Maistyle2k

Assumption is the word of the day here. By the way, posting websites will not get you anywhere I could literally find 1000 websites supporting that it was a hoax, just as easily as I could find ones that support that it wasn't. I am done. It seems to me a lot of these things you guys are saying are assumptions. Things people have told you or that you have heard. "They did this, this way" and "and this was irrelevant because of this" and so on. Obviously no one's mind is going to be changed but seriously think logically about it. Yes there are scientific counters to many of the hoax claims, but if you think about it couldn't that be the case for really any problem. The "hoax claims" were claims made based on the time-period, the material brought back from the moon, and obviously the photos taken. Not just by any old people either. These included college professors/researchers/etc as I mentioned. So the "hoax claims" were presented scientifically, but to no surprise countered by the same means. But you see, that is where "assumption" comes into play. They look at the "hoax claims" and then say "Well this was done this way, so scratch that out", and "The flag itself is moving from physical contact and is not effected by the air" and so on. But do we actually know how things went down. NO. I mean there just happened to be no stars, the flag just happened to have been moving long after "physical contact" and it was not the wind, the lunar lander happened to make almost absolutely no dent amongst the ground because of the "gravity and slowness of descending", the shadows happened to be in the wrong direction because of at that specific time the planet happened to be bla bla bla...See what I mean? Yeah scientifically you can explain it, but its improbable and logically doubtful that all would occur. Although yes I must admit that does not mean it could not happen. Still all the same, doubtful.

Do my research? Nothing I said was wrong. Of course someone can sit and justify scientifically in defense. But seriously, what are the odds that ALL of these things happen to have occurred. 1. How do I know the dust will act? Regardless of whether the dust is from a "celestial body" we in fact do know that it is similar to that of the Earth's. If you look at other pictures besides the one I posted you would realize how easy simply a man's footprint was implemented into the ground. Now consider a 17 ton object landing w/ rocket boosters I might add. 2. You replied with "so?" to my remark about technology. Are you implying that technology is of no matter when it comes to a space shuttle. Do your research. 3. Thirdly, you replied with "That doesn't mean anything" to my remark about how 11 would-be astronauts died (7 by PLANE CRASH, and 1 by car). Obviously something fishy was involved, or they at least needed to "shut them up". 4. Again, you replied to my remark about using magnesium flares on the moon. You said they couldn't do that because it was 250,000 miles away. So I am guessing telescopes/satellites are not able to capture anything worth mentioning on the moon. /end sarcasm. 5. Despite all that, I still could add a lot more. Seems to me you are one of those brain-washed believers. Oh well "ignorance is bliss". By the way, all I got out of those links you posted was some info based on an x-file episode. Of course people are going to try and justify both sides. Also, since you know so much, you might want to know how "second man on the moon" reacted when confronted. When he was asked "what it was like?" He ran out of the place crying. Wonder why. Oh yeah, do you know anything about the Van Allen Radiation Belts? Look it up, and then look at the the craft they used. There have been college professors and scientific researchers of all sorts that have claimed that it was a hoax, yet NASA couldn't hardly defend themselves from the very start. It was a staged act to beat Russia in the space race. Done deal.

*The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired... *The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. *The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering (when there is no wind on the moon) *Why is the background of the pictures completely black (Where the heck are the stars?) *What about technology? In the 60's/early 70's computers/etc had about as much power as a present day dishwasher. *The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints. *In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate. (Hmm seven would-be pilots died in plane crashes and another in a car crash..*cough* *cover-up* *cough). *The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares. Anyways I am sure this is very old news, but its just something for you people that believe in it to think about.. Also some of that is stated is in accordance to other pictures not just the one I posted (look them up) I could add much more but that would be pointless.