Posted on 04/30/2022 10:00:31 PM PDT by algore
Recently, we watched the movie ‘The Right Stuff’. I had loved the book when it first came out - I thought it was the funniest book I’d ever read - and have now seen the movie a couple of times.
I still think the book is better (as books usually are) but it’s a great movie, if anyone is interested in these things.
It’s amazing to me what these men and their families went through to do all of this for us.
(My husband kept commenting that it was too bad that Yeager never became an astronaut, and I kept countering that he’d probably have been really bored, if he had :-)
Still lying about it?
Yeah, everyone knows the moon is made of swiss cheese and anyone landing on it would get stuck.
I hope you don’t believe the earth is round.
What makes you think the moon landing was fake?
Don’t believe the moon is cheesy
Btw the earth is far closer to (4⁄3) π r^3
Than π r^2
What makes you think it was not?
The laser reflector installed by the astronauts. The fact that powerful telescopes can spot the lunar landers on the surface. The fact that you can see the tracks from the moon buggies still there. The fact that my father knew astronaut John Young and that he wouldn’t lie about such a thing.
Landing a reflector or buggy on the moon, or crashing stuff there is relatively easy.
I have no doubts about that happening at all.
Q: what’s the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?
A: Neil was the first person to walk on the Moon, while Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
If you can land (not crash) anything on the moon, landing men there is not a whole lot harder.
Agree. I know one of those who walked and road on the moon.
Harrison “Jack” Schmitt is a great man.
I lived in his home county for many years.
His home town is now gone, an open pit copper mine removed it all. (they describe themselves as born in space, over the pit. smile)
1. NASA claims it hasn't been back to the moon because it "lost the technology."
2. Buzz Aldrin's helmet mask reflection shows two light sources "in the sky" that could only be stage lighting.
3. Pictures of Aldrin's suit show he had an impossible wardrobe change "while on the moon."
4. Video footage shot at identical locations claims to have been miles apart and on different days.
5. Apollo 11 LEM pads are seen to be pristinely clear of any lunar dust.
6. Tracks in the completely dry, 250-degree regolith could only have been amorphous due to lack of moisture, but pictures attest to their being as coherent as if they were in earth-based riverbank mud.
7. Apollo craft tech that certainly went into low earth orbit is far more advanced than the tech seen on the LEM in "lunar" pictures.
8. Apollo photos of Earth from what should have been beyond earth orbit show editing artifacts.
9. Apollo photos of Earth from the "lunar surface" show editing artifacts, though they're denied.
10. Video movement of the LEM in "moon orbit" defy reality of phyics.
11. Video of items "on the moon" attest to (an impossible if lunar) atmospheric wind.
12. Video of lunar walks attest to wires being attached to the space suits.
13. Space suit technology was inadequate to lunar walks, 250-degree heat ejection, through induction, convection, glove technology.
14. Various photo editing (e.g., missing buggy tracks)
15. Lack of radiation shielding for the crew
16. Crew attestation to not having any radiation effects through the Van Allen Belts.
17. Stanley Kubrick's involvement
18. Astronauts' radio voices easily being heard over internal rumble of LEM descent engine
19. Artificial lighting evidence in photos and improbably nearly consistent "perfect framing."
... and that's just a sampling. There's copious evidentiary support behind all these claims.
Charlie Duke asks, “If we faked it, why did we fake it nine times?”
Geebus you ignore the millions of bit of factual information about the lunar landing to cite stupid conspiracy theory “what if’s”?
There must’ve been hundreds of amateur astronomers with telescopes that could watch the spacecraft moving towards the moon. I think they would’ve spoken up if they couldn’t see it.
Without citing any substantive or specific counter-evidence, you claim I'm merely bringing forth "stupid conspiracy theory what if's. Others will note I used not a single instance of "what if" in my comments.
NASA was begun using several hundred of Nazis imported via Operation Paperclip, as was that intel agency, whose 1967 memo was the vacuous genesis that has spawned all manner of reliably false and denigrating pejoratives onto those who might cite evidence counter to what the Agency and NASA have put forth.
Most here are familiar with the many, many instances of government hearkening to "conspiracy theory" claims in the last 30 months that have been shown to be the truth, quite the opposite of government claims. Evidence put forth counter to the government's false moon landing claims were often merely ahead of their time, despite being correct while slammed as "conspiracy theories."
If you are interested in what the wisest critics have to say, feel free to read and learn:
https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
This is the best web site on this topic—if you have not already seen it:
https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
I loved that scene in the movie “Interstellar” where it was taught in schools that Apollo was a fraud.
While the movie writers sought to contradict that view, at least they had the courage to say the words and imagine that future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.