Positive Reviews?

Space shuttles only go 200 miles above the earth and even then, they are dangerous and people die on them. So how did they get 250,000 miles out into space on 1969 technology?

The Apollo program was dangerous too. Look at Apollo 1 and 13. Every Apollo flight had a few problems. It was a successful program but it wasn't magic. And there were only 11 manned Apollo flights. There have been over 100 Shuttle flights so far. Plenty more chances for things to go wrong.

And why has no other country repeated it?

I'm sure the Russians would have liked to. Unfortunately their N-1 launch vehicle exploded every time they tried to launch it.

Here is a new FAQ that will answer a lot of your questions and arguments

That site says Alan Shepard (whose name is misspelled) was grounded because of Meniere's Disease and wouldn't have been chosen for a "complex mission" like Apollo 14. He doesn't mention that Shepard had corrective surgery for his illness in 1969.

And the FAQ isn't new. It was being discussed on the Bad Astronomy forum in 2003.
__________________________
"I am a collage of unaccounted for brush strokes, and I am all random!"

The flag waves even AFTER it's not being moved. There are videos on youtube that show this.

There is only one: the Apollo 15 footage. The conspiracy theorists simply declare it moves because it's in air. They don't show how they tested to see whether that was the reason, or whether an astronaut passing in front of the flag in air would create that movement.

Space shuttles only go 200 miles above the earth and even then, they are dangerous and people die on them.

Yes, and for reasons that are particular to the nature of that spacecraft. Other spacecraft also exhibited problems, and continue to do so. Space engineering is a demanding pursuit with narrow margins.

So how did they get 250,000 miles out into space on 1969 technology?

Many books have been written on the subject, full of verifiable technical details. The danger doesn't increase proportional to the distance one travels from Earth. The dangerous parts of any mission (space or otherwise) are the state changes -- typically ascent and descent. Once you've ascended, it doesn't matter how far you coast.

And why has no other country repeated it?

The only other country that has/had a chance was the Soviet Union. When they realized they wouldn't be first, they lost interest. Now they don't have enough money.

No eyewitnesses were there except the three astronauts, and a federally controlled TV broadcast.

In other words, about the same or more verification than supports the first ascent of Mt. Everest or the descent to the Challenger Deep. The Apollo missions offer a level of verification consistent with historical practice.

We haven't gone back to the moon and neither has any country, because it's probably not possible.

What is your evidence that this is the reason? Could it not also be a lack of interest or willingness? Three American presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush) have tried to resurrect interest in manned lunar exploration. So far only the latter has been able to generate public attention sufficient to create funding. The world's engineering community doesn't seem to have a problem with the Apollo missions and whether they were possible. The only people claiming it was impossible don't seem to have the relevant skills or experience.

The chances of getting there and returning are 0.0017.

Documentation for the computation, please? And no, Bill Kaysing's anonymous second-hand research report (which nobody but he has seen) doesn't count.

There is no clear cut 100 percent proof that we went to the moon.

Why do you believe it's necessary to have 100 percent proof? That seems an unreasonable, unattainable standard. The conspiracy theories have zero proof that they occurred, and that doesn't seem to deter you from giving them a chance.

The video of the moon rolling around just before they landed looked like a fake miniature model of the moon, not like a real moon.

And how exactly are you able to tell what a "real moon" would look like?

Here is a new FAQ that will answer a lot of your questions and arguments:

No, Sam Colby is an ignoramus. I don't have questions, and I've heard all the arguments before.

I think some of you guys are still mind controlled from back in grade school...

Nope. I'm a trained engineer who has worked in aerospace for nearly 20 years. You're the one mindlessly quoting some guy's web site.

...if you didn't listen to authority

No, this isn't about trusting authority; it's about trusting the facts. The facts are squarely on the side of the Moon landings being genuine. None of the conspiracy theorists (and I've dealt with all of them) has been able to convince me he has an appropriate grasp of the relevant facts. But they'll all rant endlessly about the evils of "authority."

[deleted]

First, I'd like to point out that you're quoting a video on "YOUTUBE" that was created by a conspiracy theorist who guessed that you need air to move a flag. Anyways, it has been scientifically tested that when an object is inside a vaccum and provided momentum, it can move. This has actually been done with a replica of the American flag used on the Moon.

Second, this was done by NASA, an organization that represents the most-gifted minds in America. You're a conspiracy theorist, a guy at a computer who looks at the greatest events of all time and would like them to be falsified just to provoke reactions. I'm sure their grasp about how things work is greater than yours.

Even if it was faked, NASA is preparing for the construction of a lunar colony for 2020. I guess that would be fake, as well?

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

You consider the photographic record as evidence in favor of the Apollo missions? Wow.

The photographic record is easily the biggest piece of evidence not in favor of the Apollo missions. All 5771 photos that were taken in only 4834 minutes of moon time! Amazing!

they were put there by unmanned probes


What proof do you have of this?