Oh give me a break. It's not a matter of faith accepting the moon landing. In fact, I'll bet you heard a few plausible seeming explanations on how it didn't happen, then you shared what you heard with someone and when you were treated like an idiot you got stung and it made you embrace those stupid excuses even further. You'd show THEM you're no idiot by standing even firmer on what you heard!

And then along the way you started to actually believe them, probably never even realizing the lengths you had to go to ignore the mountains of proof that we've been to the moon.

Knowing that we've gone to the moon and believing in a fairy tale god because you've been indoctrinated to do so since bir...

Oh give me a break. It's not a matter of faith accepting the moon landing. In fact, I'll bet you heard a few plausible seeming explanations on how it didn't happen, then you shared what you heard with someone and when you were treated like an idiot you got stung and it made you embrace those stupid excuses even further. You'd show THEM you're no idiot by standing even firmer on what you heard!

And then along the way you started to actually believe them, probably never even realizing the lengths you had to go to ignore the mountains of proof that we've been to the moon.

Knowing that we've gone to the moon and believing in a fairy tale god because you've been indoctrinated to do so since birth are not the same thing, no matter how much you'd love to have that argument to make.

There are just some things that make you an idiot to argue against because the evidence that supports them are overwhelming and it takes a physical effort of mind to ignore the proof to deny them. The moon landing is one. Evolution and Global warming are two other examples.

Simply amazing! Now, not only do you know the mooning landing happened, WITHOUT A DOUBT

Right. You are taking the stance of the conspiracy nut who has absolutely no evidence to support the claim other than use contextual arguments, points that require one to reach so far that we could make it to the moon again easily, and requires a HUGE amount of denial in order to maintain their stance.

What can one really say to a person like this? Sure, we can call them idiots or morons, but it isn't accurate because honestly, I don't think they are physically retarded. We could call them skeptics, but that does take at least a smidgen of credible evidence and rational thought to present...

Simply amazing! Now, not only do you know the mooning landing happened, WITHOUT A DOUBT

Right. You are taking the stance of the conspiracy nut who has absolutely no evidence to support the claim other than use contextual arguments, points that require one to reach so far that we could make it to the moon again easily, and requires a HUGE amount of denial in order to maintain their stance.

What can one really say to a person like this? Sure, we can call them idiots or morons, but it isn't accurate because honestly, I don't think they are physically retarded. We could call them skeptics, but that does take at least a smidgen of credible evidence and rational thought to present a valid argument against. But you'll find none of that.

It's really a failing of the human animal that it likes to take a stance on something and bring to bear an astonishing level of commitment even when the position has been completely disproved and disassembled to explain, in detail, why they are wrong. Yet accept such disregard for their fantasy as a personal affront and cling even tighter to their delusion.

So much simpler to call them idiots, wack jobs, and mental morons and be done with it. You can only argue, explain, and evidence something before finally shaking your head and accepting that there is a portion of society impervious to reason and facts.

LOL no you wouldn't you fibber.

We have moon rocks, we have retroreflectors, we have SELENE photographs (a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency that is apart from NASA), we have the trackings of the Soviet Union, we all the data and recorded tracking from every country that tracked the Apollo missions too and from the moon, the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia monitored the transmissions from the moon, there is the Tidbinbilla radio telescope, the data of Carnarvon whom received radio transmissions, the Deaking switching station, all the scientific data collected and used today, not to mention the millions of amature astronomers who monitored the Apollo missions, etc etc ad na...

LOL no you wouldn't you fibber.

We have moon rocks, we have retroreflectors, we have SELENE photographs (a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency that is apart from NASA), we have the trackings of the Soviet Union, we all the data and recorded tracking from every country that tracked the Apollo missions too and from the moon, the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia monitored the transmissions from the moon, there is the Tidbinbilla radio telescope, the data of Carnarvon whom received radio transmissions, the Deaking switching station, all the scientific data collected and used today, not to mention the millions of amature astronomers who monitored the Apollo missions, etc etc ad nauseum.

At this point I'm slapping you in the face with a wet mackerel and you are daring me to hit you with a fish!

@oortcloud

You ignored my comment about the "compartmentalizing" of government offices, which have a "need to know" policy in place. Therefore, "hundreds of thousands of people" did not know what was going on. Now, you ignore the fact that as technology has progressed, so has the ability to detect fakes. If they made a modern "special effects" filled movie, everyone would know them for the liars they are. It would be too easy to detect.

