#1 Posted by Novaboy (112 posts) - - Show Bio

Who think the moon landing was fake?

#2 Posted by The_MVPs (84694 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll bite. Right here

Moderator
#3 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

fiction... definitely

M

#4 Posted by Constantine (16046 posts) - - Show Bio

I do

#5 Posted by iwan (572 posts) - - Show Bio

It's a little bit dubious.

#6 Posted by Novaboy (112 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"fiction... definitely M"

What are your reasons for your view?

#7 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

let me actually count off the proof...

Contradicting shadows in photographs

====================================

in the footage of the 'moon landing' there are 5 light sources... the moon lander only had 2 outside lights, then the sun... where's the fourth and fifth?

Moon walk was a slow motion film

================================

yeah... just watch it... it's a joke lol anyone versed in physics will have a good laugh at the moment the "astronaut" kicks a rock lol

no stars in night sky

=====================

There's no atmosphere on the moon... there should be 20 to 30 times the amount of stars we see from earth... but there are none... why? because it's a black backdrop idiots lol

Flag fluttering in a breeze

===========================

again... no atmosphere on the moon... no wind... the flag wouldn't move, it would just stay put...

Lack of Computing power to land the lunar module

================================================

come on, computers in 69 were a joke, they could barely compute basic physics, let alone take into account planetary drift, rotational orbit and the surface of the moon...

Dust below lunar module should have been disturbed

==================================================

umm yeah, when the 'looner' lander landed, there was no dust kick up from the landing thrusters... bit of a strange thing considoring they were modifified afterburner thrusters with an average thrust of 450 N/P2 lol

Film would be damaged by radiation

==================================

um, yeah... no atmosphere on the moon... insert solar radiation here... for those who don't know, Solar Radiation is high on the bandwidth, very fking high... it would wipe any recording source clean... hell, even lead wouldn't shield anything for long at those levels.

think thats it... or thats the stuff that i can remember standing out as being 'obviously' wrong for a 'looner' landing...

M

#8 Posted by Constantine (16046 posts) - - Show Bio

thats why i like Methos

#9 Posted by The_MVPs (84694 posts) - - Show Bio

Dont forget the Prop Rock with the letter C on it.

Moderator
#10 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

King of Kings says:

"Dont forget the Prop Rock with the letter C on it."

damnit, forgot that one...

M

#11 Posted by Hagane Enna (7450 posts) - - Show Bio
#12 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

it still makes me laugh today...

look at the 'official film'

at first glance, looks normal...

look at the rock shadows at the bottom

now look at the shadow cast my the landing module...

there's only 1 light source on the moon capable of making shadows that big... it's the sun...

so why are the shadows about 30 degrees out?

i swear, i could do a better moon landing on my PC lol

M

#13 Posted by The_MVPs (84694 posts) - - Show Bio

But it worked. We HAD to get to the moon before the Russians. In fact, they went broke during that whole Race to Space and they've never recovered. It was actually a brilliant plan. (in my opinion)

Moderator
#14 Posted by Mordu (4 posts) - - Show Bio
#15 Posted by The_MVPs (84694 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
#16 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"it still makes me laugh today...look at the 'official film'at first glance, looks normal...look at the rock shadows at the bottomnow look at the shadow cast my the landing module...there's only 1 light source on the moon capable of making shadows that big... it's the sun...**so why are the shadows about 30 degrees out?**i swear, i could do a better moon landing on my PC lolM"

Dont quite think its that unusual... whith the shadows being so far diffrent then the ones we know from earth WE have a Ozonlayer and other stuff that keeps some of the sunlight (Ultra violett) away. but eventually it only weakens it a bit and projects it somewhere slitely diffrent. anywayss the moon doesnt have a layr that keeps the bounds of the Sunlight. meaning that the sunlight gos around it and COULD practicly come from everywhere

#17 Posted by Mr. Ubiquitous (1032 posts) - - Show Bio

Good lord, i'm not even going to bother with this one....

#18 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Mordu says:

"FACTWikipedia has a good rebuttal to all of your points, Methos, I'm not going to argue tham here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
" />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing"

i'm sorry, i read a few of them and can't take them seriously, even the physics on most of them is completely flawed...

in response to the "No Stars" allegation...

"The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure"

=============================================================

I'm sorry... so Daylight exposure lenses, in space, would blot out all of the star light, but still allow for shadow detail and reflection?

seriously, people actually buy this load of BS?

M

#19 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

then why do so?

#20 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Mordu says:
"FACTWikipedia has a good rebuttal to all of your points, Methos, I'm not going to argue tham here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
" />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing"

i'm sorry, i read a few of them and can't take them seriously, even the physics on most of them is completely flawed...

in response to the "No Stars" allegation...

"The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure"

=============================================================

I'm sorry... so Daylight exposure lenses, in space, would blot out all of the star light, but still allow for shadow detail and reflection?

seriously, people actually buy this load of BS?

