Quote from Mantiscore2

People who say that ANYONE who thinks the moon landing was a hoax are just stubbern idiots, are stubbern idiots. How can you possibly say that "it happened," without viable evidence, you can't, otherwise there would have never been any debate in the first place. ALSO:
Aside from the fact that NASA is a government financed organization whose financial records are open to the public, and the reams of data that have been collected, not to mention the samples of soil and rock collected, I can't think of any viable evidence.


"they don't understand that it is actually possible to happen," well on the same premise, you have to understand that it is actually possible for 9/11 to have been a hoax, surely? And therefore open the idea with open arms?
No?
Cunt.

Conspiracy theorists love a vacuum. Any time there is something they don't see explained, they latch on to it and say that it is evidence on the contrary.

The fact is, there IS evidence of the moon landing far beyond just footage. An inconrtovertable amount of it.



Also, 9/11 is a very different affair. I am not going to deny that it could have been a hoax, but that doesn't mean that just because the government has lied it had to have BEEN the government.

There are holes, gaping holes, in the 9/11 commision report, but I'm not going to immediately say it was PLANNED by the government, as that is not the only conclusion. It may be the only forseeable one, but it's certainly not the only.

With the moon landing, however, there is no reason to believe that we DIDN'T land. The technology was there in that time period, and NASA spent the high amounts of money that they would have for a space mission. (A film set wouldn't have costed more than about 2 million, while they really spent $25 billion, which is certainly a waste for some wire rigging, wardrobe, and cameras.)


There isn't a single "hole" that would point toward it being a hoax that has not been readily and quickly debunked.

Quote from Ash

Conspiracy theorists love a vacuum. Any time there is something they don't see explained, they latch on to it and say that it is evidence on the contrary.

The fact is, there IS evidence of the moon landing far beyond just footage. An inconrtovertable amount of it.



Also, 9/11 is a very different affair. I am not going to deny that it could have been a hoax, but that doesn't mean that just because the government has lied it had to have BEEN the government.

There are holes, gaping holes, in the 9/11 commision report, but I'm not going to immediately say it was PLANNED by the government, as that is not the only conclusion. It may be the only forseeable one, but it's certainly not the only.

With the moon landing, however, there is no reason to believe that we DIDN'T land. The technology was there in that time period, and NASA spent the high amounts of money that they would have for a space mission. (A film set wouldn't have costed more than about 2 million, while they really spent $25 billion, which is certainly a waste for some wire rigging, wardrobe, and cameras.)


There isn't a single "hole" that would point toward it being a hoax that has not been readily and quickly debunked.

Files don't really prove anything because its so easy to fake it. all they would have to do is add an extra couple 0's and to add more "proof" that it happened.

I'm not saying that the moon landing didn't happen, I'm pretty sure it did. I'm just saying that files like that don't really support your argument much. If they came back with a brand new element or metal or something that could not be found on earth, then thats some more solid proof [I don't know much about the space missions so I dunno if they actually did bring back alien elements or not >_>]

I have to agree. If they were going to lie, they'd go the whole way and fake the files.

And the samples, I read somewhere, could have been "made" in a lab. Pssh, I might read up.

Quote from Rather Cheesy

Files don't really prove anything because its so easy to fake it. all they would have to do is add an extra couple 0's and to add more "proof" that it happened.

I'm not saying that the moon landing didn't happen, I'm pretty sure it did. I'm just saying that files like that don't really support your argument much. If they came back with a brand new element or metal or something that could not be found on earth, then thats some more solid proof [I don't know much about the space missions so I dunno if they actually did bring back alien elements or not >_>]

i'm pretty sure they brought back moon rocks or something =P

Quote from Rather Cheesy

Files don't really prove anything because its so easy to fake it. all they would have to do is add an extra couple 0's and to add more "proof" that it happened.

It's only easy untill you have people who are willing to try to debunk your files claims.
Think about it: there are thousands of products they bought for the moon landing that they couldn't have made themselves, such as the gratuitous amounts of rocket fuel required for the return journey, that they had to buy from a third party.

Were the landing a hoax, you would easily be able to find a hole in their fuel budget, as that fuel wouldn't have been required if they faked the landing. For instance, you would find that they either didn't BUY the fuel required, or they did buy it, but didn't use it. This could be observed on a great many products, everything from rubber gaskets to air compressors.

I'm not saying that the moon landing didn't happen, I'm pretty sure it did. I'm just saying that files like that don't really support your argument much. If they came back with a brand new element or metal or something that could not be found on earth, then thats some more solid proof [I don't know much about the space missions so I dunno if they actually did bring back alien elements or not >_>]

But the soil they brought back is impossible to form in anything other than the near-vacuum on the moon. It would have taken over 2000 years in a total vacuum on earth to fabricate the soil they brought back.

Read and enjoy.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23Feb_2.htm

Paperclip! Every site that ends with .gov lies!


Bah. I think the moon landing has happened. I think 9/11 was not an inside job. I think JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. I generally don't believe in conspiracies because they never have enough reasonable evidence to convince me.

that ends with htm silly haed >:(:(:(:::(:(:

/nub

the one thing that i just dont get is that
there is supposed to be a star studded sky

but in the picture all you see is just darkness
what going on!?!??!?

You haven't looked at the links.

It states somewhere that to get the brightness of the astronauts right, the camera couldn't pick up the stars in the background.

Or something. But there is an explanation.

It's because on film, you can only adjust it to either capture brighter lights or dimmer lights more effectively. The astronauts were very bright, so if the photographer were to have adjusted the film for the dim stars, the astronaut would have come out as a big white blur.

Seriously, moon landing conspiracy theorists are generally ignorant or just insane. This is a very stupid conspiracy theory whose arguments are all grounded in minor details that have been explained time and time again, yet keep resurfacing. The "Starless Sky" agument is a good example of the ignorance of the average moon conspiracy theorist.