Moon Rock a Fake

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

Now I may be wrong but Anatov is a Jet not a spacecraft.

And there where a ton of other advances the Americans had over the Russians, namely a working moon lander, and an actual plan to get to the moon.

you said american technology was better I just proved it wasn't russian missiles couls fly farther with a bigger payload than american the anatov just proved they had better jet propulsion as well well i will concede that the victors write the history so maybe they went in another direction because the US pulled off the bigggest con job in history:D

King Mob

4gun wrote: »

you said american technology was better I just proved it wasn't russian missiles couls fly farther with a bigger payload than american the anatov just proved they had better jet propulsion as well well i will concede that the victors write the history so maybe they went in another direction because the US pulled off the bigggest con job in history:D

Proved it?
Where?
You insisted the Russians where better.
And unfortunately your word isn't proof.

The Anatov was build in the eighties. So I fail to see how it, a jet plane, has anything to do with proving the effectiveness of spacecraft in the 60's.

Maybe you can answer the elusive question: why didn't the Russians call bull****?

4gun

has all the same traits as your word
where is your proof hmmm...
you keep knocking every one with out a single shred of evidence, only whats commonly believed
In 1492 you'd have told Colunbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world

King Mob

4gun wrote: »

has all the same traits as your word
where is your proof hmmm...
you keep knocking every one with out a single shred of evidence, only whats commonly believed
In 1492 you'd have told Colunbus that he was going to fall off the edge of the world

So not going to answer the question then?

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

So not going to answer the question then?

fact is this theory started almost straight away after the "moon landings" had the russians came out and claimed it was a hoax well it would have been labeled as communist propaganda by the US

King Mob

4gun wrote: »

fact is this theory started almost straight away after the "moon landings" had the russians came out and claimed it was a hoax well it would have been labeled as communist propaganda by the US

And when has being labelled "communist propaganda" ever stopped it?
Why not just claim it anyway.

Why not just show the hard evidence?
Or leak it to people who can show the evidence?

indough

the recruitment of german scientists after the war is known as operation paperclip, the scientists used for the space program were v1/v2 related, it had nothing to do with ufo's

also not much point in russians walking on the moon after the americans beat them to it really, it was called the space race because it was a race, and there isnt much point in throwing good money after bad just so that you can say you came second in a two contender race now is there, the only reason either was interested in the thing at all was to prove superiority over the other

4gun

King Mob wrote: »

So not going to answer the question then?

if I could conclusively prove the the moon landings were faked, well.... it would no longer be a theory ...not to mention the scoup of the millenium then this would be a history forum
apologies for earlier this morning for calling you "dumbo" inexcusable and obviously the trading of petty insults is beneth you due to your lack of retaliation:D

toiletduck

IT'S A FAAAAAKE!

4gun

no.... thats a vulcan

Hobbes

Boston wrote: »

If you'd like to see a moon rock, contact the geological department.

Ask for Una Shale. She handles all moon rock requests.

squod

4gun wrote: »

comunisum didn't collapse untill the late 80's they had supierios technology in rocket terms to the americans and an inexhaustible budget in the late 60's Its never been truly explained why they didn't make the moon even if in second place their shuttle program was axed due to lack of funds but again that was in the 80's

I dunno if this is correct either but the story goes that the us rockets were just bigger than the Russians' could build at the time.

Getting a metallic column to stand up straight on a platform, launch, separate etc while carrying enough fuel (weight) to bring a landing module to the moon was and still is very difficult.

Especially with all that golf **** those aastronoughts bring.

The reason they stopped going was funding, or from the Russian point of view, as soon as the Russian's finnished building very long range radar capable of showing the rockets path to the moon.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

The reason they stopped going was funding, or from the Russian point of view, as soon as the Russian's finnished building very long range radar capable of showing the rockets path to the moon.

A path to the moon?
Seriously?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

A path to the moon?
Seriously?

#
#
If you don't know what a flight path is, you're posting in the wrong forum.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Can you define what it would take to adequately prove it to you?

I ask because I have a suspicion that what you're really saying is "nothing can prove to me that the official Apollo 11 story is true, but I'm open to proof that its false".

It would take some good solid, irrefutable evidence. As for your suspicion, that's an interesting stance from someone who places no weight whatsoever on suspicion without hard evidence. Are you becoming a skeptic, like us now bonkey?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

It would take some good solid, irrefutable evidence.

A noble sentiment which, unfortunately, says nothing more than "something unspecified that convinces me".

As for your suspicion, that's an interesting stance from someone who places no weight whatsoever on suspicion without hard evidence. Are you becoming a skeptic, like us now bonkey?

I don't put much weight on my suspicion. I voiced it mostly because you're here and in a position to tell me why I'm wrong.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

A noble sentiment which, unfortunately, says nothing more than "something unspecified that convinces me".

It's not always possible to quantify to a degree of mathematical certainty what evidence would convince someone of something. It's more of a cumulative effect. If the weight of the evidence on one side heavily outweighed the weight of evidence on another side, then I'd find myself more inclined to believe the side with the most compelling evidence. Often, as a skeptic, the evidence on either side is insufficient to form a 100% belief of certainty either way. Which is why on the topic of the apollo 11 moon landings I am on the fence. I think it's a healthy skepticism to maintain.

squod

Kernel wrote: »

It's not always possible to quantify to a degree of mathematical certainty what evidence would convince someone of something. It's more of a cumulative effect. If the weight of the evidence on one side heavily outweighed the weight of evidence on another side, then I'd find myself more inclined to believe the side with the most compelling evidence. Often, as a skeptic, the evidence on either side is insufficient to form a 100% belief of certainty either way. Which is why on the topic of the apollo 11 moon landings I am on the fence. I think it's a healthy skepticism to maintain.

I'm less on the fence with this stuff. I reckon the whole story will come out within my lifetime. I won't have my grand-children thinking I fell for this one.

So here it is grand kids, actual documentary evidence written way back here in history. I do not believe .

Now, go get granddad a beer.

deereidy

I think they're covering up trees on the moon..