Moon landing Real/Fake?

[BlueTear]

Because I'm a lazy slacker, I'll just link to the wikipedia article where they dissect the "evidence" for a fake landing point-by-point.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_moo ... _arguments

 

 

 

 

 

One of easiest ones to figure out if you stop to actually think about rather than just read a conspiracy theory and accept it as evidence is the one about the shadows suggesting multiple light sources;

 

 

 

Shadows on the Moon are complicated because there are several light sources: the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon itself. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many different directions, including into shadows. Additionally, the Moon's surface is not flat and shadows falling into craters and hills appear longer, shorter and distorted from the simple expectations of the hoax believers. More significantly, perspective effects come into play, particularly on rough or angled ground. This leads to non-parallel shadows even on objects which are extremely close to each other, and can be observed easily on Earth wherever fences or trees are found.

 

 

 

Go on, have a look outside.

 

 

 

edit: Eh? Someone posted that link on page 2 and we're still getting 'but the shadows!' etcetc?

[Guest GhostRanger]

edit: Eh? Someone posted that link on page 2 and we're still getting 'but the shadows!' etcetc?

 

 

 

We've already explained why the flag looks like it's waving as well but people are still bringing it up on this page... :?

[Mercifull]

The people who belive it was faked choose not to see the evidence against their pitiful arguments.

[Tigra00]

I feel there is only one way to solve this puzzle.

 

 

 

I am going to the moon.

 

 

 

Donations being accepted now. If I can get, like...$10,000 from all of you, I could probably make it. Besides, you didn't really need that new car, did you?

[tomdavies90]

I saw a program last week on channel 5 (british tv if you didn't know) and it was about Apollo 11 and about how it almost didn't get to the moon and blh bah but watching the footage the videos etc it just made me see there's no way it could be fake there just wasn't enough technology back then to fake something like that...

 

there are loads of things saying the din't get onto the moon i sort of believe them but they did definitly go into space no doubt about it lol...

[Tigra00]

I saw a program last week on channel 5 (british tv if you didn't know) and it was about Apollo 11 and about how it almost didn't get to the moon and blh bah but watching the footage the videos etc it just made me see there's no way it could be fake there just wasn't enough technology back then to fake something like that...

 

 

 

I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, because it probably isn't, but you could never know what technology was around then. We don't even know now what we have. The government hides it. We could have little alien-esque space ships for all we know. :P

[petey]

I saw a program last week on channel 5 (british tv if you didn't know) and it was about Apollo 11 and about how it almost didn't get to the moon and blh bah but watching the footage the videos etc it just made me see there's no way it could be fake there just wasn't enough technology back then to fake something like that...

 

there are loads of things saying the din't get onto the moon i sort of believe them but they did definitly go into space no doubt about it lol...

 

 

 

i also saw that, see i dont believe that they landed on the moon, but i do believe the aparant rumour that they orbited earth. they could have been made there, also! did you see that alien ufo thing?! :oops: i love aliens, i definately believe in those beasts :o

 

 

 

here are just some of the hundreds of unexplainable things... :roll:

 

 

 

here are two different moon landings, i think apollo 11 and 14? aparantly they were hundreds of kilometers apart! yet they look similar? pssht, more like exactly the same, also from the same camera angle?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

explain? also here is a funny one, the letter "C" is used famoously by hollywood filmset's to mark out props, and they are seen here on "untouched rocks" that have been then for millions of years? LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

hungry for more? here are 32 unexplained facts....chew that.

 

 

 

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

 

 

 

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

 

 

 

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

 

 

 

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

 

 

 

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

 

 

 

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

 

 

 

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

 

 

 

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

 

 

 

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

 

 

 

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

 

 

 

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

 

 

 

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

 

 

 

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

 

 

 

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

 

 

 

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

 

 

 

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

 

 

 

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

 

 

 

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

 

 

 

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

 

 

 

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

 

 

 

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

 

 

 

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

 

 

 

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

 

 

 

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

 

 

 

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

 

 

 

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

 

 

 

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

 

 

 

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

 

 

 

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

 

 

 

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

 

 

 

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

 

 

 

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

 

 

 

thanks http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html for helping me prove my point, ive only used a fraction of info off here, need more proof, look there.

