Was the moon landing faked ? I think so


Recommended Posts

my only question is how did they get off the moon?????

i'm not very good with physics but anyone can see the difference between the apollo rocket and the moon lander. how could the moon lander carry enough fuel to blast off the moon surface? i know the gravitational pull is about 1/6 G so it wasn't that weak.

lol on man... head out of the sand... c'mon. you have no place to speak b/c youve never researched anything on conspiracies... you hear the word 'conspiracy' and your conditioned, brainwashed head triggers you to react this way. in fact, if you research ANYTHING on the moon landing you'll know that things dont make sense at all.

1. fact is Kennedy promised something we couldnt do in that time limit.

2. we had to beat the russians in something cause they beat us w/ everything else.

3. why hasnt the russians EVER tried to go to the moon?

4. why hasnt the US tried to go back since then?

5. why are all the pictures from the moon so perfect looking? they had a camera mounted on their chest w/ no view finder... they may as well be shooting blind... impossible to get these perfect "patriotic" shots

6. why are there shadows going in different directions if there's only one light source?

7. in a picture of an astronaut coming off the lander... he's clearly in a shadow of the lander but you can see his entire body.

8. of over 12000+ shots taken on all the moon missions, why do citizens only know of a few dozen?

9. some shots it's clear to see an astronauts antenaa appear and disappear... on the same mission.

10. in the "america is great" shot of neil armstrong posing on the moon... it's clear that the sun is behind him and yet you can see his body perfectly illuminated and even see the reflection in his visor! impossible.

11. if they were outside the van allen radiation belt how in the world did they survive the sun's radiation? it would take 4 feet of iron to protect them... their ship didnt have it... and their suits certainly didnt have any iron in them...

12. need i go on?

<yawn>

should I even start...

dude...are you a scientist? Do you work for NASA? I doubt it. Therefore what you THINK you know, you don't.

Also, why would we fake the landing?

bycause the cold was started..

and the russians where the first in space.

the Americans would not stayed behind of that.

I do not know if it real or not.

for that you must see that for your self on the moon.

o well, it happend for i was being borned.

@ Hummer.

mine friends did not say anything about it. ;)

This yet another example of how we are daily manipulated by our rulers.

I think this so caled 'moon landing' was actaully a Hollywood movie production.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3543/moonfake.htm

What is, isn't and what isn't, is

Tell us what you think.

Some other cover-ups are exposed here:

http://cpscrimes.tripod.com/infowars.htm

...

now you people stop calling each other morons and strain your brain a little: how in hell was US able to go from the very first 1-spin flight of Gagarin in 1961 to A FREAKIN' LANDIN ON THE MOON what...only 8 years later? what that time's technology? BULL! how long has it taken them NOW to send a stupid rover on Mars?! how many of them have they crashed?! You go ask any NASA guy now how long it would take to set the same expedition NOW, with TODAY's technology? Get some criticism and thinking applied here and stop reading your dumb school history book, because every one of them, in every country is filled with propaganda. and if you haven't realized that yet, then it's time since you are making statements llike that. fugly.

P.S. f***en gullable kids...

Edited by wicker_man
now you people stop calling each other morons and strain your brain a little: how in hell was US able to go from the very first 1-spin flight of Gagarin in 1961 to A FREAKIN' LANDIN ON THE MOON what...only 8 years later? what that time's technology? BULL! how long has it taken them NOW to send a stupid rover on Mars?! how many of them have they crashed?! You go ask any NASA guy now how long it would take to set the same expedition NOW, with TODAY's technology? Get some criticism and thinking applied here and stop reading your dumb school history book, because every one of them, in every country is filled with propaganda. and if you haven't realized that yet, then it's time since you are making statements llike that. fugly.

P.S. f***en gullable kids...

here's the bitterness issue again.

We landed on the moon. I'll ask you, are YOU a scientist?

If people think this is fake and there are a lot of people who think NASA as a ploy to beat the space race campaign... trumped this up

We have the most powerful telescope in the world up in space the Hubble telescope why don't NASA point this to the Moon and show the looner landing pod is till on the Moon this will rid all suspicions forever and prove beyond reasonable doubt it was no fake...

