Were The Moon Landings Faked?

How many morons on this site think so?

It's just one small step for Kilgore,


one giant leap for Republicans........................

There was at one time a woman here, Skeeter, that was the site's no 1 top rated player , and she maintained the Apollo missions were a fraud and she had proof, though when asked about it she always ignored the question
Proof that chess ability and IQ are not related.
I think thaat she was so stupid that she barely knew how to play chess and was using a program for all her games. It only took 5 years for her to get banned.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
There was at one time a woman here, Skeeter, that was the site's no 1 top rated player , and she maintained the Apollo missions were a fraud and she had proof, though when asked about it she always ignored the question
Proof that chess ability and IQ are not related.
I think thaat she was so stupid that she barely knew how to play chess and was using a program for all her games. It only took 5 years for her to get banned.

Was she a sub or a non sub?

If she was a sub then money talks my friend.
The Admin likes money. Same as any other Admin does.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Was she a sub or a non sub?

If she was a sub then money talks my friend.
The Admin likes money. Same as any other Admin does.

Oh she was a sub, being the highest rated player on the site she'd have to be.
And yes, it's not a newsflash that paying to be here would give someone carte blanche to be a jerk and get away with it.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
It's just one small step for Kilgore,


one giant leap for Republicans........................

That's gold. 😀

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
Was she a sub or a non sub?

If she was a sub then money talks my friend.
The Admin likes money. Same as any other Admin does.

skeeter was a sub..she?...hated non subs...her favourite saying was "non sub scum"

she got banned for forum abuse rather than
, love her or hate her she is missed one way or another in the forums...

i still think she lingers about on here..awaiting with her "proof" on the moon landings...😀

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
How many morons on this site think so?

If there were photos that were faked, I don't see how that in itself is proof the landings themselves were faked. There seems to be question about the film surviving the radiation of outer space even in a thin walled camera. Also questions regarding the number of still shots vs total time on the moon. There has been a lot of easily debunkable trash on the internet concerning this. What it comes down to is that we can not prove one way or another. Even the moon rocks could have been collected in Antarctica. I hope it happened and the Van Allen radiation belts were not a problem. This leaves the door open for a mission to mars one day.

Originally posted by joe beyser
If there were photos that were faked, I don't see how that in itself is proof the landings themselves were faked. There seems to be question about the film surviving the radiation of outer space even in a thin walled camera. Also questions regarding the number of still shots vs total time on the moon. There has been a lot of easily debunkable trash on the ...[text shortened]... len radiation belts were not a problem. This leaves the door open for a mission to mars one day.

Lots of suspicions are fed by a lack of convincing arguments on the positive side. I simply don't know about the matter of the Moon landings.

Several facts make the fraud a convincing possibility.

1. NASA was given a massive taxpayer funded budget, based on the Moon landings.

2. The try for a return trip failed.

3. There has never been a third try, even though technology is generations ahead of when the supposed 1st try was successful.

4. Tell me that a return voyage would be scientifically insignificant.

5. It seems from the above that the propaganda value of the landing was greater than any scientific value.

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of suspicions are fed by a lack of convincing arguments on the positive side. I simply don't know about the matter of the Moon landings.

Several facts make the fraud a convincing possibility.

1. NASA was given a massive taxpayer funded budget, based on the Moon landings.

2. The try for a return trip failed.

3. There has never been a th ...[text shortened]... s from the above that the propaganda value of the landing was greater than any scientific value.

There are no positive arguments needed. Post Apollo lunar missions have taken photo's of debris left behind along with the foot markings and tyre markings. In some of them you can even the shadow of the flags left behind.

Besides, do you not think the Russians would have been monitoring what NASA was up to? I think they would have known if nobody actually went to the moon.

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of suspicions are fed by a lack of convincing arguments on the positive side. I simply don't know about the matter of the Moon landings.

Several facts make the fraud a convincing possibility.

1. NASA was given a massive taxpayer funded budget, based on the Moon landings.

2. The try for a return trip failed.

3. There has never been a th ...[text shortened]... s from the above that the propaganda value of the landing was greater than any scientific value.

There was about 40 billion reasons for it to have been fraud. About 135 billion in todays dollars. Looks like the Ruskies were involved with some shenanigans of their own in putting the first man in space. I have never thought there was much reason to return to the moon, so I have not put much weight in that. There are some good arguments from the positive side, but I can see it would be very difficult to convince the nay sayers as all the proof would be from the folks that may have perpetrated it. If it did happen as we were told then it was one heck of an accomplishment. Like Kennedy said we went because it was hard. Very little to gain. The laser bounce from the moon can be accomplished without the reflectors, so what was gained? The appearance of beating the cold war foes to justify the cost? Hard to say.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There are no positive arguments needed. Post Apollo lunar missions have taken photo's of debris left behind along with the foot markings and tyre markings. In some of them you can even the shadow of the flags left behind.

Besides, do you not think the Russians would have been monitoring what NASA was up to? I think they would have known if nobody actually went to the moon.

"Post Apollo lunar missions have taken photo's of debris left behind along with the foot markings and tyre markings. In some of them you can even the shadow of the flags left behind."

One could argue that the government has an interest in covering their original story.

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of suspicions are fed by a lack of convincing arguments on the positive side. I simply don't know about the matter of the Moon landings.

Several facts make the fraud a convincing possibility.

1. NASA was given a massive taxpayer funded budget, based on the Moon landings.

2. The try for a return trip failed.

3. There has never been a th ...[text shortened]... , even though technology is generations ahead of when the supposed 1st try was successful.

4.

Dude between 1968 and 1972 there were NINE missions to the moon with 6 landings I am stunned at your ignorance.

Myth Busters did a show on the moon landings, they showed several of the
reasons why people thought the event was faked as actually not faked, but
instead were exactly what you would/should see.
Kelly

2008 season Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing

Originally posted by normbenign
Lots of suspicions are fed by a lack of convincing arguments on the positive side.

Except that in this case, suspicions are fed entirely by peoples love of conspiracy theories. You can't get much more convincing arguments than photos, videos, rocks, testimony from the astronauts, later photos from satellites currently orbiting the moon, NASA, US government etc. I mean seriously, what more could you ask for? What would you consider a positive side argument that is not in the list above?