Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The moon landings were not faked. It's like the 9/11, JFK, and even Pearl Harbor conspiracies. They are just put out there because someone with little understanding on the perticular matter misinterprets the data he sees and cries "conspiracy".

      I want you to get a flag. Now go outside when there is no wind, and try to stick it in the ground. It will wave. Not only that, but the moon has no air, so the flag could wave even after it was put in the ground because there was no air to stop it quickly.

      And we went to the moon like what, 10 times? We just stopped going because we ran out of rockets.
    • If you actually watch the footage, the flag only moves when it is moved by the astronauts. There's also a nearly 40 min long piece of footage from the camera attached to the lander where the flag is moving when the astronauts put it into the ground, then is completely still the rest of the time.
    • Originally posted by The Last One
      It's like the 9/11.


      If you want to discuss 9/11 and its theory, im here to hand you proof that anyone with a brain will see how it was partially an inside job.

      On topic...They have been saying its fake, most say not. I personally believe its not a fake.

      Why? People have been able doing stuff others just say cannot be done, this is one of them. The moving flag or not? Im curious if there are (solar) winds on the complete moon?
    • There aren't winds on the moon, it doesn't move unless the astronauts move it, simply watching the footage shows this. There's also the other things like the footage of the Earth from a lot further away than low Earh orbit (which most conspiracy theorists say they never left) and the way the dust falls when it is disturbed.

      The evidence for it being real far outweighs the evidence for it being fake, if there is any. Can't say that I've noticed any, it's all wild speculation and "well that doesn't look exactly like I'd expect it to look on the moon so it's obviously fake" but things are going to look weird, they're on the :censored: moon, you can't know exactly what it's like.

      Add to this the fact that conspiracy theorists often conveniently leave out information that goes against their claims, and focus solely on some small clip or something taken completely out of context (aka lying).

      As much as I'd like to see this apparent solid proof about the 9/11 thing, this isn't the place for it so I'll say no more.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lekgolo ().

    • they did it if you ask me and i think thats the case coz they are not that stupid to fake something that can be easily proven fake. come on people do you really think they would not pay attention to details if they were faking it...

      things that you are talking about are just to easy to spot, so unless some team of morons was hired to do the job i dont see those "mistakes" happening.
    • Trying to be open-minded about this just for the sake of the argument.

      The one thing I can't get over is how the technology has advanced since 1969.

      If you watch the best science fiction movies from that era (original Star Trek, etc), it is laughingly obvious how bad the cinematography is, and how easy it is to spot flaws.

      So here we are, 40 years later. You can't tell me that some whip-smart science kid of this generation couldn't analyze the heck out of any moon-footage and with a little computer extrapolation prove whether the video is faked or not?

      Just the fact that this has not been put to bed given the levels of technology we have, proves to me that it's real. If it was faked I have a gut feeling that our current technology would have shown that easily.
    • Originally posted by TheLordReaper666
      Originally posted by Treize Khushrenada
      Think it's time you brushed up on your physics and astronomy.


      I second that, and add to it spelling too.
      you can toss in chemistry and geology if you want.
      *points to the hundreds of pounds of moon rocks*

      unless you can think of a better explanation as to why unmaned craft where able to go from collecting a dozen or so grams to several dozen kilograms...
    • We did land on the moon. But for everyone who thinks we didn't,you'd have to be president to find out the truth without being lied to,or given some BS story.

      The "set" that was created out in the desert isn't there anymore (rofl... why did i say that?),if it was even there at all. So that evidence isn't evidence at all,even if it was ever mentioned as evidence... Wow im confusing.

      But anyway, like i said,the only true way to find out the truth is to be president. If you aren't,you are either going to:

      A) Believe that we did land on the moon.

      B) Believe that i was all a conspiracy theory.

      or 1 day,our president or some 1 will just come out with all our secrets...but that'd only happen if there was a thing ccalled world peace and no ignorance and hatred for eachother,lol
    • RE: Moon Landing was it a giant skam?

      Most of everyone has already gave their little links and pointed most things out. But . . .


      But, about the flag waving. Well, the flag waving wasn't really waving but just moving from inertia from when the astronauts were handling the flag. Just because it is the moon and there is no oxygen or atmosphere doesn't mean that basic physics do not apply there.

      There are plenty of other crazy ideas that people came up with to try and disprove the moon landing. And I am pretty sure they all been debunked. Plus, if the moon landing was faked, you think that at least a few people out of everyone involved would have came forth and exposed the truth.
    • Originally posted by Mischief Maker
      ooo my turn :D. one, there rocket only had enough fuel to safely make it to the moon and secondly if they have landed on the moon, why have they never been back? huh take that :)


      Not true. I believe you may have based this on is that Apollo 11 was only seconds away from running out of fuel. Whilst that is true, they had another store of fuel for 'blasting off' from the lunar surface. In addition, very little fuel is actually needed on a trip to the moon. Almost all is used on take off from the Earth, a large portion of the rest is done via gravity. The missions had more than enough fuel to take off, perform trans-Lunar injection and get back again with fuel to spare.

      Secondly, they did; 5/6 times. They're also going back again in 2018.

      I'd answer the rest but I believe that they've already been covered. One thing I should note, though, is that if you watch the full video of the flag waving that is often used by conspiracists, the full video (over 30 minutes long) shows the flag to be absolutely still for the majority of the duration.
    • Almost all is used on take off from the Earth, a large portion of the rest is done via gravity.


