We obviously never made it to the moon


Photos with objects in front of the etched cross-hairs on the camera.
Evidence of other sources of lighting ie. shadows that are cast in opposite directions.
No crater from the space module landing on the moon. Not even any disturbance in the 'moon dirt' particles underneath it. If there is a way to 'silently' land on the moon without disturbing anything let me know.
Van Allen Radiation belt surrounding the earth. Any man able to get past extreme radiation fields without a lead suit should be made a 'god' immediately.
Same landscapes scene over and over again when astronauts were supposed to be miles away. Super impose the photos and it is obvious you have the same scene.
The earth's atmosphere and lifeforms are protected by the ozone layer. Without it we would fry to death, so why is it that the astronauts can wander the moon in direct sunlight and shadow without this affecting them at all. This is total BS and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure it out. There is no way these astronauts can be in direct contact with radiation from the sun and the heat without turning into a sizzling lobster.
How about photos of the moon landing where perfect pictures are produced in the shadows. This is odd because the astronauts had no other alternate source of lighting, and the camera used then is not like the camera used today. Back then if you take a picture in shadow it will be in the shadow unless you apply an alternate source of lighting.

There is more, but we really need to ask why we have yet to go back to the moon. People were able to be fooled then because technology was not as advanced and of course knowledge was limited. Now, people are a lot more smarter and technology has advanced since then. Why has no other country ever ventured to the moon. And if you have a telescope and are able to see the moon, or see the moon from a planetarium....shouldn't that flag still be 'flapping in the wind' somewhere, up there, on the moon. Maybe that breeze blew it to the ground. lol

reply

Where to start on this nonsense? Perhaps you could learn a little about photography, that would enable you to understand the lighting, shadows and cross-hair issues. See how often the same background mountain appears in pictures taken from near that mountain on earth. A bit of basic physics, plus checking the Apollo photographic record, might help with the temperature control, cratering and radiation belts. A little knowledge of astronomy would answer your flag question.

As for why we haven't gone back, the answer to that requires a little knowledge of how politics works.

Educate yourself and these illusions of yours will evaporate.

reply

The moonhoaxers should visit Moon Base Clavius..:D

http://www.clavius.org

It picks up on every aspects of the moonhoax-theories, and not only debunks them.. But litteraly flattens them and demolishes them. But I guess they won't.. They ain't got balls for the truth.

"I rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy"

reply

I do believe the Mythbusters proved we went to the moon. The astronauts put mirrors on the surface and the Mythbusters reflected a laser on them.

We went to the moon!

reply

Moon landing never happened.

reply

Any evidence for that or do you think just saying it will convince people?

And why do people refer to the "Moon landing" when there were six landings?

__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

"Photos with objects in front of the etched cross-hairs on the camera."

Product of photography. Intensely bright white objects on film may 'bleed' into surrounding areas of narrow black (cross-hairs). So that's gone, explained away.

"Evidence of other sources of lighting ie. shadows that are cast in opposite directions."

Product of perspective. The hilly, bumpy surface of the moon causes shadows to appear to change directions, although they are not, when viewed from the angles in the photographs. Besides, other light sources would cause every object to cast other shadows. Not just the one. The Sun and Earth are two light sources. The Moon itself is another. The Earth's light is negligible, so causes no obvious shadows. And the Moon's light is directed away from the Moon's surface, so it casts no shadows on its surface. So that's gone, too, explained away.

"No crater from the space module landing on the moon. Not even any disturbance in the 'moon dirt' particles underneath it. If there is a way to 'silently' land on the moon without disturbing anything let me know."

As expected. The descent rocket was powered way down once the surface was close, and the lack of atmosphere spreads out the gases from the rocket, so there is no reason to expect a large disturbance on the surface. There goes that one, too, gone, explained away.

"Van Allen Radiation belt surrounding the earth. Any man able to get past extreme radiation fields without a lead suit should be made a 'god' immediately."

Exaggerated. There was radiation, but it was not as bad as some people claim. A thin piece of white plastic may have been sufficient to block most of the radiation from the Van Allen belts, and the astronauts spent a few minutes to perhaps a few hours exposed to that radiation, not enough to cause any serious damage. That one is gone. Explained away.

