Mr Mag00 said:
Im sitting on the fence.
Some of the events that point to a conspiracy include, in no particular order.
-conflicting shadows on photographs.
-a flapping flag
-voice recording of astronaut counting down of capsual landing on the moon clearly heard whilst sat above rocket with xthousand lbs of thrust and no noise in cabin alongside no moon dust from rocket thrusters.
-perfect photos, all clear focus whislt taken on chest camera, no blurr or focus depth issues.
-photos not effected by radiation.
why with the advent of much more modern technology have we never been back, other people could track and verify landing.
Also something else i thought with the recent moon landing looking for molecules in the moon rock, why could we not use the moon rock that was brought back from the manned landings?
Right, one by one....
"conflicting shadows on photographs" - more than one light source up there mate. Sunlight, sunlight reflected by Earth, sunlight reflected by geographical features on the Moon's surface, even sunlight reflected by bits of the lander on some of the photos I've seen. That is why you get shadows that could seem to conflict.
"voice recording of astronaut counting down of capsual landing on the moon clearly heard whilst sat above rocket with xthousand lbs of thrust and no noise in cabin alongside no moon dust from rocket thrusters" - you know, thats the first 'new' one I've read for ages. Not many people mention that (the sound issue that is). The lack of dust being kicked up by the thrusters is simple to explain - by the time they got that close to the surface they'd throttled waaaaaaaay back. The actual pressure exerted by the rocket (since the exhaust spread out quite a way) wasn't actually all that high at that point. It did kick up some dust, but not enough to leave anything like a blast crater. As for the sound - the microphones were on the astronauts' chests, much closer to their voices than the engine was. You'd get some vibration noise in the cabin, but nothing like a rocket launch in Earth's atmosphere on account of there being no atmosphere.
(edit - and I'll nip this one in the bud now just in case - no visible flame as they used hypergolic fuels: hydrazine, dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. These burn on contact rather than needing a spark)
"a flapping flag" - and funnily enough, it stopped waving once they stopped waggling it into the lunar ground
The flag had a rod in it to keep it 'flying', and it also had a rumpled effect as they quite liked it like that.
"perfect photos, all clear focus whislt taken on chest camera, no blurr or focus depth issues." - they took many more photos than the perfect ones we've all seen. There are a lot of poorly composed, out of focus, out of alignment shots in the archives. They did get a lot of good shots because - horror of all horrors! - they were trained
"photos not effected by radiation. - they didn't hang around in the Van Allen belts for that long, spacecraft do motor along at a helluva pace y'know! As for on the surface - not a whole lot of radiation there apparently (may have that wrong, been a while since I had to debunk the radiation theory).
"why with the advent of much more modern technology have we never been back, other people could track and verify landing."
I shall quote a previous answer I made to this point:
JRS said:
They are spending the money elsewhere. They have a shuttle to replace in a few years, a space station that they're still building, and it would cost too much money to start building Saturn 5-type rockets and lunar landing modules and command/service modules right now
Now, the projects they have in the works are talking about going again in a ship with a similar concept to the Apollo CSM/LM combo. So you should get to see it in the next 20 years.
"Also something else i thought with the recent moon landing looking for molecules in the moon rock, why could we not use the moon rock that was brought back from the manned landings?" - only so much Apollo moon rock to go around, more is always going to be welcome
********
It saddens me that people honestly believe that NASA could organise a conspiracy regarding this and manage to keep
everyone quiet about it, including the Russians. There comes a point where the expense and difficulty involved in a conspiracy makes it more likely that they actually went and landed on the Moon six times!