[Bubsa]

That's "proof" off a biased website, whose webmasters share 1 degree of scientific knowledge between them, I bet.

[Make7upu101]

In response to petey's post on how high they jumped, I hope that they took in to account how much each astronaut weighed with all of their equipment.

[frequentflyr]

From a person that has been an enthusiast of rocketry, actually read real books about the moon landing and the people that were involved and not just random websites, and seen many documetarys about the moon voyage and the people that made it possible let me tell you from my own unbiased opinion, the moon landing was no hoax.

 

 

 

The concept that something this large could be hoaxed is perposterous. You would have me believe that all the postwar rocketry knowledge gained from the Germans would end up in a conspiracy? The United States would keep producing Saturn 5 rockets at a cost of millions each to continue a hoax, why not stop at 1 or 2? Why would America want to showcase to their citizens it's own semi-incompetence by faking Apollo 13? These questions clearly have no answer that can be even inherently correct.

 

 

 

Reading about the brave space men and their experts ground controllers can really open a persons eyes to the struggle, fear, joy, and relief these people went through in their journey's to the moon. How about the remote camera operator that filmed the LEM taking off from the moon. He actually messed up the two times before the succesful filming (I beleive the correct one is either Apollo 15 or 17, I'll have to check my sources later). Well anyways, because of the time delay he had a very hard time timing the take off so the two before were either too early or too late. There are little storys like this everywhere that showcase the many different unhoaxable elements, the human elements.

 

 

 

To conclude, most people making these accusations of a hoax don't have the knowledge about what was put into to make the Apollo program work. Most things that seem ambiguous to people can be announced a hoax because they simply don't have the knowledge about the subject. One more thing, notice how this was actually writen by me and not just posted from some conspiracy website. Thank you and please read all of this if you wish to reply.

[opu]

I truly believe it's real, it can't be that hard with the technology they had..

[Mercifull]

Petey you are seriously seriously ill informed. Perhaps this lunchtime I might be able to explain every single one of your comments. But dont count on it, they are so preposterous and have already been explained many times before I dont know if i can be bothered. The fact of the matter is that you are wrong. Its that simple

[Mercifull]

here are two different moon landings, i think apollo 11 and 14? aparantly they were hundreds of kilometers apart! yet they look similar? pssht, more like exactly the same, also from the same camera angle?!

 

 

 

Another easy one to explain. You assume that the camera was in the same posision both times and you also assume that the lunar landscape is like earth. On our planet we have many factors to determine depth such as haze. When you look into the distance objects seem to fade as they get into the distance but this just doesnt happen on the moon as there is no air. Its hard to explain with no pictures to a person who even if i did show them still wouldnt belive me.

 

 

 

explain? also here is a funny one, the letter "C" is used famoously by hollywood filmset's to mark out props, and they are seen here on "untouched rocks" that have been then for millions of years? LOL.

 

 

 

This is a great one to explain... First of all letters are never marked on the actual prop itself. Generally they are labels stuck ot the bottom of the item in question and never on top. Also, if the letter "C" was really marked on the rock then the perpective would be noticably different, effects crews dont mark letters at obscure angles so they show correctly in a photo., its not advertising on a football pitch. This is really clutching at straws over something so simple as a hair on the image when it was scanned in. I'm sure i read somewhere once which has a rescanned version of this image without the "C" shape.

 

 

 

hungry for more? here are 32 unexplained facts....chew that.

 

None of the compiracy ideas has even been left unexplained ;) That is something they only say to make people belive in a cover up.

 

 

 

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

 

Or more simply take a picture of something really bright at night and see if any stars show up ;) Those that live in the country away from the cities can look up at the night sky and see the most briliant bright stars. If you go to a brightly lit city and look at the same night sky, you will see only the brightest stars. And if you go inside your house and turn on all the lights and look out the window, you wont see many stars at all. Its a simple experiment that can be done by anyone.