"Same landscapes scene over and over again when astronauts were supposed to be miles away. Super impose the photos and it is obvious you have the same scene."

Again, perpective. Have a far-enough-away backdrop of any kind and move sideways several hundred meters, even several kilometers, and the background doesn't change much. Gone.

"The earth's atmosphere and lifeforms are protected by the ozone layer. Without it we would fry to death, so why is it that the astronauts can wander the moon in direct sunlight and shadow without this affecting them at all. This is total BS and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure it out. There is no way these astronauts can be in direct contact with radiation from the sun and the heat without turning into a sizzling lobster."

The space suits were the protection. Again, exaggerated is the power of this radiation. And, it does take a rocket scientist to figure it out, I suppose, which is why you're having so much trouble. That one is gone, too.

"How about photos of the moon landing where perfect pictures are produced in the shadows. This is odd because the astronauts had no other alternate source of lighting, and the camera used then is not like the camera used today. Back then if you take a picture in shadow it will be in the shadow unless you apply an alternate source of lighting."

The Moon was this alternate source of lighting. The bright surface reflected light up and into those shadows, filling them. There goes that one. Gone.

"There is more, but we really need to ask why we have yet to go back to the moon. People were able to be fooled then because technology was not as advanced and of course knowledge was limited. Now, people are a lot more smarter and technology has advanced since then. Why has no other country ever ventured to the moon. And if you have a telescope and are able to see the moon, or see the moon from a planetarium....shouldn't that flag still be 'flapping in the wind' somewhere, up there, on the moon. Maybe that breeze blew it to the ground. lol"

More? I'm still waiting for some. Hell, I just want to see ONE (1) piece of evidence against the Moon landings that isn't total layman, uneducated crap.

And we have gone back. There have been 6 Moon landings in total. Another mission (Apollo 13) was supposed to go, but an accident caused them to cut that one short and they didn't land on the Moon.

And no wind up there, the flag moves because it was moved by astronauts. Belief that there was wind on the "set" of the Moon landings holds no water either. So there goes that one. Gone.

Let me say though, that I have an open mind. I'm willing to give this hoax thing some time and thought, and to listen to what people have to say about it. And perhaps, one day, when there is ACTUAL evidence, perhaps just one shred, to show the Moon landings were a hoax, I'll listen then too, if that day ever arrives. It hasn't yet.

reply

No crater from the space module landing on the moon. Not even any disturbance in the 'moon dirt' particles underneath it.

There was some disturbance. Although the LM didn't leave a crater, it did scatter the dust. In the documentary In The Shadow of the Moon, Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke says, "We were blowing lunar dust everywhere. It was like landing through the fog." Neil Armstrong said in a debriefing, "I first noticed that we were, in fact, disturbing the dust on the surface when we were something less than 100 feet; we were beginning to get a transparent sheet of moving dust that obscured visibility a little bit. As we got lower, the visibility continued to decrease."
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.landing.html

__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

Now, people are a lot more smarter...

Not if they're believing this moon-hoax crap, they're not!

reply

Yes, indeed, more smarter. MORE SMARTER. Not 'more smart'. Not 'smarter'. But 'more smarter'. That's even smartester than 'more smart' or 'smarter'. You know you're dealing with high intelligence when someone uses such advanced English. You could say he's more smarter than most of us. Especially considering the vast amounts of highly scientific, factual evidence he's presented.

"There is no way these astronauts can be in direct contact with radiation from the sun and the heat without turning into a sizzling lobster." -- a well-known fact, of course. No supporting statements or explanations required.

"Back then if you take a picture in shadow it will be in the shadow unless you apply an alternate source of lighting." -- back then, yes, back then. As opposed to today, when of course shadows don't count and pictures taken in shadow light up brightly.

"I pooped my pants." -- BRILLIANT! Simply brilliant.

See, no one on here should even be arguing with postagerequired. He's clearly of intelligence orders higher than the rest of us. His more smarter thinking cannot be challenged by us mere mortals. We should just give up now.



















