-
"is this possible?"
It happened, so what do you think? I have no patience with conspiracy theories involving fake landings filmed in the Mojave desert. None of the claims of fraud hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who has bothered to do any reading on the subject has know this for years. However for those who can't comprehend reading in order to acquire knowledge, the Mythbusters TV show did an episode where they blew the most popular moon conspiracy theories out of the water.
It happened, so what do you think? I have no patience with conspiracy theories involving fake landings filmed in the Mojave desert. None of the claims of fraud hold up to scrutiny. Anyone who has bothered to do any reading on the subject has know this for years. However for those who can't comprehend reading in order to acquire knowledge, the Mythbusters TV show did an episode where they blew the most popular moon conspiracy theories out of the water.
-
Humans did land there.
The spacecraft that the humans rode to the Moon and back kept atmosphere inside it so that they didn't have to wear spacesuits the entire time.
While on the Moon, the astronauts had breathable atmosphere inside their space suits.
The spacecraft that the humans rode to the Moon and back kept atmosphere inside it so that they didn't have to wear spacesuits the entire time.
While on the Moon, the astronauts had breathable atmosphere inside their space suits.
-
"1969 man lands on moon....or did we? im not saying we didnt and im not saying we did."
My view is that a comment like this makes you look like an idiot.
My view is that a comment like this makes you look like an idiot.
-
Joe, grow up. It happened and in case you didn't think it through we currently have a space station in orbit around this planet.
-
it is very well documented believe it or not, is up to you
-
I find it intensely suspicious that folks claiming shenanigans are not geologists who have examined lunar samples and said, "There's something wrong with these. These are just like samples from Hawaii/Australia/the Canadian Shield, etc. Or they don't look like they were hand-collected, but just scooped up at random by a machine." It wasn't any of the 400,000+ contracted engineers who were building the rockets and noted, "Wait a moment. This doesn't look like it'd be capable of carrying men to the moon." It's not astrophysicists who say, "The radiation flux of the Van Allen Belts is too intense for humans to survive passing through on a lunar transfer orbit." It's not astronomers who tracked the missions (and many did) who noted, "That's odd. The Apollo spacecraft is just hanging around in Earth orbit," which would have been very noticeable. It's not the Soviets, who said, "You know, we've been listening to NASA telemetry and we have the ability to not only eavesdrop, but to actually triangulate the location of where the signal is originated, and... BUSTED," even though if they had such evidence it would be in their interests to do so. It's not the folks at JAXA saying, "Wait. We just made the first digital elevation model of the Moon, and our terrain doesn't match up with that in US footage and photography from Apollo." It's not the ESA saying, "Our lunar survey missions have found no sign of the Apollo landings." It's not the folks at Arizona State University, who operate a camera attached to the most recent LRO (a daft thing for NASA to allow if they had faked it) saying, "We can't account for each and every one of the decent stages, instrument packages, or paths left behind by the astronauts during the Apollo missions."
It's always some scientifically illiterate yarbo using either an argument from incredulity (i.e. "I can't believe they could have done it,") or misrepresenting actual evidence, (i.e. "Why does the flag wave?") or being just plain pants-on-head daft, "Why can't you see stars in these pictures of the brilliantly illuminated lunar foreground?"
What exactly is it about this that gives the severely normal the "super powers" to see the "conspiracy" from a limited data set, while the hoax premise consistently fails to add up to the scientific community? I mean, I can understand the potential appeal for a bunch of sandwich artists to PRETEND that they've seen through the evil scheme of all of these evil poindexter rocket scientists who went on to outdo them in life.
It's always some scientifically illiterate yarbo using either an argument from incredulity (i.e. "I can't believe they could have done it,") or misrepresenting actual evidence, (i.e. "Why does the flag wave?") or being just plain pants-on-head daft, "Why can't you see stars in these pictures of the brilliantly illuminated lunar foreground?"
What exactly is it about this that gives the severely normal the "super powers" to see the "conspiracy" from a limited data set, while the hoax premise consistently fails to add up to the scientific community? I mean, I can understand the potential appeal for a bunch of sandwich artists to PRETEND that they've seen through the evil scheme of all of these evil poindexter rocket scientists who went on to outdo them in life.