People are downvoting because they're sick of this exact damn type of post coming up 3 times a week. Massive claims, which are completely implausible, with absolutely no evidence to speak of. You want to claim Nukes are fake? Back it up. You want to claim that Russia and the US were in on it together? Back it the fuck up. I'm so damn sick of people posting completely unsourced nonsense, the bitching about getting down-voted for what is essentially shitposting.
If you can't understand that the East/West dichotomy is completely confected to give the illusion of conflict, to make wars plausible and well attended, without actual evidence, you probably don't belong here. That said, the evidence that their "space programs" were deeply tied together, as were their atomic weapons programs, is there to be found. Go look. Or don't.
It's like banging your head into a wall. It is the conspiracy this subreddit hates the most I'd say.
My favorite retort of why we haven't been back is there was nothing more to learn. Sure, that must be it, why continue any exploration then.
I'm just waiting for 2069, the 100 year anniversary and still no return. That might help raise a few eye brows. But with how vehemently the Truthers fight for the official story I doubt much will change by then either.
There is currently an effort by TPTB to discredit claims that the Apollo program was a hoax by having shills make Youtube videos and forum posts asserting the claim while also insisting that the Earth is flat.
Flat earthers don't believe in space travel.
"Nuclear power stations" are really electricity dumploads that serve no purpose other than to boil water (hence the large "cooling towers" that spew steam)
Cool, i'm glad to hear Chernobyl and Fukushima's nuclear disasters weren't real.
nuclear weapons (AKA doomsday weapons) are fictional technology designed to terrify and pacify large populations.
Also glad to hear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't nuked.
Govt technology is always far ahead of what civilians get to see
Love this argument. The Government has untold powers... Except for when it comes to travelling through space?
I fully appreciate that this post will be downvoted to shit and roundly mocked given that the internet
Lots of dicey shit around the moon landings. Strangest of all is that it's been nearly a half-century and nobody's gone back. Why don't more people discuss that?
But there's other weird shit around the moon, just scientifically in general, like:
1- The moon's older than the earth. Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years, moon rocks have been dated to 5.3 billion years.
2- The moon's orbit is very nearly a perfect circle, unlike any other moon in our solar system.
3- The moon's orbit and its rotation are exactly the same, so we on earth ONLY see the same side and the "dark side of the moon" is always opposite us.
4- The moon may be hollow.
Weird. There is much more to the moon than we have been told.
Strangest of all is that it's been nearly a half-century and nobody's gone back.
Said a millions times before by just about everyone, There's nothing to go back for. It's a moon. There are alot of them, and there's fuck all on it for us.
The moon's orbit is very nearly a perfect circle, unlike any other moon in our solar system
This was likely the result of the way it was created, If the theory about being what's left of a planetary impact is true. Weird, but not un-explainable.
The moon's orbit and its rotation are exactly the same, so we on earth ONLY see the same side and the "dark side of the moon" is always opposite us.
It's called tidal locking, and it happens to all moons eventually. Jupiter's inner moons are all tidal locked as well. IIRC It's due to the gravitational pull of the planet slowing the orbit till it eventually becomes tethered to only face one direction.
Actually, tidal locking occurs by a slightly different mechanism. As per the law of gravity, the force decreases with the square of distance. Let's only consider the gravity the earth exerts on the moon, before it became tidally locked. The near part of the moon will experience a larger pull than the far side. This will cause the moon as a whole to distort into an oblong shape, ever so slightly. Now the moon wishes to rotate, as it always has. Now there's this large lump of mass that was pulled there by the earth a moment earlier. The attraction to the earth that this lump experiences causes a torque on the moon in the opposite direction to rotation. This torque creates an angular acceleration which will eventually cause the rotation to go to 0 from our reference point. This perfect image from wiki shows it perfectly. The moon is the green body and rotated counter-clockwise, the blue arrows are the torque created from the gravity effect lines.
