither are there any in a vacuum (that I'm aware off). There also aren't any big enough to throw a hammer in, so no it's not valid in this sense.
 
In my experience people who believe it was hoaxed have never read a single book about the Apollo missions. They cannot answer even basic questions about the development of Apollo and have no idea the manpower, time and money that was spent.

The Apollo project was utterly amazing, if you are not in awe then you are not informed.
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
Film and TV technology to fake it existed, the man on the video is wrong, quality of the landing footage was so bad you could make it on the fly with static camera filming screen in projection room instead of telecine. Did they fake it? Highly unlikely.

I'm often surprised people question moon landing, which would require a lot of effort and staff to fake but rarely anyone doubts Gagarin's flight, which as a story not only has less material proof (in terms of media coverage), more conspiracy adaptable "issues" and "plot holes", but historically, in part is also 100% proven to be far from truth (as in Russians at the time said the flight ended in manned landing as it wouldn't count otherwise, then decades later officially admitted they lied, the capsule was in fact empty when it slammed and plowed the ground plummeting from the sky).

Why is it always only the events that would require superb precision, surgical finese and mastery, all of which American government desperately lacks, generate so many conspiracy theories, but the obvious eye brow lifting, highly unlikely news "true stories" outside of US never attract as much attention?
Click to expand...

Gagarins flight actually has been subject to speculation, also was he the first astronaut to go into orbit? There is some possible proof via a couple of italian radio enthusiasts who picked up possible soviet manned launches prior to gagarin which didnt return.
 
I like the mitchel and webb sketch that says that the hoax would have had to be so extravagant (including building a big rocket) that the only difference in cost between that and a real landing would be the cost of the catering :)
 
Glaucus said:
Mental? You have a strange idea of mental.

Reduced mavity on earth via these system is an approximation, it is not exact. Neither are there any in a vacuum (that I'm aware off). There also aren't any big enough to throw a hammer in, so no it's not valid in this sense.
Click to expand...


The towers are 20ft in diameter and 432+ deep Nasa have been using them since 1959.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom