Neil Armstrong= Hoax

[Maistyle2k]

 

*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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

*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...

Simple. There's no atmosphere on the Moon, so the pressure from the rocket spread out far more than it would on Earth.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

 

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

How do you know how the dust will act? It's dust from another celestial body.

 

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)

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#parallel

 

 

Why is the background of the pictures completely black (Where the heck are the stars?)

Remind yourself that it's daytime on the Moon.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars

 

What about technology? In the 60's/early 70's computers/etc had about as much power as a present day dishwasher.

So?

 

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.

The pressure inside NASA suits is around 4 PSI, and the suits had specially designed joints to allow flexibility. They still were fairly inflexible; many astronauts had hemorrhaging under their fingernails from the strain of bending the gloves.

 

Remember that the suits were specially designed.

 

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).

That doesn't mean anything.

 

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.

No it couldn't. The moon is 250,000 miles away. However, a mirrored reflector was left on the moon, and it's still used to measure the distance to the Moon from Earth.

 

Do your research, please.

[Maistyle2k]

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.

[ecoli]

Do my research? Nothing I said was wrong.

except for the wrong parts.

 

Of course someone can sit and justify scientifically in defense.

HAHAHAHa. This is great. Reject the science when it doesn't support your opinion... good idea.

 

But seriously, what are the odds that ALL of these things happen to have occurred.

Even if something is statistically improbable, it does not mean it can be immediately falsifiable.

 

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.

You're ignoring that the gravity on the moon is less, so things are going to act a lot differently than on earth.

 

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.

Just because the tech is relatively inferior doesn't mean that it didn't work. Do you not trust that your tires will spin just because the wheel was invented thousands of years ago??

 

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".

Statistically, it's low. But, you haven't even begun to analyze the lifestyles of these astronauts. Plane crashes in smaller planes aren't terribly uncommon, and maybe astonaughts like traveling in small prop planes in poor weather conditions. You need to give us more background before you shout conspiracy.

 

For example, daily McDonald's eaters tend to die younger... Government poisioning the food??

 

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.

We could've but why would it have been useful. We used lasers + the mirror to calculate the distances. What else did you want them to measure with magnesium flares?

 

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".

Right... if there is evidence you don't agree with, it must be because the government is brainwashing us. You could learn a thing or two about logical fallacies.

 

By the way, all I got out of those links you posted was some info based on an x-file episode.

You rejected the ideas because you didn't already beleive them. An interesting and fatal approach for someone trying to use science to justify an argument.

 

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.

 

Cause it was an emotional experiance? Nah... that would a normal response.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

What were the odds that computers would be developed? What are the odds that I'll spontaneously combust in the next te

 

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.

The Egyptians built pyramids with minimal technology. We don't need warp drive to get to the Moon.

 

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".

Prove that there was something fishy involved. Probability != truth.

 

Also, flying T-38 trainers with an overinflated ego is always dangerous. See also: Astronaut Gene Cernan crashes H-13 into river while ogling at women on the beach.

 

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.

Go back in time and suggest it to NASA.

 

Seriously, though, there's something simple you're overlooking: Russia. The Soviet Union had radar technology capable of watching (and listening to) our lunar landing attempts. If they thought we hoaxed it, it would be the ultimate PR coup. But they didn't say anything.

 

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".

I daresay I am nowhere near brainwashed. This topic has been discussed before on this site, and numerous others, and has been beaten to death.

By the way, all I got out of those links you posted was some info based on an x-file episode.

Google is your friend; BadAstronomy is not X-Files.

Of course people are going to try and justify both sides.

Some more justifiably than others.

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.

Reference?

Oh yeah, do you know anything about the Van Allen Radiation Belts? Look it up, and then look at the the craft they used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations#Ionizing_radiation_and_heat

 

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.

They don't need to. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

It was a staged act to beat Russia in the space race. Done deal.

I like how sure of yourself you are.

 

 

If you want me to allow this discussion to continue, please start substantiating your claims and giving verifiable evidence to prove my statements wrong. You will get nowhere saying "you're wrong, it's a fact."

[CPL.Luke]

also consider that the magnesium flares would be highly flammable, not something an engineer would want on an already dangerous project. Engineers do not risk lives for publicity.

 

 

you think that a couple of astronauts needed to be silenced so that they couldn't come out and say something about the appollo missions being faked? what about the 400,000 other nasa employees, and engineers/mission controllers.

 

as for the technology involved, It doesn't take that much computational power to get a rocket to the moon and back, especially when you have a pilot to handle the fine tuning.

 

as for the lunar lander not making very deep foot prints, that would be because it was moving very slowly when it came in, far slower than an astronaught comes in at when he jump up and down on the moon.

 

the booster wouldn't have made a large foot print on the way in either as it wasn't used as the lander landed they used several smaller thrusters in order to slow the decent, the main booster was only used when the lander took off again. and there it did leave a scorch mark on the moons surface which is rutinly photographed today.

 

on a side note there was alot of concern as to whether or not the booster would fire, so much so that Nixon had a speech drafted in case the booster failed and the astronaughts were to become trapped on the moon.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

the booster wouldn't have made a large foot print on the way in either as it wasn't used as the lander landed they used several smaller thrusters in order to slow the decent, the main booster was only used when the lander took off again

Actually, no. The descent engine that took the astronauts out of lunar orbit was used until they landed. It was, however, throttled down significantly. The ascent engine (a separate engine) did not create a crater because the descent stage of the module, which stayed behind, shielded the surface.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm I could have sworn that I saw a decent sized scorch area after the launch and in several telescope images.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There may be a scorch, but the descent engine was used all the way until the contact light (which was controlled by a 9ft wire trailing from the bottom of the module) came on.

[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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

What matters is their content. Read them and determine which explanation makes more sense.

 

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.

I happen to own the books Failure is Not an Option, by Gene Kranz, flight controller during the Apollo 11 landings, Flight, written by Chris Kraft, chief flight controller, and The Last Man on the Moon, by Eugene Cernan. I am not making this stuff up. (You will say they are, but you will have to prove it.)

 

I mean there just happened to be no stars,

Just like there "just happen to be" no stars at noon. It's the same phenomenon.

the flag just happened to have been moving long after "physical contact" and it was not the wind,

Not "physical contact," it had a wire in it to hold it up straight, which made for a nice oscillation.

the lunar lander happened to make almost absolutely no dent amongst the ground because of the "gravity and slowness of descending",

If you had read my links (or my posts), you would see that is not the entire case. You are misrepresenting my arguments.

 

the shadows happened to be in the wrong direction because of at that specific time the planet happened to be bla bla bla...

Read the links I gave you and get back to me.

 

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.

I tend to prefer doubts based on evidence. "It probably couldn't have happened, maybe, because I really don't think it's likely," is not an answer.

[uncool]

Alright, please give us a full explanation of everything, and I mean everything that went down for this. I want dates, times, places, reasons for the errors, reasons why the errors weren't caught, reasons why we ourselves can catch them, reasons why Russia didn't catch this, etc. We have already given basically all of this nd more. Now it's your turn.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

I don't think that I need to get too into this, since none of these claims are new and have been debunked several times over.

 

But, I do have one question that deserves an answer. Similar to what uncool asked, considering the thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of people who would have had to have been in on the hoax, how is it possible that not even a single one has come forward with substantial proof? Not a single vendor, engineer, heck even a mail clerk would probably know because of the size necessary to pull it off. And while I am loathe to say it -- since to suggest that the astronauts were killed on purpose is rather disgusting -- not a single one of the people who were in even a tiny way responsible for the astronauts alleged deaths has had an attack of conscience? Not a single document in the entire government anywhere which has been declassified talks about the hoax?

 

If someone really had some proof of the hoax, instead of these tired oft-repeated and debunked arguments, they could become millionaires and instant celebrities.

 

Talk about unlikely... not a single piece of real evidence, considering how many people had to have been involved has ever surfaced. "Still all the same, doubtful." Doubtful, indeed.

[Y-S]

Also,

 

I didn't know the moon or space had the wind............:dead:

[timo]

[Edtharan]

*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...

Watch the actual landing. You will see a lot of dust kicked up, but a lot of it is still remaining. And it still forms all those little craters. Watch the moment of landing.

 

Also, the astronauts have been moving around and kicking up a lot of dust themselves. They have to have placed that camera, put the flag in the ground, put in that little device near the flag (and most likely use it for some time).

 

So a lot of activity has been carried out (and you can see some of the footprints too).