[/sarcasm]

reply

We have never been there.
Think about it. When the Soviet sent their first man into the space,untill now there has been thousands who've been there.But,for moon landings,we only had been there in 1969 and during the 70's.
Does NASA ever feels curious to know more about that strange and alien place after those missions.There has to be some kind of passion fueled from those successful landings.There has to be some kind of follow ups the way the Soviet did.That's the nature of scientific mind.We don't close the chapter just like that.
Imagine a man standing on the surface other than the earth soil.I mean,come on.That is impossible. He boarded into a spaceship that successfully landed him onto the moon and returned back safely to earth in just one attempt.Lest we forget this all happend in 1969 when President Kennedy gave that famous speech on sending a man to the moon before the decade closed

reply

Think about it. When the Soviet sent their first man into the space,untill now there has been thousands who've been there.But,for moon landings,we only had been there in 1969 and during the 70's.

Think about it. When the first men went to the South Pole in 1911 and 1912, were they were followed by thousands in the next forty years? No, there was a gap until 1956.

Does NASA ever feels curious to know more about that strange and alien place after those missions.

Of course NASA wants to go back to the moon, but it is expensive and someone has to provide the money. There have been cheaper unmanned lunar missions from the US and other nations that have followed up the Apollo missions.

Imagine a man standing on the surface other than the earth soil.I mean,come on.That is impossible.

Exactly why is it impossible? As an aerospace engineer I have no problem in accepting the possibility and understanding the techology involved. Where is your analysis to back your opinion?

...in just one attempt

You appear to be unaware of the missions leading up to the first moon landing which tested all the hardware.

reply

Lest we forget this all happend [sic] in 1969 when President Kennedy gave that famous speech on sending a man to the moon before the decade closed

I didn't know President Kennedy made that speech in 1969.

__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

Yeah, he did. 6 years after his assassination. Didn't you know?

reply

That's it?? That's your argument? You say "I mean, come on, that is impossible." and "Think about it". That's it? Are you serious? That's a worse argument than unscientific, uneducated laymen finding flaws in the Moon photography.

And we haven't gone to the moon since the 70's means we never went?? The reasons for not going since the 70's are political / financial, not technological.

"Does NASA ever feels curious to know more about that strange and alien place after those missions."

YES. Probably they have been curious, and have been dying to go ever since the 70's. Doesn't mean they could. They don't just automatically have the money. The government has to be convinced there is still purpose to go and give them the money. NASA doesn't actually make money, they need it given to them, they need funding. Sending trained astronauts into space is not a lucrative business. Only making it a public service for anyone who will pay lots and lots of money to go into space would make it a lucrative business. The space program just hasn't gone that far yet. It's still not safe enough, and the funding probably just was never there to get that started.

"just one attempt"

NO! It was Apollo 11, there have been 10 attempts before that one, at least. Apollo 1 only consisted of the fire disaster on the launch pad, but all other missions after that were incremental steps to get to the moon. First they tested the Saturn rockets to get into space, then it was Earth's orbit, then travelling part way to the Moon and testing the various parts of the ship and docking with the Lunar Module, then it was orbiting the Moon, then finally it was landing on it. It was never just one attempt.

It may be a good idea to do some actual research and studying on this subject, and get the facts, perhaps even have a peek at the Apollo Record, rather than just blurting out uneducated layman opinions. I mean, one could argue that even flying machines are impossible because they are heavier than air, and that every plane or helicopter you've ever seen is just a hoax, a projected image. And riding in a plane or helicopter has always been an illusion, the vehicles merely travel on the road, and what you see out the window is just rendered footage of the ground far below and isn't real. A long time ago, one man (Lord Kelvin) even said outright: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.", presumably because he was frustrated after many miserable failed attempts at getting something to stay up there.

I urge you to try again in another post (after doing some reading). Something with substance would be good, perhaps a challenge for us. This was no challenge at all, it was just weak. Please, try again. Something, this time. Something, please.

reply

So it took 3 posts to counter uneducated layman opinions.

