The Eagle Landed on The Moon, Not on A Stage!

[911LIESdotORG]

Google and download RSN_moon.mp3 unedited audio of Armstrong with Huston having no 2,5 seconds delay. This has not been debunked in 40 years!

[911LIESdotORG]

This is not a documentary if video has been edited. You should see and hear the real unedited and watch that flag and hear absence of at least 2.5 seconds talking back by Armstrong

[wengwengwengweng]

it's unbelievable..they made a documentary about something they can't even back with sci facts

[ftutbs]

that helicopter came real close to the water.

[LongIslandEddie]

Hoax? Maybe you need to examine the photographs a bit closer and study the characteristics of the shadows cast off from the light of the sun, the ONLY light source available.

Did you see the LEM blast off without any rocket thrust? Why was there no dust covering the landing pads on the LEM? How come the flag was flapping in the breeze from the wind when there is no atmosphere on the moon? Why didn't that same wind blow the "moon dust" around? THIS NEVER HAPPENED! You need to get a brain, dude.

[wearechangela]

How come there is no loud sound from the rocket engine during landing? It should be deafening.

[Clottster]

There is not atmosphere no the moon so sound shouldn't travel through it, maybe.

[wearechangela]

there is atmosphere inside the craft. the rocket engine would be deafening

[wearechangela]

"there's no matter around the camera dipshit, so any sound waves will be stopped and will not be recorded by the camera "

i assume you mean the microphone. the engines are part of the craft so the entire craft would be shaking and roaring. armstrong would have to yell directly into the microphone to be heard.

[DesiDito]

I understand, but you are overlooking these three things:

-The LM operated outside the craft, in a vacuum, therefore the only sound that was transmitted was through the LM itself. Note, sound waves traveling through a solid will not be effectively transmitted back into the air.

-The microphones that the astronauts used were located inside their suits, and therefore insulated from the cabin environment.

-Also, the microphones were designed to only pick up sound in their immediate vicinity

[wearechangela]

"The LM operated outside the craft, in a vacuum"

Wrong. It was part of the craft, attached to it.

"The microphones that the astronauts used were located inside their suits"

Wrong. The 'space' suits were not sound proof

"the microphones were designed to only pick up sound in their immediate vicinity "

Wrong. Why would they do that? Sounds like you make up things as you go DesiDito. That's a clear sign of brainwashing. You invent 'facts' to fill the holes in the story you have been fed.

[DesiDito]

HOPE THIS HELPS:

-The thrusters were located outside of the craft, in the vacuum, so the only sound that was transmitted was through the spacecraft itself

-The space suits did not have to be sound proof if you heed my other two points (then again they are very effective at cancelling noise as they have around 15 layers of various insulation)

- and why? so that only the astronauts voices would be heard- you wouldn't want noises from another other sources, although that would be highly unlikely

[DesiDito]

and until you can prove to me that the microphones were not designed to pick up sound in their immediate vicinity, don't make brash accusations that I invent facts. All of these facts were well researched. It seems as though whenever you disagree with a fact you call the person brainwashed, or some people who simply tell the person that they need to "wake up".

[DesiDito]

These facts were not invented, neither of our facts were, its just that my facts are well supported by science, and you tend to be based on obscure claims and observations that cannot be supported by science.

[wearechangela]

DesiDito makes up BS as he goes along. His aim is to clog up the comment boards with his nonsense so that newcomers will not be able to read informative comments.

[DesiDito]

It seems as though you are the one making up BS. NEED I SAY THIS AGAIN: Until you can prove to me that the microphones were not designed to pick up sound in their immediate vicinity, don't make brash accusations that I invent facts. All of these facts were well researched. It seems as though whenever you disagree with a fact you call the person brainwashed, or some people who simply tell the person that they are talking out of their ass, or that they need to wake up.

[wearechangela]

"Until you can prove to me that the microphones were not designed to pick up sound in their immediate vicinity"

LOL the thrusters were in their immediate vicinity DesiDito. We would not have been able to hear armstrong over the deafening roar of the thrusters which would have been shaking the entire ship. You pull so much crap out of your ass. You make up 'facts' as you go along.

[DesiDito]

Well no, immediate vicinity as in sound directly around it (i.e. helmet boundaries)

Again, you don't disprove my theories using logic or any science, you just call them bullshit without providing an explanation:

Example:

"[The thrusters] are not separate from the craft. They are part of the craft, so they sound would be roaring throughout the craft. Deafening on the mic"- you have not considered that sound waves travelling through a solid are not easily transmitted back into air.

[DesiDito]

and maybe I wasn't specific enough, the thrusters were not part of the CABIN, of course they were part of the craft. My bad.

Read my other facts if you still don't understand my point of view

[wearechangela]

"The thrusters were located outside of the craft, in the vacuum"

They are not separate from the craft. They are part of the craft, so they sound would be roaring throughout the craft. Deafening on the mic.

[DesiDito]

no, they would not be, sound waves traveling through a solid are not tranferred into a gas efficiently. Step away from your elementary logic and use some logic to expand your critical thinking.