 

When an meteor strikes the surface of the moon it will produce a lot of heat. The moon does not have the atmosphere of the earth, so all that energy is released in the moment of impact.

 

What happens if you heat dust up to thousands of degrees. It melts.

 

What happens if you then let it cool. It solidifies. The moon is scattered with billions of meteor craters. The dust around these has solidified and it would not just get "blown" away by the rockets.

 

*The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.

And yet, you say that the surface dust underneath the lander was not blown away. Doesnt this contradict what you previously said.

 

If the dust under the lander was blown away and all that was left was rock, the lander, despite being 17 tons, would not make that big a dent.

 

Piles of dust left in craters and behind rocks would still allow the astronauts to leave foot impressions. There is no air on the moon so these hollows would not be disturbed at all.

 

*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

Umm, no air resistance, means no friction with the air. The flag flutters because it was moved and there is no air to slow it down...

 

It is not fluttering, it is still shaking from when they put it there.

 

Also, the flag was most likely stored and could have been creased. On Earth, gravity is strong enough to overcome these small creases and smooth the flag out. On the moon, the gravity is less, so the stiffness of the material (and flags are made out of fairly stiff material) would prevent it from be uncreased.

 

Oh, and for the shadow thing, the sun is at quite a low angle (as can be inferred by the angles of the shadows), so the astronaut is not in direct light.

 

But is the astronaut is not is direct light, why can we see him. Well there could be lights like flashes (or if it is a hoax then there would at least be studio lights), but then the shadow of the lander would not be as black.

 

What is actually happening is that the light from the sun is reflecting off the surface of the moon. Because the reflected light is going away from the surface of the moon, it will not light up the shadows (on earth we have the scattering of light in the atmosphere to light up shadows), but it will light up objects that are not flat against the surface (like the astronaut and the flag).

 

*Why is the background of the pictures completely black (Where the heck are the stars?)

It is to do with exposures. It is something that any camera operator knows. If you take a picture of something bright, to avoid having that section over exposed, you need to reduce the exposure time. But this means that dim things do not necessarily show up in the picture.

 

Stars, compared to the sun are very dim. The light of the sun is bright, and to avoid the over exposure in those sections (and the person who took that photo surly knows this as it is a very clear photo with no overexposure), the exposure time was set very low. So dim things, like stars would not show up.

 

If I actually saw stars in a photo like that I would know it is fake.

 

*What about technology? In the 60's/early 70's computers/etc had about as much power as a present day dishwasher.

True, your mobile phone is a far more powerful computer than what they had on the Apollo missions, but remember, they had all these massive computers here on earth, and they were sending data back and forth. Ever heard of a wireless network?

 

Do all the big calculations here on Earth and send that data back to them.

 

Still, they spent years, before launching the first rocket, doing all the calculations needed to make it possible.

 

So they had, time and a computer large and powerful enough to to actually do the calculations necessary.

 

One of the good things about space travel, though, is once you are moving in the right direction at the right speed, you don't even need a computer, you don't even need a slide rule. You just have to sit back and physics will do the work for you.

 

*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.

Well they did. There was this little transmission from the moon that relayed the actual landing. So yes, they did send a signal from the moon to Earth and it was picked up and confirmed. We detected the actual signal of the actual first step here in Australia at a place called Parks (there was even a movie based on it - I have even worked with the daughter of one of the head astronomer there).

 

*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.

Magnesium flares. Radio transmission would be easier to set up and harder to fake (they could just dump a lot of flares with an automated ship).

 

Oh wait, they did send radio transmissions from the moon and ther were picked up here on Earth...

 

If you tried to put a radio transmitter in orbit, it would move differently than it would if it came from the moon. If it was in orbit and was moving at the same speed as the moon orbits, it would fall out of the sky. Also, different receivers on earth would be pointed at different places (due to parallax). and this would be a dead give away.

 

Unfortunately for the moon conspiracy buffs, all the angles for the receivers that were on earth were pointing at the moon, not a location near earth. Also the motion of the signal across the sky matched that of the motion of the moon.

 

This is impossible to fake.

 

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.

How could we know what the moon dust is like if we didn't actually land there and bring some back?

 

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".

This can only be true if and only if there was a conspiracy to begin with. This therefore cannot be used as evidence of the conspiracy its self.

