The best evidence in favour of them being on the Moon is the dust kicked up from the buggy's wheels. All the dust falls in a shimmering parabola, there's no cloud of dust cloud floating away. Try simulating that in Nevada. Also, what about the mirror they left behind that reflects laser light back to earth? This is used for measuring the distance between the Moon and Earth. The flag doesn't flutter at all, it wobbles when they stick it in the surface IIRC. Check the footage. Also, in the photo referenced in the third or so post in the referenced link - the photo looks odd because the guy is about 5 feet up off the floor. His shadow is some distance away to the right. Bang on. Creationists and moon-hoaxers need to understand this! I believe it's possible to verify that the moon rocks were formed in conditions as one would find on the moon - anyone agree? As for photos - if I were on the moon, I'd sure as hell be taking a lot of photos! Maybe they had motor-wind...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 29 2006, 11:00 AM) [snapback]311020[/snapback]</div> Of course. Believe me, they were watching very closely what the U.S. was doing. If the moon landing was fake, they would have certainly come up with some evidence.
If the moon landings were fake what were Apollos 1 and 13? Elaborate productions to demonstrate NASA could make mistakes just as competently as it could conquer space? Your buddy's logic helmet is missing - it's probably on the moon. Mark Baird Alameda CA
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Aug 30 2006, 02:30 AM) [snapback]311501[/snapback]</div> Have you checked your link lately? I think it should be www.hoaxbusters.org, maybe?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(thermon @ Aug 30 2006, 10:53 PM) [snapback]312028[/snapback]</div> Internal Combustion Engines just don't work that well in the vacuum on the moon. Come to think about it, they aren't that good for Earth use either.
Ha ha, well done, SPE. Bringin' it back to earth! Seriously, for anyone who knows anything about optics and perspective none of the claims about visual defects hold up for a fraction of a second. Have you downloaded NASA's moon photographs? I have. There are lots, but if it took that guy 3 years to download them, he needs to get off the dialup. I got them all in about a day. They're spectacular, but there are a lot of bad shots too. The load-of-bunk timing theory linked above tries to trick you by giving you an average speed and saying they must be taking a shot every so many seconds... that's not what they did. They performed tasks, walked around, stopped and took an A$$LOAD of pictures, and then moved on. Also, documenting was one of the MAIN objectives of the moon missions so if you can imagine that they'd send people to the moon and not tell them to take as many pictures as possible, you're crazy.
don't people have better things to worry about? i wish my life was so perfect that i had to go around looking for something to b!tch about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(saechaka @ Aug 28 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]310794[/snapback]</div> NASA has a site that refutes the Moon Hoax argument: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm Personally, I take the word of the astronauts as significant proof and the moon rocks that were analyzed by dozens of other countries. -jack
Oh no! They're at it again. NASA just announced the selection of Lockheed Martin Corp. as the prime contractor to design, develop, and build Orion, America's spacecraft for a new generation of explorers. The Orion crew capsule will carry astronauts back to the moon and later to Mars. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constell...main/index.html Of course the conspiracy theorists will say 'Lockheed Martin Corp.' is just a code name for George Lucas and his Industrial Light and Magic (think Star Wars). :lol:
Check when NASA announced this plan (it wasn't this week), and note that they say that the Orion vehicle will fly 'before 2020'. In the '60s they did it in 1/5th of the time, maybe. Solar Hydro
This is going to show my age, but... : When the Soviets launched Sputnik, there were folks who claimed it was a hoax. It was the first time an artificial satellite had orbited the Earth, and at the time it was an incredibly impressive feat. So some Russia-bashers accused them of somehow faking it. But scientists pointed out that faking an orbiting satellite would be an even more impressive feat than launching a real one. Moon-landing doubters, like their opposites, the UFOlogists, fall into two categories: ignoramuses, and the people who exploit ignoramuses for profit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 1 2006, 01:17 PM) [snapback]312813[/snapback]</div> I can think of a lot better things to waste 1 trillion dollars on that launching spaceships.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Aug 28 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]310800[/snapback]</div> I always thought it was Venus :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmann @ Sep 4 2006, 02:13 AM) [snapback]313729[/snapback]</div> Look it it this way - it's 1 trillion dollars that won't be spent on blowing innocent civilians up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Sep 3 2006, 11:15 PM) [snapback]313852[/snapback]</div> Or on healthcare in THIS country.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmann @ Sep 3 2006, 06:13 PM) [snapback]313729[/snapback]</div> Read the list, then tell me investments in space programs are a waste. http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html It's so easy to dismiss space exploration as nothing more than wastefully shooting humans into space on joy rides. If you don't think the money is well spent, stop being such a hypocrite, turn off your computer, and go back to communicating via telephone and snail mail.
I'm sure the skeptics won't take pictures from NASA as proof, but if it helps: NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites You can click on the images for bigger pictures (still pretty small)...I like the Apollo 14 ones with tracks. -jack