Alternatively, we can examine this explanation in terms of energy. As the moon rotates, the earth is always trying to make it oblong by pulling the near side stronger than the far side, so the shape of the moon is continually shifting to meet this force. Imagine how the tides on earth work, the moon pulls one one side and it rises. That's what the earth is doing to the moon, though its through the rock instead of water. The "highest" point on the moon will always be moving around as it rotates as there's always a new closest point to the earth. This causes the moon to always shift its shape, which requires enormous amounts of energy. As energy cannot be created, it has to come from somewhere. In this case it is the rotation of the moon as it's what causes the need for deformation. Eventually, all the excess rotational energy is spent and the moon is tidally locked as this is the lowest energy state.
Well the moon is an arid rock that takes far too much effort and trouble to get to, yet contains nothing that would make going there worthwhile bar Helium 3, which would be used in future Nuclear power plants. When we start needing a lot of helium, you'll see nations going back and mining. Otherwise, it's pointless.
Strangest of all is that it's been nearly a half-century and nobody's gone back.
Even when I used to believe they took place, which wasn't that long ago, that's something I wondered about too. What's the furthest out in space we've gone since the magical sixties?
By far the biggest cost of the Apollo program involved life support. Humans are squishy and fragile - they require a constant supply of essential gasses, liquids and nutrients. They produce waste that has to be safely disposed of. They can only handle a limited g-force before their insides turn to goo. They can only survive in a limited temperature range. They have to take frequent periods of rest.
Robots, on the other hand, can be constructed to be far more impervious to damage. They can survive high g-forces, They don't need to breathe gasses or ingest liquids and proteins, So long as they have a constant supply of electricity, they can operate for much, much longer than a human, all without requiring any sleep.
We have been back to the moon. Many, many times. Even as we speak, there are a not insignificant number of reconnaissance orbiters and rovers on the moon. We are there 24/7. Just not in person.
We haven't been physically back to the moon because there is no need. We can get all the information that we need from remote machines, which are several orders of magnitude cheaper than manned missions, and have the added benefit that if something goes catastrophically wrong, we don't end up with a bunch of dead humans.
This was all known even before the Apollo and Soviet N1 programs. There were several successful unmanned landings made by both nations before they even started design on the manned programs. Even then, there really wasn't a need to send humans to the moon. It was little more than a dick-wagging contest which the US happened to win. Once all the fanfare was over, the need to send humans back to the moon just never materialized.
Orbits tend to either be very elongated, or very nearly circular in general. Any of the eight planets have orbits that are so close to circular that if you saw them drawn on your computer screen you'd think they were perfect circles. In fact the plants have orbits so nearly perfectly circular that it took a crazy amount of work back in Kepler's day for him to figure out that they weren't, quite, perfect circles. He desperately wanted them to be, it matched with his religious ideas, but the data just didn't back him.
As for going back, the problem is money, and the fact that the stupid "space race" way the USA went in the first place sucked massively and left no infrastructure in place to make going back easier or cheaper. Ideally we would have gone by building a space plane, or even something like the old Shuttles, using that to heft up the equipment to make a space station (a real space station, not a little toy like Skylab, Mir, or the ISS), built a big moon ship there, and sent it out to make a single landing and be the core of a permanent colony.
But that won't let you land live people on the moon before the Soviets, so they went fast and expensive and sloppy, and not only did it wind up killing a few astronauts due to sloppy and fast engineering mistakes, it also resulted in a tiny handful of single use missiles that'd get you there, and get you back in a tiny little lifeboat, and nothing else.
Once America "won" the space race, the money dried up and that was the end of that. In fact after the first landing there was a lot of movement in Congress to cut funding rather than even go to the expense of launching the other Apollo missions even though they'd already paid for building the missiles.
I'm a space freak, I'd love to say that there's a great economic reason to go back, but there isn't. There aren't any resources on the moon that can't be gotten more easily here on Earth, it'd be a massive expense with no real economic payoff to build a colony there, and if you aren't going to build a colony then why bother going at all?
