Cross hairs behind objects in photos. Definite imprints in the dust, usually caused by moisture (impossible on the moon). No crater left by the lunar module. What looks like writing on some of the moon rock 'props'. No stars in the background of any of the pictures. Impossibility of the spacecraft actually making it through Van Allen in the first place!
That is SO retarded, but let me just pick up on the more obvious points.
1)Footprints Ie moisture:
Ok. This one can be done at home. Correct, no moisture on the moon, therefore no moisture in the dust. However - that has nothing to do with prints. Go into your kitchen cupboard. Remove some bicarb of soda. Pour it on the ground. Step in it with your trainer. Footprint? YES. By your logic there shouldnt be - its a common cohesion within particles. Thats Sodium Bicarbonate, Ie CO3 2- molecules, I.e., a molecule that REMOVES moisture. So Bicarb of soda CANNOT and DOES NOT have any moisture in it, though it does retain a footprint. (plenty other examples if you need them).
2. No Crater left
Ok. Again - easy peasy. Why would there be a crater? There is no atmosphere on the moon. Therefore no oxidising forces or agents in the ground or in the air. Due to the low gravitational pull, as the lander descends, with its jet pack, the force will be EQUALLY dispersed over the surface which it is lying on. With a lander that size, in that atmosphere, with that gravitational pull, that means for every square foot of the area of the lander landing on the ground, there is approximately half a pound of pressure per foot, so basically nothing - its equally despersed. (I'll write out and scan you the equation of you like) - therefore, no crater. This can be examplified in our own rockets, planes, jet packs, in controlled experiments.
3. No stars.
Even easier than the above - doesn't even require an equation. If you take the equivalent of a camera from the late 60s, with poor exposure, poor pixolation etc. Well even put them aside if you like. You have the sun shining DIRECTLY on the lunar surface with no atmosphere upon it, with white space suits, a white lander etc etc etc, and white/grey lunar terrain. With a camera in these conditions, and with the nearest star over 200 light years away, how on earth do you think you're going to see anything stellar wise?! Take your mobile phone camera (BETTER quality than that in the late 60s) And try and take a normal picture of the stars, with low/no exposure (as was necerssary so you could even see the astronaughts) and see how it turns out. You wouldn't see a bloody thing. Even with a really good camera with great length exposure and no light pollution, THAT is when you get a decent pic of the stars.
Now I'm NOT saying I disagree that it was faked, but I'm not agreeing either.
I'm 100% on the fence (pardon the oxymoron), but there are more observable points that aren't explained away so easily.
For example hitting the golf ball. Golf balls move with their curvatures on the earth in the golf ranges due to the tiny little dimples all over it, collecting, cupping, and spewing out the air as it takes on the accelerative forcein each of them - thats why it can spin/curve/wobble/spiral etc to advantage with the wind. If you watch closely on the footage, the way the ball moves isn't consistent with less than 2G and no atmosphere. Thats the one I'm working on.
Well if your gonna post that obsene waste of time about how all that is 'impossible' then why not get a brain cell or two first in order to process that data into something thats actually relatively intelligent, instead of just going on random websites made by retards who got the wrong end of the stick, and thinking logically about it?
Ok. This one can be done at home. Correct, no moisture on the moon, therefore no moisture in the dust. However - that has nothing to do with prints. Go into your kitchen cupboard. Remove some bicarb of soda. Pour it on the ground. Step in it with your trainer. Footprint? YES. By your logic there shouldnt be - its a common cohesion within particles. Thats Sodium Bicarbonate, Ie CO3 2- molecules, I.e., a molecule that REMOVES moisture. So Bicarb of soda CANNOT and DOES NOT have any moisture in it, though it does retain a footprint. (plenty other examples if you need them).
Not that I am a chemistry expert or anything, but if a substance, like the bicarbonate ion, removes moisture (i.e. the H2O molecule) it does so by itself absorb the moisture and does in fact contain moisture. Bicarb is used at a drying agent in chemistry just beacuse it absorbs the water from the substance that is set for drying.
Thats Sodium Bicarbonate, Ie CO3 2- molecules, I.e., a molecule that REMOVES moisture. So Bicarb of soda CANNOT and DOES NOT have any moisture in it
What in gods name sort of chemistry is that?
If that were true we would never have to worry about flooding ever again, could simply sprinkle some magic bicarbonate soda about the place and the water would disappear.
Thats Sodium Bicarbonate, Ie CO3 2- molecules, I.e., a molecule that REMOVES moisture. So Bicarb of soda CANNOT and DOES NOT have any moisture in it
What in gods name sort of chemistry is that?
If that were true we would never have to worry about flooding ever again, could simply sprinkle some magic bicarbonate soda about the place and the water would disappear.
My kind of chemistry! My chemical equations used to balance occasionally, and occasionally I would introduce elements in the process that weren't there to begin with.
I meant remove as in doesn't contain - on the appearance (lets say on its creation)
I mean anhydrous. You'll have to excuse me after one too many last night.
Its not removing, it has removed moisture. IE, lacking in any moisture.
But there are other substances which will retain shape regardless of moisture. Sand and salt are NOT examples of this, but they DO contain moisture, however but custard powder or bicarb or tartar powder are all lacking if not wholly, then a lot.
The logic of it is (on the primary argument side), is allegedly that because the moon has no moisture then there could be no footprint. This has NO baring on the substance on the ground, that being the moon dust or gravel, whatever you like. It has been brought back to earth and we have studied it, and although relatively rare on earth (compared to our minerals) it is still very likely.
You can't base an entire civillisation of chemistry on one very very BAD and incorrect assumption.
Just because we have no arsenic in the air, doesn't mean its not in the ground and won't kill you if you start munching on it.
If that were true we would never have to worry about flooding ever again, could simply sprinkle some magic bicarbonate soda about the place and the water would disappear.
PS You talk as if thats the weirdest thing in the world. You REally need to think molecularly. Sodium Chloride absorbs H20, Sodium Hydroxide absorbs C02 - not that big a deal if what I said WAS true - though I corrected myself above to 'anhydrous' So by your inverted double logic over me, if you poured salt all over a flood we'd be fine... ;)
