[StinkyOne]

Yea right, If you want to rally know why the USSR hasn't said anything.  We threatened them.  We obviously have the far greater military.  If you were them would you have shut up if the US threatened you?  Just food for thought

LOL - this is ridiculous. The USSR was at least on par with the US throughout much of the cold war. It could easily be argued that they had a superior military given their numerical advantages. It is unlikely the US could have won a conventional war with the USSR. And I'm not biased towards Russia, I was born in the good ole US of A. Russia would have had a field day if the Earth was flat. What were we going to do, get ourselves nuked over something stupid?

[GeoDog55]

Do you guys trust TIME as a reliable source?

[Edgar Alan Hoe]

Oh, the reflectors on the moon...

Been watching a little too much of TBBT...

How are you realistically going to fire a laser at the moon, hit these reflectors and then target receptors back here on Earth?

that is the biggest pile of BS I have ever read offered as "proof."

You argue from a position of frustration brought on by the lack of ability to visualize and understand.

Why not find a way of dealing with that? Expand your horizons and intellect. Your life would be greatly improved.

[Zanz]

Im going to be honest here, i can't directly prove the Moon landings happened on my own, but that doesn't instantly mean its a hoax.

I have never been to Tuvalu before, and there is a high chance any of you have been there, i have only seen pictures of the island, wich could have easily been taken somewhere else, and if i go there, and hop on some kind of boat-tour, i could easily be taken to another island, and not Tuvalu, without noticing. Does that mean its some kind of fake government lie? No, just because i can't directly prove you something doesn't mean it doesn't exists. Landing on the Moon takes it to another level, sure, but if you actually RESEARCH the Apollo Moon landings, and RESEARCH the basics of rocketry and spaceflight, it doesn't sound all that ridiculous. And no, researching basic rocket science isn't going through an indoctrination process, because most of the little itsy bits of the technology used in spaceflight can be tested at home or by amateurs.

I also think its kind of funny how most Moon Landing/Space "Debunks" mostly just point out the things in the Video or Photographic footage, that were different from their expectations. A great example of this is the "No stars" phenomenon. Just because you EXPECT there would be stars hanging around, doesn't mean there HAS to be stars hanging around.

In rare cases people go outside the "this visual looks fake!" comfort bubble, you notice that they either refuse to research their own arguments and jump straight to conclusions or that faking a Moon landing is more complicated than doing a Moon landing for real.

[Scroogie]

One aspect of the lunar landings that seems to have been missed here is the behaviour of the dust on the moon. It has been years since I've viewed footage of the astronauts on the lunar surface but there is one particular detail that struck me about the lunar dust. As the astronauts gamboled about they kicked up dust. That dust then settled back to the surface, just as one would suppose it might here on earth. The major difference is that it ALL settled back on the surface (a bit slower than we're used to seeing it happen here due to the lower gravitational force), large particles, medium sized particles, small particles and tiny particles, all settling simultaneously. There was never a dust cloud left behind after the larger particles had settled as would happen here on earth, in the presence of an atmosphere.

Why? Because there was no atmosphere with which the tiniest particles could interact, remaining suspended for a longer period that did the larger particles. This isn't proof that that footage was taken on the moon, but it is proof that there was no atmosphere in the place that those scenes were shot.

So, now the deniers need only go out and find a large sound stage which can be successfully evacuated of the great majority of its atmosphere and they will have an arguing point.

And totallackey - yes, you do need to research how a small reflector on a moving target can be hit with a laser and photons received back from it. I think it's just about time you did a bit of research of some kind. People tend to lend more credence to an argument when it is backed by more than a simple denial and absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject at hand. Just repeatedly crying FAKE or IMPOSSIBLE doesn't help your case one tiny bit.

[Treep Ravisarras]

I could pour scorn on the idea that an aircraft weighing over 500 tonnes could get off the ground, much less transport people thousands of miles in comfort.
I could declare it ludicrous.

Your analogy fails as the plane is clearly visible and size is clearly not a hindrance in regard to flight.

Generating the necessary lift is the only obstacle in the way.

I do not need to do "research" into whether or not the act of firing a laser at a moving object purportedly a quarter of a million miles away is a ludicrous proposition, let alone the claims of receiving and measuring reflected "photons," is also ludicrous.

It is patently ludicrous on its face.

Let Empirically determine if "ludicrous" is true:
* I can fire a laser yes/no - yes
* I can fire a laser at an object a certain distance away yes/no - yes
* I can fire a laser at a moving object and track it yes/no - yes
* I can measure reflected photons yes/no - yes

None of this goes against FE empirical evidence, so to call it 'ludicrous' is simply far fetched and you're doing FE theory not much good. Please post intelligently if you want to contribute to the cause.