Hm...I don't know...Who knows, maybe they really were there?
However, those who reject any conspiracy possibility, are a LITTLE TOO PASSIONATE about it. Why? I mean, were they really there or not. Who cares, right...or? Then again, Moon Landings, JFK, Oil War, Oliver Stone, UFO's, Area 51, and etc. It's all silly, right...Hm ahaha. Ofcourse it's silly,it has to be.
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.
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!
@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"
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.
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.
if they went to the moon they would have a base there by now its a great hoax.just look at all those that still belive it.someone mentioned water,theres none on the moon and yet they left deep footprints on the moon(film set)go on tell us how they did that.
After all, you've had 40 years and in all that time all you've managed to "prove" is how fast every moronic piece of hoax "evidence" can be shot down by anyone with a high school education.
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.
No thats not why it happened. The pole is made of an aluminum that when you pull it it really shakes around. They tested it on earth inside with no wind at all. They shut off all of the things like the a/c and stuff, and the pole shook a lot by just pulling it and letting it go. It would shake for a long time on the moon because on earth there is wind resistance because there is air, even though there was no wind where they tested it.
@Wolfm10412 hmm solar winds you say ...so how come the astronauts came home unharmed/unburned...cosmic flights were in their infancy in the 60`s. thus they were not wearing proper protection suits,or fully protective suits ,flying through the Van Allen belt and constantly being bombarded with solar wind they should've been fried !
it has been proven that having one source of light does not necessarily give parallel shadows.The brightness in the shadows is caused by reflective light from the moon surface.Man really did land on the Moon.
Attention World: The films of the atomic explosions are FALSES see my videos " Atomic Bomb Does Not Exist by Andre Mauro " and an exclusive interview whith NASA`s administrator about the other fake mith "The Man on the Moon" - "Moongate - Moon`s Show by Andre Mauro " and my theory about the solar system " The Earth Doesn`t Turn Around the Sun by André Mauro" (version en espanhol mire " bomba atomica no existe "user cybercheguevara)
You own movies are infested by educated people moonsshow which disprove and ridicule everything you say. Your "science" would embarrass a 3rd grader. Its laughably idiiotic, ignorant, and wrong.
So tell me, how come you never respond to the folks on your own movies who tell you so? Afraid you'll lose the educated argument?
we went to the moon and also santa is real
2pacster1 1 week ago
the thing that puzzles me the most is the missing stars in the videos and pictures... can anyone explain this to me
Farismaster1 2 weeks ago
Fox News will eventually prove that this was a Jewish American fraud. Fox News is the voice of truth, freedom and Jesus.
IFlick 1 year ago
Hm...Moon... Interesting :))
Hm...hahahaha. 1969, 70, 71, 72...73?...? ? ? 38 years?
Hm...I don't know...Who knows, maybe they really were there?
However, those who reject any conspiracy possibility, are a LITTLE TOO PASSIONATE about it. Why? I mean, were they really there or not. Who cares, right...or? Then again, Moon Landings, JFK, Oil War, Oliver Stone, UFO's, Area 51, and etc. It's all silly, right...Hm ahaha. Ofcourse it's silly,it has to be.
OK, now let's see what's on FOX NEWS, hahaha!
Pavletic111 1 year ago
Unfortunately, debunking this nonsense just extends an undeserved air of credibility to the liars and fools perpetuating it.
edmfw 1 year ago
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed all six Apollo moon landing sites. :)
SZSearcher 2 years ago
NASA is pathetic couldn't even fake a moon landing.
Dgonzalez021 2 years ago 6
@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.
12GaugeLosAngeles 2 years ago
You're an idiot. Those were compressed videos, not original. The original videos are out on youtube and you can search for them yourself.
eatwoodman 2 years ago
this is HASBRO's fault...lol..i am just kidding...
EnnaMarri 2 years ago
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
VladBlok28 2 years ago
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.
ha3haa3haaa3 2 years ago
The Lunar landing was poorly shot. A lot of inconsistencies.