"And we haven't gone to the moon since the 70's means we never went?? The reasons for not going since the 70's are political / financial, not technological"

The real reason we haven't gone back there because NASA can't afford to fake moonlandings anymore.If they continue to fake them in 1980's and 1990's people would inreasingly sceptical of their truthfulness since they were all done by Americans.They had realized they can't fool people all the time.So they stopped doing them.

"I urge you to try again in another post (after doing some reading). Something with substance would be good, perhaps a challenge for us. This was no challenge at all, it was just weak. Please, try again. Something, this time. Something, please."

I've made some reading on moon landings after your suggestion.I don't mind if you want to call me any sort of names to discredited my opinions.I never asked people to agree with me.
I'm sure all of you have seen footage of moonlandings but do we have to believe 100 percent the story behind it.
Here is some information I have got to share with you.
Did man really set foot on the moon?(Long but worth reading)


Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? Taken from http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph Rene.

"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.

He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film, photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.

It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America. Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.

The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.

And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.

For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.

By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not one was badly composed or even blurred.

As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers" who were keen for the truth to one day get out.

If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?"

The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil.

How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene.

Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.

Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."

NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon."

A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
The moon missions took place not only due to the Cold War. People did not like what was going on with the Vietnam war, so, to get the publics mind off of all the bad things going on in Vietnam, the US faked the moon landings. If you check your dates, we abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War ended
And by the way you should also read arguments that proove otherwise of what I already said here.
Reading from both sides of the divide always good and resourceful

reply

So it took 3 posts to counter uneducated layman opinions.

I'm afraid you've been trying to educate yourself in the wrong places. The websites you are obviously copying your opinions from have been shown to be downright dishonest time and time again, but they never admit their faults or correct their errors.

Just to address one point, the first. "How can the flag be fluttering?". There are dozens of hours of Apollo lunar surface video, but the flags only move when there is an astronaut close by. The rest of the time, they hang absolutely motionless, hour upon hour. This is highly unusual behaviour for a flag in an atmosphere, so the question should really be "If Apollo was hoaxed, how can the flags remain motionless?"

As to David Percy's skills as a photographic analyst, try this site, which shows that everything that Percy claims as anomalous is nothing of the sort:
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

The rest of your long quote is just as worthless.

reply

And by the way you should also read arguments that proove otherwise of what I already said here.

Here are some responses to that article:
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/moon.htm
http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html

The rest of the Clavius page is worth checking out as well.
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

reply

"So it took 3 posts to counter uneducated layman opinions."

Not even one post is required to "counter" uneducated layman opinions. They falter on their own. But I only sent one post, not 3.

"The real reason we haven't gone back there because NASA can't afford to fake moonlandings anymore.If they continue to fake them in 1980's and 1990's people would inreasingly sceptical of their truthfulness since they were all done by Americans.They had realized they can't fool people all the time.So they stopped doing them."

Pure speculation. Where is the proof of any of that?

Why are you still talking about waving flags and multiple light sources? That crap was debunked a long time ago. And why are you talking about a self-taught engineer and some mediocre photographer? These guys are just as silly as the claims they make.

Here I debunk them again.

The flags wave only when astronauts are messing around with them. The rest of the time, they're completely still. Merely the fact that they were completely still for long periods of time proves that there was no air on the "set" of the Moon landings.

And the multiple light sources? This little fact completely destroys that idea: If there were multiple light sources at different angles, THEN THERE WOULD BE OBVIOUS MULTIPLE SHADOWS FOR EACH OBJECT. In the photographs, we see only ONE apparent shadow per object. Therefore the multiple light sources idea is toast. The Sun, the Earth, and the Moon are the only light sources there. But the Moon's light reflects upward from the surface, so it casts no shadows downward onto the Moon's surface. The Earth's light is too insignificant to cause an obvious shadow. It's like shining a flashlight onto yourself when you're outside on a sunny day. The flashlight creates no obvious shadow because it's insignificant, and the main light source, the Sun, has lit up the area on the ground already. So the Sun is the only significant light source up there to cause obvious shadows on the Moon's surface. The shadows are at different angles because of the hilly terrain of the Moon's surface. THAT'S IT. That explains it. Try standing on a hill on a sunny day. Your shadow will be cast down the hill. Someone observing from the side will see the downward angle of your shadow, and it will be at a different angle than a shadow cast from someone standing on a flat area. Casting shadows downhill also elongates them, which is why you sometimes see two astronauts of similar size casting very different-lengthed shadows.

