What would be the point in landing to the moon again?
Anyway you can go to this observatory and shine a laser at reflectors which were put on the moon when they landed, and it will shine right back. Proving MAN LANDED ON THE MOON.
How was the moon landing faked? Nasa just made a movie, no faking involved. Faking would mean doing a good job and actually trying, And funny how the video of the first step was crappy, but even in ww2 they had color cameras. total bullshit.
@philosophyweb Yeah very true “Sending three men in a tin can propelled by a rocket 250,000 miles was no problem but FILMING it Jesus Christ that was virtually impossible”
i thought every piece of evidence could be explained and that the landings were real until i saw the camera’s crosshairs behind actual objects on the images. Still doesn’t quite prove they were 100% fake just taht there was some foul play
also its in space so things are going to look strainge like the way light hits things on the moon this asshole thinks light is going to acked the same on the moon like it does on earth
you are a fucken retard go back to school and learn somthing they got rocks back from there any geoligest can look at them and tell they are not from earth and why fake it 6 times jackass i have seen the rocks at nasa in florida the got like 1 ton of that stuff were did it come from your asshole lol
Very Strange! The NASA spokesman claims that the reason the TV pictures are of low quality is because the technology was not very good at that time!!! Excuse me, is this the technology that has just put a man on the moon?!!!
Also, he doesn’t deal with the claim that the photos were faked. All he says is that there are so many that to examine them all would be an exercise in futility! How about looking at ONE of them. That’s not an exercise in futility, surely!
This is all just bad guesswork and finger pointing at things not understood by people with limited intelligence.
Moon dust is a very fine particle, much like flour. Bet I can make the same print in flour without moisture. Shadows change length and direction due to undulations in the ground. Note that when the rover kicks up dust, it falls straight back down and doesn’t hang in the air.. because THERE ISN’T ANY! If there were more lightsources you’d have more shadows going everywhere! Duh.!
it dosenot matter if nasa say its not fake and rejects the fact the People already know the truth they even proved it. that shows that american people is people that donot cover or cheats any one. when they know the truth they say it.
whatever u american jerks are thinking about apollo or the landing of the man on moon….its pure fake…and u hv to accept it….there is just one other point i wana share with u people…
At the time 2:43 in the video the shadow of the moving man is shorter in length but at 2:46 the length of the shadow increased…so it means there is artificial light source near to the astronaut…bcz if it was SUN’s light then his shadow must not increase in length in such a shorter distance….understood
if nasa went to the moon they would have proved it by now and put an end to all this thats damaging there image.they can send a rover to mars then why dont they send a man back to the moon? And dont tell me they cant afford it.how much is there public image worth.fact is with todays cameras they would have a hard time fooling us again,no more dark fuzzy black and white footage to hide the truth.
“if they went to the moon they would have a base there by now”
Why? Because Star Trek said so?
Nevermind that there’s nothing there to make a base for? No profit.
Neverming that we needed the money to build 6 shuttles, 2 space stations, and 12 mars rovers?
We had a goal, and we did it. Then we made OTHER goals. Perhaps you should learn about them before hyperfixating on only one thing.
dry dust ie no moisture and if they landed the lem would have blown the dust away yet we see a deep footprint at the foot of the ladder.also why was the film so bad and black&white when the inside shots were in colour and nice and clear.the reason they aint been back has nothing to do with $.the fact is with todays technology they could never fool anyone for 1 minute.
dry dust ie no moisture and if they landed the lem would have blown the dust away yet we see a deep footprint at the foot of the ladder.also why was the film so bad and black&white when the inside shots were in colour and nice and clear.the reason they aint been back has nothing to do with $.the fact is with todays technology they could never fool anyone for 1 minute.
Unfortunately, debunking this nonsense just extends an undeserved air of credibility to the liars and fools perpetuating it.
@metalupyourass169 There is no reason to.
@wiiwouldliketoplaymi LOL
@Anaconda43VR yea but youd think with how far technology has come we would be able to do it easily now we should go on fukn holidays there by now
What would be the point in landing to the moon again?
