2 hours ago, tlandtday said:

There is nothing wrong with people questioning certain aspects of the program.  Do a bit of study on the engineering of the space suits, the Van Allen belt and some of the questionable photographs taken on the moon.  No one should take anything verbatim and should do some due diligence and form their own opinions.  I like the fact that some people challenge what is rubber stamped.

All nonsense  all  been totally debunked, its  pretty  disgusting really that this <deleted> continues. One great achievement by some  very brave men let  alone the hundreds of thousands who worked together to make it  all  possible, BIG RESPECT to BOTH sides USA and USSR

8 hours ago, bert bloggs said:

You got it in one , somebody would eventually have talked.

Wrong, the shooter from the grassy knowle assassinated every single person connected with the fake set up. 

The Irish had a go at a moon shot,

so I imagine the Americans did it easily.

 

4 hours ago, tlandtday said:

Look at the Manhattan Project so many involved and it was never leaked.  A lot of people believe the rocket went up but simply circled the earth.   I am not sure one way or the other but it becomes increasingly suspect when one looks at the technology of the time and the fact no one has gone back ever since.  Why?

Your first sentence, "never leaked". Multiple books written about it and at least two Hollywood films plus myriad documentaries. After 1945,public knowledge. Before that time lots of people knew including Klaus Fuchs who was funneling information to the soviets, two other spies, not including people in government at Hanford, Oak Ridge, back in DC. Lots of word of mouth, just no newspaper coverage. No comparison.

 

They also brought back many rock samples that were sent to many universities for analysis. Bit hard to fake that bit. 

It´s all Matrix

 

Illusions

 

We really do not exists, 

I thought Stanley Kubrick, Produced and filmed it all ????

regards Worgerdie

4 hours ago, Justgrazing said:

Still open to debate .. if they'd gone there why no mention of the WW2 Bomber parked there that the Sunday Sport reported on before .. you'd think they'd have said something dont'cha' think .. 

And if they ever get to Mars they should come back and report there's a statute of Elvis up there as the Sport have got that one in the bag as well .. 

 

 

Biggest joke  story that piece of <deleted> ever produced, right  up there with freddie  starr ate  my  hamster, struth if the Sport is  your go to for info your up <deleted>ee creek with a  gaping  hole no  paddle and surrounded by pirahanas  whilst   oozing  blood  out  of numerous cuts

5 hours ago, tlandtday said:

I would like someone to explain how the small pack on the back was able to cool in tremendous heat and able to heat in tremendous cold. Nasa has never revealed any information on the suit.  

Thermodynamics, pretty  simple https://steemit.com/science/@toushik/space-suit-spacesuit-structure-and-functions-of-different-parts

5 hours ago, tlandtday said:

it becomes increasingly suspect when one looks at the technology of the time and the fact no one has gone back ever since.  Why?

Why should they go back? To collect more rocks?

This in an interesting video about the rocks. And yes, I know that does not prove the rocks are from the moon.

 

The flag has always amused me.....simulated weightlessness!

 

 

3 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

The flag has always amused me.....simulated weightlessness!

 

 

would  that be like simulated stupidity?

45 minutes ago, Tagged said:

It´s all Matrix

 

Illusions

 

We really do not exists, 

Oh no...here we go again. Please don't tell those (you know who) others!!! ????

1 minute ago, bodga said:

would  that be like simulated stupidity?

No, stupidity comes genuinely natural to the stupid!

5 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Oh no...here we go again. Please don't tell those (you know who) others!!! ????

Im not complete lunatic! 

 

????

5 hours ago, roo860 said:

I've just seen Uranus. 

I knew I should have turned off my webcam before I posted

11 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

Get to a big telescope and look at the moon - there is a lot of tracks and <deleted> that they left behind.

Conspiracy theorists will say the lenses of all telescopes are specially modified to trick you....you can't win with nutcases

I have no doubt that they did, but the two arguments I thought worth noting was dirt falling directly off the wheels of the cart they were driving around in with no dust in the low gravity, and the static cross hairs painted on the lenses of filming camera changing from black to white when they went across a dark area.

2 hours ago, PatOngo said:

The flag has always amused me.....simulated weightlessness!

 

 

Weightlessness on the Moon? How come the astronauts didn't drift off into space? ????

 

8 hours ago, tlandtday said:

I would like someone to explain how the small pack on the back was able to cool in tremendous heat and able to heat in tremendous cold. Nasa has never revealed any information on the suit.  

All the landings took place in either late afternoon or early morning in lunar terms so that the temperatures were not too extreme. Apollo 11 astronauts experienced temperatures of -23^o C to 7^o C which their suits and the LEM were designed to cope with.