The facts are this: we were in the middle of a cold war with the Soviets. In '63, with the Soviets scaring Americans, by seemingly taking the 'high ground of space,' Pres. Kennedy issues his challenge to land a man on the moon "before the decade is out...

@oortcloud

You ignored my comment about the "compartmentalizing" of government offices, which have a "need to know" policy in place. Therefore, "hundreds of thousands of people" did not know what was going on. Now, you ignore the fact that as technology has progressed, so has the ability to detect fakes. If they made a modern "special effects" filled movie, everyone would know them for the liars they are. It would be too easy to detect.

The facts are this: we were in the middle of a cold war with the Soviets. In '63, with the Soviets scaring Americans, by seemingly taking the 'high ground of space,' Pres. Kennedy issues his challenge to land a man on the moon "before the decade is out." A scant six years later, and one year before the decade was finished, we land a man on the moon with the computer capacity of a calculator. We dealt the Soviets' space funding a huge blow with this lie. This was also done when Reagan lied about our "Stars Wars" defense system. There was no such system, but we broke the Soviet budget by claiming so and the USSR collapsed. LIES work in a cold war, but they are still lies!

Evidence of a fake moon landing abounds, but people ignore it for the fairy tale. I know this, the cameras they took up were Hasselblads. An official release said they had be adapted to space use by being made fixed focus, since the astronauts could not work the controls through the thick gloves they wore. Yet, you can see by the sharp focused subjects in the foreground and blurred background, at infinity, that the cameras were indeed focused. How? Not only that, the cameras were simply painted white to "reflect" light and therefore heat. The sunlit areas of the moon get to 200 degrees F, while the shadows are -150 degrees F. The film used was a slide film. Even if the film could withstand such changes in temperature, which it can't, the images would have thoroughly reticulated, which can happen with fast temperature changes as small as 70 degrees.

Taken right off NASA site:

"NASA's annual budget, which had reached $5 billion in the mid-1960s and stood at almost $4 billion in 1969, was reduced to $3.7 billion in 1970 and just...."

And this from wiki

"the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars)"

A total budget of over $136 Billion in todays money for the duration of the project and you're telling me they didnt have the resources.

"With all the other evidence, facts, and proof left to us, your only hang up is that a tape was lost or recorded over? You don't find that a bit weak?"

The tape was the evidence along with the fact the suits had no r...

Taken right off NASA site:

"NASA's annual budget, which had reached $5 billion in the mid-1960s and stood at almost $4 billion in 1969, was reduced to $3.7 billion in 1970 and just...."

And this from wiki

"the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $136 billion in 2007 Dollars)"

A total budget of over $136 Billion in todays money for the duration of the project and you're telling me they didnt have the resources.

"With all the other evidence, facts, and proof left to us, your only hang up is that a tape was lost or recorded over? You don't find that a bit weak?"

The tape was the evidence along with the fact the suits had no radiation shielding any many other discrepencys. As for your attempted slur.

"never even realizing the lengths you had to go to ignore the mountains of proof that we've been to the moon."

The true conspiracy is not that we never went to the moon but that they faked the original landing to save face as they were getting trounced by Russia in the space race. we have been since. :eyesroll:

A total budget of over $136 Billion in todays money for the duration of the project and you're telling me they didnt have the resources.

I'm not sure what you are referencing or trying to point out here.

So let me get this straight .. you are arguing radiation now?

"The van Allen belts are a region in space where Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles from the solar wind. Skeptics of the moon landing argue that an astronaut would get a lethal dose of radiation if he were to pass through the belts on the way to the moon.

While continued exposure to the concentration of radiation found in the belts might well be fatal, the space capsule the astronauts were trave...

read more»

A total budget of over $136 Billion in todays money for the duration of the project and you're telling me they didnt have the resources.

I'm not sure what you are referencing or trying to point out here.

So let me get this straight .. you are arguing radiation now?

"The van Allen belts are a region in space where Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles from the solar wind. Skeptics of the moon landing argue that an astronaut would get a lethal dose of radiation if he were to pass through the belts on the way to the moon.

While continued exposure to the concentration of radiation found in the belts might well be fatal, the space capsule the astronauts were traveling in was going very fast and passed through the belts in a few hours. The metal hull of the capsule also gave the astronauts some protection from the radiation as well. While there was a certain risk in passing through the belts, as there is in every venture into space, the astronauts exposure from the van Allen belts was minimal: about 2 rem which is the equivalent of a 100 chest x-rays. "

Source

Really, before using talking points on tin foil hat sites, get some real information from real scientists. Following in the steps of Richard Hoagland does you no good. He still tries to push the whole "Mars face" crap.