M"

y'know the longer i think about that light set up thingie i dont really see this working^^ the cameras they had to use where still only black and white which measn they had to use the silversalt variant and it needs a little bit of water or at least Oxygen... font see that happening anytime soon on the moon^^ if they would have had a color photo id rather believe but black n white on the moon ... hmm

#21 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"Dont quite think its that unusual... whith the shadows being so far diffrent then the ones we know from earth WE have a Ozonlayer and other stuff that keeps some of the sunlight (Ultra violett) away. but eventually it only weakens it a bit and projects it somewhere slitely diffrent. anywayss the moon doesnt have a layr that keeps the bounds of the Sunlight. meaning that the sunlight gos around it and COULD practicly come from everywhere "

Light only travels in a straight line unless reflected or refracted by a 'prism' like object... we see that on earth due to moisture (water in the atmosphere)... that is A FACT.

Now, on the moon, there is no moisture, no atmosphere... sunlight would only travel in one direction, that is basic GCSE physics...

come on people, use your brains (not aimed at any one person)

M

#22 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"y'know the longer i think about that light set up thingie i dont really see this working^^ the cameras they had to use where still only black and white which measn they had to use the silversalt variant and it needs a little bit of water or at least Oxygen... font see that happening anytime soon on the moon^^ if they would have had a color photo id rather believe but black n white on the moon ... hmm "

trust me, the longer you think about it, the bigger head ache you'll get...

it's full of holes so big you could drive a mac truck through them

M

#23 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

HoaX! over hoax... btw so why the effort making a moonlanding scene!? didnt they have a vid of the shuttle going to the moon? and it came back WITH neal armstrong in it... soo... if they really didnt fly to the moon where in hell then!?^^

#24 Posted by Zaraki Ichigo (6476 posts) - - Show Bio

It's all a lie.

#25 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

space race with Russia...

M

#26 Posted by Zaraki Ichigo (6476 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"2nd biggest cover up in history...M"

What would you rank as number 1?

#27 Posted by Lantern Of Hatred (1584 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt the send feed from the moon? Im not too boned up on this.

#28 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

2nd biggest cover up in history...

M

#29 Posted by Zaraki Ichigo (6476 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Zaraki Ichigo says:
"Methos says:
"2nd biggest cover up in history...M"

What would you rank as number 1?"

Her death...

M"

I would have put her at a tie for one with the moon. And the Kennedy assassination at the third or forth spot.

#30 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"space race with Russia...M"

well still were talking about a LOT of money even getting the shuttle ready and all and we all saw how NEal armstrong and his crew got in th shuttle and came back after so long so know my question... wouldnt have somebody noticed if it had ever came back? i mean it Lifted off with neal and the crew its irrelogically that Space SHuttles cane ricochet in the middel of nowhere and and turn 180% and come straight back to earth and lift off again and come back again to fake a moon landing or am i wrong!?

#31 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Zaraki Ichigo says:

"Methos says:
"2nd biggest cover up in history...M"

What would you rank as number 1?"

Her death...

M

#32 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Zaraki Ichigo says:

"Methos says:
"2nd biggest cover up in history...M"

What would you rank as number 1?"

fake evoloution theory

#33 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Zaraki Ichigo says:
"Methos says:
"2nd biggest cover up in history...M"

What would you rank as number 1?"

Her death...

M"

LOL whats so fake about that?^^

#34 Posted by Lantern Of Hatred (1584 posts) - - Show Bio

But uhm if they did " claim" to send transmissions from the moon, that is complete bullcrap the had none of that kinda of tech in 69.

#35 Posted by Zaraki Ichigo (6476 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Warlock360 says:
"fake evoloution theory"

how can Evolution be a conspiracy?

M

Warlock360 says:

"LOL whats so fake about that?^^"

oh don't get me started lol

M

Zaraki Ichigo says:

"I would have put her at a tie for one with the moon. And the Kennedy assassination at the third or forth spot."

Same conspiracy...

M

"

I think Kennedy was killed for trying to convert the US measuring system to meteric. :P

#36 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"well still were talking about a LOT of money even getting the shuttle ready and all and we all saw how NEal armstrong and his crew got in th shuttle and came back after so long so know my question... wouldnt have somebody noticed if it had ever came back? i mean it Lifted off with neal and the crew its irrelogically that Space SHuttles cane ricochet in the middel of nowhere and and turn 180% and come straight back to earth and lift off again and come back again to fake a moon landing or am i wrong!?"

not really since they didn't use a shuttle...

they used a rocket which separated from the landing module first, then a landing capsule on 'reentry' which landed in the ocean

either way, go into space, have a day or so up there... separate the landing module and land back to earth in the landing capsule... no problem there

M

#37 Posted by Mr. Ubiquitous (1032 posts) - - Show Bio

O.K.

i've changed my mind, I cannot allow such crap to continue (akin to the USA blowing up the world trade center) a lie becomes the truth BOTH ways...he we go:

am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon.

  1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air." The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said, merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't

holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

  1. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"

Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control, controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it happened, and it all worked out.

  1. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?" You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.

  2. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints." Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas

lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.

  1. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares." That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon. they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a magnesium flare without oxygen).

  2. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they would not be lost.

7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? & How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"

Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo. And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

  1. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired." A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.

add to ALL this fact! the RUSSIANS...tracked the entire voyage. After all, it was THEY that had the most to lose, given they had been far ahead of the USA space program, initially.

cheers...

