... was it faked?

[Inquisitor]

NASA refuse too.....for some weird reason (although they usually state that they think its just too laughable ?)

Because they know it's a pointless debate that can never be won due to the thickheadedness and stubbornness of the conspiracists out there

(Not meant as an attack or personal insult on anyone specific or in this thread.)

 

[Beansprout]

NASA refuse too.....for some weird reason (although they usually state that they think its just too laughable ?)

Because unlike the armchair theorists they actually have their own lives which they enjoy. They have a nice house, a nice car, a nice family, perfect teeth and regularly switch electricity board

 

[Sleepy]

, the feebleness of the ... camera equipment (the cameras look as though they were shielded by less than 3mm of metal - & were supposed to take over 250 pictures in extreme temps/fields)

I cant be assed to rebut all of your fantasies but I'd like you to tell me what extreme temperatures the cameras needed to be shielded from.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I cant be assed to rebut all of your fantasies but I'd like you to tell me what extreme temperatures the cameras needed to be shielded from.

And while your at it Divosuk, give us the proof that you think they were faked and not the FOX documentary that actually had a waver at the start of the program.

 

[Mickey_D]

Good Lord. Why is it so hard to believe the moon landings were real?

Besides the fact that thousands of HAM radio operators around the world had thier unidirectional antennas pointed at the moon to receive the tranmissions from the space craft, and they all have independant logs of the azimuth and bearing that the antennae were aligned to, and guess what? They all pointed to the same spot. You guessed it - the moon!!

There is no way even today to fake that kind of thing.

Plus it's not all that hard to get from orbit of earth to the moon. The hardest part is escaping earth's gravity. Once you do that, it's pretty much a cakewalk from there in comparison.

What technology would they need, anyways? All of the calculations were done on paper to backup what the computers were saying. The level of computing power required wouldn't HAVE to exceed what a modern watch calculator uses!! I mean, my 13 year old son can do most of the math in his head!!

It's a LOT harder to calculate all the physics involved in making a nuclear weapon than it is to figure out how to point a missile at the moon, and they built a nuclear bomb in 1945. So how is it such a stretch to say they couldn't get a rocket to go to the moon in the sixties?

Every time some conspiracy nut brings up some "fact" about the moon landings being fake, they for the most part conveniently leave out the 75% of thier "factoid" that proves thier 25% is false. To use an example : Using only 25% of the information available, I could say that you don't exist because all I can see are a bunch of pixels on a screen. I have never actually seen you for myself, so how can you actually exist? Now you add in the other relevant facts that the internet connects us all together and that for me to be able to read your post you would actually have to have been able to make it, so that means you really DO exist. But if you leave out some "trivial" bits of information, I could make up a conspiracy theory that you don't exist......

See where I'm coming from? When you put everything together and don't blindly follow someone that's leaving out most of the story, you see the truth.