Multiple light sources, each significant enough to cast a shadow, are IMPOSSIBLE in this scenario. THEY'RE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE MULTIPLE LIGHT SOURCES (at different angles) CAUSE MULTIPLE SHADOWS ... FOR ... EACH ... OBJECT. Each rock, the lander, each astronaut, the flag, whatever. Because of this one undeniable truth, the multiple light sources idea is done, gone, finished. You can't bring that up again.

This is what I mean by uneducated layman opinions. Your "experts" Ralph Rene and David Persey should have known about multiple shadows. The fact that they don't or didn't says a lot about their credibility. How can anyone take either of those guys seriously when they botch up something like that? I ask you.

Another one: the shadowed part of the lander with the astronaut climbing down the ladder are lit up. Why? The reflected light from the bright lunar surface. That's why. It reflects up and fills the shadows. Stand on a beach on a bright sunny day, in the shadow of a large object. It won't be very dark in that shadow. The scattered light reflecting off the sand lights up everything around it, including objects in shadow.

The rest of your arguments follow the same principle. They lack understanding of actual science. The radiation is not as bad as you think. For the most part, white-colored plastic is enough to reflect radiation. The foil used on the craft and the white space suits handle the job of blocking the radiation sufficiently. Also the short period of time spent in the Van Allen Belts made the exposure time too short to cause any real health risks to the astronauts. So this assumption that several feet of lead is required to shield the spacecraft is just a bunch of bullsh!t.

"I don't mind if you want to call me any sort of names to discredited my opinions."

Um.. where is this credit that you claim your opinions had to begin with? I don't mean to be insulting (I guess), but come on. You have to do better than that to argue against real science.

All those hoax claimants are seriously devoid of knowledge. How did an "expert" award-winning photographer miss the FACT that multiple light sources create multiple shadows? HOW? Where is his credibility now? A photographer! An award-winning photographer! Doesn't know multiple light sources create multiple shadows!? Are you fu|cking serious!?

When I read your quotes saying "says Rene" and "Persey believes", I just have to laugh. It's like quoting Ralph Macchio (the actor who played the Karate Kid) on his view of free energy.

"Free energy will replace current means of electrical power for homes and businesses world-wide by the year 2015." -- Ralph Macchio

Thanks, Ralph Macchio! I will write that down in my book of facts, and argue it to anyone who doubts it. Hey, Ralph Macchio himself, the Karate Kid, said we will have it. RALPH FU|CKING MACCHIO!! How could anyone doubt it?? These clowns you quote are equally credible.

Look at www.clavius.org. It explains everything, using science and facts. Not whatever your sources use.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Try again. Something good this time, please.

reply

This sh#ts been debated for over ten years now.

reply

I agree with OP, there is so much evidence and NASA simply dismisses it with no explanation. People who slag off this show or call it all rubbish never have any evidence to back up NASA, its clear they just cant handle that their government have fooled them


Golf Clap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjHT5GpAYQ&playnext=1&list=PL6 C908F9F6C7EA56

reply

[deleted]

No, there is NO evidence of a hoax because it's all dogshït, and NASA is right to dismiss it.

Check out this webpage that explains all of the hoax believers "arguments" in very easy terms:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The evidence you want is right there. Every hoax believer argument is crap; every single one.

reply

And if you have a telescope and are able to see the moon, or see the moon from a planetarium....shouldn't that flag still be 'flapping in the wind' somewhere, up there, on the moon. Maybe that breeze blew it to the ground. lol


Now THAT'S one I haven't heard before!

You do know those images in a planetarium are projected from that big thingie in the center, don't you....?

You know what inspiration is? The momentary cessation of stupidity.
- SGM Jonas Blane

reply