23 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Weightlessness on the Moon? How come the astronauts didn't drift off into space? ????

 

This discussion is beginning to cause me to drift off to sleep...

8 hours ago, tlandtday said:

I would like someone to explain how the small pack on the back was able to cool in tremendous heat and able to heat in tremendous cold. Nasa has never revealed any information on the suit.  

Actually the details of the suit are widely known...it contained thousands of microtubules that allowed coolant to flow all around the body. Essentially a car radiator in a suit.

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

WOW - 31.14% nutty whackjobs on this forum....  

 

I truly hope this is not a true representation of the general population....   

 

Seriously?? 31.14% of those who’ve voted (so far) believe that the moon landings were a Studio fabrication?

Imagine the work involved in just keeping the secret...  

 

The Same Nutcases probably believe in 9-11 conspiracy, a Covid-19 conspiracy... 

 

 

I want to see the same poll to see how many of our resident crackpot screwballs also believe the Earth is flat. 

Yes its really scarey and yes they usually also are Covid-19 conspiracy theorist. Thailand does attract more oddbals then normal.

The internet is great but it gives those people a nice place to congregate and sound more convincing. Usually we would call them village idiots now they call us sheeple. 

11 hours ago, tlandtday said:

There is nothing wrong with people questioning certain aspects of the program.  Do a bit of study on the engineering of the space suits, the Van Allen belt and some of the questionable photographs taken on the moon.  No one should take anything verbatim and should do some due diligence and form their own opinions.  I like the fact that some people challenge what is rubber stamped.

I also like the fact that people are prepared to challenge the information we are fed, to think and not automatically accept every piece of information verbatim (as you put it)

 

However, when it comes to questions such as the moon landings the conspiracy theories are so readily debunked, firstly with common sense and secondly with basic science questioning them over and over again is an exercise for the fruitcakes. 

 

Using the argument that we ’should challenge’ such is as silly as implying we should challenge the presence of gravity, the periodic table of elements, the sphericity of our Earth....  There comes a point where questioning such things is simply idiotic. 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

I have no doubt that they did, but the two arguments I thought worth noting was dirt falling directly off the wheels of the cart they were driving around in with no dust in the low gravity, and the static cross hairs painted on the lenses of filming camera changing from black to white when they went across a dark area.

Easily explained:

 

Dust falling in an environment with no atmosphere 1/6th Gravity (no air resistant to the dust particles, a feather falls as fast as a lead ball).

 

Camera crosshairs: All about exposure - the cross hairs show on a dark (but not black background) but are 'washed out' out due to overexposure of bright (white) surfaces. 

 

The crosshairs do not change colour, they are simply impacted by washout due to over exposure.

 

 

 

Want to bet the percentage of moon landing doubters who are either believers in chemtrails, or believers in creationalism?

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Want to bet the percentage of moon landing doubters who are either believers in chemtrails, or believers in creationalism?

 

I reckon 19.4% 

 

 

The moon landing was fake and there were many evidences.It was all filmed in a studio by Stanley Kubrick.

 

I will add a few more.

 

1. America and none other countries went to the moon after 1975 when technology was even more advanced than 1969. Why?

 

2. Landing a machine is different from landing a human on the moon. Landing a machine is simpler because machine don't need to eat, tolerant to intense radiation and acceleration/deceleration forces.

 

3. America did land a machine on the moon but the humans landed in a studio set in a remote place in America.

On 9/10/2020 at 3:43 AM, Bruce Aussie Chiang Mai said:

The moon landing doubters usually believe the earth is flat also.

 

We know different because we see the curvature of the earth every time we fly.

Dont we?

Back on topic, they must have gone to the moon because they all said so and brought souvenirs back.

 

3 hours ago, warcy said:

The moon landing was fake and there were many evidences.It was all filmed in a studio by Stanley Kubrick.

 

I will add a few more.

 

1. America and none other countries went to the moon after 1975 when technology was even more advanced than 1969. Why?

 

2. Landing a machine is different from landing a human on the moon. Landing a machine is simpler because machine don't need to eat, tolerant to intense radiation and acceleration/deceleration forces.

 

3. America did land a machine on the moon but the humans landed in a studio set in a remote place in America.

1) Why would they have to go to the moon again. They have been there took samples why go again. After you investigate something you try something new. There is so much to discover in space why go to the same place over and over again ?

 

2) So because its easier to land a machine on the moon then people its fake. Its easier to cross the English Chanel by boat still people have done it swimming too. What is your point ? 

 

3) please give some proof.

 

Till then.. an other tinfoil hat man. 

 

Id like to add, the Russians would have loved to discredit the US if it was fake they would have found out. They have far more resources then people like you and far more to gain. They never discredited it.