The next missions to the moon

a reply to: StevieC56

There is evidence of disturbance under the landers it's been shown here many times they went and I am old enough and watched it as well.

a reply to: internos

They were told if they came back to the moon there would be war, yet they will land Ares there.

Talk about poking the hornets nest.

Mayday 2020

a reply to: wmd_2008

I believe you when you say you can see things that others can’t, but that’s because your mind, eyes and ears are not your own. Your subconscious has to prove to you at all costs, that your government wouldn’t tell you such an enormous lie. Most Americans are so over patriotic, the realisation that their country is so corrupt and manipulative toward their own citizens would be too much to bear.

Anyway, we are trying to find some irrefutable proof here, so even if the photos depicted massive craters under those dodgy looking contraptions, they are still only photos.

a reply to: StevieC56

So basically what you're saying is, no matter how undeniable the evidence is, your faith in your beliefs will always be stronger. Screw irrefutable proof, it's been nearly 50 years and team hoax hasn't been able to come up with a single piece of evidence that isn't "I don't understand it so it's fake" if not an outright lie.

a reply to: StevieC56

"The alleged laser reflectors don’t prove they went to the moon. "
Right, because they got there by magic


"The alleged moon rocks don’t prove they went to the moon. "
Right, because they got here by magic

"The plumes of dust from the Lunar Rover doesn’t prove they went to the moon."
Right, because video/film from the moon doesn't prove they went to the moon


"The lack of stars don’t prove they didn’t go to the moon."
Nice double negative

"The waving flag doesn’t prove they didn’t go to the moon. "
See above

"The Russians not disputing it doesn’t prove they went to the moon."
No, but it sure as hell bolsters the claim

"The photos and video footage don’t prove anything either way, although the photos of the landers with no sign of ground disturbance is pretty damning. "

It's quite damning for you resorting to such a pathetic lie to support your blind faith. Despite the fact that all the photos, videos and astronaut commentary show there was plenty of ground distrubance, you stick to this long exposed lie. If you have real evidence why do you need to lie?


"Maths and Science doesn’t prove anything either because the data the NWs use in their arguments mostly originates from NASA. Since we are arguing as to whether they are lying to us, they need to base their arguments on realistic stuff such as “well I think it looks right, so it must be true” because that’s all we’ve got. "

I don't understand it so it's fake, great argument.


Do you have a single argument that isn't based in your own ignorance or dishonesty?

a reply to: captainpudding

“no matter how undeniable the evidence is”

What evidence are you referring to? Please be more specific.

a reply to: captainpudding

You are basically saying the reflectors are there because you have been told so. Did you know that the Russians claimed to have placed reflectors on the Moon using unmanned craft long before NASA said they did? Did you know that lasers were being bounced off the Moon long before the reflectors were allegedly placed there? Do you think, going to a facility to see it demonstrated would prove it? Let’s say they didn’t just show you some pre-rendered images, which would probably be enough to fool you, they would simply point the laser at a part of the Moon that would not work due to the terrain. Then they would say, “now we will point at a reflector using these coordinates” (an area where they know it will work) and job done. Those actors on myth busters are brilliant, don’t you agree?

The rocks? Again it’s just their say so. There would have to be a sample rock, which there isn’t, that everyone knows, came from the Moon, in order to verify their authenticity.

The Russians were probably telling porkies concerning their own alleged achievements and the US would have known this. The Russians would have known that NASA were doing the same, but where would calling them out get them? It would be seen as sour grapes and anyway, when they realised how easy it was to dupe the public, they, and a few other countries have since jumped on the bandwagon, screwing trillions out of us all in taxes.

“video/film from the moon doesn't prove they went to the moon”
I realise you are being sarcastic here, but nevertheless you are correct.

“If you have real evidence why do you need to lie?”
You sound like a child, who’s just been told his mother is shagging his teacher. First of all I am not lying to you. These are my opinions, based on my observations. And if you had took the trouble to read my second post properly, you would have seen this sentence “the only fact in this long drawn out debate is there is not one shred of irrefutable proof on either side of the argument”

“Do you have a single argument that isn't based in your own ignorance or dishonesty?”
Yes, see above.

a reply to: StevieC56

So again, evidence of a moon landing isn't evidence of a moon landing because your faith is too strong. If you can look at a photo like this www.flickr.com... and conclude that there is no disturbance under the lander you're either lying or your confirmation bias is so extreme that it's bordering on mental illness.

a reply to: captainpudding

The undulation in the terrain was not created by a rocket thruster. Notice the small rocks around its edge. Why did they not get blown away? Showing one photo that just happens to show a dip in the ground in the vicinity of the thruster, only goes to show how desperate you are to prove your point. Why didn’t the other landers show this exact phenomenon? They are the exact same apparatus, landing in the same manner after all.

The lack of atmosphere causes the exhaust from a rocket engine to spread out and therefore it wouldn’t make the small hole that the picture depicts. It would clear away a much shallower hole over a much wider area. If you need evidence of this, go and watch some Apollo launches. You will see towards the end of the clips, that the exhaust fans out as the atmosphere gets thinner. Imagine how much more exaggerated it would be in the Moons virtually none existent atmosphere.

So hang on, is this your irrefutable proof that they went to the moon? Because that’s what I am asking for. Quibbling over the way we perceive photos just goes nowhere.

For instance you think that film footage of the Rover on the Moon shows the dust reacting in a manner that you are told could not be recreated on Earth, whereas I see the “fine sand” reacting as I imagine it would in a large enclosed area here on Earth.