Anyway you can go to this observatory and shine a laser at reflectors which were put on the moon when they landed, and it will shine right back. Proving MAN LANDED ON THE MOON.
You’re an idiot. Those were compressed videos, not original. The original videos are out on youtube and you can search for them yourself.
NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed all six Apollo moon landing sites.
@Dgonzalez021
How was the moon landing faked? Nasa just made a movie, no faking involved. Faking would mean doing a good job and actually trying, And funny how the video of the first step was crappy, but even in ww2 they had color cameras. total bullshit.
@philosophyweb Yeah very true “Sending three men in a tin can propelled by a rocket 250,000 miles was no problem but FILMING it Jesus Christ that was virtually impossible”
NASA is pathetic couldn’t even fake a moon landing.
this is HASBRO’s fault…lol..i am just kidding…
i thought every piece of evidence could be explained and that the landings were real until i saw the camera’s crosshairs behind actual objects on the images. Still doesn’t quite prove they were 100% fake just taht there was some foul play
About the photo with the sun behind the man… maybe the light was just the sun’s light hitting the moon’s surface and getting back at the man.
The Lunar landing was poorly shot. A lot of inconsistencies.
Speilberg should’ve directed it.
also its in space so things are going to look strainge like the way light hits things on the moon this asshole thinks light is going to acked the same on the moon like it does on earth
you are a fucken retard go back to school and learn somthing they got rocks back from there any geoligest can look at them and tell they are not from earth and why fake it 6 times jackass i have seen the rocks at nasa in florida the got like 1 ton of that stuff were did it come from your asshole lol
They never went to the moon. Period.
Very Strange! The NASA spokesman claims that the reason the TV pictures are of low quality is because the technology was not very good at that time!!! Excuse me, is this the technology that has just put a man on the moon?!!!
Also, he doesn’t deal with the claim that the photos were faked. All he says is that there are so many that to examine them all would be an exercise in futility! How about looking at ONE of them. That’s not an exercise in futility, surely!
This is all just bad guesswork and finger pointing at things not understood by people with limited intelligence.
Moon dust is a very fine particle, much like flour. Bet I can make the same print in flour without moisture. Shadows change length and direction due to undulations in the ground. Note that when the rover kicks up dust, it falls straight back down and doesn’t hang in the air.. because THERE ISN’T ANY! If there were more lightsources you’d have more shadows going everywhere! Duh.!
it dosenot matter if nasa say its not fake and rejects the fact the People already know the truth they even proved it. that shows that american people is people that donot cover or cheats any one. when they know the truth they say it.
whatever u american jerks are thinking about apollo or the landing of the man on moon….its pure fake…and u hv to accept it….there is just one other point i wana share with u people…
At the time 2:43 in the video the shadow of the moving man is shorter in length but at 2:46 the length of the shadow increased…so it means there is artificial light source near to the astronaut…bcz if it was SUN’s light then his shadow must not increase in length in such a shorter distance….understood
if nasa went to the moon they would have proved it by now and put an end to all this thats damaging there image.they can send a rover to mars then why dont they send a man back to the moon? And dont tell me they cant afford it.how much is there public image worth.fact is with todays cameras they would have a hard time fooling us again,no more dark fuzzy black and white footage to hide the truth.
“if they went to the moon they would have a base there by now”
Why? Because Star Trek said so?
Nevermind that there’s nothing there to make a base for? No profit.
Neverming that we needed the money to build 6 shuttles, 2 space stations, and 12 mars rovers?
We had a goal, and we did it. Then we made OTHER goals. Perhaps you should learn about them before hyperfixating on only one thing.
dry dust ie no moisture and if they landed the lem would have blown the dust away yet we see a deep footprint at the foot of the ladder.also why was the film so bad and black&white when the inside shots were in colour and nice and clear.the reason they aint been back has nothing to do with $.the fact is with todays technology they could never fool anyone for 1 minute.
dry dust ie no moisture and if they landed the lem would have blown the dust away yet we see a deep footprint at the foot of the ladder.also why was the film so bad and black&white when the inside shots were in colour and nice and clear.the reason they aint been back has nothing to do with $.the fact is with todays technology they could never fool anyone for 1 minute.