 

 

 

I'll quote a little bit from someone who actually knows what they are talking about her for clarity...

 

 

 

In the pitch blackness of the mountains your eyes are open just as wide as they can be, allowing more light to enter. In the night city, they close somewhat to adjust for the street lights. And inside the house, they are as closed as they are during the daytime in sunlight. A camera's aperture works the same way. To set the exposure for bright exposure means that subtle lights like stars simply won't show up.

 

 

 

Because the sky on the moon is black, we tend to believe the viewing conditions are the same as night on earth. Not true. The sun shines just as brightly (slightly brighter, in fact) on the lunar surface, and so the astronauts' eyes (and camera apertures) were set for photographing in daylight conditions. Neil Armstrong reported not seeing any stars from the lunar surface, except through the navigation scopes (where the eyepiece screened out the other lights). Ed Mitchell reported seeing stars only when he specifically shut out extraneous light.

 

 

 

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

 

This is a paraphrase of an argument in Bennett and Percy's 'Dark Moon', and you havnt even interpreted it correctly. Bennett and Percy never claim the leatherette cover would have "melted" but rather that it would have "outgassed" in the low pressure environment, producing annoying and/or toxic fumes. Weather this is ture or not doesnt really matter because the leatherette covers were removed from the Hasselblad cameras supplied to Apollo not to mention that the astronauts were not affected by this environment because they pre breathed with oxygen to purge the nitrogen out of their bloodstream prior to puttin on their helmets.

 

 

 

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

 

Photos taken of the surface beneath the descent engine show that is has been swept and scoured. However, there is no justification for arguing that the dust for any appreciable radius around the engine nozzle would have all been blown away. The foot of the ladder is over fifteen feet (five meters) away from the exhaust nozzle.

 

 

 

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

 

Where is your footage? Im guessing you just copied and pasted without reading again ;)

 

 

 

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place

 

Firstly the photo sometimes published as "the first footprint on the moon" is actually a of a compression test done by Aldrin. There is no photo of the first footprint ever made on the lunar surface.

 

 

 

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

 

Wow this is a poor argument lol. Of course TV quality gets better as time goes by. TV was not a requirement of the EVA and as the high quality version wasnt finished in time they made do with a lesser quality one as better than nothing.

 

 

 

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

 

Are you serious? This is just the nature of the contours on the lunar surface because of the lack of haze as explained earlier its not possible to distinguish colours and shading very well.

 

 

 

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

 

Converging shadows have already been explained on this thread which makes me think even more that you are blinded by the compiracy theorists not to see for yourself. this is another experiment you can do at home with no preperation. Loiok outside at stuff like trees and bushes. The shadows are never parallel. You are a fool to belive this nonsense.

 

 

 

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

I already explained this

 

 

A secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly visible under the top portion of the mark ie its a frigging HAIR on the paper

 

 

 

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

 

Easy... It wouldnt have done, thats why it was only ever extended while it was on the surface. All other times it was retracted.

 

 

 

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

 

Ill leave the Clavius people to explain this one...

 

No. The thermodynamics of the Apollo CSM were well known. No atmosphere is needed in order to reject heat. Spacecraft reject heat via radiation, either through specifically engineered sublimator and radiator systems or through direct radiation through their skins.

 

 

 

The Apollo spacecraft skins reflected away most of the sunlight that struck them. It was actually necessary to use the heat from the electronics to keep the cabin at a comfortable temperature. With those electronics turned off, as for Apollo 13, the spacecraft would indeed be expected to radiate away most of its heat.

 

 

 

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

Thats rubbish, of course it was tested. It was tested both in pressure chambers and also in space on Apollos 5, 9, and 10 prior to the first landing. Of course a landing was never done before, everyhting has to has to have its first test fligt but to say it was never tested is a lie.

