Search results

And you haven't managed it. You posted some fundamentally incorrect science and seen it comprehensively debunked. So yes. Faking it would have been easier and it's your notions that are 'ridiculous'. That's not me saying that btw, it's the sum total of human experience that's saying it. So game...

Yes, probably on all the devices that were used to fake the missions and on the bribes to people to stay silent. None of that could have come cheap.

If that's true surely it would have made more sense to make the first few missions fail? That way they could have demanded even more money to get it right. As it was the American public were bored with it, by the time of the third landing people were ringing the TV stations to complain that a...

Well I'm not sure how it 'earnt' money, with the exception of Teflon there wasn't even any commercial spin-offs as the technology involved was all old hat. Plus they didn't even sell the TV rights! Also don't forget the US military were opposed to the whole civilian Apollo project in the first...

Actually I'd expect Brunswick and Falmer to accept the moon landings as fact. If the government(s), or whoever it is that's in power, can control us as much as they say they can then to argue that the moon landings (which used existing and not particularly sophisticated technology) didn't happen...

Jeez, that flag one's been debunked so many times, if nothing else NASA may just have anticipated the arguments before broadcasting the pictures. Anyway rather than looking at a few dodgy, possibly edited, pictures you should ask yourself HOW did they fake it? How did they fake the radio...