[img]http://wsphotofews.excite.com/024/Mf/XB/hV/pG71120.jpg[/img]

No pic.

OK Hows that? I think I fixed it.

Flag was held out using a wire frame. They had that problem figuured out at least  lol

Aviator

"Astraunauts to the moon.....heh heh heh heh heh heh".....Beldar Conehead...(aka Donald DeChico)

Only a true nutjob would believe that we never landed on the moon. A beter question is when will we go back? A moonbase would be usefull for all those things we'd like to do in orbit but can't seem to get workng right. Not to mention all the science we can only do there. Telescopes on the dark side, mines, Earth weather prediction, cheaply launch probes to the rest of the system. Most importantly if a global disaster should happen humanity would not cease to exist. We'd have a backup!
Building a moonbase would be like a small child taking his first steps off the back porch of his home, and into the wide world. We have to do it sooner or later. I want to see it in my lifetime so I say sooner!

Maybe it's the grammar weenie in me, but I have a hard time taking seriously someone who argues the Apollo program didn't happen, when he can't spell "Appollo".  

As to the footprint picture, the author has obviously never walked on a surface of powdered rock - I have.  (I work around mines and powdered rock is common in the areas where crushing is going on.)  It's like walking on flour.  You WILL leave a footprint all the way down to the hard surface below, or damned close to it.

As to the lack of a crater under the lunar lander, once you blast the thin layer of powdered rock off the landing area, what's left to put a crater in?  The descent engine won't damage a rock surface.

As to the shadow "evidence", sorry, I'm not a photo expert, but I'm sure there's good explanations for it.  Some of it is OBVIOUSLY B.S., such as the Armstrong Flag photo (first shot).  The shadow the author claims is of the flag is the shadow of something off to the left of the photograph.  The shadow denoted by a 45º arrow is a ground texture.  The shadow of the lander is distorted by the surface it is cast on.  Face it, if NASA was out to fake it, they'd do a better job than THAT.  Besides, if there were multiple light sources, there'd be MULTIPLE SHADOWS, not one shadow in one direction and one in another.  Each shadow would also be softened by the light of the other sources, as well.

The guy needs an aluminum cranium condom.

[sniper]

It was all faked!

It was all filmed at area 51. The hangers at area 51 still contain the moon stage and lunar modules in them.

 

For a response to some of the "proof"...

http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/

Yo LT

Don't get caught up in this B.S.

AAA+

Nah not me. I figure the taxpapyers money is  already spent. Whether or not it really happened the money is gone. I was just cruising some of my fav sites and found this pic and was interested in what people here thought about the whole thing.

There has already been 3 strings about this today, complete with photos, by other paranoid schitzophrenics.  Get over it and get a freaking life.

Good to see your settled in TX.

Hope your having FUN.
[8D]

I love TX, hate my job. I think I hate more than the gun laws in Kali at this point. [:(]

anyone who believes that we did NOT land on the moon is a pud and is not smart enough to be in posession of a firearm. therefore, you are hereby being ordered to send them to me. thank you
-jay

Go visit:

[URL]www.enterprisemission.com[/URL]

They address these and many other issues!  Read "Who mourns for Apollo" written 02/21/01.