Forgot about this thread. Here read this which proves we didn't land on the moon and if you still believe the lie then answer these questions at the bottom of the page:
I know it's a stupid question, but I have to ask: can't we just look at the moon with a good telescope to check for the landing site(s) and whatever remains there from the Apollo missions?
Dolts. They need to schedule a science visit to meet those experts who regularly measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. One of the Apollo missions left behind a device essential to that work and the discovery that it is actually moving away from us at the rate of a few cm a year.
Couldn't we have a forum titled "Stupid Internet Legends & Ignorant Conspiracy Theories" so that this stuff doesn't keep getting posted in "Science And Technology?"
No, you can't. I went before you were born, but NASA hushed it up and called me a liar because I wouldn't share my stash.
I only read about the first 10 or 12 of these but they were enough to demonstrate whoever composed this is clueless, ill-informed and factually WRONG on any number of points. All this list does is demonstrate the complete IGNORANCE of whoever put it together.
Anyone with more than four hours of schooling, even the smallest amount of common sense and basic knowledge of their surroundings can spot the list of factually inaccurate statements in this list (i.e. all of them). My favourite: This is, quite simply, wrong. You mean to say footprints cannot occur in a vacuum? That a vacuum compresses dust into a solid? I don't know how anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size can present this list as "proving" anything about the moon landings.
Many people have said "this list is obviously stupid and wrong" and yet so far only one person has attempted to refute one single question of the 33.
It would be redundant to try when multiple websites exist to keep this tiresome, paranoid nonsense in its place.
I won't even diginify any of those points with a response... it's right up there with "Rockets can't fly in space, there's nothing to push against"... I SAW the liftoffs..every manned Saturn V launch from the Cape....even watched (with a telescope) the Astronauts enter the capsule for Apollo 11.... none of those "scientific points" are even plausable... and those who buy such crap..are simply stupid "Grassy Knoll people"....
Ok, this one's rather simple, to expose stars-relatively faint objects-on film would require an exposure setting that would completely wash out the bright lunar surface and astronauts. Also the bright lunar surface would likely wipe out the view of stars anyway. And why would it do that? Very simple, the thrust was dissipated over a very large area, thus displacing very little dust, also the lack of atmosphere would prevent dust from billowing out. I believe that said footage shows the brief flare of explosive bolts that detached the ascent stage, if so, that would not be an example of a sustained flame in space, in addition, some materials (such as magnesium), do not need oxygen to burn Simply untrue, the footprints left on the moon were the result of gravity and compression Not really, a new, color camera was used for Apollo 12, but was of mediocre quality, and promptly broke after being pointed at the sun, it wasn't until Apollo 14 that video feed was sent form the moon, and really, in two years, you think improvements in video technology wouldn't be made? Well there really isn't to my eyes, but also remember, due to the lack of air and reference points, objects that appear to be in the near background may be large mountains miles away, in which case they might be appearing over the horizon The shadows only appear to be non parallel due to two main factors; the uneven nature of lunar terrain and camera lens distortions, nothing more, and most so called "skeptics" will not argue that idiotic "Earth as other source of light" point Simply, it didn't, look at a scan of the original photo, the "C" was a fiber that got in the printing works on later prints, as for the "C" on the ground, its a shadow. The heat shield diverted the heat of reentry off to the sides of the spacecraft, if it had not, the antenna, and indeed the entire capsule, would be destroyed No, it would not, the vacuum of space doesn't retain heat It was, with the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) Is this one that hard? The astronauts were wearing heavy spacesuits, thus giving them more weight and less mobility to get a high jump Why would they? Their legs are the same length on the Moon aren't they, also the previous point applies, and you should look at some more footage, try looking at some of those bunny hops and try pulling that off in a 200 pound pressurized suit on Earth Why? One sixth gravity doesn't mean that everything needs to be six times as big to work. In addition, the Lunar Rover was specifically designed for use on the Moon and the Moon only. Well had the Apollo crews encountered large solar flares, they probably would have been screwed, it was a calculated risk, but they didn't, and the amount of radiation shielding needed to survive is greatly exaggerated in these figures Never heard of an airtight zipper? The astronauts did not have particularly great ease of movement. In addition the pressure bladders of the suits were tightly covered in an exterior netting to prevent them from excessive expansion The simple answer to this is, the hatch WAS large enough, whoever this mysterious "they" were obviously got something wrong. a.) Why would they? b.) Liquid water flowed through the suit, not vapor Only due to being touched by astronauts, remember, on the moon there is no air resistance to stop the flag from moving after being handled. Actually, they fucked up on 16, they compensated on 17 and got a good shot. How did they do it? Simple, they punched in the camera controls two seconds earlier than the takeoff! The constant pressure of the investigations of the Apollo 1 fire got to him. Also this is a completely irrelevant point The satellite wasn't that complicated, and was essentially an unnecessary redundancy anyway. In addition, had the satellite remained, it would easily be seen by the Soviets, and it burned up well over a year before Apollo 11 Well the Apollo astronauts also reported being able to "see" the radiation as well, however the Apollo missions quickly skirted the outer edge of the Van Allen belts, thus shielding them from the brunt of radiation Well, it wouldn't have been the first crew to walk on the moon, and Grissom was obviously right in his gripes about the design, but the lemon was a joke, a reference to the many problems with the Block I CM design, and there is no evidence of a planned "big statement" Again, the Apollo astronauts merely skirted the outer edge of the Van Allen Belts Well to run a simulated moon landing involves simulating the equipment involved as well, Apollo computers were used for telemetry and guidance only and were very, very primitive, but allowed for crucial information and calculations, however many components of Apollo were purely electro-mechanical and not computer operated, but crucial Actually modern telescopes usually cannot resolve that amount of detail, and since they are not designed to simply be pointed at the moon they often have optical characteristics that would make focusing on such a small area impossible. In addition the Clementine probe did NOT have sufficient resolution in its on-board cameras to make out such debris They have the technological expertise, just not the funding or equipment at the moment This is just a lie, this is simply film of the astronauts rehearsing and practicing for the actual moon landing. Well not all of them, some LEM original blueprints were indeed destroyed but there 4 genuine, unused articles which prove the validity of the design (I've seen three of them in person). In addition there are unused Lunar Rovers, and some documentation on both designs is easily available. To answer this, in many cases just to make a more attractive picture, in most cases NASA has not airbrushed out anomalies, and raw, unedited pictures from Apollo are available at many sources. So, you happy? That took a little while, but glad to bring some insight
I personally am quite content to have you believe Man never landed on the moon. It's your loss, not mine. ---------------
The reason is simple: This is a case where if you think this list is a set of valid questions, you are, frankly, too stupid to understand the explanations.
Sorry, but when the majority of stuff on that list has the SAME (or worse) logical weight of you asking someone to refute 2+2=3; theres no reason to really bother.