The Moon Landings Were A Hoax!!:

you dummy the germans went to the moon in 1944 and hitler lives in the moon and laugh at us saying i warn you about those socialist liberals.

 

LMAO... funniest thread ever - and I have only read a portion of it. I have heard this argument many times before, but usually people come up with some proper arguments. I can only assume that the original thread poster is having a laugh, because all of this is incredible funny (maybe he admitted as much later in the thread???):

If they knew this, why didn't they tell the world that the American's were telling us bullshit? At the time, the Soviets would have done anything to have got one over the Americans. Is this possibly because the Soviets had successfully landed unmanned stuff on the moon many times already?

LOL... errrr - funny looking star! Even if it was just an object that gave off radiation (i.e. not a star), non-government organisations here on Earth would be able to measure it and prove it!

Oh dear! Okay - try and get your head round this: the moon is quite a far way away, but it's practically next door when you compare it to the distance of the nearest stars. The position of the stars would not differ just because you are on the moon. Indeed - even if you went to the nearest star, only a handful of stars positions would actually change, the most obvious being our own sun.

When it is speeded up, I wager they look like they are doing bunny hops!

It was on a stick FFS. I ask you this instead - if the moon landings really did take place in a hanger on earth, why is there wind blowing in the hanger?

 

They used industrial size fans and blowers.

 

But why would they want to make it windy in the first place, when there is no air on the moon? I still think this whole thread is just a wind up! You crazy guys...

 

i only said that since he said you could not produce wind inside a large hanger.

 

I think it's situations just like this in which conspiracy's are formed.

 

well is very hard to swallow the fact that a rocket went to the moon with a module and landed in a time when transistors were rather crude . also i can find more details and information on how to build a atomic bomb than information and detail about the trip to the moon.

 

Why? Most of the "heavy lifting" for navigation and such was done on the ground with rooms full of mainframes, not by the tiny onboard computer.

Have you really looked at the NASA site? The Lunar Surface Journals are fascinating reading, as are all the pages of technical descriptions of the hardware.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
http://history.nasa.gov/apsr/apsr.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/contents.html

The information available online concerning nuclear weapons design is of a more theoretical nature in most cases. Technical details of the hardware are VERY difficult to find, especially for modern devices. For example, I have been looking for basic pictures (photographs, not schematic drawings) of the internals of a nuclear bomb (the so-called "physics package") for a while, and haven't been able to find anything newer than the Manhattan Project/Trinity shots that are in most school history books.

 

wow i cant beleive this thread is still going!!!! it makes for some very funny entertainment hehehe!!!!!

 

actually after all this years we have found out our goverment had lie about many things so dont think i take this very light either. laugh we can do but really we wonder whos really laughing.

 

EllisDTrip = we almost lost a russian crew in a sub the other day due to lack of air this is far bigger than a space craft . and here this tiny box can provide oxigen for 3 crew members for almost a week?

 

great links i well read them but very little photos considering a roll of 35mm film in the 1960s was rather cheap.

 

If a sub loses it's crew due to lack of oxygen in the absence of other mechanical failures, then somebody made a STUPID decision not to blow the ballast tanks and surface immediately.

And yes, stored as a cryogenic liquid, and supplemented with lithium hydroxide scrubbers to remove CO2, sufficient oxygen can be stored for a crew of three for a lunar voyage. Do you care to produce calculations to disprove this?

 

What exactly do you want to see pictures of?

Many of the photos from the Apollo program are included in the Lunar Surface Journals, such as these from Apollo 11:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html

 

dead link

 

the recent sub stuck in a fishing net did not blow the ballast tank.

 

forget those fake lunar pictures we cant even find true full color pictures of the hardware that went to the moon.

 

Works for me.....

 

Hence the "absence of other mechanical problems" i mentioned.

If a spacecraft was similarly prevented from returning to earth, the astronauts would eventually run out of oxygen, as well. No, an UNLIMITED supply of oxygen cannot be placed aboard either a sub or a spacecraft. How this disproves the moon landings is unclear to me though....

 

ok it does work. what happen to the crater made by the thrust of the lunar engine?