Speilberg should've directed it.
joshshoj13 2 years ago 4
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
lar5220 2 years ago
They never went to the moon. Period.
BIGLOCC412 2 years ago
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
lar5220 2 years ago
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!
philosophyweb 2 years ago 7
@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"
SPAG22 2 years ago
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.!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
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.
mazazekooo 2 years ago
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
Irfanullah86 2 years ago
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.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
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.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
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.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
if they went to the moon they would have a base there by now its a great hoax.just look at all those that still belive it.someone mentioned water,theres none on the moon and yet they left deep footprints on the moon(film set)go on tell us how they did that.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
It's called dust, lol. Why would we have a base on the moon? Going to the moon isn't top priority for NASA right now.
I suppose (this isn't directed at you) apollo 13 is a hoax also?
jimbo4222 2 years ago
"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.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
The wet water in the ocean is fake, too.
dopje31857 2 years ago
the moon landings are fake.two reasons cold war and space race.one day the truth will come out.
chazjohn46 2 years ago
The truth HAS come out.
After all, you've had 40 years and in all that time all you've managed to "prove" is how fast every moronic piece of hoax "evidence" can be shot down by anyone with a high school education.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
They went to the moon and there is no good proof they didn't!
Mazinga 3 years ago
why the fuck hasnt anyone been to the moon lately?
metalupyourass169 3 years ago
we actually are going back soon, and it's too expensive to go regularly
wiiwouldliketoplaymi 3 years ago
@wiiwouldliketoplaymi LOL
snatchhog 1 year ago
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.
Anaconda43VR 1 year ago
@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
metalupyourass169 1 year ago
@metalupyourass169 There is no reason to.
edmfw 1 year ago
actually for 1969 the photos on tv of the moon landings were quite good you forget what poor quality we had to put up with on 405 lines tv.
also we did see a presentation so who knows what photos were inserted for illistation.
See latest selene photos
ADEN1961 3 years ago
Wind!? On the Moon!? Where there's no atmosphere!?
Yes, they're called solar winds.
Wolfm10412 3 years ago
No thats not why it happened. The pole is made of an aluminum that when you pull it it really shakes around. They tested it on earth inside with no wind at all. They shut off all of the things like the a/c and stuff, and the pole shook a lot by just pulling it and letting it go. It would shake for a long time on the moon because on earth there is wind resistance because there is air, even though there was no wind where they tested it.
wiiwouldliketoplaymi 3 years ago
@wiiwouldliketoplaymi then explain why the flags folds almost halfway.
bigwill8270 1 year ago
@Wolfm10412 hmm solar winds you say ...so how come the astronauts came home unharmed/unburned...cosmic flights were in their infancy in the 60`s. thus they were not wearing proper protection suits,or fully protective suits ,flying through the Van Allen belt and constantly being bombarded with solar wind they should've been fried !
BynDStyleZ 1 month ago
it has been proven that having one source of light does not necessarily give parallel shadows.The brightness in the shadows is caused by reflective light from the moon surface.Man really did land on the Moon.
bensisko16 4 years ago
Attention World: The films of the atomic explosions are FALSES see my videos " Atomic Bomb Does Not Exist by Andre Mauro " and an exclusive interview whith NASA`s administrator about the other fake mith "The Man on the Moon" - "Moongate - Moon`s Show by Andre Mauro " and my theory about the solar system " The Earth Doesn`t Turn Around the Sun by André Mauro" (version en espanhol mire " bomba atomica no existe "user cybercheguevara)
Happy new year for all ! Wake-up people !
MOONSSHOW
moonsshow 4 years ago
You own movies are infested by educated people moonsshow which disprove and ridicule everything you say. Your "science" would embarrass a 3rd grader. Its laughably idiiotic, ignorant, and wrong.
So tell me, how come you never respond to the folks on your own movies who tell you so? Afraid you'll lose the educated argument?
Well, you should be. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
you have some pretty horrible videos
wiiwouldliketoplaymi 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hope you like it!
wiiwouldliketoplaymi 4 years ago