USA never went to the moon

Ok, good explanations about those points, but still, what about the lack of thruster sounds during the lunar landing? the lack of dust/sand on the pads of the lunar after it landing and blew it all up. and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related

And most importantly, the 00.17% them actually going there and coming back?

 

Are you gonna try and refute any of the evidence too?

 

Why would I do that? this is the search for truth, I already accepted those as good evidence to the contrary. Other issues though with the photos, like the astronaughts being visible in the shadaw, when it should be pitch black. The sun being directly behind one astranought, which would have created a silhouette, yet you see him in perfect detail, like he's in the spot light.

They asked the man who created the cameras the astronaughts used on the apollo missions how that was possible, and he couldn't explain it, can you? How can these back lit pictures be so detailed?

Againt the point of radiation, it's called the van ellen belt, deadly radiation to humans above the earth's atmosphere, and of coarse the sun's radiation from it's solar flares. And about the flag explanation, it's a good explanation, but it only explains how the flag could flap under certain circumstances, have you guys seen the footage? It flaps around even when no force has been applied to the pole, one guy was just hold it up right and it was flapping and waving.

Then there's the whole conspiracy about untimely deaths, thomas barren, safety inspector for the apollo program, said it was in shambled and they would never go to the moon, 1 week after he submitted his report, his car was hit by a train lol, come on. oh, and his report went missing, what, a, coincidence.

 

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#crater

"Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle."

.

 

Yeah fair enough, I thought the crater arguement was a little weak anyway.

 

You're welcome. Now go read this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

For starters.

 

The sun is the only light source in this photo, but the shadows aren't parallel. It must be a hoax.



.

 

This one is even stranger. These tiles were installed with all their edges parallel. Yet in this photo, the lines are nowhere near parallel.



.

 

I don't know what everyone has to say about this. But of course we went to the Moon. I saw it on T.V. So it is true. If it is on T.V. it is true.

Peace