[wearechangela]

"The space suits did not have to be sound proof if you heed my other two points (then again they are very effective at cancelling noise as they have around 15 layers of various insulation)" - DesiDito - still talking out his ass

15 paper thin layers, if that many. They were not soundproof so the roaring of the thrusters would be deafening in the microphone. We would not have been able to hear armstrong.

[DesiDito]

not paper thin layers, and yes around 15. Nevertheless, with that many layers they are a device that insulates the things inside it from the outside. and how am I talking out of my ass? It seems as though whenever I bring up a fact choc full of logic, you just reject it without providing little if any evidence at all to disprove it. Again, if you take the time to logically think about the points I am making, you will understand that your claims are not scientifically valid.

[Clottster]

I think you need to think for youself not just copy these so called hoax experts.

The shadows were in different planes because of the shape of the surface of the moon. Watch the mythbusters episode they easily prove that means nothing.

The flag was flapping bcause he was twisting it trying to put it into the ground. It would then take longer to stop than on earth as there is no atmosphere to slow it down.

Saying that I am still not confident we landed on the moon

[DesiDito]

Maybe Buzz Aldrin should punch you in the face, first off the LEM did not produce flames because hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide was used, these ignite upon contact and produce a transparent flame. the flag? that's due to inertia, as when the astronauts moved the pole, the energy was transferred into the flag and as a result it waves. Also, no dust can be blown around if there is no wind retard. Bud, do some research .

[LongIslandEddie]

Yo, Desi-

Transparent flame, huh? Get a fucking brain and stop making up those impressive chemical names. In order for combustion (as we know it), to occur, there must be oxygen and for a liftoff, there must be thrust, it's what rockets are all about.

Your problem is that you have abandoned your responsibility to think for yourself and have made the ridiculous assumption that, "if the government says it is so, it must be true". Take your head out of your butt, dude, do your own research, o.k.?

[DesiDito]

Yout think I made up those chemicals? You obviously don't know anything about chemistry/physics. For rocket thrust, you require an EXOTHERMIC reaction, or a reaction which involves a release of heat. Hydrazine and Dinitrogen tetroxide react to create a nearly transparent reaction. Another factor you have to take into account is that in the vacuum of space, the exhaust would expand and cool very rapidly, making it even harder to see.

[DesiDito]

@LongIslandEddie Impressive chemical names? I am sorry sir but because of the fact that you don't know what hydrazine (aka dinitrogen tetroxide, aka N2O4) is, AND because you accused me of "making the chemical names up", you have lost all credibility. Maybe it's YOU who should do some real research. Might I suggest a highschool science textbook?

[2242bzo]

If someone can explain to me how the Apollo astronauts lived through the Van Allen radiation belts, then I can believe. Isn't it strange that no other humans have gone to the moon, or even come close to the radiation belts, including all our space shuttles? Also, isn't it strange that Armstrong never talks about walking on the moon? He seems to be an honorable man, and doesn't want to lie. Maybe we did go to the moon, but it sure wasn't Armstrong or Aldrin, because they'd be dead from radiation.

[LongIslandEddie]

It isn't strange, it is impossible! Our leaders have always gone to great length to keep us from knowing truth. Whether it is the great marijuana myth or the Kennedy assassination, they will foist any shit upon us that we let them fool us with. 9/11? another contrivance of the government. The moon landing was staged in order to let America win the cold war after the Soviets launched Sputnik (10 years beforehand), they sucked out 40 billion from us taxpayers and had to show us something!

Area 51

[pgruben]

this don't prove shit! TNASA mixed around spells satan which is the biggest liar of them all

[gargara]

fake!

[tastyslug]

try and read into what has been deleted from the moon landing recordings. collins claims to have seen a man made building 7 stories tall. and also the ancient chinese gave detailed info on the surface of the moon thousands of years ago.

im n ot saying that the ancient chinese actually landed on the moon n built things but its written about in ancient scriptures and also collins recording has been deleted.

makes u think!!

[O0oSkullo0O]

this is the bigest lie of our time

nobody landed on the moon ya we know that you r shoted this in a deasrt

[syrus638]

we made it to the moon but not when we say we did.

[jettari]

fuck up the USA. They only recorded images in a desert and placed as if they had even gone there!

[Daltonist]

not true. There is plenty of evidence that proves they landed on the Moon. Hoax theories are full of misinterpretations, bad logic and bad science.

[safa1407]

apollo is a fake the

[shellback963]

Has anyone, especially a radioman from the U.S. Navy (now ITman) ever considered the impossibility as to the type and un-reliability of the communication equipment that NASA and the U.S. Navy used waaaaay back in 1969? At 250k away, to shoot a radio wave that far and still have good comms. btw the two. Bull Shit. Please someone enlighten me. We have communication technology today, that does not perform that well, A little hard for me to swallow. Knowing the limits to radio wave propagation.

[loperspest]

To receive telemetry from Apollo, they had radio telescopes, like the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia to pick up the signal. The Soviets received pictures of the far side of the moon in 1959. So I don't quite understand what you mean by the 'limits of radio propagation'. On Earth we are limited by the horizon, not the case in the vast emptiness of space.

[cholulasaucehot]

you are a moron