Was the moon landing faked? Poll

When did you stop kicking your dog?

Absolutely No evidence of 1/6th gravity. They were in Earth gravity.

I’ve always wondered who was panning the camera and following the lander as it departs. Also thought the noise from being blasted off the moon would be audible as the astronauts communicated with HQ.

Sways back and forth without directional thrusters. LOL


Gyros?

Who pointed the camera upwards? They didn't have motion sensing camera equipment back then.

Who retrieved the film from the camera? They didn't have digital video back then.

Where's the crater under the lander? A 10,0000 pounds of thrust is going to create a dust crater under the lander.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


So, a quick search reveals the lander had navigational gyros, but not stabilizing gyros.


OOOOOOOPS!

Duh there was a guy in Houston whose job it was to hit a button to time the camera set to automatically record and pan up. He is a hero as he did it just right somehow. Slide rules are powerful instruments let us not forget.

Ha, NASA has an answer you silly billy. See my last post I am not kidding a guy on Earth pressed a button at just the right time to get the shot. He only had one try. He nailed it.

Obviously the video was beamed to earth via the orbiter like any live shots which was totally possible then.

Last Edited by MogwaiHunter PM on 07/09/2019 03:09 PM

What do you have against Cornwall? The fact that it was never occupied by Rome?

A lot of these questions are easy to answer. Then there are the ones that have no reasonable answer.

You will notice they get ignored by moonophants.

Moontards!. We ride!.

What Kaysing said in the video is that Grant's outrage over Vietnam motivated him to spill the beans about the fake moon landings. He then did spill the beans and wrote the book mentioned above. You must not understand that "spill the beans" means to come clean or tell the truth. You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills. Nowhere in the video does he say that We Never Went to the Moon was a hoax. What he said was that he decided to spill the beans on the moon landing hoax. The braindead insinuations are coming from you.

Lets give credit where credit is due

[link to www.cornwalls.co.uk (secure)]

China clay, as the name suggests, is a material known as kaolin, which was first used in China more than ten thousand years ago to make fine white porcelain.

Its also really good for diarrhea. And it looks completely otherworldly

UK Moonscape

Coward.

You can shut me up by proving you are right.
I dare you to prove that you are right.
I dare every hoaxie to prove they are right.

Problem seems to be that hoaxies don't understand concepts like evidence, facts, and logic.




It is an admission it wasn't about truth finding.


Why would anybody else care that you didn't get the pictures you wanted?

If YOU claim anything was faked than YOU have the burden to prove so.
This will require POSITIVE evidence.
Not idle speculation on what could have been.




Why would I kick any dogs?

Kicking hoaxies is much more fun.
If it weren't for the flatties they'd be the most hilarious conspirafantasist on the web.




Quite a conclusion after watching a mere few hundred seconds.






Apparently you didn't wonder hard enough to actually find out.

Search Term: Ed Fendell


This is a pressure-fed engine (no pumps) operating in a vacuum (no turbulence, the main source of noise for earth-launched rockets).
The astronauts microphones are voice activated and are inside the bubble helmets.




Are you claiming that the LM didn't have an RCS?

Holy fuck!




The tele-operator.


If true total irrelevant.
It was a life-TV broadcast from the surface of the Moon.
IOW, the operator just had to look.

It also helped that they knew in advance where the ship was going.


TV-cameras do not use film.



Irrelevant.
It was a life-TV broadcast from the surface of the Moon.


Why would there be a crater?



But there wasn't "A 10,0000 pounds of thrust" just before landing.
That would make the thrust much larger than the weight of the craft at that point making it go upwards, not down.





There's so much ignorance and disinfo in your posts you might as well be the posterboy for hoaxism.

How are you ever going to prove that they way it was supposed to have worked didn't work if you are so epically clueless about how it was supposed to have worked in the first place?

The words "chance", "snowflake", and "hell" come to mind.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 07/09/2019 06:33 PM

You idiots are arguing which lies are correct.