:sleep:

We have the most powerful telescope in the world up in space the Hubble telescope why don't NASA point this to the Moon and show the looner landing pod is till on the Moon this will rid all suspicions forever and prove beyond reasonable doubt it was no fake...

Because there is no need to. We landed on it not once, but around 6-7 times. ( could be wrong, but it wasn't just once...)

  • 2 weeks later...

Conspiracy theorists... A conspiracy doesn't mean things are fake, it means a group of people, believe different of certain events, especially different from what is forcefully told to the world by people of power.

I believe this theory, but it's not really a theory anymore due to the fact all the evidence that proves the U.S. to have landed on the moon, also proves that the landing is fake. There was a show on FOX about this, and the evidence, wow, the evidence, there's no evidence to prove this story wrong, and you'd know why if you even tried to prove it wrong. All the evidence, or all fact on the events, show that it is all lies, all faked, and this story is most likely true.

At first, I didn't really believe it, but then i downloaded TV show that was on FOX, that was about this, and all the evidence presented, was unfunkenbelievable. C'mon are you guys that stupid to notice the damn shadows? C'mon you guys are a bunch of losers, especially you boogmasterdan, get a life already and stop worrying about your post counts. All of you guys that disagree obviously are just morons, and idiots. You need to learn to research and stop having soo much pride in things. Cuz the pride is blinding you from reaching for any truth.

Oh yah, My theory of the world trade center stuff, it's all true. 8D peace out.

hmmm, i was one of the people how saw the fox documentary and did consider it highly likely that the moon landings were faked.

however, i saw a program on channel 5 (uk) about it and it did experiments with stuff like shadows with only 1 light source, and about if you only have one light source, everything in shadow is completely invisable is completely invisable and totally debunked all the conspiracy theories by showing different angles of shadows is possible due to the gradient of the surface and how light reflects off the surfact of the moon.

another point that conspiracy theorists tend to forget is the moon rock which was brought back and given out to labs across the globe, surely if this was of terrestrial origin, someone would have 'spilled the beans'...

also, there are labs in the US which use lasers which reflect off objects which were put on the moon as part of experiments which are used to accurate locate earths position in relation to the moon and the rest of the solar system.

there are what appear to be inconsistencies with the evidence portrayed in some circumstances, such as the so called "stage props" with markings on, i think that nasa maybe did shoot some stuff back on earth for propoganda purposes, remember the political climate was cold war era.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • >Improved system sounds when using Windows in dark mode. The story being that bug would be an interesting one.
    • Edifier S3000MKII hi-fi audiophile grade bookshelf speaker is at its lowest price now by Sayan Sen Yesterday we covered a bunch of Dolby Atmos soundbar deals with several ones from Sony, as well as from JBL, Samsung, Polk Audio, and more. You can check them out in this dedicated piece. Those are not audiophile category speakers though as they are built with home theater use in mind. If you are searching for the former then Edifier has its S3000MKII at its lowest price at the moment (purchase link under the specs table down below). This is a two-way bookshelf monitor speaker designed to produce accurate sound. While it may not produce the best high-fidelity audio possible out there, it should still be significantly better than what you will get on soundbars of this price range. As such it will do justice to high-res audio played back through it. The only thing that may feel lacking is sub-bass as Edifier claims the unit can go down to 38 Hz, which should be enough for studio monitor purposes, but not for deep room-shaking rumbling bass. Where this does excel though is in its treble reproduction. With its super-tweeter, it claims to go as high as 40 kHz in the frequency spectrum, which should offer a sense of "air"yness. This is an active speaker which means it packs its own amplfication. It has a top-notch Class D amp that may be able to rival many Class AB designs too in terms of sound reproduction quality. The technical specs of the Edifier S3000MKII are given in the table below: Specification Value RMS Output Power 256W RMS (Treble: 8W × 2, Mid-Low: 120W × 2) Tweeter Driver 107mm × 107mm Planar Magnetic Tweeter Mid-Low Driver 6.5-inch (179mm) Long-Throw Aluminum Diaphragm Driver Frequency Response 38Hz – 40kHz Signal-to-Noise Ratio ≥ 85dB (A) Bluetooth Version Bluetooth 5.0 Bluetooth Codec Qualcomm® aptX™ HD Wireless Speaker Link Proprietary 5.8GHz wireless connection between speakers Supported Hi-Res Audio Hi-Res Audio Certified, up to 24-bit/192kHz Digital Processing XMOS XU216 Digital Signal Processor Audio Inputs Balanced XLR, Optical, Coaxial, USB Type-B, Line In, Bluetooth Input Sensitivity (USB) 400 ± 50mFFs Input Sensitivity (Optical) 400 ± 50mFFs Input Sensitivity (Coaxial) 400 ± 50mFFs Input Sensitivity (Bluetooth) 450 ± 50mFFs Input Sensitivity (Balanced XLR) 1000 ± 50mV Input Sensitivity (Line In) 600 ± 50mV ADC Capability Up to 24-bit/192kHz DSP Capability Up to 24-bit/192kHz DIX Capability Up to 24-bit/216kHz DAC Capability Up to 32-bit/384kHz XMOS Processing Power Up to 2,000 MIPS Edifier S3000MKII Audiophile Active (Powered) Wireless Speakers: $799.99 (Sold by Edifier US, Shipped by Amazon US) If you do not have the kind of budget to spend on the S3000MKII, you can also check out the Edifier R1280Ts which is right now on sale at just $114 (its lowest price in a very long time). Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • > The G 7 Pro supports wireless (XBOX Wireless, proprietary dongle, or Bluetooth) If anybody else's brain translates this to 'it works wirelessly on Xbox', according to the linked product page, it does not.
    • Ignoring the fact that this "colony" kicked the empire of King George's arse during those early years... You are confusing the First Industrial Revolution (which was clearly pulled out of some butt-hurt Brit historian's arse after the fact) with the Second Industrial Revolution (aka now called the Technological Revolution, undoubtedly by that same butt-hurt Brit), which transitioned the world from the UK/UPS Empire to the USA as the world's only superpower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution I hope you realize that I am having big fun here.
    • OpenAI announces GPT‑5.6 Sol, its next-generation flagship model beating Claude Mythos 5 by Pradeep Viswanathan Credit: OpenAI OpenAI today announced a limited preview of its new GPT-5.6 model series, which includes the Sol, Terra, and Luna models targeting different price points. GPT-5.6 Sol is the flagship model targeted at demanding reasoning and agentic workloads. GPT-5.6 Terra is positioned as a balanced model for everyday work, featuring performance competitive with GPT-5.5 while being half the cost. GPT-5.6 Luna is the fastest and most affordable model, delivering strong capability at a lower price point. Unlike previous model releases from OpenAI, GPT-5.6 is starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners due to U.S. government restrictions. As expected, OpenAI previewed its plans and the models' capabilities to the U.S. government ahead of launch, and the government asked OpenAI to limit the first wave of access to select partners. OpenAI also mentioned in the official announcement blog post that it does not believe this type of government access process should become the long-term default. OpenAI highlighted that GPT-5.6 Sol comes with a robust safety stack featuring improved protections for higher-risk activity, sensitive cyber requests, and repeated misuse. The company also spent several weeks pressure-testing the system and hardening it against real-world attacks. On the capability side, as expected, GPT-5.6 Sol is OpenAI’s strongest model yet. It delivers better results in agentic performance across coding, biology, and cybersecurity. On the Terminal-Bench 2.1 benchmark, which tests command-line workflows requiring planning, iteration, and tool coordination, GPT-5.6 Sol sets a new record with a score of 91.9%, beating Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5. Additionally, GPT-5.6 introduces a new "max" reasoning effort for even deeper reasoning. The new "ultra" mode uses subagents to accelerate complex work beyond what a single agent can handle. Pricing starts at $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens for Sol. Terra costs $2.50 for input and $15 for output, while Luna costs $1 for input and $6 for output. GPT-5.6 comes with more predictable prompt caching, including support for explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life. Sol will also launch on Cerebras in July at speeds up to 750 tokens per second for select customers. OpenAI plans to make GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna broadly available in ChatGPT, Codex, and the API in the coming weeks.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      441
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      197
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      154
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      71
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!