 

If there was a conspiracy, the it would be evidence of a cover up. But it is not evidence of a conspiracy its self.

 

Astronauts were people living on the edge. They were usually test pilots flying new aircraft that had never left the ground before. They were people attracted to dangerous situations.

 

What is the rate of death among extreme sports people today. Does this higher level of mortality indicate that these extreme sports people are involved in some government conspiracy?

 

The Apollo astronauts were very much like the people who, today are attracted to other high risk activities like extreme sports. I would expect to see a higher rate of accident and injury among them.

 

Nothing fishy about people who are attracted to high risk activities being injured or killed. It happens every day.

 

Seems to me you are one of those brain-washed believers. Oh well "ignorance is bliss".

I have met and talked with astronauts and have had to understand a lot about the mechanics of space flight (it was my job to explain how it worked to the average person). I am in no way ignorant of what was behind the moon landing. I have heard many theories and done my own research on the conspiracies that have been presented.

 

I have worked with people connected to the infrastructure surrounding the Apollo program. I am not ignorant at all. Neither am I brain washed as I have explored these conspiracies. I have not been "indoctrinated" into believing (or not) anything about the Moon landings.

 

All the evidence you have presented is not evidence at all. To someone who does not know about photography, the claims you made about the photo might sound true, but if you know about photography and exposures, then the evidence you presented is not true.

 

The same with all the other evidence you presented. If you actually know about this stuff and how it actually works, then what you presented is a lie. It is not true.

 

Only to the ignorant do lies seem true.

[insane_alien]

For the computer power required to reach the moon, try playing this game: http://www.orbitersim.com once you've got used to the controls download the apollo addon turn the autopilot off, take a basic calculator, a stop watch and your index finger. try going to the moon using only these and the read out from the telemetry computer. its actually pretty easy. you might need a piece of paper if your not to familiar with mental maths or orbital mechanics.

 

if you turn the flight computer on it can actually do everything for you apart from the lunar landing and its a pretty good simulation of the actual flight computer. the maths is easy therefore big computers are not necessary.

[YT2095]

I`de like to see how he could refute that FACT there are carefully placed Laser Refletors up there, that we use Today even. those reflectors Cannot be denied, nor can their placement.

[JohnB]

Gentlemen, why do you bother?

 

Edtharan, the movie was "The Dish" and the town is spelt "Parkes".

[GutZ]

The Magnesium reaction needs oxygen.....

 

Mg + O2 --> 2 MgO

 

3 Mg + N2 --> Mg3N2

[YT2095]

The Magnesium reaction needs oxygen.....

 

Mg + O2 --> 2 MgO

 

3 Mg + N2 --> Mg3N2

 

whilst that`s only Part true, Mg will burn in Plenty other gasses, it Will not burn in a Vacuum

[insane_alien]

the oxygen could have been provided by another oxide in a thermite type reaction but this is an extremely bad thing to have aboard a space craft as it could potentially rupture fuel/oxygen tanks and damage heat shields.

[YT2095]

actualy even Gunpowder has a hard time burning in a vacuum, even simple Fuse doesn`t like it, it`s been tested!

 

it was considered as part of the Millenium Y2K to have a fireworks display in space, it doesn`t work!

[Klaynos]

How do you explain the retroreflector that was left on the moon, that it's quite trivial to send a laser through a microscope and then detect the returning beam?

[ParanoiA]

This is a hoax. You have obviously used science to support scientific evidence. Anyone can see through that. No air on the moon? yeah right. We have dust here on earth and we know how it works and everybody knows moon dust will work the same way. Dust is dust..duh!!

 

Parallel shadows and distortions? Just more proven scientific mumbo jumbo. And what's this BS about air and light distribution? You can't even see air so how's light supposed to reflect? And I'm not even gonna' start on the atmosphere bit. You scientists just think everything has to be supported by fact. That's your weakness.

 

By the way, we're not buying that bit about a piece of foam knocking panels off of columbia, causing it to explode on re-entry. Those astronauts knew something they shouldn't and were silenced. You expect us to believe that a piece of foam - which we all know weighs next to nothing - can do that kind of damage? Get real. After all of the shuttle launches over the years - not a single piece of foam caused damage. What are the odds of that? Same as the odds on the moon landing excuses.

 

Now...about this "round world" bit...