Apollo 11

Well, if they were fake, they'd have to have reduced the gravity in the room they filmed it to 1/6th earth gravity to get the dust to "spray" like it does in the video. Under normal earth gravity, it would cloud up like your normal dust clouds.

 

Oh brother. Not this again.

If the moon landings were fake, it would have been the biggest conspiracy of all time involving people from the lowest to the highest levels of government.

 

It was fake and I CAN PROVE IT!!!! Just look at this web-site to see ABSOLUTE PROOF!!!!

THe Apolo Moon Landings were FAKED

 

They could well be fake.

Moondust has been proved to be the best fuel we could get; a thimble of it could power a small village for 6 months. With fuel getting rarer wouldn't it make sense to harvest this lunar crop?

Also, the flag they planted can't be seen by any telescope on Earth. If scientists can see billions of light years away then how come they can't see a flag 10,000 miles away?

Finally, you can't see any stars. NASA say it's because it was daytime on the moon but, like that place from 30 Days of Night, the moon is in permanent night time. When was the last time you couldn't see stars at night? Remember, it was a cloudless night on the moon that evening.

Somehow I don't think NASA will answer my questions. I wonder why.

 

I take back what I said about you losing you deductive skills. Well done.

 

I've been to Kennedy Space Center a few times. Assuming the skies are clear, you can usually see the vapor trail in the sky after a launch from here if you look north.

 

What is this nonsense Monsly? I believe you are just making that up to cover for the fact that you have indeed lost your deductive reasoning ability!

Anyway everyone knows the moon is made of cheese.

 

Oh no, I still have my deductive ability indeed. It paid big dividends just yesterday, most amusing dividends indeed. But I digest.

The moon isn't made of cheese by the way. It's 99% chalk and it's the only solar body to have a hollow centre. The more you know.

 

Moon rocks, with a LOT of processing, can be used for rocket fuel, but that doesn't mean it is a good fuel for cars or generators. Further, staying there for a couple of days and setting up a permanent habit there are two entirely different things. Just look at all the trouble we have just getting a habitat in low Earth orbit.

Because the things we can see billions of light years away are much, much, much, much bigger. We are talking billions of billions of times bigger. Even Hubble, if it were able to track something that fast-moving (which it can't), varely has enough resolution pick up a person directly below it on Earth, not to mention something much smaller than a person almost a thousand times further away.

As one astronomer said regarding telescopes and Apollo, "makes you feel really small, doesn't it?"

That being said, we do have pictures of the Apollo landing sites from lunar orbiters, but conspiracy theorists refuse to believe them, claiming they are faked. Even if we did have telescopes on Earth that could see the landing sites, the conspiracy theorists wouldn't believe them.

I am not sure where you got this idea. The moon has day and night just like every other body in the solar system (besides the sun). You know the phases of the moon? The light part of the moon (the part you can normally see) is the part that is in day time, while the dark part (which is sometimes invisible) is the part that is in night.



What mechanism could put the moon in permanent night? In order for that to happen, the Earth would always have to be between the sun and the moon, in which case the moon would always be in a lunar eclipse. The fact that we have lunar eclipses at all proves the moon is not in permanent night.

Last time the stadium two blocks from my apartment had a game. The lights are so bright it looks like dusk. But it was day on the moon, so this is irrelevant.

Wait, what? This is a joke, right?

 

@TheBlackCat: I don't think I was being serious, dood.

 

Yeah, I was about to say. Monsly's sarcasm went flying waaaaaay over your head.

The whole thing was a joke.

 

Fair enough. In my defense, though I have seen those exact same arguments (the ones from the first post) from real moon hoax believers, and those from the second post are very similar to ones I have seen. It is hard to tell someone is being sarcastic when they say the exact same thing as people who are being serious.

 

There were a few clues, his waaaay overexaggerated view of a thimble of moon dust powering a small village for 6 months, his reference to a movie as to why the moon is always in night time and when he said it was a cloudless night on the moon.

You should come to expect it from us Brits by now.

 

I wish you were right, but those claims are far from overexaggerated. On the contrary, I would say they are really mild compared to the stuff I have seen typical moon hoaxers say. Claims about the usefulness and ease of going back to the moon are standard, gross lack of understanding of energy content of substances is pretty much a requirement, and citing movies as evidence (2001 and Capricorn 1, in particular) is very common.

The only thing that was out the ordinary that should have tipped me off was the use of remotely reasonable spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but there are rare moon hoaxers who can actually write legibly.

 

I'd be more willing to believe that they found something weird up there and NASA covered up the findings. Sort of like the new Transformers trailer.

 

I'm a firm believer in the "they went up there and found nothing interesting, which makes the moon's number one tourist attraction an American flag.