maybe because the moon is a dead star not a planet

the moon is a dead star not a planet

moon is a dead star

dead star......

You kidding me man?

i've seen enough BS to know where this is going. R.I.P Neil Armstrong and thank you for making history class so entertaining

Exactly. That is the one piece of evidence that completely proves they actually did land on the moon. A lot of places around the whole world, and especially Russia, very much so Russia had satellites dishes aimed at the moon. They would know if they hadn't gone to the moon and would be screaming at the top of their voice about it.

But they've said nothing. Absolutely nothing.

We've landed on the moon. Take a moment to relish in how special that actually is.

This is the very best evidence of them all for now, for me.

The idea you could keep a cover up like that secret for so many years is laughable, I mean, the government leaks like the Titanic and always has when there are more than a couple people involved. Let alone thousands!

But the idea that you could keep it totally secret from the Soviets at that time is just outright retarded.

They had the capability, technology and understanding to track the whole thing. They could just as easily bounce their lasers off the reflectors left on the moon surface by the Apollo missions. I am quite sure they did, as soon as possible.

They had the ultimate motivation to expose any conspiracy. They had the spies, expertise and the money and most importantly that motivation to do so if one existed.

But they never did, they accepted it.

You could turn around and say the lunar recon photos of the landing sites a few years ago were also fakes, but you can't fake human nature to uncover secrets.

the Russians did say it was a lie, but no social networks or worldwide broadcasting to claim otherwise back then.

i used to take it as a fact, but the science about it makes it hard to believe, the strong popular opinion about it is making the masses believe it truth.

if they can send men to the moon and back way back then, the we should have a small base by now, but no , not even a foothold

I really don't see what those photos were supposed to prove. All the shadows are going roughly in the same direction. Even photos with shadows crossing have been recreated on a small scale using only one light source. (see Mythbusters link) The whole shadow consipracy theory has been disproven a long time ago. Just because you have one light source doesnt mean the shadows will all be facing perfectly in the same direction. You have to take into account the topography and the differing heights of the astronauts, rocks, and the spaceship and you will get varying shadows from one light source.

Besides even if my first unbreakable statement of logic wasn't enough for you tin foil hat conspiracy nuts, there is also the fact that we left plenty of evidence on the moon to prove that we have been there including laser detectors that could only be there if a human being had landed there and put them there. (link 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watc...
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Link 1 also leads to more videos debunking further rebuttals you may have. (eg the infamous flag waving) I highly suggest watching them in order to educate yourself. Conspiracy theorists prey on those who are ignorant of the world around them and brainwash them to sell them books. They don't care about the truth, they care about exploitation of the ignorant.

Everytime I read a conspiracy theorist they sound idiotic.

HD? What the foo was HD in 1969? Apollo 11 just had film like everybody else, top quality film in a top quality camera at that time for stills. 70mm Hasselblad cameras on the surface, we are talking expensive top end things for stills.

As for stuff like the colour video, there was a small 200 line colour camera with a pathetic broadcast bandwidth. This was the 1960's FFS! Live international TV broadcasting was in its infancy, let alone from the moon....

Do you honestly think a 1960's colour video camera was anything like as sophisticated as the stills cameras? Even non broadcast film cameras were not stupendous quality, just watch any TV recorded programme from that era. I hasten to add, most TV programmes were not filmed on the moon's surface!

It isn't a mystery that still photography technology was vastly superior to broadcast video in 1969 seeing as though it had been around 100 years longer. Its bleeding obvious.