#38 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Post Deleted.

#39 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"fake evoloution theory"

how can Evolution be a conspiracy?

M

Warlock360 says:

"LOL whats so fake about that?^^"

oh don't get me started lol

M

Zaraki Ichigo says:

"I would have put her at a tie for one with the moon. And the Kennedy assassination at the third or forth spot."

Same conspiracy...

M

#40 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Lantern Of Hatred says:

"But uhm if they did " claim" to send transmissions from the moon, that is complete bullcrap the had none of that kinda of tech in 69."

not true that kinda technolagy was made a LONG time ago trying to find out how far the planets are away from earth or eachother

#41 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Lantern Of Hatred says:

"But uhm if they did " claim" to send transmissions from the moon, that is complete bullcrap the had none of that kinda of tech in 69."
"true ut seperating the capsule in mid space wouldnt really bring you anywhere?^^"

nah... break the thrusters early and the earths gravity would pull you into a orbit... stay there, break with the rocket and you're laughing

M

Lantern Of Hatred says:

"But uhm if they did " claim" to send transmissions from the moon, that is complete bullcrap the had none of that kinda of tech in 69."
Post Edited:2007-10-24 13:07:48
#42 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Mr. Ubiquitous says:

"O.K.i've changed my mind, I cannot allow such crap to continue (akin to the USA blowing up the world trade center) a lie becomes the truth BOTH ways...he we go:am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon.1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air." The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said, merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn'tholding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?"Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control, controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it happened, and it all worked out.3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?" You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had a television and a still camera mounted to it.4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints." Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gaslines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares." That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon. they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a magnesium flare without oxygen).6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they would not be lost.7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? & How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo. And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other than the sun and the earth.9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired." A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.add to ALL this fact! the RUSSIANS...tracked the entire voyage. After all, it was THEY that had the most to lose, given they had been far ahead of the USA space program, initially.cheers..."

LOVE the feedback great job in my opinion ;)

#43 Posted by Lantern Of Hatred (1584 posts) - - Show Bio

Pfft I doubt it...

#44 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Mr. Ubiquitous says:

"..."

blah blah blah...

the same science your using there (carefully copied from a website) is the same science used to disprove the landing...

and my main point...

if the moon is such a valuable resource, with untapped mineral knowledge about the actual event that created the earth... why haven't we been back there in nearly 40 years?

M

#45 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Mr. Ubiquitous says:
"..."

blah blah blah...

the same science your using there (carefully copied from a website) is the same science used to disprove the landing...

and my main point...

if the moon is such a valuable resource, with untapped mineral knowledge about the actual event that created the earth... why haven't we been back there in nearly 40 years?

M

"

Nasa once stated that they lost the technolagy and are like 20 years behind then right now

#46 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"Nasa once stated that they lost the technolagy and are like 20 years behind then right now"

then why are our shuttles 10 times more advanced, with higher, hotter burning rocket fuels and more powerful computers that could actually do the job?

if they lost the 'science' then why is there about to be a "space flight" by a publicly funded enterprise?

if they lost the 'technology', how come we are building a space station in high orbit of earth at this very moment?

sorry, i smell BS in that statement

M

#47 Posted by Mr. Ubiquitous (1032 posts) - - Show Bio

Methos says:

"Mr. Ubiquitous says:
"..."

blah blah blah...

the same science your using there (carefully copied from a website) is the same science used to disprove the landing...

and my main point...

if the moon is such a valuable resource, with untapped mineral knowledge about the actual event that created the earth... why haven't we been back there in nearly 40 years?

M

"

Because...been there done that, that's why!

Its not like the MOON is a vast endeavor of exploratory options...there is NOTHING THERE...rocks...sand...and....rocks and sand....and....well, you get the point.

Trips to space cost LOADS of $$$$ it was simply a matter of priority, and quality spending. Going BACK to the moon became nugatory, once they accomplished it, and future trips to other planets became the goal.

#48 Posted by Methos (40103 posts) - - Show Bio

Ronny says:

"Methos says:
"Mr. Ubiquitous says:
"..."
blah blah blah... the same science your using there (carefully copied from a website) is the same science used to disprove the landing... and my main point... if the moon is such a valuable resource, with untapped mineral knowledge about the actual event that created the earth... **why haven't we been back there in nearly 40 years?** M "

i just wanted to ask... all the evidence on the moon proves its faked...

but the take off... people got videos didnt they?"

check last page, i answered that

M

#49 Posted by warlock360 (28050 posts) - - Show Bio

Warlock360 says:

"Methos says:
"Mr. Ubiquitous says:
"..."

blah blah blah...

the same science your using there (carefully copied from a website) is the same science used to disprove the landing...

and my main point...

if the moon is such a valuable resource, with untapped mineral knowledge about the actual event that created the earth... why haven't we been back there in nearly 40 years?

M

"

Nasa once stated that they lost the technolagy and are like 20 years behind then right now"

dunno why and how though^^

#50 Posted by Mr. Ubiquitous (1032 posts) - - Show Bio

Capricorn One