Finally...Unequivocal Proof That the Apollo Moon Landings Were Staged on Earth

Bad Wigins wrote:

Harambe wrote:

We have sent objects outside of orbit nearly every year -- probes, etc.

And how many of them landed on the moon to follow up on Apollo "science?" Much easier than their complicated Mars landings, but they're not interested.

The real world does not even care about moon landings. Y'all are arguing about nothing.

Wrong again Wigins, we sent Matt Damon to Mars then there was an accident and we left him there, then went back again.

Android Allen wrote:

dwightarm wrote:

What are you talking about? There were six moon landings...

I thought there was a secret 7th mission were they retrieved some alien?technology that was left behind on the dark side of moon? ?

No the aliens clearly live under Antarctica. Don't you watch UFO Hunters?

Run Around wrote:

The Chinese lunar rover article was a hoax. the Chinese know we went to the moon and if you look at their design for their lander it is a pretty good copy of our lunar Lander.

The Chinese didn't copy the NASA Lunar Rover, their's is called a Lunar Rowei which is completely different.

They maybe trolls, but they are destroying you NASA fan boys on this thread and the other one. You need to step up your game.

Terrific wrote:

They maybe trolls, but they are destroying you NASA fan boys on this thread and the other one. You need to step up your game.

Thanks! Props to Pablo Novi. He provided the knockout blow when he posted that "Wagging the Moondoggie" link and then posted 10 items for which these delusional NASA fan boys have no rebuttal.

Terrific wrote:

They maybe trolls, but they are destroying you NASA fan boys on this thread and the other one. You need to step up your game.

These posts are what really make the troll efforts sad. Good trolls don’t have to do this.

under a bridge wrote:

Terrific wrote:

They maybe trolls, but they are destroying you NASA fan boys on this thread and the other one. You need to step up your game.

These posts are what really make the troll efforts sad. Good trolls don’t have to do this.

There's now "good" trolls & bad trolls? Weird.....?

Older, but an interesting book if you're interested in the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/dp/0471409766/ref=la_B001JSCAUK_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511555923&sr=1-1

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Rayo. wrote:

50 years on from the Apollo missions should be dirt cheap by now, no.

Why should they be dirt cheap now?

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

Capricorn Two wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=No6gBqauUMg

How in the world was Elliot Gould ever a big star?

Rayo. wrote:

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

Exactly. Because the computer they used was the main cost of the missions.

ohhhh, wait.

Christ, you're a moran, Rayo. You're fun to toy with for a while, but your fake troll "earnestness" gets old fast. Find a new shtick, you're not so good at this one.

Newz wrote:

This is incredible -- Newsweek still exists.

LOL.

True that, I thought it had been closed.

Still making it up, I see.

This proves nothing wrote:

Even if the moon landings were real, it would make sense to tape a staging on Earth contemporaneously, as you'd probably get better video capture with that anyway.

Good point. It's never too early to start covering your tracks with false flag psy-ops.

pathetic dipshit wrote:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not playing your troll. I understand the game. Getting me to spend time coming up with reasons that you refute with moronic third-rate wacko websites and YouTube videos. It's an endless back-and-forth that is the entire point of the troll. So go ahead and reply with "oh, I see you have nothing!" Yeah, sure. You win.

Well, you do have nothing. At least put forth an argument.

Rayo. wrote:

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Why should they be dirt cheap now?

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

It's not the cpu power or screen resolution that makes spacecrafts so expensive lol. Just a dumb post all around.

Millicent Bystander wrote:

Well, you do have nothing. At least put forth an argument.

Hi Rayo, or Legit. As you know, getting people to endlessly work to put forth an "argument" is the point of the troll. That's the only point. You've got some idiots ensnared in the endless troll, but they will catch on.

sdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

Rayo. wrote:

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

It's not the cpu power or screen resolution that makes spacecrafts so expensive lol. Just a dumb post all around.

Maybe, you say, it’s just too damned expensive. But the 1960s were not a particularly prosperous time in U.S. history and we were engaged in an expensive Cold War throughout the decade as well as an even more expensive ‘hot’ war in Southeast Asia, and yet we still managed to finance no less than seven manned missions to the Moon, using a new, disposable, multi-sectioned spacecraft each time. And yet in the four decades since then, we are apparently supposed to believe that no other nation has been able to afford to do it even once.

sdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

Rayo. wrote:

Because the smart phone in your pocket is more powerful than the supposed computers on the Apollo were back then .

It's not the cpu power or screen resolution that makes spacecrafts so expensive lol. Just a dumb post all around.

Oh really, I thought that once you had the cpu then that was it! If you can't see the point I was making then there is no chance for you. List the costs for me and I will show you how the cost 50 years on should be lower.