Mind, I think we SHOULD build a colony there and use it as the hub of a growing human presence in space. But unless someone can come up with few hundred billion dollars to fund the project it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
4- The moon may be hollow.
Why do you say that? If you do the calculations on its orbit you can figure out the moon's mass, and if its hollow than it'd need to be made out of lead or something equally very massive because otherwise it can't be in the orbit it's in. You don't even need any really fancy math, just the stuff you'd learn in Calc II and an intro to physics class.
But it damn sure isn't made out of rock and hollow, not with the orbit it has.
3- The moon's orbit and its rotation are exactly the same, so we on earth ONLY see the same side and the "dark side of the moon" is always opposite us.
Yeah, its called tidal locking. Anytime you've got a smaller body very close to a bigger one it tends to happen. Mars's moons are also tidally locked, as are the closer moons to Jupiter and Saturn. Mercury is almost tidal locked with the sun, and probably will be in another billion years or so, right now it rotates so slowly you can walk about as fast as the terminator (the sunrise/sunset line) moves across Mercury. Well, you can jog about that fast anyway.
The moon's older than the earth. Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years, moon rocks have been dated to 5.3 billion years.
Theory is that there was a planet (Theia, about size of mars) between Earth and Mars and around 4.5 billion years ago it collided with Earth and took big chunk of it, and that is how our moon (Luna some even call it Selene) was created.
The moon's orbit is very nearly a perfect circle, unlike any other moon in our solar system.
It needs to be like that, there is a reason for this... read below.
The moon's orbit and its rotation are exactly the same, so we on earth ONLY see the same side and the "dark side of the moon" is always opposite us.
No they are not well not always at least, i also thought Luna was fixed but no, Luna is adopting over time because Luna is actually going away from Earth about less then 2 centimeters per year, therefor in order for the dark side always be the dark side from Earth's perspective Luna needs to adjust its orbit, rotation, speed etc. and at some point will brake off from Earth's gravity. If we assume that Luna is by definition a natural object in space, what i don't understand is how can nature do this with such precision ? I really have no idea lol there are much bigger things about our moon that its simply not allowed to public :[
The moon may be hollow.
Who knows maybe Luna over certain period of time become an artificial HQ for observations over Earth for what ever reason.
i've read that we only see one side of the moon, always wondered about that. also about it being hollow; i don't think it's an 'organic' planet, imo, it was put there.
No down voting or up voting, just wanted to say the movie 2001 is weird and some of the sounds on that movie seem so strange till the other day I listen to Sounds of the universe on NASA . the sounds some of those planets are eerily similar to the sounds in 2001
Well no. They didn't use it because the only rocket they had that could lift it failed every flight test they gave it, so they basically abandoned the Idea once the US went.
They didn't use it because their politically-driven space program kept engineers from reporting bad news, such as slipping deadlines and glaringly obvious engineering mistakes. The result was that the N1 rocket (the Soviet's answer to the Saturn V) exploded rather spectacularly on the launch pad and took most of the Baikonur launch complex with it.
The fear of radiation had nothing to do with it. The real reason was that the Soviets were simply never able to get the N1 to work.
There is no disinfo campaign here. The fact is that if someone is gullible enough to believe (with zero evidence) that both the Apollo and Soviet missions were faked, then that person is also gullible enough to believe something as pants-on-head retarded as a flat earth.
It's probably because people post things like the McGowan page which is riddled with incorrect assumptions and intentional inaccuracies and misrepresentations in order to make up for the fact that they actually have no concrete evidence.
Well, it's tough to gauge why people react different ways, but in terms of the Apollo landings people keep repeating the same points of conjecture over and over without any actual evidence while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, which people may get tired of hearing.
So you are saying there is no actual evidence presented in Dave's article? I found plenty that just led to more research. It works for me.
While it's definitely a compelling read, all he does is make numerous circumstantial claims, but provides no concrete evidence of what he is saying while deliberately misrepresenting certain things due to his lack of knowledge.
