Comments on: Proof That Man Landed on the Moon

By: paul smith

paul smith — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 20:03:36 +0000

those who cannot attack the thought,instead attack the thinker,and thats what people do when someone goes against what they think to be true.
they must find it difficult…those who have taken authority as the truth,rather than the truth as the authority.
you read things in books (or worse the internet)decades after it occurred and pokes holes.
so you are on the internet,you have two videos off the internet,so do you get your facts off tv?going back decades is called history and it is important,very important.
our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
there is never two sides to a story,theres three and the third being the truth,we dont live in a world of truth atall.
most people are other people,there thoughts are someone eles opinion,there lives a mimicry,there passions a quotation,i like being wrong about things,that way i learn and grow,but most people cant be wrong and will never grow,history repeats it self and always has done.
i dont know if man landed on the moon or not,i used to but even the laser that beems back to earth could have been put there well after the so called landing.please dont attack as i have not attacked you.

By: John P.

John P. — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:26:22 +0000

In my opinion the only thing absurd is your assertion that all of this is fake. You read things in books (or worse, on the Internet) decades after it occurred and are poking holes at questions that YOU don’t have answered.

But just because you don’t know the answer doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just means that you don’t have the answer.

A mountain of proof has been presented, including the entire world watching the rocket launch and landing on TV, yet you present only questions. When you have actual proof and not little things like a lack of understanding about the climate control in the suit, I’ll be ready to listen.

By: Gene

Gene — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:49:43 +0000

The temperature variation on the moon ranges some 390 degrees depending upon whether you are in the shade, -170 or in the sunlight, 220 degrees. We are led to believe that Kodak film was used on the moon in both extremes of temperature without any film degradation. Film has emulsifiers and is prone to self destruction either through melting or freezing depending upon which extreme is extant. The photographs allegedly taken on the moon are an absurdity, albeit an impossibility. Also, external light sources are evident by looking at the reflection on boots while descending the LEM as well as variable shadow elongations observable as the man walks away from the light source and returns towards it. This is not sunlight. And let’s not forger the water cooled underwear described which supposedly kept them cool with the backpack filled with water, pumps, and batteries in the 220 degree heat. However, stepping into the shade it became -170 but amazing there is no mention of what heat source is now needed to keep the men warm. Imagine a heating plant, self contained, controlling a 390 degree variation in temperature dependent upon moment to moment movements. Ridiculous! And, let’s not forger the glint reflection of the wires seen on many of the videos as well as pulling them up after falling. It’s also amazing that 1/6 gravity of the moon would render them supermen on the moon but alas, mortals jumping 10 inches maximum is the most we see. And where are the human waste products in the suits? And, during the trip the LEM was rotating 6 degrees per minute to maximize/minimize the heat/cold extremes of outer space and yet we see videos taken inside the LEM which show no rotation when viewing the earth from their porthole. And the computer had 32 kilobits, maximum. And they supposedly used a sextant to utilize star positioning for some sort of guidance in addition to their computer..RIDICULOUS! The absurdities go on and on.

By: Garry

Garry — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 23:06:12 +0000

Why would we go back? NASA and all the people involved with the moon landings proved it could be done and that that moon is a large common rock. Do you feel the earth is flat? What about Big Foot?

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:46:04 +0000

If they have landed on the moon before, how come in the last forty years, with all the advances in science , have we not gone back?

By: Matt J

Matt J — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:24:54 +0000

No, the mythbusters were trying to prove that the pictures were lit by a single light source, as many conspiracists claim that the shadows would divulge due to multiple light sources, i.e. studio lights. They proved that with a single light source and by changing the topograhy (layout, structure) of the terrain the shadows appear to have divulged when viewed from the side because of the sloping terrain, of course from above they would still be parallel.

You conspiracists think you’ve got it all worked out, but you just don’t think things through!

Still sceptical?

By: MATT

MATT — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 02:24:16 +0000

a man made vacuum… really..? that doesnt disregard gravitational pull..

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:10:20 +0000

The video of the feather and hammer proves nothing, who knows what those objects were really made out of, not to mention trick photography or even a man made vacuum on a studio set with footage tampered with.. it could be absolutely anything.
We only know what the media tells us and what the government tells them.

By: skeptic

skeptic — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:32:43 +0000

I like the part in the video where they say “we can’t duplicate the intensity of the sun here in the night desert”

Why not?

Why not do the experiment during the day? The sun’s intensity should be quite easy to duplicate, no? Then they would be using the same light source as was supposedly used in all the moon pictures, THE SUN. Why do they have to use a studio spotlight at night? Maybe because that’s what was used in all the pictures?

It’s ridiculous, “Here let’s prove these pictures were lit with the sun and not with a spotlight by doing some tests with a spotlight.” Does any one else see the problem here? Shouldn’t the tests use the sun? They did the same thing on “Myth Busters”, they brought in a spot light “to act as the sun” as they “proved” that shadows could diverge. It make me cringe, how dumb do they think we are?

Shadows (on the same planet) cannot diverge from a single light source millions of miles away, it is impossible.

Still skeptical.

By: Hayden J.

Hayden J. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:22:29 +0000

No, you couldn’t and no it doesn’t.

You couldn’t make it the exact same weight of a hammer and the same size and thinness of a feather.

And even if you could the hammer would still drop faster in a Atmosphere. Have you heard of Air Resistance? If you havn’t check out how a hang-glider works.

Anyway man HAS landed on the moon and it is an insult to all the men and women who worked incredibly hard on getting it there and back.

By: Chambian Morose

Chambian Morose — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:17:57 +0000

Just make a fake feather out of metal.

It will fall at the same rate of acceleration as a hammer in atmosphere.

The video is so bad you can hardly tell it IS a feather, let alone real or fake.

By: harsh

harsh — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:10:54 +0000

It seems so real!!!!

I really beleive they did land on the moon. In these times its the technology battle going on that some crackpots really consider it a ‘hoax’ which is really insane!!!

By: John P.

John P. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:37:46 +0000

Hmmm. Let’s see…

Why wouldn’t we go back even though our technology is better? Because it’s as expensive as hell!!! I mean, why don’t we dig a 5 mile hole into the earth and tap the heat of molten lava for energy? Just because you have the technology to do something doesn’t mean it’s economically feasible. Plus, there is nothing on the moon to make it a financially viable trip. It’s not like it’s made of gold and we can mine it. It’s a big freakin rock.

As far as fuel goes, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term “space”? It means NOTHING. As in vacuum. You don’t need to burn a rocket to keep going once you are in motion. You only need to burn it to stop. So once you’ve broken free of the Earth’s gravitational field and you’re traveling at, oh… 17,000 miles per hour, you’ll keep doing it until you reverse thrusters.

So what was your point again?

John P.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:26:49 +0000

After 1977, why would US/Russia send another mission to the moon? definitely the space technology is more advance today? furthermore moon is 384,000 km away from earth – meaning the Apollo carrys 768,000km fuel on it back? does it make sense?

By: Jermaine Pleas

Jermaine Pleas — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:56:05 +0000

Hmmm….I wonder why someone would call this a hoax. The whole world seen them on the moon. It would be hard to fake this back in the day it’s more authentic than anything else done in history.

By: Conor

Conor — Fri, 22 May 2009 21:36:49 +0000

I Strongly Believe that they landed on the moon. Yet there are Some Idiots out there with ridiculous conspiracy theories.. yet some of them are convincing in different ways. but this prooved that they did land on the moon. thankyou! I Rate this 5/5