      U are nearly right no fuel is used in space as it would do nothing. There is nothing to push of so effectively u can not maneuver in space at all. o and if u think that they have landed on the moon since u are wrong.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by boss of u ().

    • Originally posted by The Atheist
      No conspiracy could last this long without someone breaking rank and selling the story. It's the same with a lot the conspiracy theories, they don't take into account that people cannot keep secrets.


      Thats true but sometimes people don't want to be believe things even if they given stright facts...


      Also the photos were apprantly to clear and well focused to be the astronauts as they would have been taken from the chest plate in the suits.
      Finally I have heard that the crosses on the photo's do not exist on the american flag...


      However in defence there are mirrors used for measuring the distance from earth to the moon as well as other things however they"could" have been put there by unmaned ships...

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Lukec14 ().

    • Originally posted by boss of u
      if u think that they have landed on the moon since u are wrong.


      Nice to see you are using well-reasoned arguments. :rolleyes:

      You cannot just say 'u are wrong' and expect us to believe you. Particuarly since you can't be bothered to type 'you'. Evidence please?
    • Lol @ conspiracy theories in general. I have yet to see anyone provide a good explanation as too what the civillians operating the Australian owned Parks Radio Telescope were doing all that time time if not tracking the shuttle like they were supposedly doing. Or if the theorists are right, how the American Government kept the whole thing a secret for ~40 years.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by smoking_panda ().

    • Or if the theorists are right, how the American Government kept the whole thing a secret for ~40 years.
      they had help from Vulcans, who had to make excuse to their bosses for making first contact in Nevada desert (which is forbidden since we still don't have the warp technology.... or do we ? 8o), also they used that opportunity to abduct Elvis to make him teach them RnR... :D
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Almost all is used on take off from the Earth, a large portion of the rest is done via gravity.


      U are nearly right no fuel is used in space as it would do nothing. There is nothing to push of so effectively u can not maneuver in space at all. o and if u think that they have landed on the moon since u are wrong.



      You clearly have no knowledge of propulsion in space. You can easily adjust pitch, yaw, etc. in space. How else do satellites and the ISS change their orbits?

      I think you'll find you didn't read what I said. The Apollo projects landed us on the moon several times during its run. We put men on the moon more than once.
    • Originally posted by 2 of 9
      Originally posted by boss of u
      Almost all is used on take off from the Earth, a large portion of the rest is done via gravity.


      U are nearly right no fuel is used in space as it would do nothing. There is nothing to push of so effectively u can not maneuver in space at all. o and if u think that they have landed on the moon since u are wrong.



      You clearly have no knowledge of propulsion in space. You can easily adjust pitch, yaw, etc. in space. How else do satellites and the ISS change their orbits?



      No you clearly know nothing about the physics involved in space their is nothing to push of so u can not turn accelerate/decelerate
      ps. the satellites are not in space there in the stratosphere.
    • Originally posted by boss of u
      Originally posted by 2 of 9
      Originally posted by boss of u
      Almost all is used on take off from the Earth, a large portion of the rest is done via gravity.


      U are nearly right no fuel is used in space as it would do nothing. There is nothing to push of so effectively u can not maneuver in space at all. o and if u think that they have landed on the moon since u are wrong.



      You clearly have no knowledge of propulsion in space. You can easily adjust pitch, yaw, etc. in space. How else do satellites and the ISS change their orbits?



      No you clearly know nothing about the physics involved in space their is nothing to push of so u can not turn accelerate/decelerate
      ps. the satellites are not in space there in the stratosphere.


      :rolleyes:

      PLEASE give us some evidence to back up your claims. However the fact your have repeatedly ignored reasoned arguments pretty much proves you and other conspiracy theorists wrong.

      If you wish to have a sensible debate please answer the following questions:
      If it was faked, why would the US government bother to fake it again on the various Apollo missions (I think they returned 5 times - correct me if I am wrong)?
      Was the Apollo 13 disaster faked?
      How could the US government have faked the landings when Russion spies were watching NASAs every move during the space race?

      I could go on, but I wont bother since you will probably ignore this post anyway.
    • i went through a night like last year and just looked up everything i could find on it ( i think i saw about it on tv and it sparked my interest at the time) and out of everything i saw it was like down the line 50/50 some people come up and their like "i worked for them and i can tell you for a fact it did not happen" some people say the other way around. Personally it seems to me that i would say that it was a real moon landing, but on every little bit of evidence against that i can change my mind ^^


      If someones saying all launches to space were fake <_< then well i have to say i disagree with that, pretty much everything crystalclear said
    • THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BACK TOO THE MOON!!!

      y does every one say they have been? they have only been once. All the other Apollos where just going into space not to the moon.
      No Apollo 13 was not faked none of the lunches were. They only launched into space not to the moon.
      I don't no how they fooled the Russians no one rely does.

      now here is the main reason y i think that they did not go to the moon. Okey so does everyone know what the radiation belt is? it is a belt of very strong radiation coming from the sun and it is between the moon and earth. Now there suits where not suited to withstand that much radiation. and nether was there ship. so if they did go to the moon they probably would have died before getting back to earth or soon after. They where using Hard sheld suits which are prity much like armor. But the only thing that was invented at that time that could stop radiation where 'heavy metals' like led. As all heavy metals are poisonous to humans they could not use them in the construction of the suits or the ship.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by boss of u ().