His claims about the moon rocks are dishonest at best and absolutely fabricated at worst. His claims about shadows show a misunderstanding of how single vs. multiple light sources act. He also intentionally obfuscates the point about the Laser Ranging Experiment as well as how the Soviets "placed" their laser ranging targets. Again, these are claims that sound legitimate at first glance, but anybody willing to do some secondary research will see that they suspiciously lack any evidence.
What do you believe is the most compelling piece of concrete evidence for the fact that we didn't go to the moon?
Ok if I had to choose one, it would be the photographs from the moon. I see too many problems with them to not allow me to follow the official narrative. Of course not the only thing but to me they most glaring.
Ok if I had to choose one, it would be the photographs from the moon. I see too many problems with them to not allow me to follow the official narrative. Of course not the only thing but to me they most glaring.
Fair enough, what specifically do you find odd about the photographs? That's a pretty broad answer.
48 comments
25 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
People are downvoting because they're sick of this exact damn type of post coming up 3 times a week. Massive claims, which are completely implausible, with absolutely no evidence to speak of. You want to claim Nukes are fake? Back it up. You want to claim that Russia and the US were in on it together? Back it the fuck up. I'm so damn sick of people posting completely unsourced nonsense, the bitching about getting down-voted for what is essentially shitposting.
-2 wearealllittlealbert 2016-01-25
Source?
-5 zeropoint357 2016-01-25
If you can't understand that the East/West dichotomy is completely confected to give the illusion of conflict, to make wars plausible and well attended, without actual evidence, you probably don't belong here. That said, the evidence that their "space programs" were deeply tied together, as were their atomic weapons programs, is there to be found. Go look. Or don't.
3 SolanaceaeEnthusiast 2016-01-25
So exactly what he said then? Anything goes no evidence or logic needed as long as its edgy and anti establishment?
-5 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
I love these posts. Keep them coming.
-13 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
3 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
It's like banging your head into a wall. It is the conspiracy this subreddit hates the most I'd say.
My favorite retort of why we haven't been back is there was nothing more to learn. Sure, that must be it, why continue any exploration then.
I'm just waiting for 2069, the 100 year anniversary and still no return. That might help raise a few eye brows. But with how vehemently the Truthers fight for the official story I doubt much will change by then either.
-1 YouMayBeRight79 2016-01-25
....reasearch......opinions.......
You're doing it wrong.
9 johnnysrocket 2016-01-25
yeah, ok, last straw... goodbye delusional retards
-3 wearealllittlealbert 2016-01-25
Ok. Have a nice day man.
8 subroc77 2016-01-25
What, in particular, do you find to be a compelling piece of evidence that the Apollo moon landings were faked?
7 Rockran 2016-01-25
Flat earthers don't believe in space travel.
Cool, i'm glad to hear Chernobyl and Fukushima's nuclear disasters weren't real.
Also glad to hear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't nuked.
Love this argument. The Government has untold powers... Except for when it comes to travelling through space?
Just remember, downvotes do not equal truth.
-17 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
4 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
The nuke hoax is always an interesting conspiracy for me since it butts heads with my interest in the mininukes taking down WTC 1,2,7
I guess I need to learn more about it.
6 zeropoint357 2016-01-25
Good post OP. Don't agree with you on the nuke power btw, but am always glad to be persuaded if you have any convincing links.
5 jumpforge 2016-01-25
Holy shit you are the most ignorant fuck I've seen this week. Worst is, you're bloody arrogant as fuck too.
-1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
4 jumpforge 2016-01-25
Except you aren't right, you're delusional lmao
-2 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
1 jumpforge 2016-01-25
lol keep it going, I'm having a laugh at your idiocy
3 IanPhlegming 2016-01-25
Lots of dicey shit around the moon landings. Strangest of all is that it's been nearly a half-century and nobody's gone back. Why don't more people discuss that?
But there's other weird shit around the moon, just scientifically in general, like:
1- The moon's older than the earth. Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years, moon rocks have been dated to 5.3 billion years.
