Moon landing photographs are the main argument for the Apollo conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of moon photographs that have anomalies on them. (i.e.: […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Have you ever noticed what happens to your shadow when you stand between two street lights? well I have. Multiple light sources cause you to have multiple shadows. If the angle differences in shadows were caused by two light sources you would see two different shadows of the same object. The topography of the landscape causes different shadow angles.
Forget it…nasa will never tell the truth about UFOs, moon, mars, etc…we are on our own. Govts only want contact with aliens for weapon sciences so they can make wars and money at the price of blood. The moon landings made money and fooled the world into thinking we had the tech. to go which we do not today even. Why cant everyone see this lie?
If we can launch shuttles, sattelites, and intercontinental missles out of Geosynchronous orbit (these things have been clearly proved by unrefuted data). Also, we can clearly launch humans into space. Proved by hundreds if not thousands of unrefutable missions. Then, what is two stop us from going to the moon? The answer is very little. Once we are past this point the shuttle can basically cruze on to the moon with little gravity resistance and little to know molecular resistance due to their rareified state. All that is needed now is a navigational system and too be able to keep going straight. The first has been proved effective by use of earth based tracking system and space based ones on non-human missions. As for going straight all that is needed is a gyroscope. Now to legitimately land on the moon the technology is very low tech for NASA. All that is required is a small ship with the poower to get from the craft to the moon and back. This technology is about the simplest thing imaginable. To refute the possiblity would be insanity. Then they just need to power back to earth, which is again easy due to lack of gravity and rarefied molecules. Finally, they simply need to reenter earths atmoshpere. For this a simple shielding layer can be used. This final piece has been proved time and time again.
All the steps apart are simple, logical, and proved possible.
I realize this isn’t an exact description, but I was trying to simplify it. For a more accurate and complete description visit nasa.gov/
Only problem is we wouldnt have had the technology to do all this easy space walking in
Sure we did. It’s not like ’69 was the freaking dark ages. We’d been making pressure suits since the ’50s. The Apollo hardsuits were expensive and sophisticated, but not at all beyond the reach of technology at the time.
The stupidity of Americans never ceases to amuse.
Forget the physical aspects of the hoax for a moment and think of the political aspects. Do you seriously think the other nations during the space race would keep quiet if USA faked the landings?
Only in America do you get things like “moon landing conspiracy” and “creationism”.
I agree with Grimjaw. Plus, didn’t we already have this Mythbusters?
You are an example of how stupid American is. Americans did not come up with “creationism,” and this is all over the world! This just shows how ignorant you are; so ignorant of other counties you think only the US practices creationism!
Creationism has a large science and historical base the same as Dwarfism. They are both theories but they are both great, well supported, and logical theories that I do not find stupid in any way.
I don’t know if we went or not! I side with the conspiracy theorists because uniformitarians are a pack of arrogant cunts! Mostly fat ugly slobs and dorky white dudes with pimples and huge nerd glasses!
Dude this was on Mythbusters, you dipshits. It’s already been proven that this argument is invalid and that this image is most-likely legit.
the moon landing was real muthbusters said so yeah!!!!!!!”!!!!!!!!!!
Believe half of what you hear and none of what you see…eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING are at best sketchy and at worst total fabrication. This is a situation that must be put into context: 1) Do you believe what your government continues to tell you about the JFK assassination? 2) Do you believe the AIDS virus came from Africa? 3) Do you believe there is actually a ‘War on Drugs’ or is it a movement to imprison as many people of color as possible?
If you take the time to investigate these stories you will come to the right conclusion and will not need the computer or televison or newspapers to tell you the truth.
Personally, I don’t think the moon landings happen but I don’t really care that most people believe it. No matter what, everyone’s gonna think different things. A lot of people are saying mythbusters proved it to be real. In that mythbusters episode, however, I think they reinacted that moon landing video perfectley, I think they might of had to disagree with their evidence to avoid goverment trouble because it helped boost america’s pride and stuff, they’d of gotten in trouble. Either way, we propbably won’t find out the truth if it was wrong so there’s not much point arguing about it! ;)
I have lots of proof that all of this is a hoax, such as…
There can’t be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt as the temperature was 250°. However, at these times we could do stuff like that, but ages ago when this all happened, they didn’t have the technology to prevent the camera from melting.
The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place!
The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible!
Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights!
there is soooo MUCH more but I cant be bothered to write them down… :/
If we had the technology in ’69 to land on the moon, why hasn’t anyone been back?
This has only been answered a dozen times already.
Short answer: $$$$$$$. That’s the primary reason. The Apollo program cost something like $180 bn in 2010 dollars. While that’s a drop in the bucket relative to the entire Federal budget, it’s more than Congress is willing to pay for something that isn’t related to defense or social programs. The ISS will continue to suck up all manned spaceflight dollars until it’s deorbited.
Other reasons: the manned program is a mess. NASA’s been jerked around so many different directions over the last 40 years that it has no direction or vision anymore. The manned program has no mission other than to perpetuate itself.
I don’t expect the new Space Launch System to fly, at least not beyond the prototype stage (similar to the Ares 1X from the now-defunct Constellation program). It exists solely to preserve jobs in the legacy Shuttle manufacturing sector. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy won’t be able to do the job, at least not in a single launch. And somebody has to build the spacecraft to get there and back.
All that aside, manned spaceflight isn’t easy; you have to shift a lot of mass, meaning big rockets with powerful engines, meaning lots of $$$$$$. You have to build robust spacecraft with lots of redundancy.
And there’s just no compelling reason to send people to the Moon (or anywhere else, frankly). We could learn much so much more about the lunar surface with far less effort using unmanned systems, especially considering the advances in the last 40 years. Look at the Mars exploration program for an example of how much can be accomplished using unmanned systems, both on the surface and in orbit.
So the U.S. Is the only one on the planet capable of going to the moon. Why didn’t Russia attempt to disprove that we ever made it? Over the last 40 years no one even tried. More likely we discovered we couldn’t pass the radiation belt, due to lack of sufficient shielding.
Why didn’t Russia attempt to disprove that we ever made it?
Maybe because we actually made it.
The US was the only country that succeeded, but we weren’t the only ones with the capability. Had Korolev not died in ’66 (and the Soviet space program been run competently), it’s not at all certain that the US would have been first to put men on the moon.
We were good, but we were also lucky. The Soviet space program was a mess, with lots of infighting, and engineering often took a back seat to politics. The Soviets did have a manned lunar program, and even build their version of the lander hardware, but they could never get the N-1 (their equivalent of the Saturn V) to fly. Instead of 5 monster F-1 engines, it used 30 smaller NK-15 engines; the plumbing was extremely complex, and was prone to destructive vibrational modes when all the engines were firing.
Of course the Soviets were not going to expose the moon landing hoax, because they had been faking their own program as well. Covering up the numerous deaths of cosmonauts and even pulling Yuri Gagarin out of the capsule before launch and then killing him later in a staged fighter jet crash.
In all my 18 years of being on the Internet, your comment is the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. Do some research mate before posting idiotic comments. You could start here at http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk