Was the moon landing faked? Poll

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.

None of them would have been 180 pounds to start as they were all carrying extra equipment. That equipment also changed their center of gravity making jumps more unstable. the suits made it harder to flex those knees so most jumps were done with knees barely bent but still got a few feet up. Not many that can do that in Earth gravity. How does altering the film speed work when they had live interaction with mission control and discussion of current sports scores? That shows it wasn't prerecorded.

yeah agreed... 70% no less..LOL

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.

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

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.

The famous footprint!
That would only be possible with moisture in the dust, have you ever tried to leave a footprint like that in the dry arid moistureless desert?

haven't started on you yet, but i suggest you recheck your facts, cause im about to discredit your FACTS.

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.

Invisible thrust flames?

That's new!

All your evidence facts and logic are made up

The famous footprint!
That would only be possible with moisture in the dust

Still waiting! Ready to read some of your top-drawer discrediting.

Bart Sibrel's unedited, never before broadcast, interview with, now deceased, original moon landing hoax proponent and former contractor to NASA during the Apollo moon missions, Billy Kaysing. The interview was edited out of Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" at the request of Fox Television to make the film fit into a one hour time slot.

Mr. Kaysing discusses his first hand account of the incredible atmosphere of engineering ineptitude, on-the-job drunkenness, and endless insurmountable schedule slippages that were rampant in the program, dooming it to failure. "The only way to make it, was to fake it", he said was the underground motto of the staff.

Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell, all with 1960's technology. (More computing power today is found in a $10 watch).

According Kaysing, a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand. That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference, as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.

IOW evidence means what ever you want it to mean.
The lack of evidence means what ever you want it to mean.

How is that not irrational?




Braindead insinuations are also a rather poor substitute for proper evidence and sound reasoning.


Fifty years of nothing.
What a preposterous legacy.

:Nelsonhaha49823:

The famous footprint!
That would only be possible with moisture in the dust, have you ever tried to leave a footprint like that in the dry arid moistureless desert?

No one can prove to a Flat Earth Tard an equal and opposite force from gas movement due to pressure gradient force. Space travel = fake

Thread: Now that we have realized that rockets don’t work in space, what’s next on the bucket list?

The moon mission was only to perpetuate the "globe" earth lie.


And that's the truth.