[massrcor]

Now, as an American I believe we did reach the moon in 1969.

These photos, however, do seem interesting.

Wouldn't there be some sort of crater from the landing equipment? After all it did use an engine that resembles a jet engine to stop it. (correct me if wrong)


This is sort of in the same realm.

wouldn't there be some dust on the feet of the lunar module? I know that moon gravity would contribute to a slow dust fall, but you'd think there would be some dust on the feet. I mean, the moon soil looks awfully loose and dusty.
That engine would stir up some dust.



This post has been edited by massrcor on Monday, Jun 21 2010, 01:00

[makeshyft]

QUOTE (massrcor @ Jun 21 2010, 10:58)

Wouldn't there be some sort of crater from the landing equipment? After all it did use an engine that resembles a jet engine to stop it. (correct me if wrong)

You can find answers to your questions regarding thrust and craters here: http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/techcrater.html

[Otter]

Also keep in mind that you can't "blow" something around (dust included) without an atmosphere.

[EternalChe]

the question if did go or not is irrelevant, dis-info to turn our attention away from the real issues...




another look at this theory, but taking some "liberties" with the source material for visualization purposes:

@8:30

[Bellic 4 life]

QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Oct 16 2008, 20:17)

Irrefutable evidence? THERE'S A LANDER ON THE MOON. All your other examples that you list as "inconclusive" are conclusively wrong, as proven by better men than I, over and over and over. Now, to answer you silly questions: - Why hasn't NASA tried to prove it was real if they know people believe it was faked? They have, with a wealth of photography, film, flight data, and astronomers. - Why do they release pictures from the moon over the course of years, rather than all when they returned from the moon? Because they wanted to keep precious secrets from the Ruskies. Think about it. They just went to the bloody moon. - Why didn't the Russians get to the moon? Because there's no real benefit to going to the moon, aside from scientific discovery, and the big one - getting there first. Think about that for a while. Then think about the astronomical (literally! ) costs involved. - Why is returning to the moon taking longer than it did originally, even though technology is 30+ years more advanced? See the answer to question 3. It's not financially, culturally, or even scientifically, viable at this point in time. What, you figure we should be going to pleasure trips? You know there are still places on Earth that man has not yet set foot, but we just dont have the reason to go there. It's that simple.

I am attempting to take this debate away from the thread about the tragic loss of Neil Armstrong.

The evidence is indeed irrefutable evidence towards us landing on the moon.

[sivispacem]

Pointless bump of a two year old topic. Locked.