The plans for building the Saturn V rockets, the Lunar Lander and the Lunar Rover would go a long way to shutting nut cases like me up, would they not? Those plans could be scrutinised by todays engineers in the field and they may all say “yep, that’d work” If we actually went to the Moon, then it’s a real shame this evidence doesn’t exist. How convenient.

I’m not trying to wind anyone up here, well maybe just a little, but my point is that all this debunking you talk about, only show why people’s claims might not be proof of a hoax and not “we have proved it was real so piss off!”

The stars for instance. Foreground light will indeed make distant less bright objects harder to see, but that doesn’t explain why there were no pictures of stars. Shutter speeds on those Hasselblad cameras were fully adjustable and I don’t believe that at least one of those twelve astronauts would not be told during those six landings to make adjustments to take pictures of stars.

So I ask you again, where is your proof? I will hang around until either someone comes up with proof that I can’t debunk, or one of you admits that you have no proof, just as I have no solid proof to the contrary, or until you all run out of ideas on how to scare me off.

a reply to: StevieC56

There are marks showing the blast from the thruster which can be seen radiating from under the lander this is seen on other images as well also the contact probes can be seen bent under the 3 contact pads they were on due to the hards surace below the lander which had a shallow coating of dust.

a reply to: StevieC56

Fine would hang in the air you don't see that in the film.

Apollo 11 and the Russiam probe heading to the Moon at the same time were both tracked by Jodrell Bank radio telescopes we have a 630+ page thread on here were all the hoax claims are debunked.

a reply to: StevieC56

Here you go, 1000+ photos taken on or around the surface of the moon, all you have to do is debunk one of them www.flickr.com... I'll remind you that NASA does not have time travel capabilities and as such did not have access to photoshop in the 1970s.

a reply to: StevieC56

"The stars for instance. Foreground light will indeed make distant less bright objects harder to see, but that doesn’t explain why there were no pictures of stars" That's because you're either too lazy to do 2 minutes of research or you're lying . . . again lightsinthedark.com...

a reply to: StevieC56

I can't help but notice your argument went from the photos are proof of a hoax to the photos don't matter when called out. So fine, ignore the photos, I dare you to present a single piece of evidence for a hoax that isn't either "I don't understand it so it's fake" or an outright lie.

a reply to: StevieC56

Consider this if the USA had faked the missions they would have NO idea when another country would have the ability to either send a probe or a mission or build a telescope to prove them wrong.

It wouldn't matter if that was the day after the mission or many years later.

The photographs are important because they are pre digital so are on film negatives. Hoax believers seem to think the following way if they prove one thing wrong everything has been faked but if you think the missions happened you have to prove everything is right.

The claims made over the years by the hoax believers have been proved wrong everything from the no stars to shadow directions etc etc.

You even have videos of hoax pushers on youtube postings selective edits from NASA videos to make false claims. We have a 670+ page thread on here where every claim is went over and debunked.

Many members here are keen amateur astronomers and photographers some even professional and we also have our own thread on here of Members astrophotography.

Here are the links have a read.

Apollo Hoax Thread

Members Astrophotography

Also I am not from the USA but the UK and the films taken on the surface also show more evidence they went, the trajectory of the dust kicked up by the lander shows they were in a vacuum so does the hammer & feather experiment and so does this.



Also it confirms the level of gravity.

a reply to: captainpudding

Now that is a lie, I said the photos were evidence of a hoax, not that they were proof. Your observational skills are obviously lacking, so any further arguments from you, I will not be taking seriously.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Oh my god! I can’t believe you put forward the hammer and feather trick as evidence, you people never cease to amaze me. And the Rover? There are instances where we see the supposed moon dust meeting some sort of resistance (I wonder what that could be?) and falling vertically back to the ground, but you were probably too busy playing with your Nintendo to notice.

The reason for the fakery was an attempt to make people believe they had got one up on the Russians and make America proud, and maybe forget all the other crap going on at the time. Since then, the Russians and the US have been working together to keep the idea of space exploration alive. All other countries with the alleged technology to explore space are most likely part of the hoax, so no one is likely to be grassing anyone up soon.

This was something they had to achieve at all costs, so as to make Kennedy’s prediction come true and they wouldn’t have even given it a second thought that future, more knowledgeable generations would question its authenticity. They probably thought they would get there one day and all the alleged fakery would be forgotten about.

So instead of attacking me, just answer my original question if you can. What absolute proof do you have, and explain why you think it is proof. I have been honest with you, in that I have no irrefutable proof of a hoax. The president himself would have to come forward and say “sorry folks it was all a big fat lie to make you all think America kicks ass” So why can’t you lot swallow your pride and admit it? It won’t be taken as an admission of defeat, as you still have your arguments, but just no proof.

a reply to: StevieC56

Oh my god! I can’t believe you put forward the hammer and feather trick as evidence, you people never cease to amaze me. And the Rover? There are instances where we see the supposed moon dust meeting some sort of resistance (I wonder what that could be?) and falling vertically back to the ground, but you were probably too busy playing with your Nintendo to notice.

I'll bite. What do you think is wrong with the hammer and feather test?

Got any evidence of what you are talking about with the Rover and moon dust?

You can lay off the sarcy put downs, too. It just makes you sound like a bit of a tool.

originally posted by: StevieC56
a reply to: wmd_2008

There are instances where we see the supposed moon dust meeting some sort of resistance (I wonder what that could be?) and falling vertically back to the ground, but you were probably too busy playing with your Nintendo to notice.

You must be trolling, nobody can genuinely be this dense. This resistance that seems to be confusing you is what we call "gravity"