2- The moon's orbit is very nearly a perfect circle, unlike any other moon in our solar system.
3- The moon's orbit and its rotation are exactly the same, so we on earth ONLY see the same side and the "dark side of the moon" is always opposite us.
4- The moon may be hollow.
Weird. There is much more to the moon than we have been told.
7 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Said a millions times before by just about everyone, There's nothing to go back for. It's a moon. There are alot of them, and there's fuck all on it for us.
This was likely the result of the way it was created, If the theory about being what's left of a planetary impact is true. Weird, but not un-explainable.
It's called tidal locking, and it happens to all moons eventually. Jupiter's inner moons are all tidal locked as well. IIRC It's due to the gravitational pull of the planet slowing the orbit till it eventually becomes tethered to only face one direction.
2 grigby 2016-01-25
Actually, tidal locking occurs by a slightly different mechanism. As per the law of gravity, the force decreases with the square of distance. Let's only consider the gravity the earth exerts on the moon, before it became tidally locked. The near part of the moon will experience a larger pull than the far side. This will cause the moon as a whole to distort into an oblong shape, ever so slightly. Now the moon wishes to rotate, as it always has. Now there's this large lump of mass that was pulled there by the earth a moment earlier. The attraction to the earth that this lump experiences causes a torque on the moon in the opposite direction to rotation. This torque creates an angular acceleration which will eventually cause the rotation to go to 0 from our reference point. This perfect image from wiki shows it perfectly. The moon is the green body and rotated counter-clockwise, the blue arrows are the torque created from the gravity effect lines.
Alternatively, we can examine this explanation in terms of energy. As the moon rotates, the earth is always trying to make it oblong by pulling the near side stronger than the far side, so the shape of the moon is continually shifting to meet this force. Imagine how the tides on earth work, the moon pulls one one side and it rises. That's what the earth is doing to the moon, though its through the rock instead of water. The "highest" point on the moon will always be moving around as it rotates as there's always a new closest point to the earth. This causes the moon to always shift its shape, which requires enormous amounts of energy. As energy cannot be created, it has to come from somewhere. In this case it is the rotation of the moon as it's what causes the need for deformation. Eventually, all the excess rotational energy is spent and the moon is tidally locked as this is the lowest energy state.
0 hologram_master 2016-01-25
Nothing to go back for? So sure about that? What is the moon composed of? You do seem to have a stake in debunking MOONER claims.
1 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Well the moon is an arid rock that takes far too much effort and trouble to get to, yet contains nothing that would make going there worthwhile bar Helium 3, which would be used in future Nuclear power plants. When we start needing a lot of helium, you'll see nations going back and mining. Otherwise, it's pointless.
3 wearealllittlealbert 2016-01-25
Even when I used to believe they took place, which wasn't that long ago, that's something I wondered about too. What's the furthest out in space we've gone since the magical sixties?
5 AngelOfLight 2016-01-25
By far the biggest cost of the Apollo program involved life support. Humans are squishy and fragile - they require a constant supply of essential gasses, liquids and nutrients. They produce waste that has to be safely disposed of. They can only handle a limited g-force before their insides turn to goo. They can only survive in a limited temperature range. They have to take frequent periods of rest.
Robots, on the other hand, can be constructed to be far more impervious to damage. They can survive high g-forces, They don't need to breathe gasses or ingest liquids and proteins, So long as they have a constant supply of electricity, they can operate for much, much longer than a human, all without requiring any sleep.
We have been back to the moon. Many, many times. Even as we speak, there are a not insignificant number of reconnaissance orbiters and rovers on the moon. We are there 24/7. Just not in person.
We haven't been physically back to the moon because there is no need. We can get all the information that we need from remote machines, which are several orders of magnitude cheaper than manned missions, and have the added benefit that if something goes catastrophically wrong, we don't end up with a bunch of dead humans.
