Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

reply to post by yourmaker

the fact we don't have some sort of colony there right now makes me wonder. and don't say it's a money problem because if they wanted to we could go beyond.

Where do you live that money isn't a problem? The Apollo project cost about 136 billion dollars to land twelve people there for just a few short days. How much do you suppose a colony would cost?

The USSR tracked the first moon landing, and in fact congratulated the US on their achievement, as did the Jodrell bank telescope in the UK.

So you have the US biggest competitor in the space race congratulating them on "winning" the space race, and you have a private company tracking and monitoring the moon landing.

How do you get your biggest competitor, and a private company to lie, when they have everything to lose and you have everything to gain?

That is upper rubbish. I do believe they did land... But, how in hell could they ever watch that event with a telescope.. I mean... Not even the Hubble Telescope can see the dam landing sites... So how would one from earth see it??? Not even in the present day we can see the landing sites... SO please explain to me how the could follow it from the UK?

reply to post by Argyll


To be correct, they can see the landing sites, but none of the artifacts that where left behind...

Originally posted by Grifter.be
That is upper rubbish. I do believe they did land... But, how in hell could they ever watch that event with a telescope.. I mean... Not even the Hubble Telescope can see the dam landing sites... So how would one from earth see it??? Not even in the present day we can see the landing sites... SO please explain to me how the could follow it from the UK?

They followed the track of the mission through radio waves, they could determine the position of the object in the sky, so they know that NASA sent something up that went around the moon a bunch and transmitted a load of radio waves.

Whether you want to believe that was an unmanned probe or not is up to you, but the fact is that it adds to the weight of evidence showing that yes indeed NASA could and did go to the moon.

reply to post by DJW001


LOL!!! That's funny... Guess I'm running out of steam on this topic.

They didn't land on the moon and that's my final input, so there thhhhhhhhhhrr!

reply to post by exponent


My point entirely! They 'went' (into space),to the moon but didn't 'land'!

Originally posted by ckitch
My point entirely! They 'went' (into space),to the moon but didn't 'land'!

Why not? (Sorry for the short post, but it's a short question)

Originally posted by AlexIR
reply to post by ckitch

 

Please research more on the Van Allen Belt ... there are ways to pass it ... but nevermind .... it doesn't matter anyway.

They just didn't happen to do that. Please research more on the trajectories used.

Originally posted by grizzle2
They just didn't happen to do that. Please research more on the trajectories used.

Ok, so I did the research and it appears they used a very thin part of the belt for a minimal time at the highest speed they could.

This seems a plausible mechanism to avoid as much radiation as possible, and the discoverer and person that the radiation is named after agrees that they were not in too much danger.

Case: Closed.

Originally posted by Grifter.be

The USSR tracked the first moon landing, and in fact congratulated the US on their achievement, as did the Jodrell bank telescope in the UK.

So you have the US biggest competitor in the space race congratulating them on "winning" the space race, and you have a private company tracking and monitoring the moon landing.

How do you get your biggest competitor, and a private company to lie, when they have everything to lose and you have everything to gain?

That is upper rubbish. I do believe they did land... But, how in hell could they ever watch that event with a telescope.. I mean... Not even the Hubble Telescope can see the dam landing sites... So how would one from earth see it??? Not even in the present day we can see the landing sites... SO please explain to me how the could follow it from the UK?

Well I didn't say they "watched" it did I?.....I said they tracked it, so before you go calling other members posts rubbish, I suggest you do a little research

It is interesting to note just how precise the measurements by Jodrell Bank were. Not only was the observatory able to receive data from the spacecraft, it was also able to pinpoint the region of the moon they were located in and to measure their speed and trajectory using measurements of the Doppler shift, combined with highly accurate signal vector and other measurements. They were even able to detect when Apollo-11 abruptly stopped descending to the lunar surface and began to climb in altitude. This was the result of Neil Armstrong taking manual control of the Lunar Module to find a suitable landing site, after noting that the site that the automated system was headed for was strewn with large boulders.

source

reply to post by exponent


For all the hundred and one reasons we've considered before... But in a nutshell... In 1969 they could not have had the ability to carry the mission out, and even if they did, would they really risk frying astronauts on live TV in front of the world. I think not... too much at stake and too risky. They HAD to be seen to succeed, so faking it assured that.

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Argyll

 

Where's your evidence they tracked it etc?

They flew in orbit of the moon, but never landed!

Just do a little research my friend........it's easy really

there you go

Make sure you read it all.

You guys are fools.

Open minds my a$$.

Every piece of evidence you see that disagrees with what you believe is discredited.

Stop acting like religious nutjobs!!!!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability


I'm affraid I see no evidence they landed on the moon, just stacks of evidence to suggest they didn't and a firm belief for all the reasons I've mentioned, that they couldn't have!

That, may I say, doesn't make me a fool.

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability

 

I'm affraid I see no evidence they landed on the moon, just stacks of evidence to suggest they didn't and a firm belief for all the reasons I've mentioned, that they couldn't have!

That, may I say, doesn't make me a fool.

you see no evidence?.....none at all?......really?

reply to post by ImplausibleDeniability


To be honest, no. No evidence.... Just astronauts avoiding talking about the actually landing. Poor quality footage. Astronauts jumping about on the surface, clearing no more ground that they would on earth (as evidenced by speeding up footage). A documentary programme showing how basic the equipment was and how ill prepared they seemed, and the MSM telling us about it and how amazing it was.

On the other hand... reams and reams of evidence to back up why it never happened!

Why can't everyone see this, and why are so many people believers? Logic and the information available surely supports it being faked.

Originally posted by ckitch
Why can't everyone see this, and why are so many people believers? Logic and the information available surely supports it being faked.

Because you are suffering from a delusion that there is literally no evidence to support it. I mean only a few posts ago there was this posted.

How is that not evidence? Please explain it to me.

Originally posted by yourmaker
the fact we don't have some sort of colony there right now makes me wonder.

What makes you think we don't?

ahh another ignorant 'the moon landing was a hoax' thread
*closes thread*

Originally posted by HomerinNC
ahh another ignorant 'the moon landing was a hoax' thread
*closes thread*

You wish, mhoehahaha
No seriously. imagine, they did go there. And they did land. Couldn't it be possible we still watched many fake footage? It could have been for a reason, maybe just in case something went wrong, maybe because of what the really found out there on the moon...