 

 

 

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

 

lol http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

 

 

 

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

 

again this link explains it quite well http://www.clavius.org/gravleap.html

 

While slow motion can be used to give the effect of less gravity jumping upwards it cant explain how they were able to make long strides

 

 

 

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

I presume you are on about the study done in the 60's about this based on a vehicle with a three-foot (one-meter) ground clearance. The Apollo rover was designed with a 14-inch ground clearance, and in fact, the Apollo rover has more lateral stability than the theoretical one.

 

 

 

Have you actually ever sesearched any of this yourself or have you just copied and pasted form the conspiracy theorist sites without actually having a bit of common sense for yourself? I will explain the other half of your crazy claims soon.

[Thief2668]

I don't understand, is this a debate, or an opinion thing? It's like religion, everyone wants you to turn to theirs... Everyone can have his or her own opinion, fighting to make them believe otherwise is just.. immature.

 

 

 

Niw that that's been said, I don't know. I'm no expert, I wasn't there, I haven't watched the landing video, so how should I know? With the ideo we can get an opinion, but we can't KNOW what happened, because we (you) weren't doing anything but watching. We see lots of things around, alot of them turn out to be hoaxes. Why can't this be a hoax? Then again, it might as well be real.

 

 

 

Again, I state that I really don't know.

[Thief2668]

i personally think it was faked. why hasnt america been back there in 40 yrs .....

 

 

 

No point...? It costs a lot of money for those pointless visits, surely.

 

 

 

 

 

Then why did they go there the first time, anyway? I am not saying the lunar landing is a fake, again, I am not very informed about it, since the schools here don't quite teach us that kind of historical things.

[Mercifull]

It differs with a religion debate because there is physical evidence to prove it was real. All the claims by conspiracy theorists are pure speculation, not a thread of "evidence" they put forward is actual fact.

[Thief2668]

It differs with a religion debate because there is physical evidence to prove it was real. All the claims by conspiracy theorists are pure speculation, not a thread of "evidence" they put forward is actual fact.

 

 

 

That is a very good point there.

 

And just because I know someone might try to say I'm changing my mind alot, I am not siding with anyone here, just acknowledging that someone has made a point, which is good.

[____]

You ask 'why did they go there in the first place?' - Fairly simple reason, it was more a question of whether or not they could go there and get back.

 

Just like any other explorer in history, they wanted to know if it was possible.

[Thief2668]

Alright, simple answer for a simple question. Thanks. :)

 

 

 

Sorry for the stupid question, but as I said, I don't really have acces to that history, since the schools here only touch History about the dicovery of America and such. Thanks for your time anyway. :)

[Mercifull]

I found the website that explain the "C" rock.

 

Not sure if its enough to convince the foolish tho...

 

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm

[frequentflyr]

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

1) A slice is also caused when you open up your club face when you hit the ball. This means you don't hit the ball square and it slices.

 

 

 

2) Explained the back story to this in my earlier post on page 3.

 

 

 

Those were the only two that I could answer without being furious at the stupidity of the arguments made, these were just missunderstandings.

[petey]

yeah well mercifull is a doodoo head :notalk:

[nightshade53]

I truly believe it's real, it can't be that hard with the technology they had..

 

 

 

It will be extremely hard to do it with the technology we have now :x

 

 

 

Another peice of 'evidence' I have heard is that they stopped the Apollo project just as the Soviets developed the technology to track objects on their journey to the moon.

 

 

 

IMO it is fake..

 

 

 

The truth will come out soon, no-one can keep secrets forever :boohoo:

[Sennin_Koth]

After working in the military at a top-secret research facility, I can say that I am 100% sure that the Lunar Landing was a hoax. The government can make anything look real or fake, because we have just that kind of power. As for all of the people involved? We are all on the inside. Beleive the Lie. The Truth is out There. :-$

[Guest GhostRanger]

After working in the military at a top-secret research facility, I can say that I am 100% sure that the Lunar Landing was a hoax. The government can make anything look real or fake, because we have just that kind of power. As for all of the people involved? We are all on the inside. Beleive the Lie. The Truth is out There. :-$

 

 

 

Wait. You worked at a top-secret research facility and you're telling a random online community?