This was all known even before the Apollo and Soviet N1 programs. There were several successful unmanned landings made by both nations before they even started design on the manned programs. Even then, there really wasn't a need to send humans to the moon. It was little more than a dick-wagging contest which the US happened to win. Once all the fanfare was over, the need to send humans back to the moon just never materialized.
4 papipapichulo 2016-01-25
Why would they go back
3 sotonohito 2016-01-25
Orbits tend to either be very elongated, or very nearly circular in general. Any of the eight planets have orbits that are so close to circular that if you saw them drawn on your computer screen you'd think they were perfect circles. In fact the plants have orbits so nearly perfectly circular that it took a crazy amount of work back in Kepler's day for him to figure out that they weren't, quite, perfect circles. He desperately wanted them to be, it matched with his religious ideas, but the data just didn't back him.
As for going back, the problem is money, and the fact that the stupid "space race" way the USA went in the first place sucked massively and left no infrastructure in place to make going back easier or cheaper. Ideally we would have gone by building a space plane, or even something like the old Shuttles, using that to heft up the equipment to make a space station (a real space station, not a little toy like Skylab, Mir, or the ISS), built a big moon ship there, and sent it out to make a single landing and be the core of a permanent colony.
But that won't let you land live people on the moon before the Soviets, so they went fast and expensive and sloppy, and not only did it wind up killing a few astronauts due to sloppy and fast engineering mistakes, it also resulted in a tiny handful of single use missiles that'd get you there, and get you back in a tiny little lifeboat, and nothing else.
Once America "won" the space race, the money dried up and that was the end of that. In fact after the first landing there was a lot of movement in Congress to cut funding rather than even go to the expense of launching the other Apollo missions even though they'd already paid for building the missiles.
I'm a space freak, I'd love to say that there's a great economic reason to go back, but there isn't. There aren't any resources on the moon that can't be gotten more easily here on Earth, it'd be a massive expense with no real economic payoff to build a colony there, and if you aren't going to build a colony then why bother going at all?
Mind, I think we SHOULD build a colony there and use it as the hub of a growing human presence in space. But unless someone can come up with few hundred billion dollars to fund the project it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Why do you say that? If you do the calculations on its orbit you can figure out the moon's mass, and if its hollow than it'd need to be made out of lead or something equally very massive because otherwise it can't be in the orbit it's in. You don't even need any really fancy math, just the stuff you'd learn in Calc II and an intro to physics class.
But it damn sure isn't made out of rock and hollow, not with the orbit it has.
Yeah, its called tidal locking. Anytime you've got a smaller body very close to a bigger one it tends to happen. Mars's moons are also tidally locked, as are the closer moons to Jupiter and Saturn. Mercury is almost tidal locked with the sun, and probably will be in another billion years or so, right now it rotates so slowly you can walk about as fast as the terminator (the sunrise/sunset line) moves across Mercury. Well, you can jog about that fast anyway.
1 aLiEn23ViSiToR 2016-01-25
Theory is that there was a planet (Theia, about size of mars) between Earth and Mars and around 4.5 billion years ago it collided with Earth and took big chunk of it, and that is how our moon (Luna some even call it Selene) was created.
It needs to be like that, there is a reason for this... read below.
No they are not well not always at least, i also thought Luna was fixed but no, Luna is adopting over time because Luna is actually going away from Earth about less then 2 centimeters per year, therefor in order for the dark side always be the dark side from Earth's perspective Luna needs to adjust its orbit, rotation, speed etc. and at some point will brake off from Earth's gravity. If we assume that Luna is by definition a natural object in space, what i don't understand is how can nature do this with such precision ? I really have no idea lol there are much bigger things about our moon that its simply not allowed to public :[
Who knows maybe Luna over certain period of time become an artificial HQ for observations over Earth for what ever reason.
-5 make_mind_free2go 2016-01-25
i've read that we only see one side of the moon, always wondered about that. also about it being hollow; i don't think it's an 'organic' planet, imo, it was put there.