BS



Has nothing to do with what I wanted, I was a year old. It speaks to the fact that an extended horizon could not be faked, but an artificial close horizon could.






Irrelevant. The vibration from a rocket engine would have been audable inside the helmet.




No, It's obvious the RCS wasn't being used, otherwise you would see the thrusts. What you actually see is the spacecraft swinging back and forth as if on a wire, without the thrusters being activated.

All your evidence facts and logic are made up

Joint secret op to 'tick it off the list' so the world's populace would lose interest in going to the moon, because if they knew the real truth about the moon, everything we know about everything would be turned upside down.

If people knew there was a ceiling they would spend every waking moment worrying about being crushed alive.

In a vacuum their is no air, this no equal and opposite reaction. Duh.

Public Space Program : NASA landed on the moon in 1969. The Secret Space Program arrived in the 1950s.

Cornwall needs the bay dredged again. I wonder if they could attract enough "how the moon landing was faked" tourism to pay for the dredging if they revealed the truth?

Wrong. I said the COMMAND MODULE was powered by LOX and LH2. I didn't mention the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM).

[link to airandspace.si.edu (secure)]

Yea!!
Naah naaah nah naaah naaah.

And flip off the TSA too, as you go willy nillie through the gates with your....Geiger Counter.

Why would they need stabilizing gyros? You are a fail at physics. They used maneuvering thrusters and vectored thrust from main engine with gimbals.

If they are launched from Baffin Island they could miss that could they not?? NASA works in the summer at sea level. -50 and dry air might make magnets the 'reusable device'.
Weird shit starts to happen at -200 so a moon base training and R&D is possible in their spare time.
Almost making Canada a leader in 'green energy'. (green being like this) I love the one at about 8 seconds.

Spoiler: the mining missions to moons around Jupiter and Saturn will be in Canada's Hudson bay where it looks like the whole Bay was by impact but the smaller one on the Quebec side would be one of the best spots to find primordial ooze. The one Russia owns is where the Atlantic Rift ends. All for a measly $666,000T

Last Edited by Wayfaring Stranger on 07/10/2019 12:46 AM

Gravity.
Another lie.

In one-sixth gravity everything would weigh one-sixth, or 16.7 percent, of its Earth weight. A 180-pound man would weigh a mere 30 pounds. Writers were speculating on the athletic abilities of men on the Moon long before the space program and Apollo. They based their calculations on one-sixth gravity. The public was anticipating some of these spectacular athletic feats when astronauts explored the Moon, but none were ever performed. The reader may remember the televised pictures of astronauts moving around on the Moon's surface. If so, do you recall any extraordinary feats. In actuality, there were none.

In the November 1967 issue of Science Digest, an article appeared by James R. Berry entitled, "How to Walk on the Moon."1 In it, Berry predicted that men would be able to make 14-foot slow-motion leaps, perform backflips and other gymnastics like professionals, and be able to easily move up ladders and poles with their arms.
Another prediction was given in 1969 by the Writers of U.S. News & World Report in U.S. on the Moon:
With gravity on the moon only one-sixth as strong as it is on earth, a home-run hitter in a lunar baseball game could drive a ball well over half a mile. A golfer's drive from the tee would sail clear over the horizon.

The height an object will rise in a gravitational field depends on its initial velocity. If an object had the same initial velocity in one-sixth gravity as it had on Earth, it would rise six times as high. If the initial velocity of the object were doubled over its Earth velocity, it would rise 24 times as high, and if tripled, it would rise 54 times the Earth height.
A man jumps vertically by bending his kness and then flexing his thigh muscles to full extension. This propels him off the ground with a given initial velocity. If an astronaut were to jump vertically in one-sixth gravity with the same effort expended on Earth, the initial velocity would be greater than on Earth. Therefore, the astronaut would go more than six times higher.

Did we see anything like that???? no

The Rover would have been completely unstable, it would have been flying at the slightest bump, the rooster tail would have been absolutely massive..

No everything we saw was Earth gravity, the astronots were jumping mere inches, the film speed was slightly altered, every film producer knows that trick though.