2 munchkin_9382 2016-01-25
No down voting or up voting, just wanted to say the movie 2001 is weird and some of the sounds on that movie seem so strange till the other day I listen to Sounds of the universe on NASA . the sounds some of those planets are eerily similar to the sounds in 2001
1 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
5 thing_on_a_string 2016-01-25
it was technology and engineering not science.
science is a methodology for research and development.
2 [deleted] 2016-01-25
[deleted]
5 thing_on_a_string 2016-01-25
engineering and technology and science is literal, by the numbers and by the procedure.
anything else is either art or a scam.
-1 thing_on_a_string 2016-01-25
the USSR had a manned Moon lander, they dared not use it because of the radiation.
their Moon mission stuff is sitting in a museum/warehouse unused. the BBC did a program which visited the warehouse/museum.
everything manned by everybody has been low earth orbit. which is a feat in itself, no doubt about that.
8 Cptcutter81 2016-01-25
Well no. They didn't use it because the only rocket they had that could lift it failed every flight test they gave it, so they basically abandoned the Idea once the US went.
6 unportrait 2016-01-25
Do you have any evidence or documentation for the Russians making this claim?
1 AngelOfLight 2016-01-25
They didn't use it because their politically-driven space program kept engineers from reporting bad news, such as slipping deadlines and glaringly obvious engineering mistakes. The result was that the N1 rocket (the Soviet's answer to the Saturn V) exploded rather spectacularly on the launch pad and took most of the Baikonur launch complex with it.
The fear of radiation had nothing to do with it. The real reason was that the Soviets were simply never able to get the N1 to work.
-1 AngelOfLight 2016-01-25
There is no disinfo campaign here. The fact is that if someone is gullible enough to believe (with zero evidence) that both the Apollo and Soviet missions were faked, then that person is also gullible enough to believe something as pants-on-head retarded as a flat earth.
-3 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
Great post. I agree this sub is very full of Apollo Truthers.
Only some conspiracies are OK here. Weird.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
4 unportrait 2016-01-25
It's probably because people post things like the McGowan page which is riddled with incorrect assumptions and intentional inaccuracies and misrepresentations in order to make up for the fact that they actually have no concrete evidence.
-3 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
Yes, you must be right.
4 unportrait 2016-01-25
Well, it's tough to gauge why people react different ways, but in terms of the Apollo landings people keep repeating the same points of conjecture over and over without any actual evidence while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, which people may get tired of hearing.
-3 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
So you are saying there is no actual evidence presented in Dave's article? I found plenty that just led to more research. It works for me.
5 unportrait 2016-01-25
While it's definitely a compelling read, all he does is make numerous circumstantial claims, but provides no concrete evidence of what he is saying while deliberately misrepresenting certain things due to his lack of knowledge.
His claims about the moon rocks are dishonest at best and absolutely fabricated at worst. His claims about shadows show a misunderstanding of how single vs. multiple light sources act. He also intentionally obfuscates the point about the Laser Ranging Experiment as well as how the Soviets "placed" their laser ranging targets. Again, these are claims that sound legitimate at first glance, but anybody willing to do some secondary research will see that they suspiciously lack any evidence.
What do you believe is the most compelling piece of concrete evidence for the fact that we didn't go to the moon?
-1 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
That is a good question. If I had to pick once piece. I will think about it and get back to you.
2 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
Ok if I had to choose one, it would be the photographs from the moon. I see too many problems with them to not allow me to follow the official narrative. Of course not the only thing but to me they most glaring.
1 unportrait 2016-01-25
Fair enough, what specifically do you find odd about the photographs? That's a pretty broad answer.
1 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
To many to list in a post. It is a broad subject you are right.
1 unportrait 2016-01-25
Well then just post a single image and outline the issues you have with it, no need to go through all of them.
1 bluevishnu 2016-01-25
That's OK. Thanks though. I'm still looking into it all. If I find a definitive photo I'll let you know.
-4 antichristreboot 2016-01-25
There was no moon landing, it was a moon invasion. A message from the Free Lunar Party.